Podcasts about political caucus

In this conversation, we explore the new collaborative picture book 'Rise Girl Rise', which explores themes of empowerment, friendship, and the importance of storytelling across cultures. They emphasize the book's role in inspiring the next generation and fostering a sense of shared humanity. Gloria Steinem is a political activist, feminist organizer, and the author of many acclaimed books, including the national bestseller Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem. She is a contributor to the classic children's book Free to Be You and Me, which became a children's entertainment project, conceived, created, and executive-produced by actress and author Marlo Thomas, produced in collaboration with the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the Free to Be Foundation, both cofounded by Ms. Steinem, and most recently illustrated by Peter H. Reynolds. Ms. Steinem is also the co-founder of the National Women's Political Caucus and the Women's Media Center. In keeping with her deep commitment to establishing equality throughout the world, Ms. Steinem helped found Equality Now, Donor Direct Action, and Direct Impact Africa. To learn more, visit gloriasteinem.com. Leymah Gbowee is a Liberian peace activist, social worker, and women's rights advocate. She is Founder and President of the Gbowee Peace Foundation Africa, based in Monrovia. As a writer, Ms. Gbowee is the author of the inspirational memoir Mighty Be Our Powers: How Sisterhood, Prayer, and Sex Changed a Nation at War, and author of the children's book A Community of Sisters, illustrated by Coleen Baik. Ms. Gbowee is perhaps best known for leading a nonviolent movement that brought together Christian and Muslim women to play a pivotal role in ending Liberia's devastating, 14-year civil war in 2003. Chapters 00:00 The Power of Picture Books 02:43 Friendship Across Cultures 05:15 Legacy and Call to Action The Shifting Schools podcast is produced and edited by Sagheer M.

BigTent hosted a TentTalk on Wednesday, October 15 at 12:00PM ET featuring Sandy Radoff and Claire Ullman, co-founders of Students for Voting Justice, and Andrea Miller, founding board member of the Center for Common Ground. The discussion offered an in-depth briefing on the state of the 2025 Virginia elections and highlighted effective Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) strategies. Speakers shared how young leaders across the Commonwealth are mobilizing voters through grassroots tactics, youth-focused outreach, and strong partnerships with community and campus networks to drive turnout and civic engagement. Learn more about Students for Voting Justice: https://www.studentsforvotingjustice.org/ Learn more about Center for Common Ground: https://www.centerforcommonground.org/ ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Sandy Radoff is a researcher and statistician who had her own business as a marketing and opinion research consultant for over 20 years. She has a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics and Statistics and went back to graduate school to indulge her passion by completing all the coursework towards a Masters Degree in political science. For the past several years, she has spent considerable time as an activist focusing on the environment and social justice. Being Co-Director of Students for Voting Justice has brought the most meaningful pieces of her life together in one place. Sandra lives in New York City with her husband and has two grown children, a son and a daughter, both Millennials. Claire Ullman taught political science and public policy at Barnard College and the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs until co-founding Students for Voting Justice in 2020. She has a Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University and a BA from Harvard University. Before she went to graduate school, Claire helped found an emergency shelter for homeless women and children in Seattle as a VISTA volunteer and then stayed on as its development officer and then its Assistant Director. She served on the board of the Grand Street Settlement in New York City from 1995 to 2008. Finally, and perhaps most relevant to her current job as Co-Director of Students for Justice, Claire is the parent of three recent college graduates. Andrea Miller is the Founding Board Member of the Center for Common Ground, Executive Director of People Demanding Action, Founding President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Virginia, and a member of the Democracy and Governance working group of the Virginia Green New Deal. Andrea is an IT and Political Director and a digital and elections strategist. She designs and administers digital phone banks and texting programs. From 2013 to 2015, she led the Progressive Round Table on Capitol Hill, bringing together members of Congress, activists, and non-profit leaders. Her expertise is in voting rights, climate, and the Equal Rights Amendment. She has successfully advocated for legislation on both the Federal and State level. In 2008 she was the Democratic nominee for the Virginia 4th Congressional district. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

On this week's episode of Women Speak — a segment on Northeast Newscast — hosts Northeast News Editor-in-Chief, Julia Williams and former Missouri House Representative for District 19 Ingrid Burnett sat down with Owner of LIA (Life is Amazing) Inspiration and Member of Independence Plaza Neighborhood Council (IPNC) Laura Palacios to continue our series on women who influence policy. Throughout this episode, Palacios discusses her political science background, her activist journey and the steps that have led her to her current work today — particularly in the Historic Northeast. Palacios delves into the various boards she has served on over the past 15 years, including the Missouri Chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus and her experiences as one of the few Latina members among these boards at the time. Burnett, Williams and Palacios discuss happenings within the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson city including a special session request for the legislature from Gov. Mike Kehoe. Within the special session call, three items are proposed for approval including Kansas City Stadium subsidies at Truman Sports Complex, relief aid for Missourians impacted by the storms and capital projects from Missouri House of Representatives Bill 19. These bills are discussed in length as well as a lawsuit, which the Missouri Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has filed against Missouri Attorney General, Andrew Bailey and the University of Missouri. *This podcast was recorded on Wednesday, May 28. Since its recording, this Special Session — which Burnett, Palacios and Williams discuss in this episode — ended on Wednesday, June 11. The Missouri House of Representatives approved $1.5 billion in funding for Kansas City sports stadiums as well as $125 million to aid areas of St. Louis, which faced severe weather damages, according to an article by the Missouri Independent. All three of these bills were previously approved in the Missouri Senate and made their way to the Governor's desk, which he signed into law on Saturday, June 14.*Music used within this Women Speak episode is a song called “I Wish I Knew You Then” by Kansas City local artist Honeybee and the group's lead female vocalist, Makayla Scott. “I Wish I Knew You Then” is a recent single, which Honeybee released in March 2025.  Honeybee's latest single “Lindenlure,” was released on May 30 and is now available on its streaming platforms. 2025 singles “I Wish I Knew You Then,” “Charmed Life” and “Lindenlure” as well as additional Honeybee tracks are available on Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube, TIDAL and Youtube Music. *Disclaimer* I Wish I Knew You Then and any previous or future Honeybee songs used by The Northeast News within the Women Speak podcasts are courtesy of and approved by Makayla Scott and Honeybee under proper copyright law. Honeybee songs are not royalty free nor subject to free use and should not be used by additional publications or organizations without proper consent. This podcast as well as all Women Speak episodes are made possible by The Northeast News, Northeast Kansas City Chamber of Commerce and Independence Avenue Community Improvement District. 

“If you want to make change, you've got to make noise.” A call to action in the political sense conveys boldness and focus. It's about drawing attention and speaking loudly about one's convictions, with a sense of urgency and persistence. To longtime outspoken advocate and US Senator Ron Wyden, that's what you'd call chutzpah – and his upcoming book sets out to inspire that same quality of action-driven audacity in Americans of all ages. It Takes Chutzpah: How to Fight Fearlessly for Progressive Change acts as a reflection of Wyden's decades of public service and as a motivational manifesto to push people forward. Noted throughout his career in government for championing civil rights, sensible ideas, and strategic alliances that strive to get pressing bills passed, Wyden understands the importance of strong, loud community and charting new pathways. In It Takes Chutzpah, Wyden explores the long history of the Yiddish word chutzpah, the many interpretations of it across Jewish culture, and how he sees the trait as a tool to reclaim idealism and enact positive change. Wyden compels individuals and groups alike to look at the objectives before them with this boldness in mind, as well as conviction in their values. Wyden touches on the importance of free speech, healthcare, reproductive rights, a clean environment, and regulating the impacts of Big Tech throughout his political tenure. He explores how campaigning for the preservation of those values has been bolstered over the years– and even offers “Ron's 12 Rules of Chutzpah” as a guide to defying convention and achieving progress. It Takes Chutzpah stresses that unapologetic volume and the nerve to keep fighting can prove crucial in accomplishing goals, creating allies, and moving brazenly forward together. Ron Wyden is an American politician and longtime advocate in the areas of civil rights, internet freedom, healthcare, and more. He currently serves as the senior United States senator from Oregon and Chair of the Senate Committee on Finance. He has previously held positions in the U.S. House of Representatives and as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. State Representative Liz Berry represents Washington's 36th Legislative District, located in the shadow of Seattle's Space Needle. She is a passionate advocate for ending gun violence, combating plastic pollution, and standing up for working families and consumers against powerful special interests. A lifelong champion for women in leadership and reproductive justice, Rep. Berry served as president of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington and as a board member for Pro-Choice Washington. She is the former Legislative Director to U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords. Rep. Berry lives with her husband and two young children in Queen Anne.  Buy the Book It Takes Chutzpah: How to Fight Fearlessly for Progressive Change Elliott Bay Book Company

Meet Jacque Robinson-Baisley, currently the Director of External Affairs for Cordoba Corp. in their Education and Facilities Sector.  Jacque also served as Vice Mayor and Councilmember for the City of Pasadena – that was recently devastated by the wildfires. Jacque is a tenured leader with over two decades of experience in stakeholder engagement and government relations in the greater Los Angeles region and statewide. Her prior experience includes managing and directing community, electoral, and advocacy campaigns with labor unions, nonprofits, school districts, and philanthropy. She has been recognized for her expertise in policy development, community engagement, government relations, strategic planning, and special event planning and execution. Jacque also served as Vice Mayor and Councilmember for the City of Pasadena from 2007-2015. Among her many accomplishments, she spearheaded the development and adoption of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and served as a Commissioner for the Hollywood-Burbank Airport. She continues her personal commitment to public service as a current Board Member of Pathways LA, Pasadena Delta Foundation, and the National Women's Political Caucus, Greater Pasadena Area. Here is the link to the Go Fund page:  https://gofund.me/d50fce17

Today we do a debrief of the 2024 election results. We are stoked to welcome back Joanna Killen and our friends Shawn Rouse and Teri McMackin to look at the surprise results as well as hear some stories from the trenches. 

I am Woman: A Call to Action for Womens Rights We present a new version of "I Am Woman," the 1970s-era Helen Reddy masterpiece that's been adapted for the 2024 presidential campaign. If you enjoyed this episode, please like and subscribe! We have many more thought-provoking discussions lined up that you won't want to miss.In this powerful episode, Connie DeJuliis and Donna Lent discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the importance of women's reproductive rights, and the work of the National Women's Political Caucus.Highlighting a passionate remake of Helen Reddy's 'I Am Woman,' that they helped create, the conversation underscores women's resilience and determination to fight for women's rights, including reproductive rights.DeJuliis and Lent call for active participation in upcoming elections to protect women's freedom to choose, and share personal insights into their advocacy and organizing efforts.CHAPTERS:00:00 Women Under Attack: Roe v. Wade Overturned00:27 Empowerment Anthem: 'I Am Woman'03:26 Meet the Creators: Connie and Donna06:04 Historical Context: Women's Fight for Rights14:04 The Current Political Landscape24:54 Call to Action: Mobilizing for Change31:52 Final Thoughts and Closing RemarksBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-lean-to-the-left-podcast--4719048/support.

I am Woman: A Call to Action for Womens Rights We present a new version of "I Am Woman," the 1970s-era Helen Reddy masterpiece that's been adapted for the 2024 presidential campaign. If you enjoyed this episode, please like and subscribe! We have many more thought-provoking discussions lined up that you won't want to miss.In this powerful episode, Connie DeJuliis and Donna Lent discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the importance of women's reproductive rights, and the work of the National Women's Political Caucus.Highlighting a passionate remake of Helen Reddy's 'I Am Woman,' that they helped create, the conversation underscores women's resilience and determination to fight for women's rights, including reproductive rights.DeJuliis and Lent call for active participation in upcoming elections to protect women's freedom to choose, and share personal insights into their advocacy and organizing efforts.CHAPTERS:00:00 Women Under Attack: Roe v. Wade Overturned00:27 Empowerment Anthem: 'I Am Woman'03:26 Meet the Creators: Connie and Donna06:04 Historical Context: Women's Fight for Rights14:04 The Current Political Landscape24:54 Call to Action: Mobilizing for Change31:52 Final Thoughts and Closing RemarksBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-lean-to-the-left-podcast--4719048/support.

Tom O'Neill is an award-winning investigative journalist and entertainment reporter. His investigative stories, such as the cut-throat battles among daytime talk-show producers (“Welcome to the Jungle”), the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer (“Dangerous Minds”), and the unsolved slaying of a Hollywood starlet (“The Life and Death of Miss Hollywood”) have appeared in national publications like Us, Premiere, New York, The Village Voice, and Details. His exposé on sexism at Saturday Night Live (“The Incredible Shrinking Women of Saturday Night Live”) earned him an Exceptional Merit Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus and Radcliffe College in 1995. His book, Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, is the culmination of a 20-year investigation, which unearthed information about the murders, the murderers, the prosecutors who tried them, and the complex web of connections between Charles Manson, the CIA's MKUltra program, the counterculture movement, and other powerful individuals during the 1960s. ------ Thank you to the sponsors that fuel our podcast and our team: LMNT Electrolytes https://drinklmnt.com/tetra ------ Squarespace https://squarespace.com/tetra ------ Lucy https://lucy.co/tetra ------ House of Macadamias https://www.houseofmacadamias.com/tetra

In the next episode of the Council of Firsts, Amanda Arriaga, first Latina president of the Austin Bar, talks to Lulu Flores, State Representative for District 51. For information on the organizations Rep. Flores mentioned, please visit: LULAC https://lulac.org/ National Women's Political Caucus https://www.nwpc.org/ Mexic-Arte Museum https://mexic-artemuseum.org/ Ballet Folklorico de Texas https://www.balletfolkloricodetexas.com/ Hispanic Bar Association of Austin (HBAA) https://www.hispanicbaraustin.com/ Travis County Women Lawyers Association (TCWLA) https://tcwla.org/ Listen on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/discussion-with-state-representative-lulu-flores/id1681607368?i=1000651890634 Watch on YouTube https://youtu.be/kV9dLR2av9o

