Tag: quietly

He’s rich. He’s pugilistic. And he’s quietly paying to get Gavin Newsom’s attention.

[ad_1]

It’s also opening a window into yet another way powerful individuals and groups can wield influence in the state, often without public scrutiny and far outside the Capitol.
Critics of Weinstein’s latest approach say it is pure “astroturf activism,” designed to look like he has a groundswell of support for his corresponding ballot initiative in an attempt to pressure Newsom to back it. And ethics experts contend Weinstein and AHF should be transparent about paying people to get signatures for the draft letter, which references by name the proposed new ballot initiative. California law on campaign advertising requires general or public communication that’s authorized and paid for by a committee to support a ballot measure to contain a “paid for by” disclaimer.
Ann Ravel, former head of the state’s political and campaign ethics watchdog and chair of the Federal Election Commission, told POLITICO she believes the draft letter for Newsom must require a disclosure that states who is paying for it.
“It is definitely a form of advertising and clearly for a political purpose,” Ravel said.
Weinstein, himself a former candidate for Los Angeles City Council, has tried for years to cap rents in California. He has argued that affordable housing policy aligns with the foundation’s objectives and has spent tens of millions of dollars in recent years on failed statewide and local bids to limit rents and curb development.
Newsom opposed two of those statewide efforts. One of them was Proposition 21 in 2020, which the governor suggested was unnecessary since California had already passed sweeping rent control — enacting the nation’s strongest rent caps and protections. Newsom also said it risked discouraging the availability of affordable housing. Before that, Newsom opposed Weinstein’s Proposition 10 in 2018, saying it may have unintended consequences on housing production that could be deeply problematic.
Proposition 21 and Proposition 10 each were defeated by about 20 percentage points.
Weinstein’s latest initiative — to repeal a 1995 state law known as Costa-Hawkins that prevents localities from limiting rental costs on certain properties — was submitted to the state late last year. He has until late August to gather nearly 550,000 signatures from registered voters to qualify the measure for the ballot. A fiscal analysis by the state found that AHF’s proposed repeal would lead to a possible drop in state and local revenues “in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time,” depending on how localities responded to it.

Weinstein’s corresponding draft letter hasn’t been publicized until now. But his pay-per-signature campaign represents a novel wrinkle in a system designed to promote direct democracy by ordinary citizens yet is often used by moneyed interests to circumvent the legislative process.
In the documents obtained by POLITICO, the draft letter calls on Newsom’s support for “real rent control.” It charges that prior legislation the governor signed to impose “rent caps” on certain residential rentals still allows 10 percent yearly increases, “which Californians can’t afford.”
The draft letter goes on to argue that even if Newsom doesn’t come out in favor of AHF’s repeal proposal, called the Justice for Renters Act, he should not use his political capital to oppose it.
“Keep your promise,” the draft states. “Don’t stand with corporate landlords against renters.”
Ged Kenslea, a longtime spokesperson for AHF, defended its use of the paid letter. In a statement, he said voters have a right to place a petition on the ballot and also have a right to sign a letter to the governor. “Critics of our efforts are simply trying to silence the voice of voters before they would even have a chance to consider the issue,” he said.
The foundation also doesn’t believe a disclosure is warranted in this case, arguing that the letter is not meant for the public but for Newsom, an elected official.
“It’s democracy at work,” Kenslea said, before again turning attention to AHF’s critics. “It is unconscionable that opponents to rent control and who seek unbridled profits for corporate developers are making a concerted effort to undermine the voices of community members concerned about skyrocketing rents and homelessness.”
The fresh political ire directed at AHF comes as the organization sustains a barrage of attacks for failing to disclose financial payments to influencers and consultants. The group is also enduring criticism over its past scorched-earth campaigns and legal showdowns that have made Weinstein a pariah to many in the capital and around Los Angeles where he’s based. Last month, a Los Angeles Times investigation found potential conflicts-of-interest and disclosure failures involving AHF. California officials said last year they would refuse contracts with AHF to provide medicine and advocacy for hundreds of HIV-positive patients after accusing the nonprofit of improper tactics during health care plan rate negotiations. Weinstein countered the state was retaliating against him for pushing for higher rates.
Democrats who have faced off against Weinstein predicted that the backlash over the paid-for letter would make the effort pointless.
“The guy has such sub-zero credibility that it won’t be worth a grain of salt,” said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic strategist in Sacramento. “If his fingerprints are on it, it’s irrelevant to policymakers in California.”
POLITICO spoke with a person approached by a signature gatherer in Sacramento who said they were asked to sign both the proposed ballot measure and the draft letter to Newsom separately. (It is standard practice for organizations and individuals to pay for signatures on ballot measures themselves and, indeed, on the documents related to the current ballot measure, AHF’s role is disclosed).
Another person familiar with the operation confirmed that the draft letter did not contain a disclosure and provided a photograph of it taken at the site.
POLITICO also reviewed voicemail recordings from a signature-gathering firm verifying that the campaign was paying $5 total for both signatures (one on the letter, the other on the ballot measure) as recently as April 6, including $3 for a signature for the rent control measure and another $2 for a signature for the letter.
Ravel, who believes the law requires AHF to disclose its role on the letter, added that it might be different if the draft letter advocated the issue more generally versus being part of a paid campaign that clearly states the name of the measure.
Others aren’t so sure, however. AHF may have some legal wiggle room on the disclosure piece, said Jessica Levinson, former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.
“Any good lawyer would make the argument that it’s not an ad but could later show up as a datapoint in an advertisement,” Levinson said.
But, she concluded the emerging letter campaign does strike her as a workaround.
“It’s one more example of what we always say: ‘We create a law and then people change their behavior or embark on new behavior in ways that push the boundaries of that law,’” she said.
[ad_2]
#Hes #rich #Hes #pugilistic #hes #quietly #paying #Gavin #Newsoms #attention
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 19, 2023
House GOP quietly preps take two of its border push

