Daily Archives: April 6, 2022

SHEBOYGAN - Voters on Tuesdaychose fiveincumbents and fivenew representatives on theSheboygan County board out of 10 contested races.

Members of the 25-person county boardserve a two-year term.

Incumbent election winnersinclude Robert Ziegelbauer in District 12, Christian Ellis in District 18, Jackie Veldman in District 23, William Goehring in District 24 and Roger TeStroete in District 25.

New board members will include Kathleen Donovanin District 3, Suzanne Speltz in District 12, James Coulson in District 13, John Nelson in District 16, former District 18representativeJacob Immel in District 19 and Carl Nonhof in District 20.

This year, 33% of registered voters in the county, about 18,900people, voted in spring elections, a turnout slightly above that of last year (when 27% of registered votersvoted) but well below 2020 (when50% of registered votersvoted).

The Republican Party of Sheboygan County helped several conservative "freedom fighter"candidates campaignfor the county board. Three of the seven candidates Speltz, Coulson and Immelwere elected.

Four candidates, including Speltz, Coulson, Nonhof and Veldman, won by a margin of fewer than 50 votes.

District 3:Incumbent Kathleen Donovan secured 65% of the vote, with 420 votes to Lisa Salgado's 227.

Donovan, 54, moved to Sheboygan in 2014 and was appointed to the county board in December. Donovan'spriorities on the board will include overseeing the implementation of theHealth and Human Services Strategic Plan and retaining county employees, she says.

District 12:Suzanne Speltz narrowly defeated incumbent Robert Ziegelbauer. Speltz secured52.5% of the vote, with 441 votes to Ziegelbauer's 399.

Speltz, 60, is a retired social worker who ran for county board after she saw the negative effects public health emergency orders and mandates had on people's lives, she says. Speltz campaigned on protecting constitutional rights, transparent government and financial independence from grant money with burdensome requirements.

District 13: James Coulson narrowly defeated incumbent Charlette Nennig. Coulson secured 51% of the vote, with 428 votes to Nennig's 411 (a margin of 17 votes).

Coulson, a 45-year-old business owner,campaigned on smaller government, fewer regulations, medical freedom, fiscal responsibility of government and supporting the police.

District 16:John Nelson defeated Kevin Sande, after incumbent Fran Damp did not seek reelection.

Nelson secured 59% of the vote, with 376 votes to Sande's 260.

Nelson, 67, has served on the Plymouth city council since 2013 and has served on several boards including United Way (Plymouth) and Maywood Environmental Park. Nelson campaigned on fiscal responsibility.

District 18:Incumbent Christian Ellis secured 57% of the vote, with 413votes to James Evraets'313.

Christian Ellis, 40, was appointed to the county board in January. He is a lifelong resident of Sheboygan County, a father of four children and works as a corporate recruiter.

District 19:Jacob Immel secured 57% of the vote, with 397votes to Roberta Vollbrecht-Lentz's 295.

Immel, 27, has served on the Sheboygan Falls city council since 2018 and previously served on the county board representing District 18. Important issues Immel will seek to address while on the board include workforce development, economic development, public safety and transparency in government.

District 20:Carl Nonhof narrowly defeated incumbent Brian Hoffmann. Nonhof secured 50.7% of the vote, with 505 votes to Hoffmann's 490.

Nonhof, 70, recently served a term on the Kohler School Board and has a 40-year history of involvement with local groups, he told the Sheboygan Press. Investigatingways to reduce costs for Sheboygan County government and citizens will be a priority for him in office, he says.

District 23: Incumbent Jackie Veldman narrowly defeated Dan Jones.

Veldman secured 50.7% of the vote, with 409 votes to 398 for Jones (a margin of 11 votes).

Veldman, 50, has served on the county board since 2019 and has served six terms on the Town of Mitchell board, including three terms as the town board chairwoman. On the county board, keeping taxes low and expanding access to dependable internet are priority issues for Veldman.

District 24: Incumbent William Goehring secured 76% of the vote, with 559votes to Arush Chahal's 176.

Goehring, 74, has served several years on the county board, including five years as board chairman, has been Town of Sherman board chairman for 35 years andserves on several statewide committees. On the county board, maintaining low taxes will continue to be a priority for Goehring, he says.

