HomeNewsCalifornia mobilizes National Guard amid concern over unrest Jan. 16, 2021 at 5:00 amNewsCalifornia mobilizes National Guard amid concern over unrestGuest Author5 months agocaliforniaNational Guard California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday mobilized 1,000 members of the National Guard amid other security precautions over concerns of civil unrest ahead of President Donald Trump leaving office.The state also erected a temporary chain link fence around the state Capitol, bolstering other temporary and permanent barriers, and the California Highway Patrol has refused to issue permits for rallies that had been planned there.The moves come as the FBI and others warn of the potential for nationwide civil unrest before or during next week’s inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.Newsom said Guard members will “protect critical infrastructure” including the state Capitol while other state officials monitor threats and requests for aid around the clock.“We’re taking important steps here in California in light of what we saw in our nation’s Capitol just last week,” Newsom said, calling it “an undemocratic and unconscionable assault on our republic and the freedom upon which our nation was founded.”“We will respond to any potential violent civil unrest leading up to or during the inaugural, if required,” he said in a video message. “We’re treating this very seriously and deploying significant resources to protect public safety, critical infrastructure and First Amendment Rights, but let me be clear: there will be no tolerance for violence.”Oregon, Washington, Ohio and Pennsylvania are among states that also have deployed the National Guard. The Guard also has been placed at the U.S. Capitol, which was attacked and ransacked last week by Trump supporters.Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, said Newsom is wise to take the precautions.Battleground states where Trump raised questions about the election outcome seem to be in more danger, he said, as are Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes and Southern states. Yet California has an active effort to recall Newsom, anger over the governor’s stay-at-home orders aimed at slowing spread of the coronavirus, and ample numbers of right-wing activists.The Capitol already has been the site of weekly weekend clashes between Trump supporters and counter-demonstrators.“We’ve had continuing protests, but we kind of know who the characters are, so the biggest concern I think would come from some wild card,” he said, referring to a loner or a small group organized outside of social media that has been largely shut down or scrubbed since the clash in Washington, D.C.“We’re not seeing the kind of intensity and geographic-specific chatter and activity that we’re seeing with other states,” Levin said. Yet officials are wise to prepare “as if Sacramento was in the first tier.”The FBI Sacramento Field Office said it is working with other law enforcement agencies to prepare for any potential violence, and has agents, bomb technicians, tactical teams, intelligence teams and others standing by.Hundreds of Guard members were deployed in Sacramento and elsewhere in the state last summer amid sometimes destructive protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.The California state Capitol has largely been locked down for months because of the coronavirus pandemic. But lawmakers began meeting there again this week.Their meetings are open to the public, but space is limited. On Thursday, three women berated senators about the COVID-19 vaccine during a committee hearing. One woman, who did not give her name, told lawmakers they would “be the first to go” when “the world collapses.”“Keep telling us we can’t do anything about it and see how much longer we’re going to just sit here and wait to give public comment,” she said. “We didn’t buy guns for nothing.”“Seventeen million guns were purchased in the United States. First-time gun owners,” another woman told lawmakers. “What do you think they are going to do with that?”Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins, D-San Diego, said in a statement that the safety of her colleagues is her priority, “especially now.”“However the words of two members of the public today are parsed, one thing is clear — they were threats and they are being treated as threats,” Atkins said. “ … Tensions are running high, but as we’ve seen, words have consequences, and we must treat one another with respect.”The highway patrol rejected a request for a daylong “Let Freedom Ring” rally Sunday that organizer Chris Bish had expected to draw 3,000 people. She said the goal was to gather petition signatures to recall Newsom, to register voters, to support her congressional campaign, and “to peacefully protest our compromised election.”The highway patrol also barred what was billed as a “Peoples Inauguration Day Peace Rally,” for 100 people on Wednesday “due to the potential for civil unrest.”Bish has sued the governor over an earlier ban on protests, has been involved in unpermitted protests, and is joining a lawsuit challenging the integrity of the November election. But she’s telling her friends and supporters to stay away from the Capitol and any protests or rallies.“It is not wise to get mixed up on any potential nightmares that could happen this weekend or next week,” Bish said. “Let the fringe do what the fringe is going to do, because they’re not part of Middle America.”Associated Press writer Adam Beam contributed to this story.Tags :californiaNational Guardshare on Facebookshare on Twitteradd a commentDumping Trump, Ditching MitchSMPD prepares for inauguration dayYou Might Also LikeFeaturedNewsBobadilla rejects Santa Monica City Manager positionMatthew Hall5 hours agoNewsCouncil picks new City ManagerBrennon Dixson16 hours agoFeaturedNewsProtesting parents and Snapchat remain in disagreement over child protection policiesClara Harter16 hours agoFeaturedNewsDowntown grocery to become mixed use developmenteditor16 hours agoNewsBruised but unbowed, meme stock investors are back for moreAssociated Press16 hours agoNewsWedding boom is on in the US as vendors scramble to keep upAssociated Press16 hours ago