[ad_1]
Republicans have pitched ideas like reviving the border wall and cracking down on asylum seekers, policies that stand no chance in the Senate but would let them claim a messaging victory — if they can manage to push them through the House.
Underscoring how quickly one of Republicans’ biggest election talking points turned into a sore spot for old tensions, even those at the center of the intra-party debate aren’t willing to publicly bet against another derailment … at least, not yet.
“I can’t read minds. I can’t tell fortunes,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who chairs Judiciary’s immigration subpanel, said in a brief interview about the chances House Republicans pass a bill if they can get it out of committee and to the floor.
The GOP’s struggle to unite on border and immigration bills isn’t new — it’s approaching a congressional cliché at this point, as both parties continuously struggle to come to any sort of agreement on comprehensive changes. But the lack of agreement sparked a bitter feud between two Texas members particularly and prompted questions from reporters over Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s leadership.
And it could easily cut against a perennial GOP talking point that Democrats are weak on border security, which the party is sure to reuse in 2024.
Publicly, Republicans have tried to put that message at the heart of their still-nascent majority. They’ve taken a series of trips to the U.S.-Mexico border to highlight its manifold security challenges, lambasting the Biden administration as their Democratic colleagues boycott some of their field hearings.
The strategy has scored some wins. U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz generated headlines Wednesday when asked by Green if DHS had operational control over the entire southern border, he responded: “No.”
Green followed up with a brief clip of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas telling House lawmakers that DHS did have operational control. Ortiz declined to say if he believed the secretary was lying — a charge conservatives have made as they’ve called for Mayorkas’ impeachment.