District 25: Incumbent Roger TeStroete secured 60% of the vote, with 626votes to David Reichle's 417.

TeStroete, 72, has served several years on the county board, including two terms as board chairman, and has served 12 years on the Town of Holland board. On the county board, maintaining roads will continue to be a priority for TeStroete, he says.

Reach Maya Hilty at 920-400-7485 or MHilty@sheboygan.gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter at @maya_hilty.

See more here:

Voters elect five new faces and five familiar ones to the Sheboygan County Board in the spring general election - Sheboygan Press

The dust has barely settled on the row over halal and jhatka meat in Karnataka that Delhi has jumped in the fray. No, not over the manner of slaughtering, but over the selling of meat itself. The South Delhi Municipal Corporation Mayor sought "closure of meat shops during the nine-days of Navratri festival from April 2 to April 11".

In a letter to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation commissioner dated April 4, Mayor Mukesh Suryan wrote that since devotees of Goddess Durga fast observe fast for nine days during the Navaratri festival with a strict vegetarian diet and abstaining from the use of non-vegetarian food items, the sight of meat being sold in open or near temples makes them uncomfortable. Therefore, meat shops should be closed during the period of Navratri, says Suryan. The period is from April 5 (Tuesday) till April 11.

Suryan has asked the SDMC commissioner to ensure strict adherence to his directives. With nearly 1,500 registered meat shops in SDMCs jurisdiction, this is the first time that the civic body has asked for the closure of meat shops during Navratri.

And with this begins a fresh saga in policing what one eats, how one eats and when one eats. One would have thought that policing the sale and consumption of meat and the kind of meat would be pointless in a country where 80 per cent of people are meat-eaters. A paper published in March 2018 in the Economic and Political Weekly titled 'Provincialising' Vegetarianism, cites data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) that puts a figure on the number of Indian meat consumers. The data even offers demographics nearly 59 per cent of Hindus eat meat, besides over 93 per cent of Christians and Muslims, around 21 per cent of Sikhs and over 78 per cent of Buddhists were meat-eaters. Among the Hindus, nearly 35 per cent of Brahmins were meat-eaters as per India Human Development Survey (IHDS).

In fact, India exported processed meat worth over USD 1.7 million in the fiscal year 2021, making it among the largest exporters of meat. Biryani is the most-searched dish on Google and chicken biryani has been consistently topping the charts over the years for being the most ordered dish on online food apps.

Yet, hypocritical moral policing comes as a societal force when it comes to meat-eater shaming. Especially around festivals or religiously significant days. This takes me back to a childhood memory when as a lone South Indian student in a second-grade classroom in Delhi, I would dread opening my lunch box on Tuesdays. Heavens forbid if my mother had packed the (very yummy) kal-dosais for lunch. You see, the dish resembled an omelette to my North Indian classmates (and even some teachers), who would shame me for eating eggs on Tuesday.

It was not the eggs that were a problem, you see. My classmates used to bring boiled eggs on every other day of the week. Except for Tuesdays. On Tuesdays, they were taught, that eating eggs (or any non-vegetarian food) was a sin, and no amount of convincing and pleading that what I was eating was actually fried rice-and-lentil pancakes would make them change their militant stance.

The irony is that I had never tasted an egg until that point, hailing from a staunchly vegetarian family. Nor (at that point, as a seven-year-old) did I know what an omelette looked like. Funnily enough, a Muslim classmate who was a staunch non-vegetarian used to defend me, having tasted my mothers kal-dosais at my home and knowing what they actually were.

Decades thence we dont seem to have progressed an inch from the ignorant bunch of seven-year-olds who found a reason to moral police and shame a vegetarian for eating (what they assumed was) eggs on a religiously significant day. We still find reasons to moral police eating (and selling) meat during Navaratri.

The upholders of gastronomic policing need to be retold what the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court told the Yogi Adityanath government during its crackdown on illegitimate slaughterhouses. Justices Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Sanjay Harkauli said: To provide an immediate check on the unlawful activity should be simultaneous with facilitating the carrying of lawful activity, particularly that relating to food, food habits and vending thereof that is undisputedly connected with the right to life and livelihood. Food that is conducive to health cannot be treated as a wrong choice.

