On November 16, 2020, in response to significant increases in the incidence rates of COVID-19 in the state, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) issued updated guidance concerning the use of face coverings. The updated guidance requires that individuals wear a face covering at all times when outside of the home unless one of the eleven (11) enumerated exemptions applies. Unlike other guidance issued by the CDPH that is advisory in nature, the guidance concerning face coverings is mandatory.

The updated guidance is significantly more prescriptive and the exemptions are more narrowly tailored than prior guidance from CDPH concerning the use of face coverings.

For example, the updated guidance provides a limited exemption to “[p]ersons who are working in an office or in a room alone”. Prior guidance only required that individuals wear a face covering when working “in any room or enclosed area where other people are present when unable to physically distance.” As a result, public agency employees whose workstations/cubicles are in an area with an open floor plan are likely subject to the face covering requirement while working at their workstations unless their work station/cubicle is in a room where they are alone.

Public agencies should consider how they intend to address the updated guidance. Public agencies may consider notifying employees and employee organizations about the CDPH guidance and revising agency protocols for the use of face coverings by agency employees and at agency worksites and facilities.

Public agencies must comply with the CDPH requirements provided for in the updated guidance. Should an agency not comply with the guidance, the CDPH possesses statutory authority to commence an action to enforce its regulations, enjoin or abate nuisances dangerous to public health, and to compel the performance of an act relating to public health.

If you have questions about this guidance and how it may affect your agency’s operations, LCW attorneys are available to answer your questions.

Our clients frequently face questions about how immigration laws and policies apply to their employees, candidates, and students.  The world of immigration law can be a bewildering jumble of acronyms, statutes, regulations, and policy directives that leave many employers or school administrators exasperated and with whiplash.  As practitioners in labor, employment, and education for our California-based public agencies, non-profit and educational institutions, we can help navigate the employment and education issues that immigration matters present, but we do not represent employers or institutions directly in immigration proceedings.  Following is an excerpt of FAQ’s about immigration laws or policies that may impact our clients.

Question:  During COVID-19, we are working remotely, but we are still hiring.  How do we check an incoming employee’s identity and work authorization documentation to complete the I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form?

Answer:  Employers are required to verify an employee’s identity and authorization to work in the United States by completing Form I-9 within 3 business days of employment.  Typically, the employee produces the required documents in person, and a trained staff member at the agency verifies the documents and completes the form.  In light of COVID-19, in March 2020, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued revised guidance, allowing employers to review the documents remotely if the workforce is working remotely for social distancing purposes.  In those cases, the employer must use videoconference to verify identity and review the proffered documents, and also must receive the documents electronically.  On November 18, 2020, ICE extended this procedure to December 31, 2020. https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-announces-extension-i-9-compliance-flexibility-0

Question:  Our employee’s Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is set to expire. They filed for renewal months ago, but processing is delayed across the nation.  What are the options?

Answer:  It depends.  If the employee has received an Approval Notice that their application or renewal was approved, but the employee is just waiting for the formal Employment Authorization Document, CIS has announced that the employer can accept the Approval Notice as a temporary employment authorization, to December 31, 2020.  Certain conditions apply, and the guidance is subject to change.

Alternatively, employees whose employment authorization is based on special circumstances (including, but not limited to asylee or refugee status or protection under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)) may be eligible for an automatic 180-day extension of their employment authorization.  https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/information-for-employers-and-employees/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension

Many employees, however, may have a lapse in their ability to demonstrate their eligibility for employment in the United States.  Employers facing this situation should seek legal counsel to determine the options, which can be complicated under the agency’s personnel rules or applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Question:  I read somewhere that changes are afoot for H1B petitions.  What’s the latest?

Answer:  Some of our clients employ or consider employing individuals pursuant to an H1B visa, a specialized nonimmigrant visa for qualified skilled workers.  On October 8, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a fast-tracked set of changes to the H1B visa program in an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register.  In doing so, the Department did not follow the standard regulatory process with a full public notice period.

