FCL NEWSLETTER -- May, 2003
Trudging the Road to Fiscal Solvency in the "Not Me" Era
As lawmakers try to close the state's budget deficit, they find themselves
plunging headlong into the same obstacles that plague our budget process year
after year. By now you know the routine. Republicans vow to oppose all tax increases.
Democrats succumb to the inevitability of spending cuts, but attempt to cushion
the blow to education and health and human services by raising taxes. This year
there is an added twist to the annual budget stalemate: the awareness that even
if the state's economy were to fully recover, California's budget would still
be out of balance by $10-$15 billion. Governor Davis has vowed not to sign a
new budget that does not address this structural deficit.
California's structural deficit is the difference between the state's legal
spending requirements and the amount of tax revenues it can expect to collect
under current law. According to the California Budget Project, during the last
decade the state enacted tax cuts amounting to $7.8 billion per year in 2002/2003.
General Fund spending for education, and health and human services has increased
by $17.8 billion annually from fiscal year 1998/1999 to 2002/2003. For the world's
fifth largest economy, these increases are defensible.
The Path Gets Narrower
Faced with rapidly escalating property taxes, a huge budget surplus and the
Legislature's inability to offer relief, voters in 1978 approved Proposition
13, which rolled back property tax rates to 1975-76 levels and capped annual
payments at one percent of assessed value. Proposition 13 was the first in a
series of artificial barriers that voters erected out of distrust for politicians
and other voters. The measure requires a two-thirds legislative majority to
raise state taxes and a two-thirds majority of local voters to raise local taxes.
Few realized that Property 13 would limit the ability of communities to control
their destinies, by making the state responsible for allocating property taxes.
As a result, schools and community colleges are now funded primarily by the
state with little local input.
The burdens of these artificial barriers become heavier in tight budget years
and arguably increase demand formore ballot initiatives as vested political
interests find the Legislature either unable or unwilling to advance their agendas.
In response to concerns about the state's commitment to education in the aftermath
of Proposition 13, voters in 1988 approved Proposition 98, to guarantee that
40 percent of the state's General Fund revenues are spent on education. Last
November, voters approved Proposition 49, to guarantee a certain level of education
spending for after-school programs within the Proposition 98 guarantee for education.
In March 2002, voters approved Proposition 42, which guarantees that the sales
tax on gasoline will be spent only for transportation projects.
Ballot box budgeting, combined with constitutional and federal spending mandates,
mean that only about one-third of state spending remains discretionary. Instead
of legislators making spending and taxing decisions in a deliberative setting
where competing measures are prioritized, the initiative process enables each
interest group to promote its own agenda without regard for the big picture.
With a minimum level of education spending guaranteed by Proposition 98, spending
for health and human services and corrections are the largest remaining categories
of discretionary spending.
Structural "Reforms"?
The governor's proposed budget realignment would shift some $8 billion in health
and social services to the county level and funds these services by increasing
the sales tax by one cent, restoring the top personal income tax brackets and
increasing taxes on tobacco. Davis maintains that earmarking these additional
taxes for specific purposes exempts them from the Proposition 98 spending require-ments.
If the governor's realignment proposal clears legis-lative hurdles, the courts
could ultimately decide its fate. The Legislative Counsel issued a legal opinion
in February stating that these new tax revenues are not exempt from Proposition
98 spending requirements.
Health care advocates have serious doubts as to whether the governor's proposed
revenue streams are sufficient to handle increasing caseloads and costs. According
to the California Budget Project, an aging population has made Medi-Cal and
In Home Supportive Services two of the state's fastest growing programs. How
these increasing program costs will be funded in subsequent years remains to
be seen. (The governor also hopes to negotiate a compact to collect $1.5 billion
per year from gaming tribes.)
Governor Davis also proposes to end reimbursements to local governments for
the revenues they lost when the Legislature reduced the Vehicle License Fee
(VLF). Assem-bly Democrats, however, approved some $3 billion in mid-year spending
reductions after being assured that language in the original legislation would
enable the VLF to be reinstated without requiring further legislative approval.
California's recurring budget difficulties are intensified by the state's constitutional
requirement that a two-thirds majority of members of both houses must approve
the state budget. California is one of only three states with such an arrangement,
which guarantees the minority party extraordinary leverage over budget matters.
This explains Republican cohesiveness when opposing all tax increases. Designed
to keep the majority party from complete control, this constitutional requirement
also gives the anti-tax party an incentive not to compromise in bad budget years.