In a recent interview on the "Hacks & Wonks" podcast, Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz provided an insider's guide on how to prepare and run for elected office. Drawing from over a decade of experience in political campaigns and advocacy, Diaz offered detailed advice for prospective candidates. Diaz stressed knowing your "why" for running as a motivating force. "Think about what problems you're trying to solve or what communities you're trying to represent," she said. Align your passion with the appropriate position, whether school board, city council, or state legislature. Assembling the right team is critical, according to Diaz. This includes identifying trusted people to handle key roles like communications, field operations, fundraising, and campaign compliance. Diaz advised being intentional about building a team that reflects the diversity you want to see.  Once committed, assemble a "kitchen cabinet" of trusted family, friends, and community leaders to comprise your core team, Diaz advised. "You need to figure out who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable asking for help." Budgeting is crucial, and Diaz recommended using unionized vendors and allocating at least two-thirds of funds for direct voter communication like mailings and advertising. "Yard signs don't actually vote," she quipped. On fundraising, Diaz's top tip was simple: "You don't get any money that you don't ask for, so ask everybody unabashedly." This includes calling personal contacts like friends, current and former colleagues, as well as adversaries of your opponent. Authenticity in messaging is paramount. "Be authentically who you are all of the time and be willing to own where you might disagree with people because I think that matters as much in governing as it does always agreeing with people. People respect you more.” But running for office is just the first step – Diaz also offered advice for translating campaign advocacy into tangible policy actions through ordinances and legislation. She recommended focusing first on achievable goals to start delivering wins while getting accustomed to the new role. Throughout, Diaz emphasized building bridges and bringing more people from underrepresented communities into the process as future leaders. Diaz also emphasized building a diverse campaign team that creates opportunities for mentorship. "The more of us there are … the better our policies can become."   Resources Public Disclosure Commission | Training and Resources   National Political Women's Caucus of Washington   Emerge Washington   Washington Institute for a Democratic Future   Build the Bench WA   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. The Washington legislative session for this year just ended and we've received news about several legislators who are not running for re-election. This opens up opportunities for new candidates to run this year to represent their communities in the legislature, in addition to hundreds of local elected positions across every community in our state. So we thought this was a great time to talk with Tacoma City Councilmember Olgy Diaz about how to run for office. Olgy was born and raised in Pierce County to parents who immigrated from Guatemala. Throughout her career, she has worked to foster a more reflective democracy and expand access to power through work with local nonprofits like One America and Planned Parenthood, in the Washington State Legislature, and in candidate campaigns across Pierce County. Over the last 13 years, she has talked to voters in English and Spanish all over Washington. Olgy is passionate about conservation, tribal sovereignty, and wildlife, and serves as the vice chair of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition. She served on the City of Tacoma's Human Rights Commission, worked in the Washington State House of Representatives and Senate for five years, and is the Immediate Past President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington. She spends most of her spare time building up future civic leaders through key leadership roles and has trained hundreds of political candidates across our state. We both serve on the board of the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future, an organization that does just that. Olgy has been effective in advocacy, productive in governing, and successful at winning elections, which is why I'm so thrilled to welcome her to this show about how to prepare for a successful run for office. Welcome back to the show, Councilmember Olgy Diaz. [00:02:38] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Hi, Crystal. How's it going? [00:02:40] Crystal Fincher: It is going well because I'm talking with you this morning - thought this would be a good opportunity to talk about how to prepare to run for office, what the most important things are to consider - because a lot of people don't have any exposure to this - the things that are visible about campaigns aren't necessarily the most important things. Lot of times when people think about running, they think about yard signs and parades and delivering speeches, or they have this picture of the West Wing in their head, or Parks and Recs, or Veep or whatever it may be. But a lot of times it's just not reflective of what running a campaign, particularly a state or local campaign, a local government or legislative campaign looks like. So just starting out, Olgy, what do people need to do to prepare to run for office? [00:03:33] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I think the biggest things that folks can do to prepare are really sort of reflect - think inward - and think about what problems you're trying to solve, or what communities you're trying to represent, and where that is needed. So the thing that's going to get you through the hard days - the days where you feel betrayed or left behind or just generally out of energy on a campaign - your why is what's going to get you through. And so you've got to really think about - if I am deeply passionate about making sure that kids have access to classrooms that don't have moldy walls or leaky ceilings, and that they've got a curriculum that makes sense, and that they've got maybe some access to after-school services, that's probably someone who's deeply passionate about running for school board, not Congress. So making sure that your interests align with what you're wanting to govern over - I think is the deepest and hardest part of getting ready to run for office - because a lot of people will gravitate towards some of those offices that look shiny or feel like they are name in lights, really sexy. But really, if you're deeply passionate about climate change, you might be the best fire commissioner and not the best state legislator. And that's not to push people out of some of the bigger races, but it's also helpful to start at the ground level and work your way up - makes it much easier to have been elected to something else before you go and run for governor. It really is a nine, ten month, however month long you're running for office job interview. And actually in any good job interview you're doing, you're going to want to see what this job actually does - read the job description, read the budget, read the minutes, read the notes of what the people who are doing this job already do - so you can prepare yourself for that work. A lot of offices, I would say more offices than not, in Washington state don't have staff. So you're going to be the expert in your thing - so be prepared to be savvy, be researching. And get ready - so think about, if I've never served on a board, even my little PTA board or my nonprofit board - go sign up. I don't know of a single government who doesn't have a board or commission that they're looking for volunteers who are passionate about work. And that's where you can meet people in the community, it's where you can build a network, it's where you can learn about different topics. Sure, a lot of these positions are unpaid, so you've got to find the volunteer time to do it. But running for office is also unpaid, unfortunately. So at some point, you do have to be wanting to serve the public - so I think it's really helpful to try to start serving on boards or commissions at any level of government to try to just get that - How do we work together? Understanding - How does this governing body work? How do you organize? It can be one of those early tools of learning how you put your teams together and how you build coalitions. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you raise a number of important points. I really do want to underscore you talking about - just know why you want to run, what is motivating you. It's always a bit dismaying to have someone come and be like, Yeah, I really want to run. I really want to be on the city council. Then you asked, Okay, so what do you want to do? What do you want to accomplish? What do you want to do to help the community? And they haven't thought that far yet. All they have thought about is that they want to be elected. That is a red flag for me. It's a red flag for a lot of people. Know how you want to help. And like you said, it should be something you're passionate about. And then you have to align that with different positions. There are so many jurisdictions and positions up for election - city councils, school boards, parks districts, port commission, state legislature, county council, all of these different things - and they're very different positions at different levels of government. So are you interested in public and community safety and want to do that? That's probably going to happen more at the local level. Are you interested in intervening with climate change? That may be something you can impact a lot at the port. Or like you said, it doesn't have to be statewide lands commissioner - could also be fire commissioners, different things like that. Know if the role is a legislative position or an executive position - those are two very different types of roles. Are you going to be making decisions together with a team? Are you the one who the buck stops with and you're doing that yourself? Those are all things to consider and you have to think about - do your interests and skills align with that particular position? So for someone who has thought about - Okay, I am really fired up about this specific set of issues, I have identified what positions seem like they match best for me. I think I do want to run. I think I do want to do this. What's the next step that they should take? [00:08:32] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: They should absolutely get sign-off from family and friends - whoever that chosen family is, whoever that internal family is - because it's going to take everyone. And sometimes, especially in smaller races, you don't have the ability to get a high-paid consultant. And so your mom might also end up being your speechwriter. I think oftentimes folks do the best when they have someone who is closer to a normal voter as opposed to a political junkie actually listen to their speeches, listen to their answers, really listen to whether or not you're giving jargon or whether or not you're giving something that really resonates with the average person. And so your kitchen cabinet of folks that you assemble is going to be some mix of family and friends, plus people in the community - prominent folks and leaders and activists - I think those are some of the best assets that you can have, especially in these smaller races where you're not going to have a bunch of paid staff. Because somebody might have a friend of a friend who knows how to do graphic design and they can do all your Canva stuff for you. You're starting something very grassroots, very deep and passionate, and you need to figure out who your people are so that you have them with you in the trenches. And sometimes if you're busy, like a lot of us are working and running for office, you need to figure out who's just going to do the laundry - just the little things that make sure that you're able to keep going through the campaign cycle really, really matters. And so start assembling that list of who's going to help with what, and be really comfortable and ready to ask for help. I think that's one of the things that I have seen really knock down candidates - is an unwillingness to either ask for help, ask for what they need, or say no. And any mix of those things can really tank your campaign, so you got to be really secure in what you need, where you're trying to go, and how you're going to get there. [00:10:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - think you're 100% correct - you do need to sign off and negotiate how all of the people in your life are going to function during the time that you're running. And also with work - really important - for most of the people who are probably going to be listening to this who would be considering running - probably are working. And running for office is a significant time commitment - much more of a time commitment as things get closer to the election. But it's something that you do want to talk with your job about, talk with who you're reporting to about - make sure that they understand that you may need some flexibility, or figure that out as time goes on. It is really tough for someone to run while working an inflexible job. Unfortunately, there are things that both happen during the day, that happen during the evening - lots of demands on your time and resources at different times. And so understand what the road looks like - certainly something you're going to have to negotiate with and contend with and plan for. I want to talk about putting together the actual campaign team, which is one of the first things that someone, once they do make a decision to run, is going to do. What should their considerations be as they look to put together a team? [00:11:40] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yeah, so as I mentioned, there are a lot of races - say you're running for city council in a small city or you're running for port commissioner - there might not be enough resources either in terms of your own fundraising capacity to bring in a high paid consultant. Or there might not be, frankly, consultants - there's not enough consultants for how many candidates we have in this state. One of the places where we're running really low actually is fundraisers. And so you got to think about what the major roles are in a campaign. And those are - traditionally - someone to help you, organize you, or keep you on task with fundraising. Someone to help you make sure that you can reach voters in a way that will actually reach them - and so that is either a communications professional or a general consultant who will do different kinds of mailings, or text messaging, or help you figure out which folks you want to talk to at the doors or on the phones. That can bleed into a little bit with what's called a field director, so that's someone who can look at the lay of the land, look at who traditionally votes, and figure out who you need to talk to and how many times you need to talk to them to make sure they hear your message. And I would say a lot of times folks often want some sort of a social media director or some sort of a comms professional who's not just deciding how they meet voters where they're at with the message and how they develop that message, but also who is actually just trying to help drum up support and excitement about your campaign with your followers and with potential new voters. And those are two different lanes from a similar - it all works very closely together - better communications can help you get more fundraising, more money, more volunteers. But it's really pivotal that you identify who can take those roles, whether or not it's people who you actually pay and hire to do that. All of those roles are jobs that exist in the political ecosystem, but they're all also jobs that someone who maybe just does social media work on their own can help you with if they're a volunteer. So making sure that you have a time when you're coordinating all these folks if you're doing it all with volunteers, or maybe you have money to pay a fundraiser, but not a general consultant, or vice versa - those are the two major roles that people will often pay people for. And then the big one that is, I think, the most worth money - because if you're doing illegal things, it's hard to win a race - is compliance. We have a state that has one of the best transparency in campaigns and elections. So you've got to make sure you have someone who's willing to go to the trainings or who just knows that work because they're a professional in that work, who's willing to file your stuff in a timely fashion, make sure that all your disclosures are done, make sure that everything that you're raising and spending is reported above board because that's something that can really ding you in a campaign by either your opposition or just by the public. You're not trustworthy if you can't be bothered to do the homework of telling people what you're up to in a state where that's really required of you. So I think those are the four major roles is comms, field, treasury, consulting, and fundraising. [00:14:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that treasury piece is so important - just fundamentally - and would be one of the first people I locked down and put together. This is something that I often advocate, regardless of the size of the campaign - even if it's a small town or a big legislative or congressional campaign - have a professional paid treasury and compliance person. A lot of people don't realize that the campaign calls for a treasurer - you have to declare that when you file for office. And so a lot of times they think it is purely a financial thing. And so I have a friend who's a bookkeeper, I have a friend who's CPA who can totally do that - but that's actually the easier and simpler part. Alongside with treasury and built-in when we talk about treasury in a campaign context is that compliance - is the having to file all the required disclosures and reports, to follow the many campaign and spending regulations - everything from how you can accept money, maximum amounts that you can accept, how you track that, how you keep track of and collect cash and deal with that, the information you have to collect from all of the donors to report, how long before an election you can accept gifts of a certain size. All of that is a ton of rules and regulations. The PDC does a very good job in providing classes for people who are not professionals. So if you did want to have someone in that role who wasn't already doing it - start early, have them prepare by going to those trainings and doing that. But the compliance part is the most important part of that - I just cannot underscore that enough. Also, it's probably good to talk about the difference between people here, these positions - okay, so campaign manager and consultant - What is the difference? What do they do? In the campaign context, usually a general consultant is handling strategy and communications usually. The details of that can vary based on what your needs are, who's on your team, what is contracted - but make it a point to be clear on what those roles and responsibilities are, have a contract so that there's no confusion about who is responsible for what. Sometimes a consultant is just going to do paid communications like mail, or digital video, or ads, or things like that. Sometimes they're very involved in strategy and day-to-day preparation for interviews, or helping with endorsements, or all of that - those are pretty normal things that come with professional political consultants, at least. What I would say most of all is that whether or not you officially hire someone in that role or not - usually if you can, I advocate hiring that - of course, I am a political consultant, but I don't work with candidates, so it's not self-interest - it's important to have someone who has navigated campaigns and races like yours. There's lots of stuff that is specific to the campaign world. It is not just like marketing. There's a whole different cadence. There's lots of intricacies and relationships that are useful and valuable - and they know how to negotiate through that. They know how to put together a campaign plan, how to target voters. You want someone who has experience doing that - if it's not a paid consultant, someone who has shepherded, successfully, candidates through that whole thing before. And usually consultants are more on the strategy end of things - so helping to construct what the messaging is, helping to construct what the plan is. Campaign managers are usually more on the operational side of things - so implementing the campaign plan, putting the field plan into work, working with other volunteers, working with the rest of the team, and leading the crew there - from everything administrative to all of that. Sometimes in small local races, all you can afford is - and a very valuable thing in addition to a treasurer - is a campaign manager. And then you're working with your team of people to handle the rest and to do the strategy. It's helpful to look at what people who have run in that jurisdiction before and who have been successful have done - how they've constructed their campaign - you can see what people have spent and kind of reconstruct what their teams look like through public disclosure reports through the PDC - make use of that information. This doesn't mean you have to mimic that, but it is useful to know so that if you are deviating from it for a reason, you understand what the pros and cons of that are and what the implications of that are. What other considerations would you suggest? [00:19:16] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yeah, I would say the Public Disclosure Commission website has some of the best free information that you can get for your campaign just by looking through it - because you can find both what past campaigns have done, what they've paid for, what kind of budgets that they've had in the past based on how much they've raised. You can also see lists of lobbyists. So if you're really interested in doing health care reform, you might call through all the health care lobbyists and they might be a good pot of money for you, once you start thinking through what your lens is on that - are you going to call the folks who are interested in it in the way that you are interested in it? Probably. I think sometimes lobbyist is a bad word, but more often than not - there are good ones and bad ones. So making sure that you call the ones who are lobbying for the things that you care about - I think those are great ways to build your network and build more allies in the work that you're trying to achieve by running for these offices. [00:20:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And that's a good point that you raise - just the alignment with the team, which sometimes is underrated. And unfortunately, there's a shortage of political professionals in the state in many areas - we're working on that. It can be hard when there's a limited pool of people available, but it is critical to have people who are generally aligned with who you are, what your priorities are - and who back that, and who are consistent. Otherwise, we get to a situation - and unfortunately, we've seen quite a bit of this lately - where one, someone may not know how to really communicate with voters about who you are, what you care for, and what you believe. If someone is used to messaging the opposite - if someone has advocated against renter protections, has advocated against more housing, has worked for interests that you traditionally have opposed or competed with - they're going to be more used to and skilled to working with and messaging things in that characterization. They oftentimes struggle to communicate outside of their own alignment and their own experience. And there's also the problem of consultants working with multiple candidates who have one candidate positioned in one way - hey, there's a progressive here, but there's a more moderate or conservative over there. And unfortunately, the messaging that they're pumping into the environment, into the community is directly refuting what you're doing. We've seen that a few times- [00:21:38] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Too many times. [00:21:38] Crystal Fincher: -in the very recent past. It's a problem. Or someone just doesn't have the types of networks or connections in the community that are useful to you, that are relevant to who you are, and are not able to put together and really understand and communicate with the coalition that you need to build in order to be successful - that may look different than coalitions that they've successfully built before. Do they generally work with candidates like you? Are they generally communicating and really making the vision clear, and being successful reaching voters with candidates like you? Those are very important considerations. And I think people ignore that and - Oh, well, they're the only person available, or just they were cheaper. - that backfires all of the time. [00:22:26] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Way too many times to count. [00:22:28] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. So the alignment is really important, and I think it's getting more important as we go on in years here. So, okay - they're putting together the campaign team - a couple of tips and things to look out for when it comes to some of the general areas of the campaign. When it comes to a budget, how should they approach a budget? [00:22:51] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I like to say - you should approach your budget of your campaign the way, if you've ever run a small business, you might think about it like that. Because you are mostly seeking donations - unless for some reason someone here is wealthy enough to self-fund their campaign - you want to be a good steward of money that's coming into you, either from friends and family or from organizations that value your values and want to see you in. Because all those resources are finite, you want to make sure your budget reflects your values. So if you're running as a progressive person who values workers, you're going to want to make sure that you use union printed materials, union workplaces. Or if you're doing an event in a hotel for some reason, use a union hotel - don't use a non-union hotel. Those kinds of things that really make sure that what you're doing and what you're paying for aligns with the kind of values of your campaign really, really matters - both because it sets the tone for your values and for how you might govern, and it helps put money back into that same ecosystem that's helping support you. You also want to make sure that you've got enough money for the essentials. So we all tend to know that using labor materials - because we're paying people what they're worth - is a little bit more expensive than non-union materials. It's worth it, but you just got to make sure your budget reflects that if you're going to spend a bunch of money on printed mail pieces that you've got the money to do so. And that might mean less yard signs. Yard signs are one of the most visible things that people love to spend money on, but they're really expensive and they don't actually really equate to votes. Most people who see yard signs driving by - they're for visibility, they're for sort of creating the buzz - and they're for donors, I like to say. But they're not really for getting out any votes - yard signs don't actually vote. But mail pieces are much more likely to land in a mailbox with someone's ballot - they're more likely to see it as they're filling out their ballot. Digital is huge and important, and it helps get your name out there. General advertising rules say that you should probably see someone's name or see someone's face seven or eight times before it sort of sticks, especially in a big campaign year when everybody else is also doing the same thing. So the more touches you can get on a voter, the more likely they are to remember your name. So your budget should reflect how you're going to try to reach the voters - it should be very heavy on direct voter contact opportunities and possibilities. And some of that will be if you're able to fund a campaign staffer - because they'll help you get to more voters, or help you get through more endorsement questionnaires, or maybe help you schedule if your schedule is really busy. And your budget should make sure that it reflects, like we mentioned earlier, that priority of having someone who can do the compliance. Even if you're giving your friend 50 bucks to make sure they're up on whatever rules are coming out of the PDC, I think it's really important to make sure you fund that. And like governing, budgets are our values documents. You want to make sure that it just reflects what you're trying to accomplish and how you're trying to accomplish it. And make sure that it is scaled for roughly how much of a budget people have spent on your race in the past. It helps, as you're shopping for a consultant, to know that - Hey, I'm running for school board. I've seen people in the past spent between $40k and $80k on this kind of race and this kind of school board size so that when the consultant says, Oh, your budget should be $200k, you kind of have a sniff test of whether or not that's real or not, so you know whether or not you want to hire that person. So you have done a little bit of your own research to know what kind of ballpark - because when something costs you $40k versus $120k, that's literally money that you're going to have to help find. So you got to be sure that you're willing to bite off what you can actually chew in terms of the kind of race you want to run. [00:26:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely - that all makes sense. I also want to caution people against spending too much, especially on people, too early. This is about being a good steward of resources. And unfortunately, what I have seen happen too many times from afar is running out of money basically mid-campaign or spending way too much money on staff and overhead. And then when it comes time to communicate with voters - which is basically the most important thing that you're going to be doing - not having enough money to do that, which is basically just sabotaging your own campaign. A good rule of thumb is that at least two-thirds of what you raise should be going towards direct voter contact. So that's not going towards just paying the salary of your campaign manager or the retainer of your consultant, your fundraiser retainer - those can all add up really quick. Or as you go to assemble a team, you're like - Okay, I've got the best team of people. Yes, it's going to cost me $8,000 a month, but I'm sure we'll get it. You've got to go beyond just the hope and vibes to - is that really a level of expense that you can sustain and build on top of to have the war chest needed to communicate with voters? I see that wind up really backwards - people spend 75% on staff sometimes - and that's when we're talking behind the scenes, months before the end of the election, going, This actually is not possible for them to do. They don't have any money to do that communication that's so necessary because voters - most voters just don't pay attention, which is also just a really good thing for people to generally know. People generally don't read news articles - most people don't read them at all. The 20% who do mostly just read headlines. People don't pay attention to politics. Most people learn that there's an election coming because they get their ballot in the mail. People like us are in the middle of campaigns for months and months and months, and it seems like everyone in our circle knows, so this must be things that most of the community is paying attention to and aware of. That is so not the case - you have to communicate with people. And unfortunately, so much of that is paid. Like you said, the mail, the advertisements that you see in newspapers, the digital ads, the videos, social media pushes - which are somewhat limited politically in Washington state - but just doing all of that is critical to winning a race. And you're doing that the heaviest late in your campaign, which is why we see all of the ads and the stuff generally happen around the time you get your ballot until Election Day. So have enough money for that. Fund that stuff first - that's always been my rule. Fund communication, direct voter communication first - and then as you can afford other things, when you get money in the door, it's looking pretty consistent, then you can add on to there. But be very realistic about that. And be realistic about your fundraising and take those early cues seriously. If you start fundraising and you're pulling in $3,000 a month and you're spending $5,000 a month, you need to quickly reorient things, reorganize things in your campaign, redo your budget so that it fits with what you're doing. And you either need to trim expenses or see how maybe you can fundraise more. But that's also going to rely on you, and your discipline with fundraising is another thing that's going to be really important. When it comes to raising those funds, what are the biggest tips that you have? [00:30:05] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Ask. Ask everyone you know - your pastor, your second grade teacher, your former intern colleague three jobs ago. I like to joke that your phone is your best weapon in a campaign - it's where your list is going to come from, it's who you're going to be calling and texting and asking for help and money and all of the things. Anybody who you don't ask and knows you're running - quite frankly, might be a little bit offended that you didn't ask if they're a political person. I have run years and years and years of candidate trainings. And every year I tell the people in our cohorts, call me for money - if you're running and you didn't call me for money, I don't know that you actually listened to the training I gave you. And I think in the time that I've been doing it - of the hundreds of women and people of color I've trained to run for office - I think 10 tops have actually asked me for money. And I give them my cell phone and my email. Make sure that you actually ask everyone in your life. Anybody who sends you a birthday text - those are people to ask for money, they're thinking of you. Anybody who puts on your Facebook wall - Happy Birthday - those are people who are thinking of you. Anybody who you've had a meaningful relationship with, who knows your values, knows your heart, knows your drive, is someone you should ask. And those are the first people you should ask. And then you start building out from there to some of the other folks you should ask. There might be folks who are diametrically opposed on values or otherwise to whoever you're running against, and those are also people who you should ask for money - much later in the campaign. There's also oftentimes people who are really interested in seeing folks who look or have your values run for the seat that you're running for, and there's oftentimes people who are interested in just changing the way democracy looks - and so those are also sometimes people who you might ask for money from. But really, really, really make sure that you're talking to your folks that are closest to you first - that includes your parents, if you have them, that includes your grandparents, your kids, your cousins. Everybody who's closest to you and loves you probably is going to give you at least 50 bucks or something - because they love you. Even if you have a parent who is deeply opposed to your politics, they care about you, they love you - if you still have that relationship, you should ask. Let them say no. And I think that's the number one rule for fundraising is - You don't get any money that you don't ask for, so ask everybody unabashedly. I found this last campaign cycle that texts were actually a really great way of getting people to give, as opposed to - we used to call it call time. We still call it call time, but you don't have to make as many phone calls as we did in the past. You definitely have to make phone calls, but it can also be text time, it can also be Facebook Messenger time. And be really detail-orientated - keep a list or keep track of who you're asking so you're not asking the same person five times that are ghosting you. Let them ghost you, but make sure you do ask once. And then I would say also make sure that you're asking for an amount - it's really helpful if you're calling your uncle who's very wealthy, ask him for a max. And if you're calling your cousin who delivers pizza, maybe ask him for 20 bucks. Make your ask appropriate for who the person is, but don't try to undersell anybody - it's kind of a difficult science to finding the right amount to ask people. [00:33:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the better you do with the people who you do have an existing relationship, the people who do love and care about you, the easier it's going to be later on down the line when you're talking to people who you don't yet know - people who you may just know that you're politically aligned with or they're passionate about an issue that you plan to take action on. It's going to make you look more credible if you start out with a solid fundraising performance, and that's going to build momentum down the line. I think those are great tips. One I would add would be - Don't make excuses for people. Let them say no to you. A lot of times, and I think even more with women and people of color - as the trainings we've done have really illuminated this - there's different relationships with money among many communities, People from communities who traditionally haven't grown up with as much wealth as we see in most of the political class. And that obviously impacts the approach to things, and the way we think about things, and even the way we prioritize - Oh, they have so much more important things going on, I don't want to bother them with that. And that feeling is coming from a place of caring, but it is also an act of caring - and people are happy to support someone who they are confident is the right person for the job and who's going to help people in their community and people like them. And so sometimes - I've sat in call time with a number of people, and they'll be like, Oh, this person's never, never going to give, or they don't have anything, or they're in this tough position. And a lot of times, those are the people who are happiest to give. Now, you don't ever want to break anyone - like you said, asking for an amount that is doable and appropriate - you don't want someone to wind up in a bad financial position. But also, they're the ones who know their financial position best. And it's real easy to get presumptive about that - you may not know. And people have money set aside to give to various causes - they might have that money already available to do that. So don't ever assume someone can't give. It's okay if they say no, but you should absolutely ask. And you should make a strong case and ask with confidence. Sometimes people are much more confident in raising money for a different cause, but it's much more complicated and there's a lot of self-consciousness around asking for it for yourself. But that's a very important thing, and we have to get better people into these elected positions, people who are more aligned with their communities. And the only way that happens is by going through this. I wish we were in a political system where money did not matter. Unfortunately, we are - and so we do have to deal with this and contend with it. And it would be a shame to put all of the time and energy into running a campaign without doing all you can to fundraise and give yourself the resources necessary to win. I also want to talk about just tips for messaging and how people can be authentic. I think sometimes people feel conflicted - they're used to seeing politicians give non-answers, avoid taking stances and positions on a wide variety of things - that being authentic is risky. What advice do you give to someone who is passionate about issues, who really wants to help, but is questioning - How do I communicate with people in an authentic way? [00:36:49] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I think really being yourself matters. I have seen, especially I think with candidates of color or first gen candidates, this want to sort of cosplay white, or do a thing that isn't really authentic, or be a Leslie Knope when you're really not Leslie Knope - you're probably more like somebody else who is more uncouth. Be that person. People really appreciate the authenticity of how you show up, what you look like, in addition to what you're saying. If you're not comfortable in a suit jacket all the time - unless it says that you're required to wear that, don't wear that. Wear what makes you comfortable. Be confident in who you are. And that's all going to come out in your answers and in your voice. And really be willing to own and accept that you don't know everything. You're not an expert in everything yet. Most elected officials aren't an expert in anything, quite frankly, before they get there. And then they get there and they learn a lot and they grow and they do more. But even if you are an expert in something, accept that there's going to be things that you're not an expert in and be willing to own that as well. If somebody can ask you a really tough political question that makes you uncomfortable, just be honest with people about - Hey, I might step in this a little bit, but here's my answer. Or, be willing to say - You know what? I don't know the answer to that right now. Let me do some research and get back to you. And just make sure that you do actually follow up with people - follow up matters - no one expects you to have every answer. I can't tell you the amount of times I would knock on a door and talk to someone who's deeply concerned about some minutia of city government that I was like - I have been in government for decades and I don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to go research that, come back with an opinion on it - because I don't know what my opinion is on it yet because I just learned what this issue is. And so just be willing to do the follow-up when people ask you things - I think that really matters, it really helps. And be ready to be brazen and be standing who you are and what your values are - it's going to make you a better candidate, it's going to make you more authentic, and it's going to make you more relatable. Because even if you are not what you think a candidate or politician should be or look like, you are because you're doing it. So just be that person. And especially if you have an opinion that is different from what you think the room wants - I've also seen candidates fall into the trap of showing up at an endorsement meeting for an organization where they're only loosely aligned with the issues - be authentic to that. Because you don't want to lie to people and tell them what they want to hear, and then go and tell a different room of people the opposite - that also messes with your authenticity. Be authentically who you are all of the time and be willing to own where you might disagree with people because I think that matters as much in governing as it does always agreeing with people. People respect you more. [00:39:24] Crystal Fincher: Yes. My approach in advising candidates has followed that path. And really, it's because you're running in order to govern. And if you don't run as who you are and authentic to who you are - just trying to give the right answers and not give the wrong answers - when you do get elected, people don't know what you stand for, people have different impressions of what you would do, and you basically paint yourself into a box when you govern. You didn't run on anything, so you don't have a mandate for what you're going to do, which makes you afraid to do something because then people might get mad at you - because what you spent your campaign doing was trying to prevent people from getting mad at you. No one has a good time with that. No one is served with that. You don't govern effectively like that. And there are many examples we can look around at right now and look at how people who avoided taking stances on issues are now struggling to deal with those issues when they're elected. And so you have to be authentic to yourself in order to give yourself a shot when you are elected at accomplishing the things that are so important to you for the community. Another thing on the point of governing, one thing that I see electeds struggle with - specifically sometimes those who come from more of an advocacy or an activism background - is how to translate that advocacy, the energy into policy. What tips would you have on navigating through that? [00:41:01] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: I would say - as much as being authentic on the campaign trails, you've got to be authentic as an elected official. So if you have made a lot of promises on the campaign trail, you got to make sure you follow through. I think when you're just starting out, there's a big learning curve. You got to figure out sort of where the bathrooms are, how this thing works - but take some of the low hanging fruit that is a little bit easier and start working on that. Start trying to figure out how you can deliver some wins that are doable so that you can start learning how to pass bills, and how to legislate, and how to govern on the easy things before you start biting off the hard stuff later. And really be ready to deliver for the folks who you made promises to if you did - otherwise, you're not really doing a service to the people who helped get you there, the people who are depending on you. And it might be something that you'll got to go back and say - Hey, this is going to take some time. Especially if you're from an advocacy position and you've got the ear of the folks who are asking for stuff - talk to them about what it looks like on the inside and how they can be helpful. Something that I learned working both at Planned Parenthood and One America organizing advocacy is that sometimes the push from the outside is as helpful for the elected official on the inside. It's not always adversarial. Sometimes it's just they need that extra nudge, and see how you can make your friends who helped get you there as helpful to help you pass things and be more effective for the exact communities we're all trying to help. [00:42:20] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's great advice. And then also just the nuts and bolts of - governing is action-based. People make a lot of promises on the campaign trail - really campaigning is talking, it's making a lot of promises, making a speech and saying that you care about something. Where really, once you're elected, it's the action that is the proof of the caring. So you're going to have to learn how to write that ordinance about the issue that you said you wanted to address. You're going to have to learn how to turn that into policy, how to speak to different impacted parties in your community, how to talk to people who you disagree with and who you may not placate as you develop your policy and write your ordinances or write your bills. But it's important to hear from them just to make sure that you understand what their perspective is, that you understand what the challenges they're having with it. You may not disagree with them, or you may learn something that - Hey, they're saying this is a concern. I can make this tweak without fundamentally altering the thing that I'm doing, and maybe I avoid some unintended consequences. That's all a really important process. But really it is now action-based - it's about what are you doing, whether it's allocating funding, writing an ordinance - but those are also things that are not intuitive and not easy to do. So people better work on getting familiar with what that process is, talk to people who are doing it, and learn how to get that done. Because you really should hit the ground running as much as possible and work on crafting that policy. [00:44:02] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Yep, there's a reason the president comes in with a first 100-day plan. You don't have to have 100 things you do in your first 100 days, but you should definitely have one thing - seems doable. When I first got appointed, no one asked me to do it, but because of my background in choice and reproductive justice, the first thing I did was make sure that folks who were trying to get gender-affirming care and abortions were protected in our city. No one asked for that, but that was my value set - I came in, I did it, and we keep it pushing. We do the next thing that matters to us. So have a thing that you're ready to do if you get there, because then you can be talking about that on the campaign trail. [00:44:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Great advice. So that is number one with authenticity. And number two, over the past 15 years - have heard so many times from consultants or political people - Oh, this person is the ideal candidate. And so many times people who look like me, people who look like several people I've helped to elect, people who look like you, or have a background like people like us are not at all what people envision when they're saying - They're the ideal candidate. There is no ideal candidate. The ideal candidate is just someone who really cares about and is willing to serve their community. And that comes in so many different packages. And also what we see, which a lot of people are not aware of, is that when someone doesn't look like what they think of oftentimes as the standard politician - if they do have a different background, that's more exciting to voters, that turns out more people, and they are more successful on average than someone who is like the traditional candidates. So don't let people's expectations, don't let the current composition of whatever body you're looking to get elected to intimidate you from doing that. Like you said before, you are qualified. People are qualified in many different ways. For some people, that looks like a bunch of degrees or owning a business. For other people, that looks like having personal lived experience with the issues that you're trying to make a difference with and having a perspective that is missing but desperately needed in the body. I do think it's important to have been working in the community, to be able to demonstrate that you care about and are credible in the issues that you're talking about, that there is a connection with people in your community. If you run and people are like, Who the heck is that? And no one from anywhere knows where you are, I would suggest there should be more groundwork put into what you're doing. You should have a lot of people who do know who you are and can attest to what you have done, how you've helped in your community and all that. But don't let you feeling like you don't fit be what stops you. On the flip side of that, I will also say - be aware of when a body has excluded people like you. And that has to be a consideration that sometimes people are hesitant to talk about or it's - Oh, it's great. We need someone like that in that body. - and everyone's excited to get them there, without understanding that that there might be a hostile place currently, that that there may come with a lot of challenges for that candidate that other people may not have had to face. Also being realistic about what the history of the body that you're joining is, what the current composition is, why different people may not be there - and be prepared to contend with that, knowing that that may be a challenge when you get there. I think that's something we don't talk about enough that we need to talk about more. [00:47:40] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Absolutely. It's funny you say that - that was actually my lived experience. So I ran for Tacoma City Council in 2013 - I didn't win. I did try to take out a very popular incumbent - we have a lot of political dynasties in Pierce County, so he was a son of somebody, like a lot of them are. But at the time, I would have been the first Latina elected to Tacoma City Council. I didn't win, and then 10 years went by and we got an open seat. And I was calling around to folks - because my favorite thing to do is help people run for office - and I was like, Who are we going to get to run for this appointment? And multiple people were like, You, man, what are you talking about? So I applied and then got the appointment and then ran for the seat. And now I'm actually the first Latina elected to the Tacoma City Council 10 years later because now was actually the moment that the city was ready for that, that people were pushing for that. And 10 years ago, that was less the case, even though it shouldn't have been - our Latino population hasn't skyrocketed in that time - but it's just what's for you hits you, what doesn't misses you. But it's also a matter of - I was willing to answer that call because it was still a need. And I think that that's part of it - is knowing what these environments are. And I am so grateful that I'm on the council I'm on now, as opposed to the one that was there 10 years ago - that would have been miserable. And now we have a majority women council, we have a majority BIPOC council - it's just such a better place to be a part of now. Not to say anything disparaging about prior council, because we had a great mayor who's now a congresswoman, but it's just a different time and it's a more fun time for me to be in office. Also, it's just a different place in my career, so I think making sure that you've got that conviction to keep following through because you may not make it the first time is also a big part about thinking how you run for office. [00:49:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's a really good point. There are so many people who run, unsuccessfully, their first time. And it's important to define what success looks like for you, even if you aren't elected. You were smart about that, there are a number of people I see being smart about that - and others not being so smart. There are so many people who are successful on their second run, and that's because of how they set themselves up in their first run. Are they building relationships? Are they growing their network and their coalition? Are they working together with people in positive ways? Are they finding ways to build with different people in different ways? I see things backfire and people set themselves back if they're bitter and negative. Politics is all coalition based - you may disagree with someone on something here and agree with them on something else. You work together on the something else, and then you just build a coalition with different people on the other thing that you're working for that you care about. You can do that while being true to yourself, while not doing things that are philosophically disagreeable to you. But it is about building bridges, maintaining lines of communication, building relationships, people being able to trust that they can count on you, that you are true to your word, that you are who you say you are, you'll do what you say you'll do. Or if that changes, that you clearly communicate that and why. Building those relationships throughout the campaign is important - it will help you if you are elected to govern. And if you aren't elected, it helps you to run again if you so choose. And even if you don't run again, they help you to make the type of change - even in an unelected capacity - that you were trying to make in an elected capacity. So really look at how you're setting yourself up, regardless of what the outcome is. Run the kind of race that you will not have regrets if you don't win - that has been a piece of advice that I've given, that I strongly believe. Do things that you can live with throughout the whole thing. If you sell yourself out - whatever that looks like to you - and do things you're uncomfortable with in the name of winning, and you don't, there's so much regret tied to that. And then you're looking to the community like someone who you aren't and nothing good comes from that. So again, being authentic, running a race that's true to you is very important. Any closing piece of advice that we haven't gotten to, or that you would want to leave people with? [00:51:54] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Regardless of whether or not you're paying a campaign team, or you're getting volunteers, or truly anybody with a pulse who exists and is willing to help - make sure you're setting yourself up with a team of people you trust, you can depend on, and that you quite frankly want to spend a lot of time with because you're going to spend a lot of time with them - either checking in on them or actually literally with them. And really, I like to take it the step further and say, Try to build the team that reflects the kind of workplace that you want to have. So sometimes that means having unionized campaign workers. Sometimes that means having an all-BIPOC or an all-woman staff or team. Make sure that you're intentionally seeking out the folks who are going to round out your opinion. So you might not have everyone be of the same demographic - it might be helpful depending on what you're up to, what you're doing - you don't want any gaps in who's in the room helping you make decisions so that you're not making decisions that don't make sense for a big part of the community. And then mentoring and leadership building is a big part of what I've done before getting to office and to get to office. So I like to be mindful of bringing people in who can learn this stuff so that maybe they then want to go be a consultant, because we need more BIPOC consultants. Or maybe they want to go later on and be a policy writer. They want to run for office themselves. I like to try to make sure that we spread the wealth and keep giving back and pulling forward with people. I like to say - I'm the first one, but I'm not going to be the last one in Tacoma. And so making sure that we're building those bridges and opportunities for mentorship is really helpful and important. And keeping your eyes open for who the next leaders are and bringing them in and lifting them up - I don't think having more of us in the world, in the politics, in the progressive movement is detrimental. This is not a crabs in a pot mentality - the more of us there are, the better it is and the better our policies can become. I'm going to want somebody to the left of me as much as I deal with those on the right of me. And it really all helps push and pull and help us all be better and get us to better policy solutions, ultimately, in the end, which is what we want. So I think that those are the big things is - how you build stuff that's going to build and outlive and outlast you. [00:53:56] Crystal Fincher: Wise words from someone who has walked that path and helped many other people walk it. Thank you so much for spending the time with us today, Councilmember Olgy Diaz. [00:54:07] Councilmember Olgy Diaz: Thank you. [00:54:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Women are still underrepresented in politics, despite serving in some of the highest numbers ever in 2023. The Greater Kansas City Women's Political Caucus is hoping to address that with a campaign school on January 20.