A DHS official, after Wednesday’s hearing, pointed to Mayorkas’ comments during a separate Senate hearing last year. He said then that based on the statutory definition of “operational control,” which Green showed during his hearing, “this country has never had operational control.” (Democrats, and even some Republicans, have defended Mayorkas arguing that the impeachment calls chalk up to policy disagreements.)
But as Republicans publicly keep their rhetorical fire aimed at the Biden administration, they still want to pursue legislative overhauls. A leadership aide, granted anonymity to describe the private discussions, told POLITICO that there are “ongoing talks with members … and leadership about what a border package would look like.”
And they appear to have learned a lesson from their first misstep when their attempts to quickly vote on a border bill in the first weeks of the term imploded. Instead of trying to go straight to the floor, Republicans are expected to first take their next slate of border-related bills through two committees — the Homeland Security and Judiciary panels.
Neither committee has formally scheduled votes as the negotiations continue behind the scenes. But Green is expected to roll out a border bill within weeks, aiming to hold a panel vote in April. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said that his goal is to start moving legislation through Judiciary by the end of March — though some aides are privately betting that it will slip into April given Congress’ typical pace.
“We’ve got a number of bills we’re gonna look at,” Jordan said in a brief interview. “We’re just trying to be ready.”
Jordan pointed to bills by GOP Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Tom Tiffany
(Wis.) and Chip Roy (Texas) as options for a border security package that his committee is expected to soon consider. Roy’s bill, which critics even in his own party fear would bar asylum claims as currently known, fueled his party’s legislative heartburn earlier this year by sparking pushback from more centrist conference colleagues. That included Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who is now openly feuding with Roy over border and immigration policies.
Roy rejected his critics’ asylum interpretation but signaled he’s willing to give leadership space, at least for now. He’s not currently asking them to move a border package to the floor, instead saying “the plan” was to take it through the Judiciary Committee. (The Homeland Security panel, where it was also sent, isn’t expected to vote on it.)
But even if the bill clears Jordan’s panel, it’s no guarantee it can withstand scrutiny of the wider conference. Even Republican members admit the committee is more conservatively slanted than the whole of the GOP House, and leadership can only afford to lose a few members in a floor vote if all Democrats oppose any legislation.
If committees are able to advance legislation, leadership will have to decide whether to move the bills to the floor separately or as one package. Some members have floated merging whatever comes out of the Judiciary and the Homeland Security panels into one bill, a risky move that could test Washington’s favorite deal-solving tactic of trying to give everyone buy-in by making a package too big to fail.
But the math, GOP aides privately acknowledge, could be tricky. More border security, at a 30,000-foot rhetorical level, generally unites Republicans — until you drill down into the details. Making hardline changes to asylum policies or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) could peel off votes that Republicans can’t afford to lose.
Meanwhile, Roy drew his own red line, warning he won’t support just throwing money at DHS: “We’re going to change the policies or we’re not going to move anything through here.”
Another GOP aide described the effort to unite the conference on border policy as trying to collect “frogs in a bucket.” In further evidence of the challenge, no decisions have been made about when bills would come to the floor, or if it would be one package or several separate votes, according to a leadership aide.
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus as well as the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, predicted both panels will vote on border legislation within weeks, saying that he didn’t believe there was “friction” within the conference — at least when it came to timing.
But Bishop added that he would want leadership to put a bill on the floor, even if it might fail.
“I’m indifferent as to whether it will pass or not,” Bishop said. “I think we need to put the right bills on the floor.”
[ad_2]
#House #GOP #quietly #preps #border #push
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 17, 2023
Biden may not run — and top Dems are quietly preparing

[ad_1]

While the belief among nearly everyone in Biden’s orbit is that he’ll ultimately give the all-clear, his indecision has resulted in an awkward deep-freeze across the party — in which some potential presidential aspirants and scores of major donors are strategizing and even developing a Plan B while trying to remain respectful and publicly supportive of the 80-year-old president.
Democratic Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gavin Newsom of California and Phil Murphy of New Jersey have taken steps that could be seen as aimed at keeping the door cracked if Biden bows out — though with enough ambiguity to give them plausible deniability. Senators like Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar have been making similar moves.
People directly in touch with the president described him as a kind of Hamlet on Delaware’s Christina River, warily biding his time as he ponders the particulars of his final campaign. In interviews, these people relayed an impression that the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. — that there’s simply no way he passes on 2024 — has crystallized too hard, too soon.
“An inertia has set in,” one Biden confidant said. “It’s not that he won’t run, and the assumption is that he will. But nothing is decided. And it won’t be decided until it is.”
‘Doubts and problems if he waits’
The stasis wasn’t always so pronounced. After former President Donald Trump’s launch in November, there was a desire among Biden advisers to begin charting their own kickoff plans in earnest. That urgency no longer is evident. They feel no threat of a credible primary challenge, a dynamic owed to Democrats’ better-than-expected midterms and a new early state presidential nominating calendar, handpicked by Biden. Holding off on signing campaign paperwork also allows Biden to avoid having to report a less-than-robust fundraising total for a first quarter that’s almost over.
As the limbo continues, Biden’s advisers have been taking steps to staff a campaign and align with a top super PAC. Future Forward, which has been airing TV ads in support of the president’s agenda, would likely be Biden’s primary super PAC, though other groups would have a share in the campaign’s portfolio, a person familiar with the plans said.
But to the surprise of some Biden allies, they say he has talked only sparingly about a possible campaign, three people familiar with the conversations said. His daily focus remains the job itself. Except for the occasional phone call with an adviser to review polling, he spends little time discussing the election. While First Lady Jill Biden signaled long ago she was on board with another run, some in the president’s orbit now wonder if the impending investigations into Hunter Biden could cause the president to second-guess a bid. Others believe it will not.
A decision from Biden to forego another run would amount to a political earthquake not seen among Democrats in more than a half century, when Lyndon B. Johnson paired his partial halting of the U.S. bombing of Vietnam with his announcement to step aside, citing deepening “division in the American house now.”