Accordingly, the following changes (among others) are scheduled to take effect on December 6, 2020, to apply to new H1B petitions and extensions and transfers of H1B petitions:

  • Refine the application of “specialty occupation” to require that the position is directly related to the employee’s educational degree.
  • Change the maximum duration of the visa from 3 years to 1 year, for petitions filed by a third-party entity.

These changes could significantly impact an individual’s or employer’s plans if they were relying on the current H1B procedures.  If your agency employs or is considering employing individuals through an H1B visa, your Human Resources team should seek legal assistance.  Also, please note that public comment is still open on this matter, if you are interested in submitting by December 6, 2020: http://www.regulations.gov; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2020-0018.

Question:  A student from outside the United States applied to our independent school and would need a student (F-1) Visa to attend.  Where can the School learn more about international students?

Answer:  Schools can become authorized to enroll international students in F visa status through the School Educational Visitor Program (SEVP), administered through DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  An overview of the program is available here: https://www.ice.gov/sevis/schools.  If a school is considering participating, we recommend contacting legal counsel specializing in immigration law.

We hope after reading these FAQs you understand you’re not alone if you have immigration-related questions as an employer or educational institution.  We invite you to contact us at LCW when these questions arise so we can help assess the issues and connect you with further resources as needed, ASAP.

We are excited to continue our video series – Tips from the Table. In these videos, members of LCW’s Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations.

 

We are thrilled to present and sponsor the 2020 Community College League of California Annual Convention taking place virtually this week (November 17 – 20)!  Don’t miss our eight scheduled conference presentations by our expert speakers.  Topics include return to campus issues, layoffs, negotiating in stressful budgetary times, and much, much more.

November 17

12:30pm – 1:15pm || Policies Through a DEI Lens – Eileen O’Hare-Anderson and Laura Schulkind

1:30pm – 2:15pm || Return to Campus Issues – The Learning Place in Transition – Kristin Lindgren and Meredith Karasch

1:30pm – 2:15pm || From Non-Discrimination to Anti-Racism – How Equity and Access Have Changed – Laura Schulkind

November 18

12:30pm – 1:15pm || Affirmative Action in a Post-ACA 5 Academic Environment – Eileen O’Hare Anderson and Laura Schulkind

1:15pm – 1:30pm || But I Don’t Want to Come Back to the Office! – Alysha Stein-Manes

November 19

12:30pm – 1:15pm || Layoffs: They Are Coming, Are You Ready? – Melanie Chaney and Eileen O’Hare-Anderson

1:30pm – 2:15pm || Negotiating in Difficult Budgetary Times – Melanie Chaney and Eileen O’Hare-Anderson

November 20

1:30pm – 2:15pm || Town Hall – Legal Eagles – Eileen O’Hare-Anderson, Laura Schulkind, Pilar Morin and Kristin Lindgren

Learn more about the Community College League of California Annual Convention here. 

We are pleased to present and sponsor the 2020 Annual CALPELRA Conference taking place virtually this week (November 16 – 20)!  Don’t miss our nine scheduled conference presentations by our expert speakers.  Topics include negotiating in difficult times, telecommuting issues, public safety disability accommodations, and much, much more.

November 16

10:15am – 11:00am || The Independent Contractor Compliance Review: Overlapping Issues & Legal Compliance – Elizabeth Tom Arce and Melanie Chaney

November 17

2:00pm – 3:30pm || Layoffs, Furloughs, and Concessions: Navigating & Negotiating During Financially Challenged Times – Shelline Bennett and Richard Bolanos

3:45pm – 4:30pm || Negotiating Retirement and Health Benefits in Tough Economic Times – Steven Berliner and Jack Hughes

November 18

10:15am – 11:00am || Managing Public Safety Employee Injuries and Illnesses: Navigating The Interactive Process, Labor Code 4850 and Similar Laws So That They Can Either Be Returned To Work Or Retired – J. Scott Tiedemann and Jennifer Rosner

11:15am – 12:00pm || Telecommuting Policies: Hot Topics & Key Issues to Consider – Oliver Yee

November 19

2:00pm – 3:30pm || Essential FLSA Update for 2020 and Anticipated Critical Issues for 2021 – Brian Walter and Lisa Charbonneau

3:45pm – 4:30pm || Meet & Confer Obligations During An Emergency: Lessons Learned From COVID-19 & Preparing For The Next Crisis – Peter Brown and Che Johnson

November 20

8:30am – 10:00am || Labor Relations Game Show! – J. Scott Tiedemann and Laura Drottz Kalty

8:30am – 10:00am || Recent Developments in Public Sector Labor and Employment: a National Perspective – Peter Brown and Will Aitchinson

Learn more about the CALPELRA Conference here. 