On Today's episode of The “Center”, we're joined by Anne Hoiberg, author of the book Tears of War: Stories of Refugee Women. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research “Status of Women in the States Report, nearly 21 million female immigrants currently live in the United States, making up more than 13% of the entire female population in the US. These women take on multiple roles, including roles as students, teachers, many kinds of professional positions, and also are spouses, parents, and caregivers within their families.During her 25-year career as a Research Psychologist with the United States government, Anne Hoiberg published two books and more than 130 scientific articles, book chapters, reports, and presentations. She currently serves as the President of the International Museum of Human Rights at San Diego, Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition, and La Jolla Pen Women as well as Co-President of the American Association of University Women (San Diego branch), Chairwoman of the Nile Sisters Development Initiative, and Secretary of the Peace Resource Center. She is a past president of the League of Women Voters of San Diego, the Women's Museum of California, the United Nations Association of San Diego, and National Women's Political Caucus. Anne volunteered as an election supervisor in “emerging” countries (eight missions) and has organized local, national, and international conferences. In 2012, she was inducted into the San Diego County Women's Hall of Fame. Her book Tears of War: Stories of Refugee Women, was published by Montezuma Publishing in December 2022. "Sweet Times" is by All Bets Off, and is provided by Adobe Stock.

This episode is lovingly dedicated to Jane.Lorraine Dusky is an award-winning journalist, editor and author who prefers to write stories that will make a difference. Her controversial memoir, BIRTHMARK, published in 1979, was the first from a mother to write about the grief of giving up a child to adoption. Lorraine soon became a lightning rod for controversies surrounding adoption. An advocate for adoptees' rights, she fought for legislation that would unseal original birth certificates.But she is not simply a woman who wrote about having given up a child. On other topics, she was a finalist for a National Magazine Award and won two Exceptional Merit Media Awards (EMMAs) from the National Women's Political Caucus for writing on the political issues of the day.Website: https://www.firstmotherforum.com/"Hole in my Heart: Love and Loss in the Fault Lines of Adoption" https://www.amazon.com/s?k=lorraine+dusky+hole+in+my+heart&crid=T77F36EVFZAL&sprefix=%2Caps%2C101&ref=nb_sb_ss_recent_1_0_recentMusic by Corey Quinn

Chaos: Charles Manson, The CIA And The Secret History Of The Sixties by Tom O'Neill (Part 2) - Audioboy https://tom-oneill.org/ Tom O'Neill is a writer and editor who has written for daily newspapers (Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Daily News) as well as national magazines and news weeklies (Village Voice, New York, Premiere, Details, Out, Philadelphia, Irish-America, Live, Detour). As a contributing editor at Us magazine (1991-1999) he wrote cover stories on some of the entertainment industry's biggest stars (Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Richard Gere) while reporting from the sets of hit television shows (Saturday Night Live, Fraiser, Northern Exposure). His first investigative story for Us, about the cut-throat battles waged by daytime talk-show producers for their guests (“Welcome to the Jungle”), spawned the magazine's popular investigative series, “The Us Report.” A subsequent story for the series by O'Neill, about the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a deranged fan (“Dangerous Minds”), was, in turn, used as the prototype for what would become the now-iconic E! Channel documentary series, E! True Hollywood Story. O'Neill's investigation into the unsolved slaying of a Hollywood starlet for Details magazine (“The Life and Death of Miss Hollywood”) was also adapted into a True Hollywood Story by the E! Channel and his expose of sexism at Saturday Night Live (“The Incredible Shrinking Woman of Saturday Night Live“) won an Exceptional Merit Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus and Radcliffe College in 1995. Since 1999, O'Neill has been researching a book about one of the most sensational crimes of the last century, the murder of actress Sharon Tate and others by the Manson Family. O'Neill graduated with a Bachelor in Fine Arts from New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. He currently resides in Venice, CA. https://tom-oneill.org/about/ Audio taken from: https://odysee.com/@audioboy:7/chaos-charles-manson-2:3

Chaos: Charles Manson, The CIA And The Secret History Of The Sixties by Tom O'Neill (Part 1) - Audioboy https://tom-oneill.org/ Tom O'Neill is a writer and editor who has written for daily newspapers (Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Daily News) as well as national magazines and news weeklies (Village Voice, New York, Premiere, Details, Out, Philadelphia, Irish-America, Live, Detour). As a contributing editor at Us magazine (1991-1999) he wrote cover stories on some of the entertainment industry's biggest stars (Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Richard Gere) while reporting from the sets of hit television shows (Saturday Night Live, Fraiser, Northern Exposure). His first investigative story for Us, about the cut-throat battles waged by daytime talk-show producers for their guests (“Welcome to the Jungle”), spawned the magazine's popular investigative series, “The Us Report.” A subsequent story for the series by O'Neill, about the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by a deranged fan (“Dangerous Minds”), was, in turn, used as the prototype for what would become the now-iconic E! Channel documentary series, E! True Hollywood Story. O'Neill's investigation into the unsolved slaying of a Hollywood starlet for Details magazine (“The Life and Death of Miss Hollywood”) was also adapted into a True Hollywood Story by the E! Channel and his expose of sexism at Saturday Night Live (“The Incredible Shrinking Woman of Saturday Night Live“) won an Exceptional Merit Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus and Radcliffe College in 1995. Since 1999, O'Neill has been researching a book about one of the most sensational crimes of the last century, the murder of actress Sharon Tate and others by the Manson Family. O'Neill graduated with a Bachelor in Fine Arts from New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. He currently resides in Venice, CA. https://tom-oneill.org/about/ Audio taken from: https://odysee.com/@audioboy:7/chaos-charles-manson:b

Have you ever wondered how a woman can raise her voice for advocacy, while being soft-spoken? Today we sit down with feminist icon, Letty Cottin Pogrebin. From being a founding editor of the revolutionary Ms. Magazine, a renowned author, to a fervent social activist, this is an intimate interview. Her recount of her public speaking experiences, in the face of complex and controversial topics, is a masterclass in itself!Are you curious about what it was like to be Betty Friedan's writer for the National Women's Political Caucus in Washington? Letty's retelling is filled with adventures, book tours, and interactions with legendary authors. Her unique perspective on the evolution of feminist literature is both insightful and captivating.Letty also takes us on a tour of her personal life, highlighting her feminism, self-love, and how she nurtured a healthy, enduring marriage. She spills the beans on how she and her feminist colleagues debunked myths and educated women about the importance of body positivity. She also sheds light on navigating a loving and equal relationship amidst life's challenges. Whether you've been an admirer of Letty or are just getting to know her now, this episode promises to illuminate, engage, and inspire. Buckle up for an enlightening conversation with a woman who truly shaped the feminist movement.BUY LETTY'S NEW MEMOIRSHANDA: A Memoir of Shame and SecrecyPHOTO LETTYby Mike LovettJOIN US! Become a patron of the podcast and get behind-the-scenes extras, discounts on merchandise and patron-only gifts. There are 6 tiers. Click HERE to learn more. JOIN OUR WALL OF FLAMEWe create 12 powerful audio documentaries every year that highlight women's true stories. Pledge $600 or more and your name, bio and portrait will be added to our virtual monument, The Wall of Flame. Check it out here. TALK TO UShttp://www.speakpipe.com/ifyouknewmeHELP OTHER WOMEN FIND USRate us on the Apple podcast app or on our website to help others find us. SOCIALS & WEBIf You Knew Me websiteInstagramFacebookLinkedinSign Up for our Newsletter! CREDITSProduced by Jamie Yuenger and Piet Hurkmans. Our show's musical intro and outro is taken from the track “Thursday” by the independent artist Nick Takénobu Ogawa.You can listen and support his music on bandcamp here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I was taking a walk at the Kensico Dam in Valhalla, NY when I spotted a woman working out swinging ‘sumthin' in the distance. I was curious what the heck she was doing and wanted to ask her. So, I walked over and saw she was swinging a contraption around her waist and hips, similar to what we used to do as kids with that old Skip-It toy you'd swing around your ankle and jump over with your other leg. 'Weighted Hula Hoops' she said are a Tik Tok Trend. Who Knew? I instantly felt I might need one too! LOL  I got to talking with Dr. Karen Blacks, who said according to her app, her 20 minutes of 'hula hooping' was the same as walking 2 miles, plus it tightens your core, she said.  A few laughs later, I find out like me, Dr. Blacks enjoys talking to strangers, so I told her about my upcoming little book, “How To Talk To Strangers, Advice From A Professional Stranger Talker.”  Then she told me she wrote a book called 'Experiencing God in The Ordinary'. Then she mentioned she was excited she was being ordained at a Baptist Minister that weekend, then… I invited her on my show to share the big hula hoop discovery and celebrate her accomplishment!   Meanwhile, next day Amazon delivered my own 'weighted hula hoop'.  I chose blue. It was pretty easy to figure out how to size it to my waist and attach the weighted thingy. What was challenging was figuring ‘where' to hula. I tried it inside my house and almost cleared all the glasses off my bar. I was too embarrassed to let my neighbors see me hula swinging outside my house, so I waited till almost dark and tried it out for like 2 minutes. Then I put it in my car and figured I'd just keep it there for when I went walking and do it in a random park. But every time I was about to take it out and swing it around, I thought I'd look stupid, so I didn't.   One day just as I walked into a CVS drugstore, my phone rang, and it was my bestie Mo calling from the parking lot telling me that I'd just parked next to her and walked past her car without noticing. I knew she was in a funky mood, so I thought I'd cheer her up on the way back out, and make her laugh by showing off my moves with my new hula hoop in the parking lot while she watched from inside her car. That was a good laugh.  Anyway, I finally found the perfect spot to do my hula exercise, a hideaway grassy area in my local park. The other day after walking I put it on, and got my weighted hula hooping swinging up to 5 minutes and found myself sweating. Even crazier, I checked my ‘steps' on my iPhone and sure enough it was like I had walked another half mile. I'm getting the hang of it now.   Last night after walking, right around dusk when I got back to my car in a mostly empty parking lot, I figured no one would notice me hula swinging. So I put it on, and hula hooped with my phone in my hand to just again see if it counted as ‘steps'.   Out of the corner of my eye I saw random woman walking in the distance toward her parked car but paid her no mind, until she turned and started walking toward me and I knew why. In her Norwegian accent she said,… ‘What' is that thing you're doing?”   I was laughing while still hooping as I told her, I had done the same exact thing when I saw the random Baptist Minister swinging her weighted hula hoop. Now the Norwegian lady wanted to get one too. So, while still swinging away, I gave her the name of it to look it up on Amazon.  Anyway, I decided some of you after reading this story, might get a kick out of the idea and want to try a weighted hula hoop too. I got my 'Dumoyi Smart Weighted Fit Hoop on Amazon'. Let me know if you get one. LOL    Meanwhile listen in and have some laughs and meet my latest 'Random Run In' Dr. Karen Blacks in this podcast of our live conversation from The Debbie Nigro Show.  When she's not 'hula hooping' at the dam, Dr. Karen Blacks serves as the Associate Minister, and Minister of Women's Initiatives at Antioch Baptist Church in Bedford Hills, New York. Dr. Blacks is also the founder of Women of God in the World, a welcoming community of over 10,000 women from 30+ countries. Dr. Blacks holds a Master of Divinity and a Doctor of Ministry from New York Theological Seminary and a Certificate of Specialization in Leadership and Management from Harvard Business School Online. She also has a heart for volunteering and can be found distributing food to those in need in the White Plains community. She serves on the Town of Bedford Prison Relations Advisory Committee, is a member of the Westchester NY Black Women's Political Caucus and is on the board of the Women's Empowerment Forum located in Liberia, Africa.

Schools are at the heart of communities across the United States, and teachers are at the heart of each school. Alexandra Robbins shares a year in the life of three teachers, the schools in which they teach, and the children whose lives they shape Robbins is the author of five New York Times bestselling books, is an investigative reporter and a recipient of the prestigious John Bartlow Martin Award for Public Interest Magazine Journalism, given by the Medill School of Journalism. In 2022, she also was honored for “Distinguished Service to Public Education.” She is the author of “The Overachievers,” a New York Times Editors' Choice and People magazine Critics' Choice, New York Times bestseller, “The Nurses: A Year of Secrets, Drama, and Miracles with the Heroes of the Hospital,” and “The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth.” Robbins' latest book, “The Teachers: A Year Inside America's Most Vulnerable, Important Profession,” described as “A remarkable piece of storytelling … with extraordinary reporting,” was released in March 2023. Robbins has written for several publications, including The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, Forbes and The Atlantic. She has appeared on television, on 60 Minutes, The Today Show, CBS Mornings, Oprah, The View and The Colbert Report and has appeared as an on-air expert on hundreds of other shows on dozens of networks.  She won the Best Single Article of the Year award from Media Industry News, an Exceptional Merit in Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus, the Donald Robinson Memorial Award for Investigative Journalism; the June Roth Award for Medical Journalism, among others.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Biggest traitor and criminal in human history! He makes #BenedictArnold & #Nixon look like a f* boy scout! #BENEDICTDONALD!

No doubt for her FUHRER to be able to intimidate the witnesses! CALL DOJ 202-514-2000 LEAVE MSG FOR JACK SMITH, ATTN: CAPITOL SIEGE SECTION TELL HIM TO HURRY UP AND INDICT THE 160 F* #GOPTRAITORS IN CONGRESS AND REMOVE THEM AT ONCE UNDER 14TH AMENDMENT! AND ALSO FILE TO REMOVE JUDGE CANNON FROM THE CASE! SHE TRIED TO TANK IT THREE TIMES ALREADY, WITH SCATHING OPINIONS OF HER MISCONDUCT AS A JUDGE IN THIS CASE FROM THE 11TH CIRCUIT CONSERVATIVE TRUMP-APPOINTED JUDGES! ARE THEY STUPID??? ALSO SHE'S UNQUALIFIED FOR TAKING ON A COMPLICATED CASE! SHE'S GOT 14 DAYS OF TRIAL EXPERIENCE!! "A LUNCHTIME OF EXPERIENCE"!

This is one of my favourite podcast conversations .  My guest is Alica Dara who is a nationally recognized speech and presentation coach who helps women (and men) CEO's, Global VPs, and Executive Directors find their Power Voice and use it to excel in their life and careers. She is also the founder and editor in chief of Womancake Magazine which delivers slices of wisdom along wildly inspiring essays, interviews, articles, visual art, and poetry by women over age 40.  This episode is about the importance of finding our voice in midlife to speak our truth as key to living our authentic next chapter.  We delve into how many of us in our generation were taught to silence our voices to “play nice” and how that has kept us disconnected from not only our voices but ourselves.   We also talk about power of the collective of midlife womens voices to challenge ageism, sexism and the patriarchy.  This is a lively conversation that we are both obviously very passionate about. ------ Alicia Dara is a nationally recognized speech and presentation coach. She has helped thousands of people including CEO's, Global VPs, and Executive Directors find their Power Voice and put it to work. Her most popular group training is "Power Voice for Career Women", which helps women strengthen their voices, clarify their messaging, and push back against workplace sexism. Corporate clients include Microsoft, Amazon, Kimpton Hotels, Planned Parenthood, and Columbia Bank. Private clients include the National Women's Political Caucus and the Female Founders Alliance. In 2023 Alicia became the Founder and Editor in Chief of Womancake Magazine.   https://www.aliciadara.com/ https://www.womancake.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliciadara/  

My guest today is dear friend and fellow speaker, Dame Shellie Hunt. We met years ago when we both spoke on Suzy Prudden's stage and became fast friends. We traveled together as mentors on the Billionaire Adventure Club to Egypt and that is where her organization “Women of Global Change” was born. Shellie is an incredible award-winning business owner, humanitarian, and friend. About my Guest: Dame Shellie Hunt is Founder and CEO of the Women of Global Change, Success is by Design LLC, ReMake MY Life LLC, Phoenix Flight Films, and multiple other companies. She is a Global Entrepreneur, Business Strategist, International Speaker, author, and TV executive producer. In 2014, the special honor of knighthood was bestowed upon Dame Shellie Ann Hunt by the Order of St. John. She is the proud recipient of the 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award from President Obama, along with the 2013 Humanitarian Award at the World Congress Center. Additionally, The Women of Global Change has received five awards for special recognition of service by four sitting US Presidents.  As the First Lady of Entrepreneurs, she has served tens of thousands of women and children worldwide through various communities and outreach programs. Shellie served on the national board of National Women's Political Caucus, hosted the 2014 EMMA Awards, is a lead mentor in the Billionaire Adventure Club, and is an expert contributor for Forbes.com. Her other appearances are numerous and include CBS, ABC, USA Today, CBS MoneyWatch, Beyond the Dow, HLN, and many others. She has worked with major corporations to include Time Warner, M3, The Young Entrepreneurs Society, VH1, Pacific Electric, and Kimberly Clark to name a few. Shellie has also taught reintegration to veterans in transition at Cal State Long Beach. She is a proud member of the Alliance of Women and Media, which promotes positive progress and change for women, and sits as a judge for the last eight years for nationally televised Gracie awards.     About the Host: Arvee Robinson is The Master Speaker Trainer, public speaking coach, international speaker, and author of Speak Up, Get Clients. She teaches business owners and entrepreneurs how to use public speaking as a marketing strategy so they can attract more clients, generate unlimited leads, grow their business, and make a difference with their words. Arvee has trained over 5,000 individuals, given over 3,500 speeches around the world and has shared the stage with speaking giants, such as Mark Victor Hansen, Les Brown, Brian Tracy, Tommy Hopkins, Loral Langemeier, Sharon Lechter, and many more. Arvee is the top “How to” trainer in public speaking today. She offers speech coaching, speaker training workshops, and public speaking mastermind programs. Her programs will grow your business and make you money for the rest of your life.   For more public speaking tips and public speaking skills, visit https://arveerobinson.com or attend her next LIVE event: http://Milliondollarspeakersummit.com   Follow Arvee Robinson on Social Media: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/arveerobinson/fanpage Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/arveerobinson  LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/arveerobinson Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/arveerobinson  YouTube: Arvee Robinson  