When he was asked about those who dont observe the festival or the fast, Mayor Suryan said they should respect the sentiments of others. Interestingly, the self-anointed guardians of religious sentiments barely raise a question on whether pork should be banned during Ramzan. Perhaps because of the high(er) incidence of meat-eating among Muslims as compared to the Hindus. Or perhaps because the sensibilities of one religion matter more than that of the other. But then, lets save that absurd debate for another day.

See the article here:

The right to food and the freedom of choice: Should meat be banned during religious festivals? - Times Now

With federal cannabis reform on the table, here's how local sates are spending marijuana taxes

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) As Washington weighs the risks and rewards of cannabis reform following the House vote to federally legalize marijuana Friday, many lawmakers are looking to states like Oregon and Washington to see how they are already cashing in on cannabis tax revenue.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to approve the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, also known as the MORE Act, for the second time in the last two years.

If signed into law, the legislation would expunge former marijuana convictions, reduce current marijuana sentences and remove the drug from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act making the substance legal to consume for adults 21 and over across the U.S.

Although the bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, it is not the only piece of cannabis reform legislation on the table this month. In February of 2022, the House passed the SAFE Banking act as an amendment to the America COMPETES Act, which would grant legal and legitimate cannabis businesses fair banking access.

Additionally, Bloomberg reported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will help back a new marijuana legalization bill, which he plans to introduce this month.

In a joint letter in February, Schumer, Senator Ron Wyden, and Senator Cory Booker called on their Democratic colleagues for further federal cannabis reform, saying, As more and more states move to legalize cannabis for both adult and medical use, the federal government has an important role to play.

This is an issue of individual freedom and basic fairness that clearly transcends party lines, the letter stated. Hundreds of millions of Americans live in states that have legalized cannabis in some form while it remains illegal at the federal level. This discrepancy leads to confusion and uncertainty and raises significant questions around criminal justice reform, economic development and small business growth, and public health and safety, all of which we believe require some type of federal answer.

As the letter pointed out, 18 states have already legalized the use of recreational marijuana and 37 states have legalized the use of medical cannabis since 2010.

The growing number of states legalizing the substance, combined with the newly proposed pieces of legislation signify a fundamental shift in attitude and an increased acceptance regarding use of the cannabis.

As the cannabis debate in Washington continues to drag out, states which have already legalized the substance have begun to profit off their legal marijuana markets and the lucrative taxes placed on the drug.

Furthermore, lawmakers and proponents of national pot reform have said it pays to legalize marijuana quite literally. But just how much money does the government stand to gain by greenlighting weed sales?

To better understand this, KOIN 6 News took a look at how local states are currently cashing in on the controversial crop and how much they are making off cannabis taxes.

The list below outlines how much Oregon and Washington made from marijuana sales tax, in addition to how both states spent those tax dollars last year.

Legalized medical marijuana: November 1998Legalized recreational marijuana: November 2014Retail sales began: October 2015

How Oregon taxes marijuana: Oregon has a 17% state retail tax on all recreational marijuana sales and an additional 3% tax for some Oregon locations

Cannabis Tax Revenue Generated in Oregon: According to the state website, Oregon brought in more than $178 million in total tax revenue from marijuana sales during the 2021 fiscal year.

How Oregon uses cannabis tax revenue: Tax revenue derived from Oregons marijuana sales fund the state programs administrative and enforcement costs, in addition to supporting the Drug Treatment and Recovery Service Fund. According to the state, any remaining revenue is divided to support the following programs:

Legalized medical marijuana: November 1998Legalized recreational marijuana: December 2012Retail sales began: July 2014

How Washington taxes marijuana: Washington State has an excise tax on cannabis sales of 37% as well as a statewide general sales tax of 6.5%, though some local taxes are also enforced.

Cannabis Tax Revenue Generated in Washington: For the 2021 fiscal year, Washington brought in $559.5 million in cannabis tax revenue, an increase of roughly 20% from the 2020 FY revenue.

How Washington uses cannabis tax revenue: According to the state, the bulk of Washingtons cannabis tax revenue is used to fund the states general fund and public health programs. Last year, cannabis revenue in the state helped fund the following:

See the rest here:

Cashing in on cannabis: How Oregon, Washington are using weed tax revenue - KOIN.com

Pathways to permanent housing

California lawmakers are currently considering a handful of bills that aim to improve outcomes for formerly incarcerated people by removing some of the most pressing collateral consequences of criminal convictions rules that keep people from accessing housing, employment, and other necessities.