On November 13, 2020, in response to alarming increases in the incidence rates of COVID-19 in other countries and states, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) issued a travel advisory to California residents.

The travel advisory expressly recommends that California residents not engage in non-essential travel out of the state at this time. CDPH advises California residents to remain at home or close to home in order to reduce the risk of contracting and/or transmitting the virus that causes COVID-19. CDPH provides that travel itself may present a risk for exposure to the virus that causes COVID-19, particularly travel by a shared conveyance or common carrier, such as a commercial airplane, bus or railcar.

Importantly, the CDPH travel advisory recommends that any California resident who travels out of state, whether internationally or domestically, for non-essential reasons self-quarantine for 14 days upon their return to California. During the self-quarantine, CDPH advises individuals to limit their interactions to only members of their immediate family.

While the CDPH travel advisory does not constitute an order for residents to stay home or to quarantine following high-risk travel out of state or by shared conveyance, the public health guidance is indicative of the seriousness of the current state of the present public health emergency.

Public agencies should consider how they intend to address the guidance and recommendations provided in the CDPH travel advisory. Public agencies may consider notifying employees and employee organizations about the CDPH guidance, recommending that employees not engage in high-risk travel during the holidays or until such time as CDPH and other public health authorities advise that the increased risk of such activity has abated, or undertaking other health and safety measures related to their operations.

If you have questions about this travel advisory and how it may affect your agency’s operations, LCW attorneys are available to answer your questions.

Since Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 4, 2020, he has issued more than 50 executive orders. Some of those orders directly impact existing statutory law.

In a recent challenge to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-67-20 on elections, Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah H. Heckman issued a tentative decision on November 2, 2020 following a court trial in Gallagher et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Case No. CVCS20-0912. The court’s tentative decision becomes final after 10 days unless the parties request a statement of decision or make new proposals to the judge. The plaintiffs brought the action against Governor Newsom, alleging he exceeded his constitutional authority by “unilaterally amending, altering, or changing existing statutory law or making new statutory law” through emergency executive orders. The court’s decision, however, was not limited to a particular order but considered generally the governor’s ability to alter statutory law with executive orders.

Judge Heckman acknowledged the governor has limited powers to suspend regulations and statutes during a declared emergency in accordance with the California Emergency Services Act (CESA) [Gov. Code §§ 8565-8574], but also concluded the CESA does not confer authority or power upon the governor to assume the Legislature’s role in making or amending statutes. The court declared Executive Order N-67-20 void as “an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power” and that it has no further force or effect.

In addition to declaring the order unconstitutional, the court issued a broad permanent injunction prohibiting the governor from “exercising any power under the [CESA] which amends, alters, or changes existing statutory law or makes new statutory law or legislative policy.” The court’s decision likely invalidates all statutory changes the governor has implemented by executive order.

In his March 30, 2020 Executive Order N-40-20, Governor Newsom extended the statute of limitations in Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d) of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. Existing statutory law provides that a public agency cannot take punitive action against a public safety officer unless the investigation is concluded within one year of the agency’s discovery of potential misconduct by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation. The agency is also required to notify the public safety officer of its intent to discipline within that same year, subject to certain exceptions. Paragraph 15 of Executive Order N-40-20 extended the 3304, subdivision (d) one year statute of limitations by 60 days.

The governor’s extension of the one year statute of limitations effectively amends or alters existing statutory law. As a result of Judge Heckman’s decision and permanent injunction, the 60 day extension for concluding investigations of public safety officers likely is invalid. Given the Gallagher et al. v. Gavin Newsom decision, agencies should not rely on the 60 day extension, particularly if such reliance would take the investigation and discipline outside of the one year statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d).