My guest today is Sue Harvey.Sue established Riverwise Leadership, previously New Direction Strategy, to help leaders and organizations do change better.  Working at the intersection of leadership coaching, team effectiveness, and change management, Sue guest leaders and teams to unlock their creativity and innate wisdom to deliver meaningful, lasting change. Sue serves emerging leaders and C-suite executives across a range of industries including life sciences, technology, health care, and professional services. She is a highly-rated faculty member for leadership development programs at a leading global professional services firm, and is also the founder and lead coach for “Creating What's Next,” a peer-coaching program for women in career transition. Before launching her own company, Sue was involved in organizational change from every angle – as a leader, as a team member, and as a C-suite advisor.  Previous positions include Chief of Staff to the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Deputy Communications Director for the Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, and executive-on-loan to the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. A Williams College graduate, Sue holds certificates in Leadership Coaching from Georgetown University's Institute for Transformational Leadership and in Change Management from Prosci.  She completed the Center for Creative Leadership's Leadership Development Program and UMass Boston's Emerging Leaders Program.  She is a recipient of the Wonder Woman Award from the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus.  Sue lives outside Boston with her husband, two children, and a rotating menagerie of pets. Sue and I met last summer and sensed an immediately connection.  It's truly a delight to share this conversation with you today.  Sue shares pieces of her journey and transition out of the corporate world where she was extremely successful and yet came to a place where she knew she wanted and needed a change.   We talk about the courage that it takes to make such a change, Sue shares how she was inspired to action through watching someone else's courageous act, and the power and contagion of courage. Sue, thank you so much for sharing these glimpses into your story, the wisdom you have cultivated, and your humble courage and transparency.  You are an inspiration!  And you embody the courage and I hope many catch the contagion of courage from you as your story is shared through this platform.Connect with Sue:LinkedInMake Life Less Difficult

Virginia (Ginny) Apuzzo who served as Executive Director of the National LGBTQ Task Force from 1982 to 1986 talks with Emmy Winner Charlotte Robinson host of OUTTAKE VOICES™. The Task Force is the country's oldest LGBTQ advocacy group celebrating 50 years of advancing freedom, justice and equality for LGBTQ people. This milestone year will recognize and celebrate the Task Force's rich history of driving progress within the LGBTQ community from its early days lobbying the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a mental illness and advocating for AIDS funding to longstanding campaigns to Queer the Census, Queer the Vote, work for trans rights, fight for reproductive justice and bringing an intersectional approach to the LGBTQ movement. The celebration kicks off this month with their Creating Change Conference from Friday February 17th to Tuesday February 21st in San Francisco, CA at the Hilton Hotel Union Square. This year's theme is “The State of the Movement: Our Past. Our Present. Our Future”. Creating Change is the foremost political, leadership and skills-building conference for our LGBTQ social justice movement. The event will include speakers Angelica Ross, activist X Gonzalez and more. Then the 50th celebration will continue next month in Miami Beach, Florida at the 30th Annual Winter Party Festival with this year's theme “Live Free Play Hard Give Back” that takes place Wednesday March 1st to Tuesday March 7th. Other events related to the 50th celebration will include the Task Force Gala on October 22nd, its premier annual celebration of South Florida's LGBTQ community with more details to be announced as they are confirmed. We talked to Ginny about what it was like when she led the National LGBTQ Task Force in the 1980's and her spin on our LGBTQ issues.  Virginia "Ginny" Apuzzo became a nun in 1967 at the Sisters of Charity in the Bronx and left the convent in 1969 after the Stonewall riots. During the 1970s she became a member of the Coordinating Committee of the Manhattan Women's Political Caucus and earned a Master of Science in Urban Education from Fordham University. In 1978 she co-founded the Lambda Independent Democrats and ran for the New York State Assembly. In 1979 she served as the assistant commissioner for operations in the New York City Department of Health and became a strong advocate for people with AIDS. She then served as executive deputy of the New York State Consumer Protection Board and as the vice chair of the New York State AIDS Advisory Council. She was also President of the New York State Civil Service Commission and Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service. In 1996 she became the Associate Deputy Secretary of Labor at the United States Department of Labor and in 1997 she became the Assistant to the President for Management and Administration under the Clinton administration. In 2007 she began serving on the Commission on Public Integrity where she worked until her retirement. The National LGBTQ Task Force advances full freedom, justice and equality for LGBTQ people. They are building a future where everyone can be free to be their entire selves in every aspect of their lives.  For More Info… LISTEN: 600+ LGBTQ Chats @OUTTAKE VOICES

Throughout her life, Shirley Chisholm fought for coalitional change. She was the first Black woman elected to the United States Congress in 1968, the first Black woman to run for President of the United States in 1972, co-founder of both the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Women's Political Caucus, both in 1971, and co-founder of the National Congress of Black Women in 1984. Toward the end of her life, Chisholm told an interviewer: “I want history to remember me … as a Black woman who lived in the 20th century and who dared to be herself. I want to be remembered as a catalyst for change in America.”  Joining me in this episode is Dr. Anastasia Curwood, Professor of History and Director of the Commonwealth Institute for Black Studies at the University of Kentucky, and author of Shirley Chisholm: Champion of Black Feminist Power Politics.  Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The episode image is Shirley Chisholm speaking at the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, on July 12, 1972. The photographer was Warren K. Leffler, and the photograph is in the public domain and available via the Library of Congress.  The audio clip of Shirley Chisholm speaking is from her presidential campaign announcement on January 25, 1972, in Brooklyn; the audio is courtesy of the New York City Municipal Archive, via C-SPAN. The audio clip of Rep. Barbara Lee is from Two Broads Talking Politics, Episode 433: Barbara Lee, which originally aired on October 9, 2020; the episode was recorded, edited, and produced by Kelly Therese Pollock and is used with express permission. Additional Sources: “‘Unbought and Unbossed': When a Black Woman Ran for the White House,” by Jackson Landers, Smithsonian Magazine, April 25, 2016. “‘Unbought and Unbossed': How Shirley Chisholm Helped Paved the Path for Kamala Harris Nearly Five Decades Ago,” by Stuart Emmrich, Vogue, August 20, 2020. “Politicians reflect on Shirley Chisholm's legacy 50 years after her historic presidential run,” by Anna Lucente Sterling, NY1, February 17, 2022. “CHISHOLM, Shirley Anita,” House.gov. “What You May Not Know About TC Alum Shirley Chisholm,” Teacher's College, Columbia University, Published Wednesday, November 30, 2022. “Shirley Chisholm, 'Unbossed' Pioneer in Congress, Is Dead at 80,” by James Barron, The New York Times, January 3, 2005. “Congressional Black Caucus swears in its largest group in history,” by Cheyanne M. Daniels, The Hill, January 3, 2023. “Democratic women lawmakers who broke through in 2018 now step into leadership roles,” by Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay, The 19th, January 3, 2023. “Rep. Lauren Underwood elected to House Democratic leadership position,” by Lynn Sweet, Chicago SunTimes, December 1, 2022. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Protecting Your Nest with Dr. Tony Hampton. Dorothy Brown is an attorney and certified public accountant. She served as the clerk of the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois from 2000-2020. She has served as the president of the National Women's Political Caucus of Greater Chicago and as the president of Lutheran Social Services, Illinois. She is also the founder/Executive Director of the Star Scholarship Fund. In this discussion, Dr. Tony and Dorothy talk about: (05:00) A little bit about who Dorothy is as a person (07:08) Dorothy's earliest memories from her childhood in Louisiana (10:28) What a clerk for a circuit court does (14:31) Dorothy's health journey (26:20) Why people struggle to focus on their own health (29:53) Advice for people struggling to get started with a low-carb diet (33:43) How to balance exercise with recovery Thank you for listening to Protecting Your Nest. For additional resources and information, please see the links below.    Links:   Dr. Tony Hampton: Linktree Instagram Account LinkedIn Account Ritmos Negros Podcast Q Med Symposium for Metabolic Health Lectures