The 2019 Stars in the Alley annual event took place in Shubert Alley on May 10. Hosted by Beetlejuice Tony nominee Alex Brightman, the outdoor concert featured performances by all 2019 Best Musical nominees as well as long-running favorites. Check out the photos below to get an inside look at the star-studded event to celebrate your favorite shows. Tootsie Tony nominee Sarah Stiles sings “What’s Gonna Happen.” Star Files Alex Brightman Sarah Stiles Christiani Pitts Caitlin Kinnunen Alex Brightman (Photos: Emilio Madrid-Kuser for Broadway.com) Upcoming Mean Girls tour star Mary Kate Morrissey sings “I’d Rather Be Me.” View Comments The Prom’s Isabelle McCalla and Tony nominee Caitlin Kinnunen sing “You Happened.” King Kong leading lady Christiani Pitts sings “Last of Our Kind.” Isabelle McCalla View All (5)
by Deborah T. Bucknam, Esq Act 46, the new state law which provides for mergers of school districts into larger districts, protects forever all school districts’ present systems whether the district tuitions its students or operates its own school, or a combination of both. The State Board of Education has interpreted Act 46 to mean just the opposite. It has stated: “There is no authority in Act 46 that authorizes a newly formed district/preferred model, to both operate and pay tuition, for the same grade level.” The Board is wrong. Not only does Act 46 allow school districts to retain their present systems, the Act prohibits the Board from disapproving a merger plan because each member district keeps its present system of educating its children.Act 46 is crystal clear: It protects a school district which tuitions its students even if that district merges with a district which operates its own schools. School districts cannot be forced to change their system when they merge with other districts. The Act is mandatory. It states that any merger “shall preserve the ability of a district” to retain its present system and “shall not require the district to limit the options available to students if it ceases to exist as a discrete entity and realigns into a supervisory district or union school district.” Every lawyer knows the word “shall” is mandatory. The Act did not provide any leeway for the State Board of Education. Indeed, the drafters of the Act wanted to make sure their requirements were clear, because they reinforced the Act’s mandates by stating: “Nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict or repeal, or to authorize, encourage, or contemplate the restriction or repeal of, the ability of a school district…” to continue to operate its present organizational structure.Therefore, when the districts merge, the old member districts have an absolute right to keep their present governance, and the new mega district cannot change, by majority vote, the member districts’ present system of educating their children.The State Board of Education’s advisory appears to be based on a legal analysis of Act 46 by Legislative Council. That analysis is seriously flawed and would not meet even the basic standard of a first year law school brief. It should not be the basis for a wholesale change in our 150-year-old system of educating Vermont’s children.School districts are being advised by the State Board of Education that they cannot operate schools and pay tuition for the same grade level. The practical effect, which is already happening, is that the smaller districts presently enjoying choice are being advised that they must give up their historic right to educate their students as they see fit, and to conform to the educational structure of the larger, more powerful districts. The fact is, they should be advised that if they currently have school choice, they shall be able to retain school choice. Act 46 blocked this kind of power grab. Westford and Elmore, currently going through the process with larger communities and expected to vote in November are being misinformed. They should be able to take advantage of the financial benefits of their respective mergers, but also to retain their school choice option. Voting yes on the ballot with the wording that is in place now, will throw away school choice that they are entitled to have. It is recognized that two groups of hard working citizens followed a process and came up with ballot items. However, there is too much misinformation from the State Board for voters to make an informed vote without knowing all options, including retaining choice. The State Board of Education is attempting to re-write the law to force these small districts to give up their historic rights. It has no authority to do so under the law. Deborah T Bucknam, Esq is a partner with Bucknam & Black, St. Johnsbury
Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.