Once again we take a look at the truly odd and remarkable employment cases from near and far.

Tweet the Gift Horse in the Mouth and You Might Be Shown the Door

An American company’s annual holiday gift to Canadian employees was a bottle of barbeque sauce and a grill scraper. One of the employee recipients of the sauce and scraper expressed his “gratitude” for the gift by tweeting: “What kind of multi billion company gifts its Canadian employees barbecue sauce as a holiday gift? Yet the USA employees stuff their face with an actual holiday giftbox?” The employee named the company in his tweet. It is unclear what the American employees were stuffing their faces with.

The tweet went viral and was reported by at least one news outlet. According to a company representative, they began receiving messages on the company’s website from individuals who said they would no longer purchase the company’s products. Once they heard of the tweet as the possible origin for the negative comments, the employee was fired. The company did not disclose the reason for the employee’s termination but cited it followed company policy and the law.

While public employees enjoy greater rights regarding the regulation of speech, both public and private, employers generally should exercise caution when disciplining an employee for social media posts. Employers also should regularly review their social media posting policies and ensure that employees are adequately informed of those policies.

The Hit-Man vs. Workers’ Compensation

This is a story about how an innocent phone call to a co-worker turned into an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot and a successful workers’ compensation claim.

When an employee called his co-worker at home to discuss a work matter, the co-worker’s husband became convinced his wife was having an affair with the employee. That suspicion turned into threats and harassment against the employee who made the call, as well as the husband’s plan to hire a hit man.

The husband also complained to his wife’s employer about the alleged affair, which resulted in an internal investigation and the employee requesting a transfer. Having had enough of it all, he filed a workers’ compensation claim against the employer, claiming his preexisting post- traumatic stress disorder was exacerbated by the threats and harassment such that he was unable to work.

The employer argued the injury was not related to his employment and not compensable. The workers’ compensation board, however, found sufficient nexus between the injury and the employee’s work to award benefits. On appeal, the court agreed: “As the record reveals no connection between claimant and the coworker’s husband outside of claimant’s work-related duties, the Board properly found the required nexus between the threatening conduct that exacerbated claimant’s preexisting condition and claimant’s employment.”

California has specific statutory protections that employers may utilize to protect its employees from outside threats of violence and harassment. Employers may file for workplace violence/harassment restraining orders. A court likely would find a restraining order appropriate if a co-worker’s husband tried to hire a hit man to murder an employee simply because he called the co-worker at home to discuss a work matter.

(Surprisingly?) Baldness is Not a Qualifying Disability

A school teacher in the United Kingdom sued his employer, claiming his follicle challenges resulted in harassment from his students. According to the teacher, he was forced to resign, thus constructively discharged, because students perceived his baldness as a weakness. He testified, “How can I stand in front of a class with confidence to get on with my job when I am getting teased and bullied about baldness, when I think they are laughing at me all the time.” He argued his baldness had a “substantial and long term effect” on his ability to do his job.

The judge, however, disagreed with the teacher, finding that the teacher’s lack of hair did not meet the definition of an impairment under the disability laws.

While baldness may not regarded as a disability, an applicant or employee could assert that baldness is an attribute commonly associated with age. Whether an age discrimination claim based on baldness could succeed would depend on the facts and circumstances. Something to consider.

Subsequent Reminders of National Origin Harassment

With the recent release of Borat Subsequent Movie Film: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, we revisit a case from the past.

A Jordanian-born employee was nicknamed “Borat” by his co-workers. For those of you who don’t know, Borat was a fictional Kazakh journalist with a thick accent who was in a film of the same name and portrayed as naïve, ignorant, chauvinistic, and anti-Semitic. The employee’s co-workers routinely referred to him as Borat and told other employees to do the same. There were other comments made to him, such as “We let you in this country, and we gave you a Green Card. The least you can do is speak English.” Although he did not complain to supervisors, he repeatedly asked his co-workers to stop calling him Borat because he found it to be offensive. His supervisor overheard him complain to his co-workers about the name-calling but did nothing.