Today's episode is a recording of a live forum between Seattle Municipal Court Judge candidates - Judge Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi for Position 3, Nyjat Rose-Akins and Judge Damon Shadid for Position 7. The forum was live streamed by Hacks & Wonks on October 12, 2022 and moderated by Crystal Fincher.   Resources Find links to the YouTube video and transcript here   Campaign Website - Judge Adam Eisenberg   Campaign Website - Pooja Vaddadi   Campaign Website - Nyjat Rose-Akins   Campaign Website - Judge Damon Shadid   Register to vote, update your registration, see what's on your ballot and more here   Past felony conviction? Information on re-registering to vote at the Washington Voting Rights Restoration Coalition   Transcript [00:00:00] Bryce Cannatelli: Hello everyone. This is Bryce from the Hacks & Wonks team. Today's episode is a recording of our City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge forum which was originally streamed live on October 12. You can find video from the event as well as a full text transcript on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for listening! [00:00:34] Crystal Fincher: Greetings, everyone. My name is Crystal Fincher. I'm a political consultant and the host of this candidate forum tonight. Welcome to this Hacks & Wonks 2022 Primary Candidate Forum for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Positions 3 and 7. For those who need a refresher, the Seattle Municipal Court handles all misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor crimes, civil infractions, and other offenses authorized under the Seattle municipal Code and Revised Code of Washington statutes. Misdemeanors are crimes where the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. Gross Misdemeanors are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine, including offenses such as driving under the influence, domestic violence, theft, and trespass. Infractions are acts that are prohibited by law but are not legally defined as a crime, like parking tickets and traffic or non-traffic infractions. And Civil Offenses are filed with the court when the City of Seattle seeks enforcement of its fire code, housing, and other city ordinance violations. The majority of the Seattle Municipal Court Judges' time is dedicated to jury trials and pretrial hearings. They also hear sentencings, arraignments, reviews, non-jury, or 'bench' trials, and can perform marriage ceremonies. Seattle Municipal Court has seven judges who are elected to four-year terms. Every other year, the judges select one judge to act as the Presiding Judge for a two-year term. The Presiding Judge's responsibilities including: overseeing the magistrates, lead the management and administration of the court's business, recommend policies and procedures that improve the court's effectiveness, allocate resources that maximize the court's ability to resolve disputes fairly and expeditiously, and determine judicial assignments. We're excited to be able to live stream this forum on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this forum for rebroadcast and later viewing. We invite our audience to ask questions of our candidates. If you're watching a live stream online, then you can ask questions by commenting on the live stream. You can also text your questions to 206-395-6248, and that number will scroll at the bottom of the screen. The candidates running for City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Position 3 with us right now are - in alphabetical order - Adam Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi. And for Position 7 we have - again, in alphabetical order - Nyjat Rose-Akins and Damon Shadid. A few reminders before we jump into the forum. I want to remind you to vote. Ballots will be mailed to your mailbox starting Wednesday, October 19th - that's this coming Wednesday. You can register to vote, update your registration, and see what will be on your ballot at MyVote.wa.gov. I want to mention that tonight's answers will be timed. Each candidate will have one minute to introduce themselves initially, and 90 seconds to answer each subsequent question. Candidates may be engaged with rebuttal or follow up with questions and will have 30 seconds to respond. Time will be indicated by the colored dot labeled "timer" on the screen. The dot will initially appear as green, when there are 30 seconds left it will turn yellow, and when there are 10 seconds left it will turn red. You will be muted when time is up. Now we'll turn to the candidates who will each have one minute to introduce themselves, starting with Adam Eisenberg. Then Pooja Vaddadi. Next Nyjat Rose-Akins. Finally Damon Shadid. So starting with our first candidate. [00:04:13] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Good evening. Municipal courts present a unique opportunity for restorative justice and diversion. For many of the people who come before me, this is their first stop in the legal system - I want it to be their last. I grew up with an abusive father and I know that treatment is critical to healing survivors, families, and abusers. That's why I helped create the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, a community-based program that serves as an alternative to jail. DVIP provides individualized treatment to break cycles of abuse and trauma. I'm proud to be the only LGBTQ+ member of the Seattle Municipal Court bench. Before being appointed in 2017, I had 25 years of experience as a prosecutor, civil defense attorney, magistrate and commissioner. I believe my diverse background is why I've been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by the King County Bar and four minority bar associations. It's also why I've been elected Presiding Judge by my peers and why I have the support of Supreme Court Justices Yu, González and Whitener, local district Democrats, the unions that represent our court clerks and many more. Thank you. [00:05:11] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And next. [00:05:17] Pooja Vaddadi: Okay, sorry - thank you. My name is Pooja Vaddadi and I'm running for judge in Seattle to serve the community that raised me and bring about a positive change in the culture of Seattle Municipal Court. I'm a career public defender and my platform is centered on a recommitment to fairness, compassion, and restorative justice. At this time, I've been endorsed by every Democratic organization in Seattle and King County that has endorsed in this race, as well as the Washington Young Democrats, the Democrats for Diversity and Inclusion and the National Women's Political Caucus. Aside from three legislative districts, these endorsements are exclusive. I always planned to run for judge, but I wish that I didn't have to run right now. Practice at Seattle Municipal Court showed me a toxic and biased judiciary acting against the interest of public safety and undermining the institution of the court. I'm running now because it is urgent that we change direction. This campaign is about the people of Seattle. As a public defender, I came to understand the specific challenges that prevent misdemeanor defendants from interacting productively with the criminal justice system. I'm running to bring the court back in touch with the law and with the circumstances of those it serves. [00:06:17] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:06:21] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Nyjat Rose-Akins and I'm running for Position 7 on the Seattle Municipal Court bench. I love Seattle. I became a U.S. citizen here, but I've seen the breakdown in collaboration across the city. I'm running to help repair that breakdown to improve the community's confidence in the court and to return to an individualized approach to judicial decision-making. I'm running because I've spent the last 12 years working with victims and managing relationships - the community relationships with police. In my 12 years at the City Attorney's Office, I've partnered with businesses, government officials, community members, and law enforcement. I've seen firsthand that issues affecting communities are rarely resolved in silos. Real change takes collaboration from all those involved, a willingness to listen, and the ability to have the courage to say when things are not working. I am running for Seattle Municipal Court to make it better. Thank you. [00:07:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid. [00:07:22] Judge Damon Shadid: My name is Judge Damon Shadid. I've been a judge at Seattle Municipal Court for the past eight years. For the past four years, I've been presiding over the majority of Seattle Municipal Court's therapeutic courts - including Community Court which I helped found, Mental Health Court which I helped expand, and the Consolidated Calendar which I was able to create in partnership with other criminal legal system organizations. All of these programs have one thing in common. Accountability is best sought through rehabilitation, not through holding people in jail. Without rehabilitation, we are not going to make our community safer - and that's what all of my programs do. It is an individualized approach to find out what people's barriers are and to help them connect with the vital social services that will help them exit the criminal legal system. I'm proud to be endorsed by the Progressive Voters Guide, by The Seattle Times, by nine Supreme Court Justices, by many labor organizations, as well as community leaders, including - [00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you, I believe that's your time. Our first question will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins, then follow up with Damon Shadid. What is your evaluation of the Community Court system? What is working and what's not working? [00:08:46] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you for that question. My evaluation of the Community Court system that is run out of Seattle Municipal Court is that it is not working. I have been partnering with members in the community as well as businesses and really trying to understand what is happening in that court. As a prosecutor - when I initially started at the City Attorney's Office in 2010 - I worked in Community Court. So I understand how the program is supposed to work. And currently I do not believe it's working because right now it seems as if it's a very indiscriminate approach to low-level crime, meaning it seems as if all types of crimes can come in regardless of what that individual may be doing in the community and whether or not that individual continues to commit crime even after being in Community Court. For instance, an individual - me reviewing the docket in the court, the court dockets - I've seen individuals with six, seven, eight crimes all at one time in Community Court. That shows me that that is not working. And low-level crime should be something very small. However, I'm seeing crimes where individuals are stealing thousands of dollars, $970 from businesses and Home Depot and Target. So my issue with it is that it doesn't seem to be working and we continue to just recycle people in and out without any real solution. [00:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid. [00:10:22] Judge Damon Shadid: It's interesting. My opponent has never appeared in Community Court, which I founded - she was in a prior iteration of Community Court. But let me give you some numbers to show you how Community Court is working. 80% of the graduates of Community Court have no further criminal law violations - 80%. That's over two years that we ran the numbers and the graduates are not coming back in the criminal legal system - that is results that work. Let me tell you something else - now, Community Court was created in a collaboration with the City Attorney's Office and with the Public Defender's Office. We meet every two weeks, we tweak the program, we make it better. And in all of these meetings - my opponent has never come to the meeting, has never offered any sort of critique of the court, but instead has come from the outside where she's only reviewed dockets, but never actually been in the court, never been in the meetings. If she had been in the meeting, she would know that they work. She would know that we're collaborating and she would know that what we are trying to do is bring accountability through rehabilitation and it is working. Of the people who come to court, 90% of those people enter Community Court. Of those 90%, 75% graduate. And of those graduates, 90% don't re-offend in the next two years. Those are real numbers. Those work and we should keep going with Community Court, make it better, and expand it. [00:11:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:11:54] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I believe a lot of Community Court is working. I've had a lot of clients that cycled in and out of Community Court and have been met with very many resources through that court. What I've noticed that hasn't been working is that a lot of roadblocks have been set up by the City Attorney's Office and a majority of the judges have more or less gone along with what the City Attorney proposes - and that is to exclude everybody off the High Utilizer Initiative list. That list is made up of people who have severe mental illnesses and people who are homeless and struggling with desperation and poverty. And I believe those people are the people that would benefit the most from a court like Community Court. Certain people on that list are also part of the Trueblood class and should just not be capable of being prosecuted because of the severity of their mental illness as well. And so Community Court obviously would not be the right place for them. But again, prosecution or keeping them off of any kind of diversion list is not going to help people who just cannot be prosecuted because of a mental illness. I believe that the Community Court can work better if the City Attorney, the Public Defenders and the Judges - again - decide to work together and come to a policy that works for everybody on the same page. I don't think it's working right now because people are butting heads in the court and in the Public Defenders and the City Attorney. People need to be on the same side and that's the side of public safety and helping prevent poverty and homelessness. Thank you. [00:13:24] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Adam Eisenberg. [00:13:27] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Yes. So the thing that's most important to understand about Community Court is it's a triage court. It's meant to get people in the court system and out of the court system as quickly as possible, hook them up with social services, give them - if we can get them to housing, get them to housing - and move them on. The reality is some folks don't fit in Community Court. And while I don't necessarily agree that coming up with a list of 109 people or 110 or whatever is the best solution, the reality is that we need to figure out a way of addressing the folks who commit very low-level crimes, but don't succeed in Community Court. That's what this group is about. The group that doesn't succeed that keeps coming back. So while there's a great success rate as Judge Shadid talks about, how do we address the folks that don't fit? There is a dispute between the prosecutors and the public defenders - the prosecutor has discretion, judges have discretion as well. And I think over time we'll see that those folks will try to figure out more services that we can provide them with. But the reality is not everybody fits in Community Court and that group is the group we have to figure how to target. Thank you. [00:14:31] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat asked for some rebuttal time. [00:14:36] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I just wanted to address the 80% of people who go into Community Court graduate. That number is very skewed because when you do review the court docket, there are also a number of people who fail to appear or don't even show up for court. So I believe that is a skewed number based on the fact that there are multiple Community Court offers, but a number of people who do not show up for court. Additionally, the City Attorney tried to negotiate and opt some people out because they felt they - [00:15:12] Crystal Fincher: That is time there and just another reminder - rebuttal is a 30-second period. Does anyone else want any rebuttal time, or are we good? We will move on to the next question. And we'll start with Judge Shadid. We have seen news of overcrowding in jails, asks from various jail employees - including corrections officers and public defenders - saying that they don't currently have the staffing to safely man the jails, asking to reduce the population. Should that be taken into account by judges when imposing sentences? [00:15:51] Judge Damon Shadid: Well the short answer is "No, but..." And there's a big but there - and that is that the criminal legal system should be steering away from incarceration because we know incarceration doesn't help people... the criminal legal system. And as a deterrent, it is very, very controversial of whether or not a jail deterrent is actually effective. What we need to do is be expanding programs for diversion, expanding programs for rehabilitation - that's what I've spent my career doing. That's why I created the new Community Court. That's why I brought together a Consolidated Calendar where people who are already working in the community with case workers can come on one-stop shopping to a court and can resolve their cases many times without the need of jail. That's why I've expanded Mental Health Court - so that we can create release plans for the most dangerous, most vulnerable in our community - people who need close supervision, and so we can release them with very close supervision with the aid of a court clinician. This is the direction the court should be going. Accountability should come from rehabilitation, from a person's willingness to engage with the social safety net services. I am proud to say that Seattle Municipal Court has not been booking people in jail up to the level of beds that we have available. We consistently come under that and we have lowered that number every year. And one of the big reasons, of course, is because of our diversion programs and I'm very proud of that fact. [00:17:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up is Nyjat. [00:17:26] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, there has been a lot of issues with King County Jail, and as Judge Shadid stated, the court is not in charge of the jail and can't necessarily tell the jail what to do. I do think the court does have to factor that in when people are trying to be admitted into the jail and the jail is closed. So I think those are definitely some considerations that should be made when you are looking to maybe sentence someone to jail or determine whether bail is warranted. But I think that is done on a case-by-case basis. [00:18:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:18:08] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. I think the reality is judges are very much aware of the crowding in the jail. The job that we have is to decide - in this particular case, is this person a safety threat to the community? And that's really what drives most of the decisions to whether someone is going to be in jail or not. Is there substantial likelihood they're going to commit a violent crime? Are they going to interfere with the administration of justice? And then to a lesser extent, whether they're going to show up to court or if they've failed to show up multiple times. We are very much aware of the limitations of the jail. And there's also issues with staffing in general - because of COVID, they're not able to staff as well. So it's very challenging. We are booking fewer people - we've been doing that ever since COVID started. So I think that that shows that judges are very much aware of it. But at the end of the day, it comes down to - in this particular case, is this person a danger to the community or not? That's the primary driver of why someone's held in jail. And the judge has to make a decision based on that. Thank you. [00:19:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Pooja. [00:19:09] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. I do agree with Judge Shadid. The court should be steering away from incarceration. And so while over-crowding for sentencing should not necessarily be taken into consideration, I do think that sentencing needs to be, that culture around sentencing needs to change dramatically. Studies have shown that public safety is not improved with increased rates of incarceration. In fact, a lot like what Judge Shadid was saying as well, studies have shown that diversion programs really do help to promote public safety. With the increased rate of incarceration, with the increased rate of jail sentences between 15 to 60 days - all it does to the individual is destabilize them. Their mental health deteriorates significantly when in jail. They're faced with the overcrowding problem. They're faced with dealing with individuals that they'd never encounter in the system. And they're also cut off from all resources. I've had clients that have had a lot of problems getting their mental health meds or any other kind of medical assistance while in jail. And all it does is cut them off from the resources that can help them re-enter society more effectively, that can help them not reoffend in the future. We should focus more on diversion programs. We should teach individuals who do touch the criminal justice system to reincorporate with society a little bit better. That is what improves public safety. [00:20:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And for this next question, we will start with Adam Eisenberg. What factors do you consider in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants? Should it strictly be based on whether or not someone is dangerous to society or a safety risk, therefore kind of making bail irrelevant, or does bail have a role to play in your court? How do you evaluate that? [00:21:06] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So judges are guided by Criminal Rule 3.2, which does provide that the least restrictive means is what's appropriate. And in order to set bail, you have to decide that there's a substantial likelihood someone's going to commit a violent crime if they're released, substantial likelihood that they will interfere with the administration of justice or witnesses - which could be violate no-contact orders, or continue to drink and drive after they've been charged with a DUI, or fail to appear. That is the legal requirement that we have. We're also supposed to consider whether the person has the ability to pay or not. The bail system was created over 100 years ago in our state through statutes that seem very out-of-date and don't really apply to the modern world, because clearly people who have financial means are able to bail out easier than those who don't. Although there is the Northwest Bail Fund, which actually is able to bail people out who aren't able to afford it up to a certain level. As a judge, those factors are the factors that are the ones that I'm guided by. In looking at a particular case, is this person a danger to the community? That is the primary concern that I have. The bail system is not a perfect system. California is experimenting with a no bail or bail, so you either decide to hold someone or you release them and there's not an option to bail them out. I don't know if that's a better system or not, but I'm guided by the rules and I apply it in a case-by-case basis. Thank you. [00:22:32] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Next up will be Pooja. I'll just repeat the question. What factors are considered in granting and setting bail amounts for defendants and what do you believe should be the primary consideration? [00:22:46] Pooja Vaddadi: Thank you. So that's correct - the setting of bail is determined by CrRLJ 3.2. It is what needs to be considered when determining whether a person should be released or not, or what the terms of that release are. It does need to be the least restrictive means. What I believe that a lot of judges do frequently forget though, is that the presumption of all pretrial release is actually release. Bail is not at all presumed. What this means is that unless the prosecutor can meet a very high burden in proving that that person is either a danger to the community, at risk of interfering with the administration of justice, or a risk for failure to appear - that person needs to be released from jail. The problem with bail right now is that the danger seems to be - the level of whether that person is a risk to community safety seems to be driven by how much that person can afford. The bail system, as everybody knows, is not perfect. In fact, it is incredibly flawed and it seems to incarcerate more people who simply are poor rather than anybody else. The bail and the setting of bail is also guided by the constitution and it never should be excessive. A judge needs to consider whether the setting of bail is going to do more harm than good. I've seen a client that was bound for diversion and dismissal made homeless by a capricious application of unnecessary bail in this court and I do think that the individual needs to be taken into consideration with this. Thank you. [00:24:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon? [00:24:23] Judge Damon Shadid: The plain fact of the matter is that all cash bail discriminates against poor people. That is just a fact. There's no getting around it. If you set bail on somebody, a rich person can afford to pay to get out, but a poor person can't. And that's why judges need more tools when it comes to release. That's the whole point of the Community Court, the Mental Health Court, and the Consolidated Calendar - is to give us more tools to allow people to be released on structured release programs that help them connect with services - even predisposition - so that they're safer in the community. Now, I've also started a larger project called the Jail Release Toolkit that I plan to start in Seattle and provide - and that's to try to give judges more options for structured release plans that conform with Rule 3.2, to allow us to follow the laws. Now, it also can't be ignored that the Supreme Court, when COVID started, very much told the judges that we need to only hold people in jail pretrial if they are a substantial risk of committing a violent crime. And so we've been following that, and we've learned really important things from that - and that is we don't have to hold as many people in jail pretrial as maybe we thought we did. And I think a lot of judges have learned from that as well, and so we're really in a great place right now where I believe judges are open to alternative structured releases that can make the community safer instead of just using jail. [00:25:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat? [00:25:57] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, so the presumption of release is where I start when reviewing a person's case. However, as everyone has said, the court is bound by looking at Rule 3.2. And other than whether or not someone is likely to commit a dangerous offense, you also will have to look at whether or not someone is actually going to come back to court. And if someone has a very high failure-to-appear rate, you have to maybe consider - if I release this person, will this person come back to court? For misdemeanor cases, the point of having alternatives and other types of programs is that these cases need to be addressed relatively quickly, and we can get the services to the people who need it. So in addition to maybe looking at someone's failure-to-appear history, maybe some other examples of things that can be done is maybe electronic home monitoring and/or day reporting, because the point is to make sure that people do not lose contact with the court. And how can we increase contact with people who are committing crimes in our community? [00:27:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. And we will start this with Pooja. If you observed a party in your courtroom being poorly represented by an unprepared or ineffective lawyer, how would you handle the situation? [00:27:22] Pooja Vaddadi: So a judge cannot get in between a client and their attorney. It's not my position to do that. All I can do is preside over the law. Now I'll have to rule, however - everything presents in there - and hopefully one of the attorneys speaks up in objection to the way that the representation is going on, but I can't let my personal bias get in there. Just because I think I might do the job differently doesn't mean that I would do it better than the attorney that's doing it right then and there. I should never be the one, as the judge, to substitute my own judgment for how an attorney is handling their case. They have the personal experience with their client. They have the personal experience with their particular case - the victim of the crime, the police officer, whatever it is that they're dealing with - they have that experience to know how to handle that case. Now if I do think that somebody is being unethical or anything like that, that might be a different situation where a judge might have the ability to rule on a particular ethical violation - something that is bound by the law. But again, I would never replace my own judgment nor question the authority of an attorney when they're dealing with their own case - that undermines the credibility of every attorney in that courtroom and it undermines people's confidence in the court. Thank you. [00:28:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Adam? [00:28:40] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Well, I think that generally what Ms. Vaddadi has said is correct - the judges are not to interfere. However, there are certain circumstances - one day when I was a prosecutor actually, the defense attorney was drunk in the middle of a trial and her own attorney - the client is like, Your Honor, my attorney is drunk. And then the judge said, Judge Eisenberg - or sorry, Adam Eisenberg, I was his prosecutor - do you notice that she's drunk? Well, I'm sitting fairly close by and it put me in an awkward position, but the bottom line is that case resulted in a mistrial. And so there are circumstances where - and they're very rare, honestly - most attorneys that appear in front of us do a really good job. They may make tactical decisions that you might go, Why did you make that tactical decision - after the fact. But that's the area where the judge absolutely cannot invade. If you make a tactical decision to enter, submit evidence or not submit evidence - that's totally within the discretion of the attorney and the judge has to back away. If you have a situation where an attorney is obviously drunk in court or otherwise incapacitated in a way that's severe, you have to take some action. The nicest thing to do is reach out to the supervisor, ask the supervisor to come down, talk to the attorney, see if they can gauge what the situation is. In the case of the drunk attorney, that resulted in a mistrial. So that's an extreme case, I've only seen that once in the 30 years I've worked in the court system, but those things do happen. Thank you. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [00:30:14] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yeah, I think if I see someone in the courtroom that is treating their client badly and I'm on the bench - and it seems as if it's more than just a tactical decision, maybe it just seems as if it is just treating someone inhumanely - I would likely take a sidebar or maybe take a recess and take both prosecutor and the defense attorney into chambers and just basically explain what I'm seeing because judges can't have ex parte contact. So I would probably make a note of it to the attorney - that this behavior is not appropriate - especially again, if it's outside of trial tactics and it's just behavior that's just inhumane or treating their client disrespectfully, I would likely address it in chambers. [00:31:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon? [00:31:22] Judge Damon Shadid: We are very lucky in Seattle Municipal Court to have a very high level of representation both from the private bar, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney's Office. I never stop being impressed with the level of representation that we have, but that doesn't mean that sometimes there doesn't come an attorney who comes and is doing a poor job representing their client. And what we have to avoid here is we have to avoid - one, the client not getting a fair shake. And number two, a setup for ineffective assistance of counsel so that all the work that went into that trial, all the jurors, all the court staff, and everyone else who spent days trying to go through this trial only to have it overturned because there was ineffective assistance of counsel. Now, I'll tell you what I wouldn't do. I certainly wouldn't take them into my chambers - I think that would be unethical. It needs to be on the record - everything you say needs to be on the record so the public can hear it. I would very much try not to embarrass the attorney in front of their client, and that's when a sidebar may be appropriate as long as it's recorded. But if the attorney doesn't seem to be catching on, then the case has to be continued so that they can get prepared. Or, as Judge Eisenberg said, sometimes it will rise to the level of a mistrial. So while I would normally keep hands off as much as I can, I'm not going to let a defendant and my court be misrepresented by an attorney. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. I now have a question submitted from the audience during this forum, and it's a two-part question really. One, do you consider any types of crimes to be victimless? And for those that aren't, how will you work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? And we will be starting with Nyjat. [00:33:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I apologize. I didn't hear the last part. Do you consider any types of crimes victimless? And I didn't hear the last part of the question? [00:33:30] Crystal Fincher: Sure. How does each candidate work to assure that victims are listened to and considered when imposing a sentence or adjudicating a case? [00:33:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: So do I think any crime is victimless? No, I do not. I think some cases are definitely going to be more impactful to victims. But I believe when people are committing crimes, even low-level crimes - if it's a crime that continues to be done every day, it is impacting the community. The community is the victim if people are calling the police or observing this behavior. So even though all crimes are not going to be created equal, some crimes are definitely going to be more severe than others and impact more people. But I think for - to make sure that victims are being listened to, I think the main thing is to make sure that they have a seat at the table, they understand the process, they understand what the court is doing. What I've realized over the last number of years is that a lot of people really don't understand how the court functions or how it works. So I think the prosecutor's office - they have victims advocates that - I think it's good for them to talk with the victims to make sure that they understand the system and what and how things are happening. And even make sure that they come to court to see the process. [00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Damon Shadid? [00:35:13] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure, there are some victimless crimes - failure to transfer title, driving with license suspended in the third degree - I have trouble figuring out who would be a victim there. But I, in general, agree with my opponent that it's a matter of impacting - how does it impact the community? How does it impact the individual? Now in Washington, we have a Victims Bill of Rights. It used to only apply to felonies, but now it applies to misdemeanors as well. But I've always followed it, even before it applied to misdemeanors. If a victim comes into my court and wants to speak at any level of the prosecution, I will allow them to speak because it's difficult to come into court. It takes a lot of bravery to speak to the judge and to face the person who may have abused you. And so that person should be given a high amount of respect. But on the flip side of that, that person should be given a lot of respect if they, for instance, do not want to continue with prosecution. So you have to listen to both sides of it. As far as community crimes like that, there's a reason why we call it Community Court. And the way that we have people give back to the community is through things like community service work, or things like that that are going to actually give back to the community that's been taken from. So yes, victims will be listened to at all stages of the proceedings, and I have tried to do that. [00:36:40] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi? [00:36:44] Pooja Vaddadi: By definition and in general, no crime is going to be completely victimless and especially not in a strictly criminal court. I do agree with Judge Shadid - there are certain crimes like driving while license suspended or any licensing-type situation that is a failure to pay fines - I find it hard to believe also that there would be a real victim attached to that. But property crimes, thefts, whatever - the ordinary administration of justice is the tool by which we address these wrongs. However, the temptation for any judge is to substitute their outrage for the narrow bounds of sentencing permitted under the laws - and it's a challenge that we must rise to be impartial. It's essential not to misapply the law or you do risk revictimizing everyone through a second trial. That includes oversentencing, because you as a judge may think that a certain crime is particularly outrageous, but the worst thing that can happen is for that case to come back to court for a second time for a retrial or a resentencing where the victim has to, again, readdress the court to get any kind of recourse. That's traumatizing for anybody involved in the system. I do think it's important to listen to victims as well, especially when the court is trying to help that individual. Sometimes there are victims that come into court that wish to have the no contact order lifted so that their partner can support their lifestyle and their children. And I've seen this court deny administratively those requests to rescind the no contact order. And I would like to prevent that. Thank you. [00:38:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg. [00:38:24] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Thank you. Yes, as everyone has mentioned, there are a few categories of crimes that perhaps are victimless, but most of the crimes that appear in front of us have some sort of victim. I'm most involved in the domestic violence cases. And one of the things that's unique about the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, which is the diversion program that I've described in my opening that is an alternative to jail for domestic violence offenders, is an individualized approach and a multidisciplinary team that includes victim advocates. So the voices of victims, not necessarily the victim of the particular crime, but victims - community victims or community advocates who are very familiar with the survivors of domestic violence are able to provide input into how to manage the intervention. The goal, of course, is to make it safer for the victims. We take victims very seriously - I know all my colleagues do when they come to court and wish to explain what they experienced. Sometimes they have to do it through the trial, sometimes they have to do it at sentencing. But I think even low-level crimes - if the victim wants to come to court and present, certainly the Revised Code of Washington provides for that - for them to be able to explain. And I think the court has to hear and consider their opinion, their concerns along with the other evidence that they've heard when they make a decision. So victims' voices are very, very important in our court. Thank you. [00:39:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And thank you to the audience for that question. This next question will start with Judge Shadid. We've had several high profile incidents in Seattle where police officers' accounts of events may have differed from video evidence and other things turned up in subsequent investigations. Do judges have any responsibility or role in interrogating the honesty of police and law enforcement in the court? [00:40:12] Judge Damon Shadid: Well, that is a very difficult question because it depends on what stage of the proceedings that you're in - whether or not you're in a pretrial, a motion, or a trial - and what would be appropriate in each case. What I will say is this - if a police officer breaks the law by perjuring themselves in court, that police officer should be subject to the laws just like any other person who comes into the court and they should be prosecuted. I've never actually seen a police officer prosecuted for perjury, but I have seen police officers lie on the stand in my eight years. And that's pretty shocking to me - police officers not only should be held to the same standard as everyone else, but they should be held to a higher standard. And they should not be coming in to lie in order to get somebody convicted. They need to be able to prove their case just based upon the truth. What I will say is that - at least the prior administration of the City Attorney's Office regularly dismissed cases when they saw a discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and contravening evidence. I think that's the right move. But unless it meets a very high standard, a judge is not able to dismiss the case themselves, it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to do so. If there is a motion to dismiss, then the defense attorney would have to make their proof based upon the rules, particularly 8.3. [00:41:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:41:49] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Sorry. I agree with my opponent that everyone has a role when it comes to the court, and the court cannot necessarily just summarily dismiss a case that has been brought by the prosecution. I will say that the court can - there are many points in a case - for instance, if there is information about an officer, for instance, they call it Brady information - so it's information that the prosecution has to turn over and if they do not turn that over, then the court can entertain motions to dismiss because that is a huge violation. So if an officer has been found to have lied on the stand or any other behavior that has been deemed under Brady that needs to be disclosed to defense. So those are some ways that the court can, I guess, intervene when there is an issue with an officer specifically. But yeah, so that is the main thing - I would say that as I myself have actually prosecuted a police officer - because I truly believe that we all should be held to the same standard. [00:43:15] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Eisenberg. [00:43:19] Judge Adam Eisenberg: So you asked the question, can judges interrogate? Well, it's not really our role to necessarily interrogate. However, in certain hearings, we do have the opportunity, as the fact finder of the hearing, to ask questions. I can give you an example of a stage where I did find there was not probable cause for arrest and it was based on how the officer behaved. The officer saw the defendant driving late at night at a high rate of speed - that was pretty clear. He pulled him over and he asked him to step out of the car and he said - I smell some alcohol, I would like you to do some field sobriety tests. The defendant was very polite - I don't want to do any field sobriety tests because I know what happens next. If I do field sobriety tests, you take me to jail. And the officer's like, No, I'm not going to do that, but I just need to know. And what happened was 15 minutes of the officer trying to cajole the defendant to take field sobriety tests and the defendant clearly didn't want to. The defendant was Black, the officer was not. There was some question as to whether this was racially biased or not - it wasn't 100% clear, but it was very suspicious. And at the end of the probable cause hearing, I determined there wasn't probable cause for the arrest - the officer did not have enough information and the case was dismissed. Unfortunately, the officer left the courtroom before he could hear my ruling, but it was a very troubling situation. And that's a circumstance where a judge can see what an officer is doing because my job is to determine whether there's probable cause. And at that point, I could say the officer was inappropriate in what he did. [00:44:46] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:44:50] Pooja Vaddadi: And so I agree with pretty much what everybody else has said already. It's not necessarily a judge's role to take it upon themselves to litigate a case where an officer maybe is lying or engaging in any misconduct. But I have seen, as a public defender, police officers engaging in racially biased policing, which in my opinion is bad and sometimes in a lot of cases worse than perjury in court. The judge is a gatekeeper for evidence and has the power to address Brady issues or entertain motions to dismiss under circumstances that Ms. Rose-Akins actually described. And they should. There must be some distance between judges and the police so that they don't enjoy a special relationship and show any kind of bias towards any officers that are in that court. I've taken a case to trial actually in which a white officer investigated a scene for 40 minutes before releasing one person and then pretty much deciding that he smelled alcohol on my client's breath. The officer in that situation was a white man. My client was a Black driver. Such a case would raise a suspicion for me, although there is not much I can do in that situation unless the defense attorney does raise a type of motion. And then we are then faced with the ability for me to make a decision on whether that officer should testify or whether there needs to be some other kind of hearing to exclude that kind of testimony. Judges are bound by the law and that is how they need to operate. But we shouldn't let people with a lot of authority just get away with blatant disregard for the law. [00:46:26] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. This next question, we're going to start with Adam Eisenberg. What do your endorsements say about you and what do you think your opponent's endorsements say about them? [00:46:41] Judge Adam Eisenberg: Well, I've been endorsed by The Seattle Times, eight of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court, retired Justice Bobbe Bridge, judges across the state who I've worked with on committees on statewide issues related to domestic violence, related to how do we have a jury trial in the middle of COVID - which I was assigned to be on the task force for that - on various rules that I have been engaged with. And I've also been endorsed by the union that supports our court clerks, I've been endorsed by public defenders, prosecutors, defense attorneys - male, female - and I've been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by the bar associations I listed. I think that says that I try to do the best job I can and it seems like the legal community recognizes that. My opponent has been endorsed by a lot of the - I've been endorsed by some of the legislative districts, she's been endorsed by all of them. And she's been endorsed by, I believe, a lot of the progressive diversity groups. I don't really have a thought on what that says, but I'm very proud of the endorsements that I've gotten, including The Seattle Times - and including former Governor Christine Gregoire and many, many other Seattle City Councilmembers and County Councilmembers. So I feel like I have a pretty diverse background of support. Thank you. [00:48:07] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Pooja Vaddadi. [00:48:11] Pooja Vaddadi: I believe that my endorsements, which are all of the Democratic organizational endorsements - I believe that they say that people are looking for a change in Seattle - they're dissatisfied with the way that the judiciary has been operating, they're dissatisfied with the way that the City is being policed right now. What they see is an increase in crime and a decrease in the amount of services that are there for the people of Seattle - there has been an increase of homeless people on the streets, there has been an increase of encampments. And the judiciary and the leadership in Seattle has been doing nothing about that. And people are ready for a change - people are ready for the type of perspective that I bring there. My campaign is staffed by dozens of defense attorneys who are actually afraid to publicly endorse, or who aren't permitted by their leadership to endorse. My opponent's endorsements do tell me that there are two versions of him. There's the version of my opponent that his personal friends see - I'm sure he is a great friend. But there is a version of my opponent that I know there. And unfortunately, a lot of people are not able to speak publicly about some of the behavior that they've seen on the court. And I have their support and their volunteer, I have their support in private. But I do have the support of a lot of organizations that are looking to make a change in Seattle right now and I plan on doing that. [00:49:44] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Judge Shadid. [00:49:48] Judge Damon Shadid: I am proud to be endorsed by every civil Democratic organization and every one of those are sole endorsements. I'm proud to have the endorsement of eight current and former Supreme Court Justices, and community leaders, elected officials like Larry Gossett - who is my personal hero - Girmay Zahilay, Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, Senator Rebecca Saldaña, City Councilperson Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Andrew Lewis, Debora Juarez. I'm very proud - I've also got community leaders, including the president of the statewide NAACP endorsing me, 75 judges - elected judges across the spectrum. And I've actually gotten The Seattle Times and the Progressive Voters guide to agree that they should endorse me solely, which I don't know how many of us can brag that. So I'm very, very pleased with my endorsements - I think it's great. My opponent's been working hard. She's gotten some endorsements from judges and from former Mayor Durkan - who was a former prosecutor - as well as former Governor Gregoire, another former prosecutor. Her support definitely comes from the prosecution - that is clear - and she's been a career prosecutor all her life and so that makes a lot of sense to me. You go to the people that you know and who you've worked with in the past. But my support comes from across the spectrum - it's not single-focused. [00:51:20] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat Rose-Akins. [00:51:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: I think my endorsements say that I'm not a politician. My endorsements say that I decided to run for this office because I believe that I am qualified. I'm endorsed by people who know my work and know what I have done and what I've done for the City for the last 12 years. I've been basically behind the scenes for the last 12 years, and this is my first time saying - I am going to put myself out there and be in the forefront because I know that I can make Seattle Municipal Court better based on all the work that I've done over the last 12 years collaborating and partnering with communities and with government officials. So I believe that's what my endorsements say about me. In regards to my opponent, I believe - he's been a sitting judge for the last eight years, so he has made those relationships. And usually, in all honesty, judicial candidates have difficulty because judges do not like to endorse against a sitting judge. So I think the fact that I've been able to get some endorsements from judges and retired judges - and mainly some Seattle Municipal Court judges, retired Seattle Municipal Court judges - I think that shows that I am more than capable of fulfilling this position. [00:52:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you very much. Now, we also asked each candidate to submit a question to ask their opponent. We will cover some of those questions right now. We will begin with a question from Judge Adam Eisenberg to Pooja Vaddadi - and I will read it verbatim. Candidates for judicial positions usually get vetted by the King County Bar Association and the minority bar associations. It's a rigorous process in which each bar association reaches out to more than 30 attorneys familiar with your work on the bench, and conducts individual interviews with the candidates. I've gone through the vetting process and have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" for Seattle Municipal Court by a number of associations. Why have you chosen not to be vetted? [00:53:43] Pooja Vaddadi: So the answer to this question comes in two parts. I'm running a lot earlier than I meant to because it's urgent to bring change in the leadership in SMC. The court has been failing the people of Seattle. I saw that when I was a public defender in that court and I'm still seeing it right now. I enjoyed my career as a public defender and I was not planning on doing this quite this soon in my career, but here we are and I'm needed. Second, from what I've seen, judicial ratings seem to measure nothing more than tenure. Tenure and how often you've pro temmed in the court or tenure on how long you've been on a bench. They obviously don't look at practitioner surveys, they don't look at staff reviews and complaints, overturns on appeal for constitutional violations, or courtroom demeanor. I don't know if these bar associations have sat in my opponent's courtroom for a lengthy period of time. I don't think that I would have had a fair shake in front of these judicial ratings because they would have held my lack of tenure against me. I know I can do this job and I know I will be good at it. Thank you. [00:55:01] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question for Judge Adam Eisenberg from Pooja - verbatim. There's nothing more stressful than representing a client who is innocent and falsely accused; or when an innocent defendant insists on pleading guilty to get out of jail or to avoid a penalty for going to trial. Can you tell me about a time that these have happened in your courtroom and how you were personally impacted?? [00:55:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: If someone's entered a guilty plea in front of me, I have to read the facts - and if there's a basis to support the plea, I have to accept the plea - so I'm not really sure there's - I understand the perspective of being a defense attorney and having a client who's doing something perhaps that you don't agree with or wish they would make a different choice. But people do make these choices to plead guilty for a variety of reasons and I don't often have - I very seldom have any understanding of why they're doing it specifically and their attorneys don't share that information with me. When someone enters a guilty plea, I try to give - if it involves a jail sentence, I try to give an appropriate sentence. If it's a guilty plea, the vast majority of times I agree with whatever the sentence is because it was a negotiated plea between the defense and the prosecution. If the defendant has agreed to a negotiated plea, I have no basis to disregard that. The perspective of a defense attorney isn't the same as the perspective on the bench when you hear someone entering a guilty plea. That's what I would say. Thank you. [00:57:07] Crystal Fincher: Pooja has asked for a rebuttal to that. [00:57:13] Pooja Vaddadi: Oh, sorry. I guess I needed to unmute. I just want to tell a brief story. I had a client in Snohomish County that was held on a DUI. It was a second lifetime DUI and he was held on a substantial amount of bail, a decision that a judge made. There was no blood test results yet and so we did not know what his Blood Alcohol Content was or if he had any drugs in his system. The prosecutor offered him a sentence that would have taken - and trial would have taken a lot longer to go. The point is - I'm running out of time - the point is he did have to plead guilty - [00:57:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Eisenberg has also asked for a rebuttal. [00:57:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: I just wanted to say that I'm really sorry about this situation that happened with her defendant that she represented in Snohomish County, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me or my court. [00:58:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask a question from Nyjat Rose-Akins to Damon Shadid. How does the court monitor a participant's connection with meaningful services if multiple cases are dismissed within 14 days of entering into Community Court? [00:58:28] Judge Damon Shadid: Each individual who comes into Community Court is vetted by a judge for their appropriateness to enter the court. They have certain - we call them connections - that the person has to make in order to graduate from the court. There are different levels of connections - 2 weeks, 30 days, and 45 days that the person goes through. But here's what's really important to remember. This is a predisposition court. We connect people with services and then it's the City Attorney who moves to dismiss the case. This is what the City Attorney has agreed to. The City Attorney has never sought to change when they dismiss the case and it is their discretion to do so. We monitor to make sure they've made their connections, to make sure they've done a life skills class, to make sure they've done community service. We individually structure the program to make sure that we're addressing their specific barriers. But this is really important - it takes multiple connections to services for them to take. And so this criticism that - Oh, you're not holding them there long enough - well, how long do you expect someone to keep coming to court for a trespass or for a theft of socks? The actual rehabilitation has to match the crime has been committed and that's what we're trying to do. If a person's not willing to make those connections, they are prosecuted in mainstream court to the full extent of the law. [00:59:59] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. I now have a question for Nyjat Rose-Akins from Damon Shadid. When I ran for Judge 8 years ago, I ran with specific plans for expanding and revitalizing Seattle's Therapeutic Courts. Over the past 8 years, I've delivered on those promises. I've not seen or heard any specific policy proposals that you would enact if you became a judge. Please give specific details of a policy proposal you would enact if elected. [01:00:28] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. So - when elected, I plan to revamp Community Court - reset the standards of accountability and requirements, review individual case history to determine if they are currently a good fit, limit the number of cases that can be addressed at one time, review the types of cases that are eligible, and redefine what is considered low-level crime. With doing that, I'd like to incorporate more probation and social services support to track and assist with program progress and participant needs. Also collaborate with more social service providers to bring them to the court to create a one-stop shop for individuals. I also want to collaborate more with nonprofits, other government agencies to create a pipeline - a proper pipeline for housing, mental health treatment, and job placement. I also would like to work more with probation services and resources, renew day reporting options - which would allow maybe Zoom options for people to check in with probation and not always have to come into court. And also maybe get more funding - not maybe, really try to get more funding - on electronic home monitoring for indigent defendants. So those are a few of the things I plan to do once elected. Thank you. [01:01:55] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Judge Shadid has asked for a rebuttal. [01:02:00] Judge Damon Shadid: Sure. So the one policy proposal my opponent has is to reform the court that I created, which is very interesting because she works for the City Attorney's Office and she has never come to a meeting [garbled] in court. She's never bothered to actually get to know what the court is. Instead, she's read a few dockets and she thinks she has an opinion on it. But why hasn't her boss ever asked for these changes? They haven't. So if she had been in the court for the past eight years, she'd know that we're already doing these things and that her policy is not policy. [01:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat, you have rebuttal time. [01:02:42] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Thank you. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the City Attorney's Office has never asked to make some changes to Community Court. I believe the City Attorney's Office requested trying to opt some people out because they had way too many cases and my opponent said no. And that is why there was an issue with the high utilizers. Aditionally, revamping Community - we had 90 seconds to speak - I brought up one specific thing in regards to Community - [01:03:19] Crystal Fincher: I will allow a second round of rebuttals for both of you since we are in this conversation here. Judge Shadid. [01:03:26] Judge Damon Shadid: Community Court took two years to negotiate. My opponent doesn't seem to understand that all changes to Community Court have to come through negotiation. Her boss came to me with a requested change, which I disagreed with. That is how you negotiate. That requested change then went to the full bench and the bench voted to adopt the change. That's what negotiation is and that's how you create programs. [01:04:00] Crystal Fincher: And Nyjat. [01:04:01] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, thank you. I also had the opportunity to review Community Court outside of Seattle. I went to Auburn Community Court and that program is a model structure for what a community court should be - where individuals actually engage with resources - it's a one-stop shop where they can come in and actually get the services they need and actually check-in with the court, check-in with their defense attorney, and check-in with the prosecution on a weekly and sometimes bi-week, bi-monthly basis based on the type of court. [01:04:37] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Now, these probably will be quick questions, but we'll see - two short ones - and we will begin with Nyjat Rose-Akins. Have you ever been disciplined by the bar association or state commission on judicial conduct? [01:04:53] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Have not. No, I have not. [01:04:56] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. And Damon Shadid? [01:05:00] Judge Damon Shadid: No. [01:05:02] Crystal Fincher: And Pooja? [01:05:05] Pooja Vaddadi: No. [01:05:07] Crystal Fincher: And Judge Eisenberg? [01:05:09] Judge Adam Eisenberg: No. [01:05:10] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Next question - are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll have to find it necessary to disqualify or recuse yourself? We will start with Damon Shadid. [01:05:28] Judge Damon Shadid: There have been times when I've had to recuse myself. I was a public defender for quite some time before and I've had clients come into my courtroom who I represented in the past and I certainly recused myself from those cases. There have been times when I've made mistakes and I've agreed to recuse myself from a case. It happens to the best of us. It's very important to me that there is not only the fact of an impartial judge, but the appearance of one as well. And so if I even suspect that somebody is perceiving me as not being impartial, I'll recuse myself most of the time, unless I think that the attorney is forum shopping. So yes, a judge should be ready to recuse themselves whenever they feel that it's in the best interests of both the community and the defendant. [01:06:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Nyjat? [01:06:23] Nyjat Rose-Akins: Yes, I think the fairness is very, very important in court, so I would likely - I have not had to recuse myself as I've been pro temming in court, but I believe I would likely recuse myself from friends and/or people that I have worked closely with in the City Attorney's Office or even in City government. [01:06:49] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Adam Eisenberg? [01:06:55] Judge Adam Eisenberg: There have been some cases where I've had to recuse myself because I either knew some of the parties, or there was an incident with my neighbor that was reported to the police and I was actually a witness. So I made sure, right out of the gate, that when the case came to our court - because I suspected it would, based on the charge - I went and talked to the Presiding Judge and said, I can't have anything to do with this case because I saw the police arrive last night at the house. So those things happen - obviously, that happens very, very rarely. But otherwise, recusal is normal when you know parties or you have information about the case that you shouldn't have had, you heard - because of a neighbor talking or whatever. But there's not a particular type of case that I recuse myself from. It's really a - it's a case-by-case cir