It would unleash an avalanche of attention on his vice president, Kamala Harris, whose uneven performances have raised doubts among fellow Democrats about her ability to win — either the primary, the general election, or both. And it would dislodge the logjam Biden himself created in 2020 when he dispatched with the sprawling field of Democratic contenders, a field that included Harris.
“Obviously, it creates doubts and problems if he waits and waits and waits,” said Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh, who continues to believe Biden will run — and that he won’t put off a decision for too long. “But if he were to somehow not declare ‘til June or something, I think some people would be stomping around.”
“There would be a lot of negative conversation … among Democratic elites, and I just think that would force them to ultimately have to make a decision,” Longabaugh added. “I just don’t think he can dance around until sometime in the summer.”
A campaign-in-waiting takes shape
Biden and much of his inner circle still insists he plans to run, with the only caveat being a catastrophic health event that renders him unable. Anita Dunn, Jen O’Malley Dillon and Mike Donilon have effectively overseen the campaign-in-waiting, with Donilon considering shifting over to a campaign proper while the others manage operations from the White House.
Other top advisers would also be heavily involved, including Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed, and former chief of staff Ron Klain may serve as an outside adviser for a 2024 bid.
“The president has publicly told the country that he intends to run and has not made a final decision,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement. “As you heard in the State of the Union, after the best midterm results for a new Democratic president in 60 years, his focus is on ‘finishing the job’ by delivering more results for American families and ensuring that our economy works from the bottom-up and the middle-out — not the top down.”
For now, most of the senior team sees no need to rush, and are identifying April as the soonest he would go. That was the same month Biden unveiled his primary campaign in 2019, and the month that Barack Obama restarted his campaign engines in 2011. Bill Clinton declared in April of the year before he was reelected, and George W. Bush in May, Bates added.
In addition to Biden’s unchallenged hold on the party, they note a belief that some of his legislative wins — like the infrastructure and CHIPS bills — will yield dividends in the months closer to Election Day and the need to pace the president. They point to the year ahead of heavy foreign travel, including his historic stops in Ukraine and Poland to rally European allies against Russia.
“We’re not going to have a campaign until we have to,” a Biden adviser said. “He’s the president. Why does he need to dive into an election early?”
But the delay in an announcement has allowed nervous chatter to seep in — or, in the case of Biden confidants, dribble out from his inner circle. It’s forced them to consider whether Biden’s waiting could leave the party in a difficult position should he opt against another run.
Some people around the president note he’s always been, as he likes to say, somebody who respects fate. And they pointed to the seemingly unguarded answer he gave recently to Telemundo, when asked what was stopping him from announcing his decision on a second term.
“I’m just not ready to make it,” Biden said. He continued to insist in the same interview that polls showing Democrats eager to move on from him are erroneous.
Famously indecisive
Biden is famously indecisive, a habit exacerbated by decades in the über-deliberative Senate. He publicly took his time mulling a decision not to run in 2016 and to launch his run in 2020. He missed two self-imposed deadlines before choosing Harris as a running-mate.
In the White House, he pushed back the timeline to withdraw from Afghanistan; skipped over his initial benchmark to vaccinate 70 percent of American adults against Covid-19 with at least one shot; and earlier in his presidency let lapse deadlines on climate, commissions, mask standards and promised sanctions on Russia for poisoning opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
His decision-making process is complete with extensive research, competing viewpoints and plenty of time to think. This time around, according to those close to him, he has made rounds of calls to longtime friends, all with an unspoken sense that he is running again — though without a firm commitment being made.
Meanwhile, aspiring Democrats have moved to keep their options open. They’ve done so with enough ambiguity to give them cover — actions that could be interpreted as politicians simply running for reelection to a separate office, selling books, or building their profiles for a presidential campaign further out in the future.
Among them is Pritzker, who was just elected to a second term. The Illinois Democrat — like everyone else — has offered his full support to Biden. But insiders note that senior advisers from his last two campaigns are still standing by just in case. Key among them is Quentin Fulks, who last year served as campaign manager to Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock. Pritzker’s last two campaign managers, Mike Ollen, and chief of staff Anne Caprara, remain ready to deploy, along with others.
“It’s the Boy Scout motto. ‘Be prepared,’” Democratic strategist David Axelrod said, referring to any appearance by Pritzker or other Democrats to be putting their ducks in a row for a potential presidential campaign.
Newsom’s circle of top advisers and close aides have a similar understanding should he need to call on them — after easily winning reelection last year, surviving a recall attempt the year before and building one of the largest digital operations in Democratic politics. Murphy, who’s chairing the Democratic Governors Association, is in the same boat as the others, having vowed to back Biden while indicating an interest in a campaign should a lane open for him.
Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who plans to seek reelection to her Senate seat in 2024, has been keeping up relations with donors far outside of Minnesota, holding a fundraiser in Philadelphia late last month. At the event, Klobuchar was asked if she planned on running for president in 2024, according to a person in the room. “She said she expects the president to run for reelection,” the person said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also is running for reelection, a dynamic that allows her to pledge support for Biden, bank her own cash, communicate with party leaders on her own behalf — and change direction should she need to. One source close to the senator, however, said another presidential bid is highly unlikely regardless of what Biden decides.
Sanders, who ran for the White House in 2020 and 2016, released a new book, “It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism,” this month. He is making media appearances and going on tour with stops in New York, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Arizona and California, the delegate-rich, Super Tuesday state that he won in his second presidential campaign.
Sanders, who himself is 81, has said that he would not challenge Biden in a primary. But he had not ruled out a run in 2024 in the event there was an open presidential primary. Sanders’ former campaign co-chair, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif), told POLITICO that Sanders “is preparing to run if Biden doesn’t,” adding he’d support Sanders in such a scenario.
Khanna has made his own moves as well, retaining consultants in early-primary states and drawing contrasts with other ambitious Democrats such as former presidential candidate and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, another 2024 possibility. Khanna has said he will back Biden if he runs again and that he would not run for president next year if Biden declined to do so. But he has kept his options open to a campaign in 2028, or years beyond.
“Without being overly aggressive, everyone’s still keeping the motor running just in case and they’re not being bashful about it,” said one Democratic donor, describing a call with the staff of a candidate who ran against Biden in 2020. “On the phone, everyone is very clear and has the same sentence up front: ‘If Joe Biden is running, no one will work harder than me, but if he’s not, for whatever reason, we just want to make sure we’re prepared for the good of the party.”
The specter of Trump
What’s driving the talk isn’t just Biden and his age, the donor added, but the possibility that Trump could return. “Most donors view the alternative as an existential threat to the country,” said the donor. “So is some of this impolite? Maybe. But no one seems to be taking issue with it.”
As White House officials, advisers and operatives await word from Biden for 2024, many have received little clarity about where they may fit into an eventual campaign. Several decisions related to staffing remain up in the air — a dynamic some attribute to aides trying to best determine where all the moving pieces would fit together.
Meanwhile, a plan to work in tandem with a constellation of Democratic super PACs is already starting to take shape.
Dunn met in recent weeks with donors and officials at American Bridge, another major Democratic super PAC, one person familiar said. Top Biden aides have ties to both Future Forward and Priorities USA, two other super PACs.
While Future Forward is likely to play the biggest role outside the possible campaign, aides stressed the others would be highly active, too. And it’s likely a campaign would designate an operative from outside its ranks itself to serve as an unofficial go-between to better coordinate with the outside groups.
Several of the candidates for the campaign manager position represent a next generation of Democratic talent: Jennifer Ridder, Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Sam Cornale, Emma Brown and Preston Elliott. Christie Roberts, executive director of the Democratic Senate campaign arm and another sought-after operative, appears likely to remain in that job for 2024 following the party expanding its narrow Senate majority.
Addisu Demissie, a longtime operative who ran Sen. Cory Booker’s 2020 campaign and worked closely with Bidenworld to produce the DNC, has been approached and courted for top posts on a campaign or super PAC. And Fulks, coming off the Warnock victory, also is viewed as a possible player on Biden’s campaign.
Yet there are concerns about how much autonomy the role would provide given Biden’s tight-knit circle of old hands that’s famously suspicious of outsiders.
There’s another complicating factor to sort out on staffing, according to the people familiar with the situation: Biden’s personal desire for a prominent campaign surrogate to blanket the cable airwaves.
One person who could fit the bill of a more public-facing (less operationally involved) campaign manager is Kate Bedingfield, the Biden insider who just left her post as the White House communications director. Bedingfield’s name has come up more over the last week in conversations among Biden aides, the two people familiar with the talks said.
The campaign pieces are being lined up. And several top financiers say they have been in touch with the president’s team to plan events. The president had a physical examination last week, in which his doctor gave him a nearly clean bill of health.
All that is missing is the official go-ahead.
Shia Kapos contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Biden #run #top #Dems #quietly #preparing
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 22, 2023
Adams quietly creates new offices, empowering low-profile deputy mayor