Eventually, the employee’s performance reviews declined and he was facing a potential performance improvement plan. Before the employer had a chance to implement a PIP, the employee took a leave of absence to return to his family’s estate in Jordan. When he came back to work, he was told his job had been filled. He then sued his employer for hostile work environment, termination based on national origin, and retaliation for making internal complaints. The court concluded a reasonable jury could find he was harassed because he is Jordanian, and that the employer could be liable for failing to take corrective action. The employer attempted to argue it should not be held responsible because the employee did not directly complain; however, the harassing conduct occurred in open areas where management likely was aware and his supervisor overheard the complaints but took no action.

We hope you enjoyed our annual review of unusual employment cases—until next year.

We’re rounding up the top 5 public safety blogs of 2020, with topics ranging from formerly incarcerated persons being trained as firefighters, COVID-19 testing in law enforcement settings, and much more!  If you’re still wanting to learn more about recent public safety legislation, be sure to check out our Webinar-on-Demand, “2021 Legislative Update for Public Safety,” presented by the Chair of LCW’s Public Safety Practice Group, Partner Geoffrey S. Sheldon.

The Top Five Public Safety Blogs of 2020 (So Far):

  1. AB 2147 Clears Career Paths for Formerly Incarcerated Persons Trained as Firefighters
  2. Issues Public Employers Face During Mass Protest – Question and Answer
  3. COVID Briefing: COVID-19 Testing and Law Enforcement
  4. UPDATE: March 30, 2020, Governor Newsom Issues Executive Order Extending One-Year Statute of Limitations for Administrative Investigations of Police Officers
  5. AB 1599 Seeks To Modify SB 1421, Potentially Further Expanding Public Access to Peace Officer Records Related to Sexual Assault

Who will be our Country’s next President is not the only issue on the ballot November 3.  If you’ve voted in California before, are in the middle of studying your ballot, don’t mute your TV commercials during election season, or read text messages that you receive from campaign volunteers, you know that California has a robust ballot proposition system.  On November 3, California voters will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 15 (“Prop 15”), also known as The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020.

This blog post will provide an overview of Prop 15, including the positions taken by the proponents and opponents of the initiative, and discuss how passage of the Prop 15 may impact your agency’s operations.

What is Proposition 15?

If passed, Prop 15 will increase funding to K-12 public schools, including charter schools and county offices of education, community colleges, cities, counties, and special districts by assessing property taxes on commercial and industrial real property based on the current market price of the property.  Currently, the state assesses property taxes based on the purchase price of the property.  Prop 15 exempts from its provisions residential properties, agricultural land, and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less.  If voters approve Prop 15, it will be the most significant shift in how California assesses property taxes since voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978, essentially lifting Prop 13 restrictions on many commercial and industrial real properties throughout the State.

Property taxes currently raise around $65 billion each year for California cities, counties, schools and colleges, and special districts.  Approximately 60 percent of these funds go to cities, counties, and special districts, with the other 40 percent allocated to schools and community colleges.  The State also assesses “personal” property taxes on business equipment such as machinery, computers, and furniture.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that Prop 15 will raise an additional $6.5 to $11.5 billion in new funding for local governments and public educational institutions.  If passed by voters, 60 percent of the funds would remain local, meaning that counties would collect and distribute the tax revenue among the county, city governments, and special districts.  The remaining 40% will go into a statewide “Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund” (the “Fund”) and be appropriated pursuant to provisions in the Education Code.

Of the 40 percent of funds earmarked for K-12 educational entities and community colleges, 11 percent of the Fund would be distributed to community college districts in proportion to the number of full-time equivalent students, i.e., the Student Centered Funding Formula.  The remaining 89 percent of these funds would be allocated to K-12 districts, charter schools, and offices of education, with funds to schools distributed according to the Local Control Funding Formula (“LCFF”).  Prop 15 funds will supplement and not replace other educational funding sources.  “Basic-aid districts,” – i.e., property-wealthy districts that do not receive money from the LCFF because the district raises more revenue from property taxes – will not receive funding pursuant to the LCFF, but will receive $100 dollars per unit of average daily attendance.  The additional funds that basic-aid districts will not receive will be distributed to high-needs districts pursuant to the LCFF.  Finally, Prop 15 provides that no college or school will receive less than $100 per unit of average daily attendance or enrolled full-time equivalent student, respectively.