Welcome back to break*through! In yet another exclusive complimentary episode, we're beyond excited to bring you another session from our new series under THE IDEALISTS. roster.In today's session, you'll get to hear Marilyn's breakthrough. Marilyn is a seasoned character actress and writer for stage and screen known for her rich, grounded portrayals of Latin women. A graduate of NYU's prestigious acting program, Marilyn is transitioning from a number of successful supporting roles working alongside iconic performers Morgan Freeman, Jane Lynch, and Parker Posey to a larger role on the Tyler Perry show All the Queen's Men. It's a huge shift in how she presents herself in meetings, on set, and even in her own self-talk—one that's leaving her feeling anxious and intimidated as she now tries to navigate stepping into more complex leading roles.Marilyn is working with one of our phenomenally energetic coaches Alicia Dara. Alicia is a nationally recognized speech and presentation coach who has helped thousands of people including CEOs, Global VPs, Executive Directors, and Presidential candidates find their Power Voice, and put it to work. Her clients include Microsoft, Amazon, Kimpton Hotels, Planned Parenthood, The National Women's Political Caucus, Facebook, Merrill Lynch, and Twitter. Her most popular course helps women strengthen their voices and clarify their personal messaging—exactly what Marilyn needs right now on her journey to becoming a leading actress.In this episode:- Alicia leads off by working with Marilyn on her “Personal Power Pitch”—a living document for that defines her superpower and provides a north star for how Marilyn wants to be perceived when walking into a room.- Next, Alicia dives deeper into the four pillars of public speaking: pacing, volume, enunciation, and clarity, and together she and Marilyn rehearse and refine Marilyn's personal power pitch and set a practice schedule.- Alicia then relates a piece of critical wisdom about how Marilyn can redirect unwanted attention or flirtation when it comes to people's reception of her appearance and how to kindly refocus the conversation back on the project without creating undue conflict.- Lastly, Alicia advises Marilyn on how to discern and read the room and modulate how much of her story she shares. There are some projects where her heritage and journey will be valuable and other times where she's going to feel the need to protect that story and redirect the conversation. She has full permission to set her boundaries as she sees fit.--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/theidealists/messageSupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theidealists/support

Ann Lewis has had a legendary career as a Democratic strategist...from her time as Communications Director in the Clinton White House...as a Senior Advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate run and both 08 & 16 Presidentials...to her time as a Senate Chief of Staff and working at institutions like Planned Parenthood, the DNC, ADA, & more. In this conversation...Ann talks growing up in New Jersey in the shadow of the Hudson County Democratic machine, key moments in her career path as a woman in politics in the 1970s and 80s, intersecting with Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 80s, her work in both the Clinton White House and Clinton campaigns for 20+ years, and her best practices for smart communication strategies.IN THIS EPISODE…Ann grows up in New Jersey in a family who instilled in her the importance of politics…Ann's early political memories of Harry Truman's upset win in 1948…Ann talks the Hudson County, NJ political machine of her youth…A political light-bulb goes off for Ann when canvassing for JFK…Ann talks the challenges of working up the political ladder as a woman in the 1970s and 80s…Ann goes deep on the her time working for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate race…Ann on the importance of Americans for Democratic Action…Ann talks her time as campaign manager and Chief of Staff for Senator Barbara Mikulski…Ann first crosses path with Bill & Hillary Clinton in the early 1980s…Ann gets to know then-First Lady Hillary Clinton in 1994…Ann gets pulled into the 1996 Clinton Presidential…Ann's time as Communication Directions in the White House, including during the Clinton Impeachment saga…Ann's communications best practices…Ann's involvement in the '08 and '16 Hillary Clinton Presidentials…Ann talks Bill Clinton's legendary retail skills and Hillary Clinton's intellect…Ann talks growing up with her brother, and fellow legendary political figure, Congressman Barney Frank…Ann's advice to the next generation of political operatives…AND Aunt Fanny, the Baltimore Museum of Art, basement offices, battlefield promotions, Bayonne, blankety-blank campaigns, George H.W. Bush, chattering classes, childish bullies, the Clinton Library, cocktail parties, the Colossus of Rhodes, Democratic Majority for Israel, Thomas Dewey, Bob Dole, Facebook, Fells Point, flaming parachutes, Boss Hague, the George Washington Bridge, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Margaret Hague, Jesse Helms, Harold Ickes, Jewish Women for Hillary, Junior Advisors, John Kennedy, Rick Lazio, Nita Lowey, Chuck Manatt, Mac Mathias, moderate ethnics, Pat Moynihan, the New York Post, Richard Nixon, NOW, one-and-a-half computers, Norm Ornstein, George Pataki, Planned Parenthood, Charlie Rangel, Joe Rauh, Walter Reuther, Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, sturdy women, third wives, tugboats, the Unpleasantness, upstate winegrowers, Henry Wallace, Anne Wexler, Maggie Williams, the Women's Political Caucus & more!