Reports from the Prison Policy Initiative have revealed troubling statistics of reentry after prison.

One 2018 report showed that, in 2008, approximately 27 percent of formerly incarcerated people were looking for a job, but were still unemployed, a rate higher even than the general U.S. unemployment rate of 24.9 percent during the Great Depression. Yet people who had spent time in prison were also more likely to be actively seeking employment than the general population.

Another national study from PPI showed that formerly incarcerated people were nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public.

Two bills would widen the pathway to housing for people caught in a cycle of homelessness and incarceration.

The first bill, AB 2383, by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), would prohibit landlords from seeking criminal history information from applicants during the first stage of the housing application process.

Background checks would also only be able to access information from the last seven years.

If a landlord, after conducting a background check during the secondary phase of screening, intended to deny an applicant based on their criminal history, the landlord would also have to provide the applicant with a written explanation for the potential denial within five days.

The potential renter would then have three days to give the landlord a letter either disputing the criminal history information or providing evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating information. Then, the owner would be required to reconsider the applicant.

These rules do not apply, however, to owners renting out rooms, guest houses, or other housing on property where they the landlords reside.

AB 2383 is backed by the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, the Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership, and the Young Womens Freedom Center.

The bill has faced opposition from the California Association of Realtors, who argue that enacting the bill will endanger tenants who live in the complexes and properties formerly incarcerated people are applying to rent.

Yet, a coalition of justice reform groups, including All of Us or None, which seek to increase housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated people, oppose the bill in its current form for far different reasons. These opponents say landlords should be required to offer a conditional offer to an applicant before they can run a criminal background check.

Without a conditional offer, there is no way to prove that the applicant otherwise met the landlords criteria for credit and tenant history, the coalition argued. The advocates also point out that three days is not enough time for rental applicants to come up with rebuttals and supporting documents.

As of April 5, 2022, the bill was before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

A second bill, AB-1816, from Assms. Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) and Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), seeks to directly address the issues that allow people leaving prison to slip into homelessness.

The bill would create a state-level Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program. This program would offer five-year renewable grants to counties, continuums of care and community-based organizations to fund evidence-based housing and housing-based services and employment interventions to allow people with recent histories of incarceration to exit homelessness and remain stably housed.

The money would fund long-term rental assistance, landlord incentives, including security deposits and holding fees, and more.

Recent data indicates it costs CDCR nearly $100,000 per inmate per year to incarcerate someone in a California prison, the Assembly Fiscal Committees summary of the bill noted. A chronically homeless person living unsheltered costs tax payers an average of $36,000 per year. The cost to provide permanent supportive housing, affordable housing coupled with services, costs an average of $20,000 per person per year and reduces the risk of recidivism sevenfold.

AB 1816 was revised and sent to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on March 24, 2022.

Access to expungement

Bills focused on expanding access to criminal record expungement are also moving through the legislative committees.

One notable bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener, SB 1106, would ensure that unpaid restitution debt would not preclude an otherwise eligible person from clearing their record.

A persons poverty should not block them from having their record cleared, said Senator Wiener. Were forcing formerly incarcerated people into a cycle of debt that helps no one. If we want people to actually pay off their restitution debt, they need to be able to access housing and employment.

Wieners bill passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 24 and is currently on the Senate floor.

Broadening employment opportunities

Several other promising bills would address barriers to employment that keep formerly incarcerated people struggling to find work.

AB 2425, by Assm. Bryan, would provide stipends equivalent to the minimum wage to help formerly incarcerated Californians pay for their basic needs while they work toward obtaining credentials for high road careers in sectors like green-energy, healthcare, construction and infrastructure. Most of these credential programs are full-time, making it difficult for people to participate if they dont have another source of income.

The aptly named Hire UP: From Corrections to Career Pilot Program would be implemented through 10 community college districts throughout the state.

Another bill, AB 1720, would simplify and shorten the process for formerly incarcerated people to earn licenses through the California Department of Social Services allowing them to work in community care facilities.

AB 1720 is currently before the Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

Read more from the original source:

Bills Aim to Open Doors to Housing and Employment for Formerly Incarcerated Californians | - witnessla.com