[ad_1]

Marmara, who made $224,618 last year with overtime, worked in Southeast Queens. During his three decades on the force, the Civilian Complaint Review Board substantiated three complaints against him, including one in 1996 related to use of force, according to public records.
His new office is tasked with helping city agencies “monitor and assess the delivery of services to the public and other key stakeholders to ensure that services are delivered in a professional, equitable, efficient and effective manner,” according to the executive order Adams signed Jan. 26.
It is expected to spot “deficiencies” in agencies and is empowered to conduct audits and direct commissioners on how to respond to community complaints. And it can monitor how effectively departments are correcting mistakes or poor performance related to “delivery of services,” the order reads.
The office affords Banks an expanded role beyond overseeing public safety, while taking on a politically relevant issue that Adams has deemed one of his priorities — improving government efficacy.
Until now, Banks’ job has been restricted to public safety agencies like the FDNY and Office of Emergency Management. From his office in a private building a few blocks from City Hall, he can keep an eye on the NYPD — where he served as chief of department before stepping down amid a federal corruption probe for which he was an unindicted co-conspirator. He was never charged.
Meanwhile the risk management office began operating last year but hadn’t been formally established until Adams signed the executive order in January.
As a candidate in 2021, Adams announced plans to create an office that would root out waste, fraud and abuse in city government. Run by former Deputy Comptroller Marjorie Landa, the office has six employees and a budget of $900,000, the spokesperson said.
Among the office’s tasks is auditing city agencies and troubleshooting independent audits conducted by city and state comptrollers. Adams is likely to come under increased scrutiny from City Comptroller Brad Lander as the passage of time weakens the standard tactic of blaming bad audits on the prior mayor.

Landa’s office is expected to track agency implementation of the comptrollers’ audit recommendations and report its own findings to the city’s Department of Investigation when necessary, according to the executive order.
“Making government work for everyday New Yorkers and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely are at the heart of Mayor Adams’ vision for a more equitable city,” spokesperson Jonah Allon said, noting these offices are the first of their kind. “Under the mayor’s leadership, these offices will promote smart, data-driven solutions to ensure city agencies are fulfilling their core mandates and delivering better, more efficient services to New Yorkers.”
On Friday Adams announced the creation of the Mayor’s Office for Child Care and Early Childhood Education, to focus on connecting families with “equitable, high-quality and affordable early education and care.” It comes as Adams is scaling back a pre-kindergarten program for 3-year-olds, which he said is not reaching the families most in need of it.
[ad_2]
#Adams #quietly #creates #offices #empowering #lowprofile #deputy #mayor
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 14, 2023