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Axios reporter Melissa Santos. They start off looking at the larger trends from this last week's primary, including why the predicted ‘red wave' didn't materialize. Next, they talk about Olgy Diaz's appointment to the Tacoma City council, discussing her impressive credentials and watershed status as the first Latina to serve on the Council. In Seattle City Council news, Crystal and Melissa look at the two recent abortion- and trans-related protections the council passed this week. For updates on public health, our hosts look at how Washington state is lifting most of its COVID emergency orders, where the state is at with its COVID response, and what our outlook is for MPV and its vaccine. After that, the two discuss the redistricting plans for the Seattle City Council, and different neighborhoods' responses to the proposed new district lines and close the show by looking at the state of behavioral health crisis response in our neighborhoods, discussing the county's plans for an emergency walk-in centers, the county's plans to improve its behavioral health response, and our lack of crisis response staff.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Our blue legislature bucks GOP trend” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/08/12/washington-state-blue-legislature-gop-trend    “Tacoma City Council selects its newest member. She's the first Latina to serve” by Liz Moomey from The News Tribune: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article264330356.html?taid=62f470bf1a1c2c0001b63754&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter    “Seattle passes protections for abortion and gender affirming care” by KUOW Staff from KUOW: https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-passes-protections-for-abortion-and-gender-affirming-care   “MPV cases doubling nearly every week in WA, as U.S. declares public health emergency” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/monkeypox-cases-doubling-nearly-every-week-in-wa-as-us-set-to-declare-public-health-emergency/   "US will stretch monkeypox vaccine supply with smaller doses" by Matthew Perrone from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/us-will-stretch-monkeypox-vaccine-supply-with-smaller-doses/   Washington state says goodbye to most COVID emergency orders” by Melissa Santos from Axios: https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/08/09/washington-end-most-covid-emergency-orders   "New map would redraw Seattle's City Council districts, with changes for Georgetown, Magnolia" by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-map-would-redraw-seattles-city-council-districts-with-changes-for-georgetown-magnolia/   “Racial Equity Advocates Like Seattle's Newly Proposed Political Boundaries. Magnolia Residents Do Not.” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/08/04/77339585/racial-equity-advocates-like-seattles-newly-proposed-political-boundaries-magnolia-residents-do-not   “County Plans Emergency Walk-In Centers for Behavioral Health Crises” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola: https://publicola.com/2022/08/11/county-plans-emergency-walk-in-centers-for-behavioral-health-crises/    "Local Leaders Announce New Coalition to Address Behavioral Health Crisis" by Will Casey from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/08/11/77680008/local-leaders-announce-new-coalition-to-address-behavioral-health-crisis   “Designated crisis responders, a ‘last resort' in mental health care, face overwhelming demand” by Esmy Jimenez from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/designated-crisis-responders-a-last-resort-in-mental-health-care-face-overwhelming-demand/   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review because it helps a lot. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program today's cohost: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. [00:01:00] Melissa Santos: Hello, thanks for having me. [00:01:01] Crystal Fincher: Hey, thanks for being back. We always enjoy having you. So there were a number of things that happened this week. I think we'll start off just talking about the elections real quick. We got more results this week. Things are looking more conclusive - a couple of late-straggling races have been decided, including one of the congressional - two, really of the congressional district races. It looks like in the 47th Legislative District race that Republican Bill Boyce will be facing Democratic candidate Senator - former Senator - Claudia Kauffman. And that in the 47th House seat, that Democrat Shukri Olow and Democrat Chris Stearns will both be getting through and Republicans will actually not be making it in that seat, despite that race including three different Republicans - one the pick of the GOP that raised over $200,000, Carmen Goers, who actually finished in last place. So a number of things got settled, but overall, as you look at these elections, what are your takeaways, Melissa? [00:02:16] Melissa Santos: On the legislative side, really things look mostly similar to what they looked like on primary night, in the sense that a lot of the races that Republicans had hoped to pick up, I think Democrats still look really strong in. And that's in a lot of those swing districts in the suburbs - in Island County, the Democrats have pretty strong performances in some House races that I think Republicans have been eyeing for a pickup in the 10th District. The 28th Legislative District looks pretty much like the incumbent Democrats are in really good shape there - that's around Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Lakewood, University Place. And I think that the Republicans not having someone in that 47th District open seat is maybe not what people would've predicted when talking about a red wave coming this year, and that Democrats have been saying - we're just trying to defend what we have, we're not really planning to add seats here. But they look like they're in a pretty good position to defend the seats. The only place where things look like it'll be rough for Democrats are seats up in the 47th - sorry, the 42nd Legislative District in Whatcom County, I think, have some disappointing results for Democrats when it comes to trying to get the former - the State Senate seat formerly held by Republican Doug Ericksen. That's gonna be a tough race where it looks like the State House Democratic Rep who's running for it might have a really tough race to fight in November. She wants to pick up that seat for the Democrats. But again, Democrats were trying to just defend mostly this year. So I think they look like they're in a pretty good position to do that. One thing that's a little bit interesting is a lot of the fringier types in the Republican legislative caucus in the House are actually not going to be returning to the legislature next year. And some of that's just because they ran for Congress in some cases, like Brad Klippert. [00:04:15] Crystal Fincher: And Vicki Kraft. [00:04:16] Melissa Santos: Yes, and Vicki Kraft. So I'm interested to see how that plays out. There are some races where legislative candidates who are being accused of being RINOs [Republicans In Name Only] actually have advanced through the primary. And I am wondering if some Republicans - are they more moderate or just hoping that they beat the more Trumpy Republicans essentially. So that's something I'm watching actually going forward is - while we certainly have situations across the nation where Trump-endorsed Republicans are getting through - we see this in the 3rd Congressional District race, here in our state, where Jaime Herrera Beutler who voted to impeach Trump will not be getting through to the general - that was finalized this week. But locally in legislative races, I'm not sure that the more far-right candidates will win out in all these races in November. So I'm watching that - how does our state picture, when it comes to the Republican party, compare to what we're seeing nationally. And it's always interesting to see how Washington does 'cause we're a little bit different sometimes as a state in how we vote versus the rest of the country. [00:05:25] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And that sets up an interesting dynamic for Republicans, I think, in that it is really helpful when - just from a campaign perspective - when everyone is consistent with the message that's being delivered for the party, what priorities are in terms of values. And so there have been - legislatively - some more moderate Republicans making it through. There are certainly some real extremists. And again, "moderate" is an interesting word for Republicans 'cause - when it is gonna come to some of these caucus votes, I think moderation is gonna effectively fly out of the window. Or being afraid to speak out on certain things that challenge some of the more extreme elements in the party, which essentially in my opinion, enables that element of the party. But with Joe Kent higher on the ticket and being so visible, being a frequent guest on Hannity, Trump-endorsed, and really vocal about a number of things like opposing aid to Ukraine, about wanting Jim Jordan - who is extremely problematic and has been accused of ignoring sexual assault allegations on his watch under his responsibility - wanting him to replace Kevin McCarthy as the leader of the party, certainly moving in a much more extreme direction. A number of those things are gonna be inconsistent, I think, with what some of the other Republicans, I think legislatively under JT Wilcox certainly, Republicans are gonna wanna be talking about. So there may be just a bit of a mismatched message there and it will be interesting to see how the party navigates that, but especially coming from a place where the extremism - you look at the primaries - certainly did not land. And some of, even the criticisms just legislatively, of Republicans who were on the message that they wanted to be on, did not turn out to be very effective at all - that presents a challenge for them in the general. [00:07:40] Melissa Santos: I think that was interesting in the Federal Way area. I think everyone, including Democrats, were saying - yeah, there's a lot of voters concerned about public safety there. I think everyone thought maybe the Democrats might be a little bit more vulnerable from attacks from Republicans in that area in South King County around Federal Way, with Republicans say - Hey, Democrats passed all these bills that hamstring police, so they can't keep you safe. I think everyone thought that line of argument might work better in some of those areas in South King County than it did. And so I'm wondering if Republicans will change their approach or not, or if they're just gonna stick with hammering Democrats on public safety. I think that maybe we'll see just more talk about economy and inflation and maybe a little less of the public safety attacks - possibly - based on those results. [00:08:29] Crystal Fincher: And they certainly hit hard on both of those. It is interesting to see - particularly - so you have Jamila Taylor, who is the incumbent representative there, there's another open House seat, and then Claire Wilson in the Senate seat. Jamila Taylor, who's the head of the Legislative Black Caucus, did play a leading role in passing a lot of, number of the police accountability reforms that police, a number of police unions, and people who are saying "Back the Blue" and these were problematic. She actually has a police officer running against her in that district. And also, the mayor of Federal Way, Jim Ferrell, is running for King County Prosecutor on a hard line, lock 'em up kind of message. They've been working overtime to blame legislators, primarily Jamila Taylor, for some of the crime that they've seen. And holding community meetings - really trying to ratchet up sentiment against Jamila Taylor - helping out both her challenger and Jim Ferrell was the plan. And again, that seemed to fall flat. Jamila Taylor finished with 54% in that race and the most votes out of any Democrat. You saw Democrats across the board, both Claire Wilson and Jamila Taylor, get 54% and 55% of the vote. In a primary, that is certainly where you would want to be and that's really a hard number to beat in the general. And then in the other open seat, you had two Democratic candidates combine for, I think, 55% of the vote. So it is - where they attempted to make that argument the hardest, it seemed to fall almost the flattest. And it goes to - we talked about this on the Post-Primary Recap a little bit - I think it goes to show that the conversation publicly - certainly the political conversation about public safety - I think is too flat and does not account for where the public actually is. I think people are absolutely concerned about crime and rightfully so - we have to attack gun violence, we have to attack property crime and violent crime. We have to do better than we're doing now. But I think people are recognizing that the things that we have been doing have not been successful. And we have been trying to lock people up and people see that there's a need for behavioral health interventions, for housing, for substance use treatment and that those things are absent. And that you can send a policeman to do that, but they don't have the tools to address that even if they were the appropriate responder. And there's a lot of people saying they aren't even the appropriate response for a number of these things. So I just think regular voters - regular people - just have a more nuanced and realistic view of what needs to happen. [00:11:42] Melissa Santos: I also think that message - we could talk about those races forever, probably - but I think that message might land especially flat in communities like South King County that are predominantly people of color in many of these communities. They want to address - well, okay, I should not group everyone together, let me back up here - but I think a lot of people see the effects of crime on their communities and their family members and want support, not just a crackdown. And I don't know if that - I don't know - I'm generalizing here and I shouldn't, but I think that maybe that - [00:12:09] Crystal Fincher: I think it's across the board. I feel like - we saw polling in Seattle where, even if you break it down by Seattle City Council district, whether it's North Seattle or West Seattle which are predominantly white areas, in addition to other areas with higher percentage of people of color - they're saying near universally - when given, asked the question - where would you allocate more of your tax dollars in the realm of public safety to make a difference? They start off by saying behavioral health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, treating root causes. And then "more officers" trails those things. So it's - and even before more officers, they're saying better training for officers so they do a better job of responding when they are called. So I just think that across the board, there's - Republicans have gotten far and have done a lot by talking about the problem. And I think what the primary showed is that you're gonna have to do a better job of articulating a logical and reasonable solution to the problem. 'Cause people have heard talk about the problem for a long time, this isn't new. They're ready for someone to do something about it and they want to hear something that sounds credible, with some evidence behind it, that'll make a difference. And I don't think Republicans articulated that at all. And I think Democrats are talking about things more in line with where voters are at. But certainly, we could talk about those election results forever, but we will move on to other news. Speaking of newly elected people, we have a new appointment of a person on the Tacoma City Council - Olgy Diaz was just unanimously appointed as the first Latina member of the Tacoma City Council last Tuesday night. She was one of 43 applicants to apply, ended up making the shortlist, and then was officially appointed on Tuesday night. What did you take away from this? You previously covered - based in Tacoma, covered Tacoma previously, worked at The News Tribune. What does Olgy bring to the Council? [00:14:41] Melissa Santos: Olgy is really experienced in politics, I want to say. For way back when - I think I started talking to Olgy years and years ago - she was, definitely in her role with leading One America, she's done a lot of policy work at the state level for a long time. She worked in the Legislature, so I talked to her in that capacity. And she brings a lot of experience to the table - I think more than a lot of people who apply for vacancies on city councils, for sure. But I honestly was also just - I was blown away to read - I didn't realize the Tacoma City Council has never had a Latina member before and that really blew my mind, given the diversity of Tacoma and given that that's a community where you have people who just weren't represented for such a long time. I worked in Tacoma for eight years at the paper and I didn't - I guess I didn't realize that was the case. So Olgy - separately - brings just a ton of experience. She leads the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington now as president and I talked to her for stories in that capacity, and she's always very knowledgeable and really thoughtful. But yeah, that's just - in terms of representation, she brings a lot to the Council that apparently it hasn't had - in terms of experience and lived experience as well. I didn't watch the whole appointment process every step of the way, but it seems like that is a very solid choice, given that you have someone coming in possibly that has way more, broader political knowledge than a lot of the sitting councilmembers in some cases. And that's not a knock on the sitting councilmembers, but you just have someone really, really versed in politics and policy in Washington State coming onto that city council. [00:16:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and an unusual amount of experience. I think, to your point, not a knock on anyone else. Olgy just has an unusual amount of experience on both the policy and political side. She's the Government Affairs Director for Forterra, she's president of the National Women's Political Caucus as you said, on the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition and Institute for a Democratic Future board. She's previously been on the city's Human Rights Commission. She just has so many, so much experience from within, working within the legislature and elsewhere. And if - full disclosure - Olgy Diaz is not just a friend, but also worked for Olgy as her consultant and love the woman. But just completely dynamic and if you know Olgy, you know she reps South Tacoma harder than anyone else just about that you've ever met. She deeply, deeply loves the city, particularly South Tacoma, and has been an advocate for the city in every role that she's had. So just really excited to see her appointed. In other local news - this week, Seattle, the Seattle City Council stood up and passed protections for abortion and gender affirming care. What did they do? [00:17:52] Melissa Santos: They passed something that makes it a misdemeanor for someone to interfere, intimidate, or try and threaten someone who is seeking an abortion and they also have some civil rights protections that they passed. Those are especially - you might not think that's necessarily an issue in Seattle all the time, but I think that - certainly the misdemeanors for trying to interfere for someone getting treatment or getting abortion care, I think that is something that could actually be used and called upon sometime in Seattle with certain individual cases. And I do think it's - not necessarily in a bad way - but a messaging bill on both of them - in a way saying - care is protected here. Even though in Washington State we do have some state law protections for abortion - better than in most states - I think it's partly about sending a message to people that your care will not be interfered with here. And maybe even a message to people in other states - that they can come - actually that is part of it - is that you can come to Seattle and get care and you will not, we will support you. And so that's part of why they're doing it - both on a practical level, but also sending a message that we will not tolerate people trying to dissuade, to discourage people who decided to get an abortion from getting the care that they are seeking. [00:19:18] Crystal Fincher: And I know Councilmember Tammy Morales has also said that she plans to introduce further legislation to prevent crisis pregnancy centers from misrepresenting the facts, misleading people - which has happened in other situations with pregnancy crisis centers, which sometimes bill themselves as abortion care providers. A person seeking an abortion finds them, goes, and unexpectedly is - in some situations - heavily pressured not to have an abortion. And there's been situations where they have been found to have been coerced into not having an abortion. And so that would just seek to make sure that everybody correctly represents themselves, and who they are, and what they are attempting to do. Lots of people do, to your point, look at Seattle and say - okay, but this - things were safe here anyway. I do think the first one - we see a lot of counter-protestors - of people making points in Seattle, going to Seattle to protest different things, because it has a reputation for being progressive, where progressive policy is. So it attacks people who really dislike those policies and moving in that direction. I think this is helpful for that. And it serves as model legislation. There are some very red areas here in the state. There are other localities - we may have neighboring states that - the right to abortion is coming to an end. And so having legislation like this that has passed in the region, that has passed nearby, that is in place, that survives legal challenges against them makes it easier for other localities to pass the same. And so I think that it is a very positive thing for Seattle to take the lead passing model legislation. Certainly aren't the first to pass, but having it in the region is very, very helpful. So glad to see that. Also this week - some challenging news. One - monkeypox, now referred to as MPV, cases have been doubling nearly every week in Washington and has been declared a public health emergency. Where do we stand here? [00:21:37] Melissa Santos: I think that right now, we have about 220 cases - and that's what I think I saw on the CDC website just earlier today. And last week, it was 70 fewer than that, at least - we have been seeing, especially early on, every week or so the cases were doubling in our state. And we remember how COVID started in a way - it was small at first and things just can really expand quickly. This isn't spread the same way COVID is - and I'm not saying it is - but we do definitely have a vaccine shortage here for this and that's a huge concern. I asked the State Department of Health - actually, I have not put this in the story yet, but I was like - how many people do you feel like you need to treat that are at high risk? And they said it's almost 80,000. And took me a long time to get that number, but I think we only have - we only are gonna have something like 20-something thousand vaccines doses coming in, maybe 25,000, through at least early September. So there's a lot of potential for this to spread before we get vaccines to treat the people who are most at risk. That's a big concern. And so I haven't checked in our state yet - this sort of decision that we can stretch these doses further by divvying them up and doing, making each dose into maybe five doses - that could really help here. So I need to check whether in our state we're going forward with that and if that meets the need or not. But we still need a second dose for everybody, even beyond that. So it looks like the math just doesn't work and we're still gonna be short. And in that time, how far will it spread? Because it's not just - it's not a sexually transmitted disease that only is going to spread among LGBT individuals - other people are getting it and will get it. So that is - and also that community needs as much support as they can get anyway, regardless. But this is not something that just affects someone else, for instance, if you're not a member of that community. It's something that can affect everybody, and it's - everyone's afraid of another situation like we had with COVID - could it spread before we get a handle on it? And I think it's still an unknown question right now. [00:23:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, big unknown question. And to your point, it was - the CDC just announced that the vaccine supply can be stretched by giving one-fifth of the normal dose, so stretched five times what we thought we previously had. But that was just announced, so our local plans for that are probably in progress and process and hopefully we'll hear more about that soon. But haven't yet as that information was just announced - I want to say yesterday, if not day before. With that, to your point, it is - some people are under the mistaken impression that this is a sexually transmitted infection. It is not. It can spread by just skin-to-skin contact. If two people are wearing shorts and at a concert, or have short-sleeve shirts and are rubbing against each other, it can be spread just by touching especially infected lesions, by surfaces if there's a high enough amount on a surface. It is pretty hardy - lasts a long time on a number of surfaces or clothes or different things like that. Certainly a lot of concern with kids going back into school, kids in daycare that we may see an increase particularly among children - just because they are around each other and touching each other and playing as they do and that is how this virus can spread. So certainly getting as many people, starting with the highest risk people, vaccinated is important. We are short - there are just no two ways about that and running behind. Testing capacity has also been a challenge. So hopefully with these emergency declarations that we've seen locally and nationally that we fast forward the response to that and get prepared pretty quickly, but we will say that. Also this week, most COVID emergency orders have been ended. What happened here? [00:26:08] Melissa Santos: Some of them are still getting phased out, but the governor just very recently announced in our state that he's going to be - he's ending 12 COVID emergency orders. And so I went - wait, how many are left then, 'cause I don't think we have that many. And the governor's office - there's only 10 - once these mostly healthcare, procedure-related orders are phased out, will only be 10 COVID emergency orders left. And honestly, some of those have even been scaled back from what they were. They're - one of the orders relates to practicing some safe distancing measures or certain precautions in schools - that's really a step back from having schools be completely closed, like we had at one point. So even those 10 aren't necessarily as stringent as the orders we were seeing earlier in the pandemic. What does that really signify? I think that the governor has said - because we have good treatment options available, it doesn't mean that COVID is no longer a threat, but we have better ways of dealing with it essentially. It's not like early in the pandemic when nobody was vaccinated. We have a fairly high vaccination rate in our state compared to some others. And we have some treatment options that are better. And at least right now - well, I say this - our hospitals aren't pushed completely beyond capacity. Although, however - this week Harborview actually is over capacity, so that's still a potential problem going forward. But we just have better ways of dealing with the virus than we did. It doesn't mean it's not a threat, it doesn't mean that people aren't still getting hospitalized and even dying - because they are. But we're moving to a different stage of this pandemic where we're just not going to have as many restrictions and we're going to approach the virus in a different way. [00:27:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Yeah, that pretty much covers it there. [00:27:56] Melissa Santos: The thing - I do think for public - I've asked the governor a couple times - what is your standard for lifting the underlying emergency order? 'Cause we still are in a state of emergency over COVID and that does give the governor, if something comes up, quick power to ban some activity or something. And if there's a public health risk, he could order, for instance, indoor mask wearing again if he wanted. He has not indicated he plans to, but it gives him a little more power. Republicans are still mad about that, but in effect, there aren't that many orders actually in place anymore. We're just not living under as many restrictions as we once were. [00:28:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. So the protections are going away - there are lots of people who are very concerned about this. This does not seem tethered to - earlier in the pandemic - in some situations when cases were spreading at a lower amount than they were in some areas then than they are today - they tied it to certain metrics and to hospital capacity and different things. So there seemed like there was an underlying data-based justification that would dictate what the appropriate health response was. This seems untethered from all of that. And I think a lot of people's criticisms of this are - the actions that are taken, or realistically the actions that are no longer being taken, the justification behind that seems to be driven by convenience or by a desire just to get back to normal or fatigue. And instead of what health precautions dictate would be wise. I think at the very minimum we would be a lot better off if - we were very late in, from the CDCs perspective, in acknowledging that this is an airborne virus. And so air quality, air purification, air turnover in indoor spaces is extremely important, especially given how helpful that is for wildfire air mitigation. We're having a higher, more low-quality air days than we have before. Focusing on indoor air purification - I wish there were more of a push for that, more awareness for that, more assistance for that. Because it just seems like - given this and monkeypox, which has evidence that it is spread also via airborne - [00:30:37] Melissa Santos: Or at least droplets in close - yeah, at least like close breathy, breathing-ey stuff. [00:30:44] Crystal Fincher: Yes - that air purification is important. And so I wish we would make a greater push because still - that's not really aggressively talked about by most of our public health entities. And there's just not an awareness because of that, by a lot of people who are not necessarily being, saying - no, I don't want to do that - but just don't understand the importance of that. And many businesses that could take steps, but just don't know that that's what they should be doing. Sometimes it's still here - well, we're sanitizing all of these surfaces, which is going to come in handy for monkeypox certainly, but is not really an effective mitigation for COVID when - hey, let's talk about air purification instead of you wiping down surfaces. Just interesting and this may ramp up again, depending on what happens with MPV infections and spread. So we'll see how that continues. [00:31:47] Melissa Santos: But this time we have a vaccine at least - there is a vaccine that exists. Remember the beginning of COVID - of course, everyone remembers - there was no vaccine. So this feels like - theoretically, we should be able to address it faster because we have a vaccine, but there's just a shortage nationwide of the vaccine. So that's, I think, an extra frustrating layer of the monkeypox problem - is that we have a tool, but we just don't have enough of it. In COVID, we just were all completely in the dark for months and months and months and months - and anyway. [00:32:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and unfortunately the effect on the ground of not having enough is the same as not having any. [00:32:23] Melissa Santos: Right. Yeah. [00:32:24] Crystal Fincher: And so people are left with greater exposure to the virus and to spreading the virus than there would be otherwise, because we don't have the adequate supply of it. Which they say they're working on, but of course those things - unless you are prepared beforehand and making an effort to be prepared beforehand, it takes a while to get that ramped up. I think they're saying the earliest we could anticipate additional supply would be in the September timeframe, and oftentimes that's when it starts to trickle. And so it could be October before we see a meaningful amount of additional supply or longer. Just stay on top of information, be aware out there, and we will see. Very important thing happening within the City of Seattle - is Seattle City Council district redistricting, and what's happening. There have been some good articles written recently - both in The Seattle Times, especially in The Stranger by Hannah Krieg - about racial equity advocates actually being happy about the newly proposed political boundaries for council districts. But some residents of Magnolia, the expensive and exclusive Magnolia community, who have been known to advocate against any type of growth, or development, or any change to their community, other people getting greater access to their community and the political power that comes with who they've been and their ability to have an outsized voice, realistically, in local politics. They're not that happy. What's happening here? [00:34:16] Melissa Santos: The proposal that at least is moving forward at this point would split Magnolia, right? So this is something that communities of color have argued as being - Hey, in other areas, our communities are split and that dilutes our voice. And now it's interesting that Magnolia, which is not historically an area where - that has been predominantly people of color - every district in Seattle is changing - safe to say that it's been a whiter area. They're saying - Hey, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa - wait, we're gonna get split, that's gonna dilute our voice. So it's an interesting dynamic there. And what's also interesting - and it makes sense because the same organizations have been working on city redistricting and state redistricting, to some degree - we're seeing this movement to really unite and ensure communities in South Seattle are not divided. So in this - this was something that they really were trying to do with congressional districts - is make sure that South Seattle communities of color have a coalition and aren't split. And especially having the - well, let's see, and at least in state redistricting - making sure the International District is connected in some way to other parts of South Seattle and Beacon Hill. That was a priority in one of the congressional district redistricting for some of these groups that are now working on Seattle redistricting. One of the things that it would do is put South Park and Georgetown in the same district, which is interesting because I think those two communities work together on a lot of issues that affect the Duwamish and affect - again, a lot of people of color that live in those districts - there are issues that really would affect both of them. And so putting them in the same district, I could see why that would make sense. And you also have - I want to make sure I have this right, but I think - making sure Beacon Hill and it is connected to South Seattle as well. I'm gonna check here - is it also the International District here we're talking as well? Oh, Yesler Terrace - that's right. [00:36:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so CID and Yesler Terrace will be in District 2 - kept them both in District 2 - that those were some really, really important considerations. And large percentages of those communities have talked about how important that is. You just talked about Georgetown and South Park being in that district. Looking at Lake City, Northgate, and Broadview in District 5. Also keeping growing renter populations together in South Lake Union and Downtown together there has been making a difference. Both communities of color and, as we talk in the larger redistricting conversation, communities of interest - and now with more than half of the City being renters - renters have been largely overlooked in terms of redistricting and City policy until now. And really what a number of these organizations are saying is - we've been overlooked, we have not been absent, but we've been ignored in this and communities and voices from places like Magnolia have been overrepresented and have been catered to this time. And there's a saying - when you're used to privilege, equity looks like oppression. And so Magnolia is saying - we're losing our voice - and kind of collectively, interests from the rest of the City are saying - no, what you're doing is losing the ability to speak over our voices. But now that we're all at the table and all have a voice, it's time for us to also be recognized as valid and important and worthy of preservation and continuity and representation and not have it broken up in favor of predominantly wealthy homeowners who are saying - well, we're a historically important community. Well, are you historically important and the change that the rest of the City has seen hasn't come to your district because you have fought so vehemently against it. And then turn around and say - and that's why you should cater to us and keep us together because we continue to fight against any kind of change. And realistically saying - hey, other districts have changed and boundaries need to change in those other areas to accommodate that. And so this does - certainly not all that advocates have asked for, but some meaningful progress and some promising boundaries, I think, for a lot of people in the City, for a lot of people who are not wealthy, for people who are renters no matter what the income is - because of the challenges that just the rental population is facing. And to your point, neighborhoods who have worked together and who share interests, who now have the opportunity to have that represented politically within the City? I think that's very helpful and I definitely hope people stay engaged. In this redistricting process. And as the voices from some of those communities who have had greater access to an ability to participate in these redistricting and City processes, and who've had the inside track and who have been listened to to a greater degree than others, that you add your voice to the conversation to make sure that it isn't drowned out by anyone else. Looking at a recent announcement - and kind of announcement is a better word than a new policy or a plan - because it is just announced and announced the intention to take action, but we have yet to see. There was a press conference yesterday about emergency walk-in centers for behavioral health cases, addressing our regional behavioral health crisis here. What was announced and what is the deal? [00:40:32] Melissa Santos: What exactly is going to happen remains a little bit unclear to me exactly, but basically King County Executive Dow Constantine announced a plan to just expand services for people who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. And it's going to be part of his 2023 budget proposal, which isn't coming out 'til next month. So the idea is having more short- and long-term treatment - so more walk-in treatment that's available and more places to send people who have acute mental health needs. He was talking about how the County's lost a third of its residential behavioral healthcare beds - Erica Barnett at PubliCola reported on this pretty extensively - and there's just a concern there just won't be enough. I was surprised by the stat that there's only one crisis stabilization unit in the County that's 16 beds - that's not very much, especially when we know people suffer mental health crises more frequently than that small number of beds might indicate. So what's interesting is we want to put more money in somewhere so people aren't getting treated in jails, that they have a better place to go, but we're not quite - we don't know exactly the scope of this, or how much money exactly we're talking about to put toward more beds. I guess there's some plans to do so - is what I got from the executive. [00:42:06] Crystal Fincher: Certainly from a regional perspective, we saw representation from the mayor's office for the City of Seattle, county executive certainly, county council, regional leaders in behavioral health treatment and homelessness - all saying that - Hey, we intend to take action to address this. Like you said, Dow said that he will be speaking more substantively to this in terms of details with his budget announcement and what he plans to do with that. Universal acknowledgement that this is a crisis, that they lack funding and resources in this area, and say that they intend to do better with a focus, like you said, on walk-in treatment and the ability to provide that. But we just don't know the details yet. We'll be excited to see that. And you covered this week, just the tall task ahead of them, because we've spoken about before and lots of people have talked about even in this press conference, a problem that we almost require that people - the only access that people can get to treatment sometimes is if they've been arrested, which is just a wildly inefficient way to address this, especially when it plays a role in creating some of the problems with crime and other things. But even with the newly rolled-out intervention system with an attempt to - if someone who previously would've called 911 now can call a dedicated kind of other crisis line to try and get an alternative response - but even that is severely underfunded. What's happening with that? [00:44:00] Melissa Santos: So with 988 - this is the three-digit number people can call when they have a mental health crisis and they'll be connected to a counselor who can help talk them through it. The idea is ultimately for that system to also be able to send trained crisis responders - largely instead of police in many, many cases - meet people in-person, not just talk to them on the phone. But we just don't have enough of these mobile crisis response teams. There's money in the state budget to add more over the next couple of years, especially in rural areas that just don't have the coverage right now. They just don't have enough teams to be able to get to people when they need it. That's something they want to expand so there's more of a response than - that isn't a police officer showing up at your door. So that's the ultimate vision for this new line you call - 988 - but it's not fully implemented right now. You still will get some support. And if you call, I'm not trying to say people should not call the line, but they don't necessarily have all the resources they want to be able to efficiently deploy people - I shouldn't say deploy, it sounds very military - but deploy civilian trained helpers to people who are experiencing a crisis. So that's where they want it to go and The Seattle Times had an article just about how some of those designated crisis responders right now are just stretched so thin and that's just not gonna change immediately, even with some new state money coming in to add more people to do those sorts of things. And designated crisis responders have other duties - they deal with actually to getting people to treatment - some involuntarily in certain cases. Again, it's different than a police response and right now there's just not enough of those folks. [00:45:55] Crystal Fincher: Which jeopardizes the willingness of people to continue to call. Certainly the possibility that a police response can ultimately happen from someone who was requesting a behavioral health or another type of intervention response. And that is still a possibility which some people find challenging or - hey, they expected to avoid that or have something different if they call this and that might not always be the case. But it's certainly a challenge and I think one of the things that was talked about yesterday, which kind of wraps this under a whole umbrella, is there needs to be a lot more done in terms of infrastructure and capacity from - with there being someone to call, someone appropriate to call for whatever the challenge is, an appropriate response. If that is a behavioral health trained person, a crisis intervener, someone like that - and places to take people. Someone does respond and then can connect that person to services that exist. We have problems in a number of areas saying - yeah, we offered services or services are available and they aren't, or they aren't appropriate for the crisis that's there. They don't meet the needs of the person and their situation. So certainly a lot to build out. I think it is a positive step that we're hearing acknowledgement of this and a unified plan to take action, but still need to see what actually results 'cause sometimes we hear big fanfare to start and don't get much substantive on the back end. Certainly I hope with a number of the people involved in this that we do get some substantive progress and I hope to see that, I would expect to see that - but I'm looking forward to it. With that, I think that wraps up this show today. Thank you so much for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 12th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng with assistance from Bryce Cannatelli - we have an incredible team here at Hacks & Wonks - just want to continue to say that it is not just me, it is completely our team and not possible without this full team. Our wonderful co-host today is Seattle Axios reporter Melissa Santos. You can find Melissa on Twitter @MelissaSantos1. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on the new Twitter account @HacksWonks, you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii (spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I). Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show deliver to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show and Election 2022 resources at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Ellen Malcolm helped found EMILY's List in 1985 and then served as EL's President for 25 years. It's hard to think of an organization over the last 30+ years that has changed politics more than EMILY's List, dramatically increasing the number of Democratic women in the both the Senate and the House. In this conversation originally released in August 2021, Ellen talks about how her early stops at places like Common Cause and the National Women's Political Caucus prepared her to help found, launch, and grow EMILY's List. And Ellen outlines the key moments, decisions, and campaigns that have forged the successful political institution EMILY's List has become. IN THIS EPISODEEllen grows up in a Republican household…The cause and candidate that pulled Ellen into progressive politics…Ellen cuts her teeth at Common Cause and the National Women's Political Caucus…Ellen comes out of the philanthropic closet…The one Senate race in 1982 that was the catalyst for the creation for EMILYs List…Geraldine Ferraro's role in energizing the women's political movement…How “pro-choice” and “Democratic” became integral to EMILYs List mission…Ellen's memorable first meeting with then newly-elected Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi…Barbara Mikulski and EMILYs List make history in 1986…The 1988 House race that became a prototype what would soon be EMILYs List political department…Ellen remembers her deep emotional investment in Ann Richards races in Texas…The 1992 “Year of the Woman” changes the trajectory of EMILYs List…The 2004 House race that became a model of how EMILYs List tries to operate…After 25 years as President of EL, how Ellen knew it was time to pass the torch…Ellen's advice for new or smaller organizations that want to be the next EL…AND 12-2 meetings, 60 Minutes, Tammy Baldwin, Lindy Boggs, Mary Beth Cahill, chain letters, Common Cause, John Danforth, donor networks, Dwight Eisenhower, the ERA fight, Anna Eshoo, John Gardner, Jane Hickey, Anita Hill, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Gwen Moore, NOW, Mary Rose Oakar, David Obey, Tip O'Neil, Jen Pihlaja, Sally Ride, Run to Win, Stephanie Schriock, Wendy Sherman, Simon & Garfunkel, Martha Smiley, Lael Stegall, Adlai Stevenson, Clarence Thomas, Jolene Unsoeld, Willi Unsoeld, Watergate, Henrietta Windom, Harriet Woods…& MORE!

Fannie Lou Hamer, née Townsend, (born October 6, 1917, Ruleville, Mississippi, U.S.—died March 14, 1977, Mound Bayou, Mississippi),  African American civil rights activist who worked to desegregate the Mississippi Democratic Party.The youngest of 20 children, Fannie Lou was working the fields with her sharecropper parents at the age of six. Amid poverty and racial exploitation, she received only a sixth-grade education. In 1942 she married Perry (“Pap”) Hamer. Her civil rights activism began in August 1962, when she answered a call by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) for volunteers to challenge voter registration procedures that excluded African Americans. Fired for her attempt to register to vote (she failed a literacy test), she became a field secretary for the SNCC; she finally became a registered voter in 1963.In 1964 Hamer cofounded and became vice-chairperson of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), established after unsuccessful attempts by African Americansto work with the all-white and pro-segregation Mississippi Democratic Party. That year she testified before the credentials committee of the Democratic National Convention, demanding that the delegation of the Mississippi Democratic Party be replaced by that of the MFDP. After U.S. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson attempted to block the television broadcast of her testimony by scheduling a news conference for the same time, forcing television networks to cut away from their live coverage of the convention, her speech was carried on many evening news programs, where it was exposed to a much larger audience than it would have received had it been broadcast at its original time. In her testimony she movingly described incidents of violence and injustice suffered by civil rights activists, including her own experience of a jailhouse beating that left her crippled. At the insistence of President Johnson, however, the committee refused to seat the MFDP delegation, offering only two at-large seats, provided that neither went to Hamer. She and the MFDP refused.In 1967 Hamer published To Praise Our Bridges: An Autobiography. As a member of the Democratic National Committee for Mississippi (1968–71) and the Policy Council of the National Women's Political Caucus (1971–77), she actively opposed the Vietnam War and worked to improve economic conditions in Mississippi.From https://www.britannica.com/biography/Fannie-Lou-Hamer-American-civil-rights-activist. For more information about Fannie Lou Hamer:“Fannie Lou Hamer”: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/freedomsummer-hamer/“I'm Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired”: https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2019/08/09/im-sick-and-tired-of-being-sick-and-tired-dec-20-1964/“The Enduring Influence of Fannie Lou Hamer, Civil Rights Advocate”: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/books/review/walk-with-me-kate-clifford-larson-until-i-am-free-keisha-blain-fannie-lou-hamer.html

In this episode, League of Education Voters CEO Lauri Hennessey interviews Olgy Diaz, a longtime lobbyist and advocate who is President of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington. Olgy talks about getting women of color trained and elected, working as a lobbyist during the pandemic, and how to still have hope in a challenging time.