As with many California ballot initiatives, both Prop 15’s proponents and opponents have spent tens of millions of dollars to garner support for their positions.  In an all-too-rare occurrence, public sector management and labor largely seem to be on the same team rallying support for this initiative.  The California Association of Nonprofits also supports the initiative.

Opponents include chambers of commerce, taxpayers associations, and several business associations.

Proponents contend that Prop 15’s additional tax revenues will bring critically needed funds to local governments and public educational institutions, and by extension communities, by allowing such agencies to addresses staffing shortages and invest in infrastructure that will allow them to address current crises, such as homelessness and other public health crises, as well as prepare for future crises, including but not limited to earthquakes and pandemics.  Opponents, on the other hand, argue that that commercial and industrial property owners will pass on the cost of increased taxes to the businesses and individuals who rent such property.

If passed, counties will not begin to assess Prop 15 property taxes against qualifying commercial and industrial property owners until the 2022-2023 fiscal year.

How will my agency be able to use Prop 15 funds? 

While schools, colleges, and local agencies may not see an immediate impact on their tax revenue, anticipated revenue from Prop 15 may allow agencies to better plan for and address current and expected budget shortfalls.  Additionally, Prop 15 does not limit how agencies may use tax revenues beyond limits already contained in other applicable laws.  Therefore, it appears that local governments and public educational institutions will be able to use additional tax revenues to do such things as decreasing class sizes (e.g., by hiring more teachers), hiring more school counselors and librarians, improving distance education delivery methods, and investing in essential services and workers to help better prepare for future crises including pandemics, wildfires, and earthquakes, among other things.

So, is there a catch?

A broad coalition of public agencies and labor organizations support Prop 15, including but not limited to, the California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, SEIU California, Association of California School Administrators, Community College League of California, more than eighty school and community college districts, boards of education, city councils and boards of supervisors, and almost 100 local labor associations.  The California Association of Nonprofits and more than 100 non-profit organizations also support the proposition.

However, it is likely that not all communities will necessarily experience a positive benefit from increased commercial and industrial tax revenue.  The California Attorney General notes that some local governments in rural areas may end up losing money because of lower taxes on personal business property.  This decrease in personal business property revenue would particularly hit counties with few qualifying commercial or industrial properties harder.

Additionally, it is unknown how Prop 15 will impact businesses, including non-profit educational intuitions and other non-profit organizations.  Prop 15 defines “commercial and industrial property” as “real property that is used as commercial or industrial property, or is vacant land not zoned for residential use and not used for commercial agricultural production.”  Although not clear, it is likely that property owned by private schools or rented by private schools will be considered commercial property for purposes Prop 15.

For those private schools that own property, they will likely see an increase in property taxes unless the property is assessed at a fair market value of three million dollars or less.  Additionally, if at least 50 percent of the real property is occupied by a “small business,” the state will not begin assessing Prop 15 taxes against the small business until the 2025-26 fiscal year.  Prop 15 defines a small business as an independently owned and operated business with fewer than 50 full-time equivalent employees that owns real property located in California.

For those private schools that rent their property, opponents of Prop 15 also argue that commercial and industrial property owners will pass the cost of additional taxes onto tenants, including small businesses.  Supporters respond that because Prop 15 reduces taxes on personal business property, including complete exemptions on such taxes for small businesses and exemptions of up to $500,000 for other businesses, any net increase to rent will be offset by these tax breaks.  Therefore, even if private schools’ rents increase, Prop 15’s tax breaks for personal business property could offset any such increases.

What now?

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore does not take positions on political candidates or ballot measures.  This blog post was authored to educate readers on an initiative that could have a tangible impact on LCW’s clients.  This author encourages readers to study their ballot and make a plan to vote on or before November 3.