Alicia Dara is an amazing woman who shared multiple pearls of wisdom with our listeners about how to find your voice, how to become the protagonist in your own story, and even how to truly connect with one's emotions to fully enjoy classical music! She is a nationally recognized speech and presentation coach based in Seattle. She has helped thousands of people including CEO's, Global VPs, Executive Directors and Presidential candidates break through blocks, find their Power Voice, and put it to work. "What we allow is what we encourage," she shares, in describing how she helps women learn how to set appropriate boundaries in the workplace. Her most popular group training is "Power Voice for Career Women," which helps women strengthen their voices, clarify their messaging and push back against workplace sexism. Corporate clients include Microsoft (where she is a vendor), Amazon, Kimpton Hotels, Planned Parenthood, The Riveter and Carhartt. Private clients include the National Women's Political Caucus, the Female Founders Alliance, and members of Facebook, Merrill Lynch, Seattle Trade Commission, Windermere and Twitter. Alicia is currently working on her first book about strengthening women's voices in the workplace. Learn more about Alicia's work and access her fantastically helpful resources, which include YouTube instructional videos about how to be a better public speaker, at www.aliciadara.com. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maria-leonard-olsen/support

On Thursday, April 21st, The Women Democrats of Sacramento County, National Women's Political Caucus of Sacramento, and the Capital Women's Campaign sponsored a debate for the three candidates -all Democrats - for the California State Senate District 8. Those candidates are Angelique Ashby, Raffa Garcia, and Dave Jones. The format was changed to a town hall-style meeting because one of the candidates, Sacramento Vice Mayor Ashby was diagnosed with COVID just hours prior to the event. Rather than cancel the meeting, Ashby's campaign manager Katie Nazlik spoke on her behalf. We wish the vice mayor a speedy recovery. The discussion was moderated by the chairperson of the Sacramento County Democratic Party, Ms. Traci Stafford. We have provided a list of the questions for a guide. Towards the middle of the discussion Stafford's voice did not record property, so the list of questions can provide a point of reference. There were five general topics covered in the forum Women's issues Housing Climate Change Violent Crime And Equity In addition to the prepared questions, there were questions submitted by the audience. We have not included that recording as the audience questions were inaudible. We hope you find this recording useful as you determine how you will cast your vote. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/elk-grove-news/support

---> Check out the Partners here.---> Subscribe to the Causeartist Newsletter here.In episode 133 of the Disruptors for GOOD podcast I speak with Christie Lagally, Founder & CEO of Rebellyous Foods, on using her aerospace and engineering background to scale access and affordability to delicious plant-based chicken.Christie Lagally is the founder and CEO of Rebellyous Foods, a food production technology company working to make plant-based meat price-competitive with traditional chicken products. Ms. Lagally is a mechanical engineer and holder of multiple patents in manufacturing technology. She spent much of her career in the aerospace industry working on commercial airplanes and spacecraft in testing, design, and manufacturing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Previously, Ms. Lagally served as a Senior Scientist for the Good Food Institute uncovering the technical barriers in the development of plant-based meat and cultured meat. Ms. Lagally holds Bachelor's degrees in Organizational Psychology and Mechanical Engineering and a Master's of Science in Mechanical Engineering. She is also an active member of the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington, a co-founder of the Humane Voters of Washington (a political action committee) and serves as a Washington State Volunteer Leader for the Humane Society of the United States.Rebellyous Foods is an innovative food production company creating delicious, affordable plant-based meats for the foodservice industry. The company has achieved this through the custom design of low-cost, high-quality products in combination with the use of high-throughput manufacturing automation, the development of new, low-energy manufacturing tools, and the design of modular production facilities operated by Rebellyous Foods.With current plant-based meat products at two-to-five times the cost per pound of animal-based meat, plant-based meat will only truly become widely available when it can be produced and sold at a low cost. Rebellyous Foods is utilizing leading-edge manufacturing methods at scale through R&D with universities, a planned pilot-scale facility in the Puget Sound, and a production facility in Seattle. Working closely with industry partners, Rebellyous Foods equips our facilities with redesigned and optimized equipment for large scale production of plant-based meat.---> Check out the Partners here.---> Subscribe to the Causeartist Newsletter here.Listen to more Causeartist podcast shows hereFollow Grant on Twitter and LinkedInFollow Causeartist on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram

For the entire discussion, bonus content & to help make the show happen, please join us on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/thekatiehalpershow Matt Taibbi and Katrina vanden Heuvel talk about the latest news in Russia and Ukraine. Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of The Nation. She served as editor of the magazine from 1995 to 2019. She writes a weekly column for The Washington Post. A frequent commentator on US and international politics for ABC, MSNBC, CNN, and PBS, her articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Boston Globe. Vanden Heuvel is also the author of several books, including The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in The Age of Obama, and co-author of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev's Reformers. Vanden Heuvel has been recognized for her journalism and public service by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the National Women's Political Caucus, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Community Change, the Norman Mailer Center, the Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val-Kill, American Rights at Work, Progressive Congress, and more. Matt Taibbi is an award-winning author of several books including Hate Inc.: How, And Why, The Press Makes Us Hate One Another and The Business Secrets of Drug Dealing. He also co-hosts Useful Idiots with Katie. You can find his writing at his substack TK Media.

In the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade legal case, the United States Supreme Court voted 7-2 to affirm the right to get an abortion. Despite both the colossal impact of the case and her famous pseudonym, few know the full story of Norma McCorvey: the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Joshua Prager, a journalist with a penchant for writing about historical secrets, shared over a decade of meticulous research about McCorvey and a complex cast of characters in his new book, The Family Roe. Prager traced the past 50 years through four key figures: Linda Coffee, the critical but forgotten Texas lawyer who filed the original lawsuit and gave Jane Roe her name; Curtis Boyd, a former fundamentalist Christian who became a leading provider of third-trimester abortions; Mildred Jefferson, the first Black female Harvard Medical School graduate and a founder of the Right to Life Committee; and Norma McCorvey and her family, including the now-adult “Roe Baby” who was unknowingly at the center of the historic case. McCorvey's family history is messy and fraught with trauma, but it's also human. As much as people might try to apply black-and-white thinking to McCorvey's story, Prager aimed to lead us to a place of empathy and consider ever-evolving questions of family, sex, and religion, with questions of politics and the law evolving right alongside them. Joshua Prager is a former senior writer for The Wall Street Journal and has written about historical secrets for more than 20 years. In addition to The Family Roe, he is the author of The Echoing Green, which was a Washington Post Best Book of the Year, and 100 Years, a collaboration with legendary graphic designer Milton Glaser. Prager has spoken at venues including TED and Google. He was a Nieman fellow at Harvard and a Fulbright Distinguished Chair at Hebrew University.  He lives in New Jersey. Kiana Scott is a strategic communications expert, development leader, and active civic volunteer with more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, policy, and civic engagement. When not volunteering, she leads development and communications for CareerWork$, a workforce development nonprofit advancing economic equality for young adults. Kiana is a board member for the National Women's Political Caucus of Washington, Vice President of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, and an elected Precinct Committee Officer. She holds a Ph.D. in political communication from UW. Buy the Book: The Family Roe: An American Story (Hardcover) from Elliott Bay Books Presented by Town Hall Seattle. To become a member or make a donation click here. 

Jessie Wayburn dives deep into spirituality with Dhaya Lakshminarayanan. Dhaya Lakshminarayanan is the 2016 winner of the Liz Carpenter Political Humor Award (previously awarded to Samantha Bee, Wanda Sykes and satirist/humorist Mark Russell) presented by the National Women's Political Caucus. Comedy Central Asia crowned her the Grand Prize Winner of “The Ultimate Comedy Challenge” filmed in Singapore. She is the sole subject of the documentary “NerdCool” which premiered at the LA Comedy Festival in 2018 KQED named her one of the twenty “Women to Watch” a series celebrating women artists, creatives and makers in the San Francisco Bay Area who are pushing boundaries in 2016. She was named one of “The Bay Area's 11 Best Standup Comedians” in 2016 and “13 San Francisco Standup Comedians to Go See Now” in 2018 by SFist. The SF Weekly named her one of the “16 Bay Area performers to watch in 2016.” The San Francisco Bay Guardian named her Best Comedian 2013 in the “Best of the Bay” Readers' Poll. She has opened/featured for or worked with the following: Janeane Garofalo, Marc Maron, Greg Behrendt, Jello Biafra, the late Dick Gregory, Anthony Jeselnik, Maz Jobrani, and Greg Proops. Dhaya introduced former Vice President Al Gore at an event. He then laughed onstage at her joke, so technically she once opened for Al Gore. She has performed internationally in Shanghai, China; Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, and Singapore. In the US she has been an invited performer at Bridgetown Comedy Festival (Portland, OR), San Francisco Sketchfest, the Boston Comedy Festival (semifinalist), the Limestone Comedy Festival (Bloomington, IN) and Laugh Your Asheville Off (Asheville, NC). Dhaya was one of the chosen artists by The Asian Art Museum of San Francisco to take the entire museum over for one night. During Takeover:Dhaya Lakshminarayanan, she programmed content including stand-up comedy, humorous fake tours of the museum, and an absurdist interpretation of Indian mythological comic books. The only other artist invited to takeover the museum in 2017 was RZA from the Wu-Tang Clan Dhaya is also a TV host and storyteller. She hosted the premier year of the Emmy award-winning series High School Quiz Show on PBS's WGBH. She is a frequent comedic storyteller on NPR's Snap Judgment and has appeared live in Austin on The Risk podcast. She is currently the host of San Francisco's monthly Moth StorySLAM after winning a Moth StorySLAM and competing in the GrandSLAM at the Castro Theater (capacity 1400). ON24 awarded her the grand prize for “Best Travel Disaster Story.” Dhaya is a solo performer, and her first play “Nerd Nation” was funded in parts by The Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center of San Francisco and support from DIVAfest which supports new and developing works by female playwrights. Her workshop run in San Francisco sold out. The Boston Globe, The Bay Guardian, and The San Jose Mercury News have all run profiles about her. Prior to funny and show business Dhaya was a venture capitalist, management consultant, and two-time MIT graduate. You can indeed call her a nerd. Taking Dadplications is an Opus Nox Media production. Music and cover art by Nick Jenkins. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/taking-dadplications/support

Ellen Malcolm helped found EMILY's List in 1985 and then served as EL's President for 25 years. It's hard to think of an organization over the last 30+ years that has changed politics more than EMILY's List, dramatically increasing the number of Democratic women in the both the Senate and the House. In this conversation, Ellen talks about how her early stops at places like Common Cause and the National Women's Political Caucus prepared her to help found, launch, and grow EMILY's List. And Ellen outlines the key moments, decisions, and campaigns that have forged the successful political institution EMILY's List has become. IN THIS EPISODEEllen grows up in a Republican household…The cause and candidate that pulled Ellen into progressive politics…Ellen cuts her teeth at Common Cause and the National Women's Political Caucus…Ellen comes out of the philanthropic closet…The one Senate race in 1982 that was the catalyst for the creation for EMILYs List…Geraldine Ferraro's role in energizing the women's political movement…How “pro-choice” and “Democratic” became integral to EMILYs List mission…Ellen's memorable first meeting with then newly-elected Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi…Barbara Mikulski and EMILYs List make history in 1986…The 1988 House race that became a prototype what would soon be EMILYs List political department…Ellen remembers her deep emotional investment in Ann Richards races in Texas…The 1992 “Year of the Woman” changes the trajectory of EMILYs List…The 2004 House race that became a model of how EMILYs List tries to operate…After 25 years as President of EL, how Ellen knew it was time to pass the torch…Ellen's advice for new or smaller organizations that want to be the next EL…AND 12-2 meetings, 60 Minutes, Tammy Baldwin, Lindy Boggs, Mary Beth Cahill, chain letters, Common Cause, John Danforth, donor networks, Dwight Eisenhower, the ERA fight, Anna Eshoo, John Gardner, Jane Hickey, Anita Hill, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Gwen Moore, NOW, Mary Rose Oakar, David Obey, Tip O'Neil, Jen Pihlaja, Sally Ride, Run to Win, Stephanie Schriock, Wendy Sherman, Simon & Garfunkel, Martha Smiley, Lael Stegall, Adlai Stevenson, Clarence Thomas, Jolene Unsoeld, Willi Unsoeld, Watergate, Henrietta Windom, Harriet Woods…& MORE!

Welcome to episode 35 of the Today is the Day Changemakers Podcast. This week my guest is Chrissy Buteas, Chief Government Affairs Officer of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association.  Growing up Chrissy had an affinity for playing sports and thought maybe that was going to be her future. She had dreams of also managing a sports team. However, she shifted gears from the sports arena to the political arena. All of her sports training taught her firsthand how to be a team player, win, lose and do it all again.Chrissy has worked in both the not for profit and for profit sectors and is able to advocate for businesses in her role at the NJBIA with the knowledge of what it takes to be a leader in this state. Prior to joining NJBIA, Chrissy served as the president and CEO of the Home Care & Hospice Association of New Jersey, representing New Jersey home health agencies, hospices and health care service firms servicing the state's Medicare, Medicaid and private pay patients. She serves on the board of trustees of Middlesex College and is a member of the Northern Board of Junior Achievement. Chrissy is also the former president and current board member of the Women's Political Caucus of New Jersey, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing women in government. She serves as a member of the New Jersey Medical Assistance Advisory Council, New Jersey Small Employer Health Benefits Program and the New Jersey Mandated Health Benefits Advisory Commission. Also, Chrissy currently serves as the Sergeant of Arms for the Democratic State Committee. She also serves on the board of Focus NJ, an independent research non-profit conducting timely, innovative, nonpartisan economic and workforce research.We talk about women breaking barriers and Chrissy is truly a barrier breaker as she has won several awards including being named a Woman of Distinction by the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore, a Barrier Breaker as part of Jersey's Best magazine's Spring issue honoring trailblazing women in the state and recognized on ROI-NJ's Influencers: Power List for Government Affairs. In 2018, Buteas was named to NJBIZ's Best 50 Women in Business list. She was named to NJBIZ's “40 Under 40” and “Power 50 Health Care” lists in 2017, as well as the 2017 “Insider 100 Policymakers” list by Insider NJ.During our interview We also touch on the importance of busy people taking better care of themselves and the importance of taking a break, so we can come back to the work we all do with a renewed spirit and passion. We all deserve it. Don't forget to listen to Chrissy's response to 'if I knew then what I know now'. Next week, I welcome my guest Kathy Durante, Executive Director, OceanFirst Bank. Kathy  shares how she thought law school was in her future, but instead took a position as Executive Director for a United Way and then moved on to be the ED of a foundation. She continues on to say  how it feels to be able to provide funding to for-impact organizations so that they can share their mission and expand their programming. Another great interview! Please also subscribe to the Today is Day Changemakers YouTube Channel.   Like us on FB and Instagram at Today is the Day Live it. Also go to todayisthedayliveit.com for more information about how I help my clients connect, collaborate, create, and inspire. I am also the CEO and Co-founder of the Zzak G. Applaud Our Kids Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to helping children living with financial barriers take ongoing lessons in dance, acting, instrumental music, and vocal instruction. Visit applaudourkids.org for more information. Have a great week everyone! 

In this two-part series with New York Times Bestselling Author Peggy Orenstein we delve into how to talk to our kids about sex, relationships, consent and all the emotions and feelings involved. Orenstein's latest book is Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent and Navigating the New Masculinity. Her other books include Girls & Sex, Cinderella Ate My Daughter and Waiting for Daisy as well as Don't Call Me Princess, Flux, and the classic SchoolGirls. A contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and AFAR, Peggy has also written for such publications as The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, New York, The Atlantic and The New Yorker, and has contributed commentaries to NPR's All Things Considered . She has been featured on, among other programs, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, The Today Show, Morning Joe, NPR's Fresh Air and The PBS News Hour. Her TED Talk, “What Young Women Believe About Their Own Sexual Pleasure,” has been viewed over 5.4 million times. Her work has also been honored by the Commonwealth Club of California, the National Women's Political Caucus of California and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Additionally, she has been awarded fellowships from the United States-Japan Foundation and the Asian Cultural Council and been a grateful resident at Mesa Refuge and the UCross Foundation. For more information on Orenstein, as well as more resources visit peggyorenstein.com

In this two-part series with New York Times Bestselling Author Peggy Orenstein we delve into how to talk to our kids about sex, relationships, consent and all the emotions and feelings involved. Orenstein's latest book is Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent and Navigating the New Masculinity. Her other books include Girls & Sex, Cinderella Ate My Daughter and Waiting for Daisy as well as Don't Call Me Princess, Flux, and the classic SchoolGirls. A contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and AFAR, Peggy has also written for such publications as The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, New York, The Atlantic and The New Yorker, and has contributed commentaries to NPR's All Things Considered . She has been featured on, among other programs, Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, The Today Show, Morning Joe, NPR's Fresh Air and The PBS News Hour. Her TED Talk, “What Young Women Believe About Their Own Sexual Pleasure,” has been viewed over 5.4 million times. Her work has also been honored by the Commonwealth Club of California, the National Women's Political Caucus of California and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Additionally, she has been awarded fellowships from the United States-Japan Foundation and the Asian Cultural Council and been a grateful resident at Mesa Refuge and the UCross Foundation. For more information on Orenstein, as well as more resources visit peggyorenstein.com

Hey Fab Crew, In this episode, Kishshana sits down with longtime friend and amazing spirit, Maria Smith Dautruche to discuss the idea of just "being basic" as a Black woman.    Listen friends, this episode will have you laughing so hard your sides will hurt.  Be sure to stick around until the end for this week's Kish Tip (Vitamin K) for the week!!! Maria's Bio: Married to Minister Lopez-Joel Dautruche, and mommy to Imena, Maria Smith Dautruche spends her time healing, cultivating, connecting, and agitating.  Maria has been a professional frontline fundraiser for more than 15 years.  She is a member of the recently launched The Rooted Collaborative™ - a global community focused on the holistic evolution and advancement of female leaders of color in the social impact sector. She is currently a Senior Advisor to the President and CEO of the National Urban League after more than 5 years as Vice President in the Partnerships & Advancement Office of the historic civil rights organization. In addition to raising $51 million during her time as a Vice President at NUL, Maria played a critical role in shaping the organization's current racial equity partnerships.  Prior to this role, Maria was Assistant Director of Foundation Relations in the Central Office of the Smithsonian Institution during the organization's history-making $1.5 billion comprehensive campaign.   Maria is also a proud co-founder of New Voices for Reproductive Justice – a powerful organizing force for the health and well-being of Black women and girls, women of color and LGBTQ+ people of color at the local, state (PA and OH) and national level. Maria is from Mount Vernon, NY where she is a member of the Westchester Black Women's Political Caucus and Community Voices Heard. Maria is an Elias Foundation Activist Fellow and led the organization of Westchester County's first observance of National Day of Racial Healing on January 19, 2021. Best known for:  Profound jokes. Honest observations. Raising the monies. Keeping it real. Former shape-shifter and code-switcher. I am also an exceptional friend. Social Handle: @MariaDautruche

Stefania tells the story of BELLA ABZUG, a lawyer, politician, feminist and civil rights activist who championed human rights for all, as one of the first members of congress to fight for gay rights. She galvanized a new generation of women to enter politics, and was the founder of the National Women's Political Caucus, and the Women's Strike for Peace. Born: July 24, 1920, The Bronx, New York, U.S.A.; Died: March 31, 1998, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, U.S.A. Episode Sources Battling Bella: The Protest Politics of Bella Abzug Book written by Leandra Zarnow US National Archives Streamed Dec. 12, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hU7XGoRuwY&t=436s   History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives, “ABZUG, Bella Savitzky,” https://history.house.gov/People/Listing/A/ABZUG,-Bella-Savitzky-(A000018)/ (March 08, 2021) https://history.house.gov/People/Detail/8276   Bella Abzug in Her Own Words  Video Reasoner102 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA3lq_u39q8&t=2s Produced by Progressive Source Communications    Center for American Women and Politics “How Bella Abzug changed credit laws.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTjIuhY12tY&t=1s In a mock American Express ad created at a 1983 Center for American Women and Politics (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu​) conference, Congresswoman Bella Abzug tells how she helped secure equal credit for women.   Excerpt Working Class Women Changing their World- Bella Abzug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh1tAVvEOak Neighborhood Women Williamsburg-Greenpoint Working Class Women Changing Their World is a film from the National Congress of Neighborhood Women's first conference in Washington, DC., directed by Christine Noschese and produced by Jan Peterson and Christine Noschese, 1977.   Hillary Clinton honors Bella Abzug at memorial in her honor following her passing in 1998. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkElVzRGsI   Harvey Fierstein is Bella Abzug  Metro Focus   “Bella Bella”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57JpBpiQ0co   Title IX - Wikipedia  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Join host, Nika Farokhzad, to learn about women's rights and feminism during the American Revolution, the Women's Suffrage Movement, and the National Women's Political Caucus. This is the first part in the Raise Your Voice "Women's Rights Throughout History" series.

I sat with Gloria Steinem in February 2020 just before the acute wave of the #COVID19 pandemic in New York City. Gloria Steinem is a writer, political activist, and feminist organizer. She was a founder of New York and Ms. magazines. We discuss one of her recent books  The Truth Will Set You Free, But First It Will Piss You Off. Gloria co-founded the National Women's Political Caucus, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Free to Be Foundation, and the Women's Media Center in the United States. She helped found Equality Now, Donor Direct Action, and Direct Impact Africa. For her writing, Steinem has received the Penney-Missouri Journalism Award, the Front Page and Clarion awards, the National Magazine Award, the Lifetime Achievement in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society of Writers Award from the United Nations, and the University of Missouri School of Journalism Award for Distinguished Service in Journalism. In 1993, her concern with child abuse led her to co-produce an Emmy Award–winning TV documentary for HBO, Multiple Personalities: The Search for Deadly Memories. She and Amy Richards co-produced a series of eight documentaries on violence against women around the world for VICELAND in 2016. In 2013, she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama. In 2019, she received the Freedom Award from the National Civil Rights Museum. Gloria is the subject of Julie Taymor's 2020 biopic, The Glorias. 

In our latest episode, Kitty tells the story of Fannie Lou Hamer, a voting rights activist and community organizer, from the award- winning biography, This Little Light of Mine by Kay Mills.  Her story begins in Mississippi and takes plenty of twists and turns but also terrible moments where she faced police brutality and was beaten in a jail cell. She risked her health and safety to change a system that suppressed Black voters with poll taxes, exams and other impediments. For years, Hamer served as a role model for her community despite threats, physical harm and harassment. Her speaking and singing abilities drew crowds and rallied communities to action. She ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate and later co-founded the National Women's Political Caucus whose aim was to recruit and train women to run for political office.  We were utterly inspired by Fannie Lou Hamer's story and hope you are, too. 

Ep 006: Roxanne Conlin | McFarland v Rieper Law Firm | $3.25 Million This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Roxanne Conlin of Roxanne Conlin and Associates, (https://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com)   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review   Case Details: The 3-month-old baby died April 22, 2014, about five weeks after his birth mother got him back from the McFarlands, whom he had lived with since birth. Police charged the child's father with murder after his birth mother found the baby "alone, pale, wet and foaming from his mouth and nose" in her apartment. Full Article   Click Here to Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Roxanne Conlin has her own law firm in Des Moines, where she exclusively represents people who have been harmed by others, whether by discrimination, products, doctors or vehicles. She entered Drake University in 1961, when she was only 16, and graduated from law school with honors five years later at the age of 21. From 1969 to 1976, she was an Assistant Attorney General for Iowa, where she was head of the Iowa Civil Rights section and fought race and sex discrimination. She also rewrote Iowa's inheritance laws; toughened the state's assault laws and blocked a merger of two major utilities that would have hurt the average consumer. She left the Attorney General's Office to become a consultant to the United States Department of State for International Women's Year. In 1977, she became one of the first two women ever to be a United States Attorney. Roxanne put heroin dealers behind bars and prosecuted white-collar crimes and corruption in public office. She also served as President of the Federal Executive Council, which is composed of the heads of all seventy federal agencies. Roxanne has devoted much time to individual organizations and causes and community service. She founded and was the first chair of the Iowa Women's Political Caucus, and was president and general counsel of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Most recently, she has been named by the National Law Journal as one of the fifty most influential women lawyers in America, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America and one of the top 10 litigators. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors   Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com Forge Consulting - ForgeConsulting.com Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2