During the so-called "boom" years of the late 1990s, Republicans
agreed to increase spending only if Democrats would agree to tax cuts. Now that
times are bad, that spirit of compromise has disappeared. Governor Davis cites
then-Governor Pete Wilson's 1991 budget agreement as the model that legislators
should follow in the current round of budget negotiations. Facing a $14 billion
budget deficit, Wilson rallied Republicans to close the gap by cutting spending
by $7 billion and raising taxes $7 billion.
Enacting a Wilson-like compromise in 2003 became even more difficult when Governor
Davis alienated Republican Party leaders last year by bypassing them to negotiate
with the party's rank-and-file members. Reports that the governor has held recent
meetings with leaders from both parties are encouraging.
Tax Policy and Human Needs
FCL believes that government is obligated to provide all residents in need
with appropriate income assistance, food, shelter, health care, education, and
access to public transportation. Addressing the state's structural deficit will
require creativity and ingenuity, but most of all, it requires a sense of common
purpose and shared sacrifice. Instead of exclaiming "not me," many
Californians are willing to be part of the solution and to accept higher taxation
to ensure that social needs are adequately funded.
FCL supports a progressive income tax and the elimination of tax subsidies
for the wealthy. While high-income Californians pay the majority of the state's
personal income taxes, the lowest 20 percent of Californians pay the largest
share of their income (11.2 percent) in state and local taxes. In contrast,
the wealthiest one percent of Californians pays the smallest share of their
income (7.2 percent) in state and local taxes (California Budget Project). In
the wake of substantial federal tax cuts, the time is opportune for affluent
taxpayers to contribute a larger share of state revenues.
FCL is aware of other opportunities for structural reform in taxation that
would enhance revenues:
o In the last 20 years, state corporate income taxes as a percentage of corporate
income have fallen from 9.6 percent to 5.3 percent (California Budget Project).
Restoring the historic corporate income tax rate is an option.
o According to the California Tax Reform Association, closing loopholes that
allow commercial property to escape reassessment when sold would net the state
$3 billion per year.
o Assemblymember Wilma Chan has introduced AB 4, to restore the top brackets
on personal income tax rates.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Write letters to your elected representatives and to the editor of your local
newspaper and let them know of your willingness to do your part. Below are some
key bills currently in the Legislature that, if enacted, would help correct
address the state's fiscal imbalance. Please write letters concerning the bills
below and send copies to FCL in order to assist with our lobbying efforts.
ACA 1 (John Longville, D., San Bernardino) amends the state constitution
to require a simple majority vote
of both houses to approve the state's budget. FCL SUPPORTS.
AB 4 (Wilma Chan, D., Oakland) expresses the Legislature's intent to
restore the top brackets on personal income tax rates. FCL SUPPORTS.
AB 122 (Ronald Calderon, D., Montebello) extends the Manufacturers Investment
Tax Credit until January 2006. FCL OPPOSES.
SB 17 (Martha Escutia, D., Norwalk) closes loopholes that allow commercial
property to avoid reassessment when sold. FCL SUPPORTS.
- Jim Lindburg
Calendar of Upcoming Activities
May 10,16, 21 -- FCL Presentations with Democratic Clubs in L.A./Pasadena area
May 16-17 -- FCL at College Park Quarterly Meeting - Quaker Center, Ben Lomond
May 18 -- FCL programs with Santa Cruz and Monterey Meetings
May 31 -- FCL Southern Regional Committee meeting - Orange Grove Meeting, Pasadena
June 4 -- FCL Annual Dinner in Sacramento - "Carrying on the Heritage and
Spirit of FCL"
June 14 -- Palo Alto Concert for FCL
June 29 -- Strawberry Social fundraiser for FCL - Friends House, Santa Rosa
Please contact FCL for more information on these or other events.
Governor's Budget Proposal
These figures reflect key elements of the governor's proposals to address the
state's $35 billion budget shortfall. Figures include current year (2002-03)
and budget year (2003-04) totals where applicable.
For a detailed analysis, please consult the Department of Finance website at www.dof.ca.gov/, or the
Legislative Analyst's Office website at www.lao.ca.gov.
For information about the work of the California Budget Project, see the organization's
website at www.cbp.org or call
(916) 444-0500.
Closing the $34.6 billion budget gap
Spending reductions: $13.7 billion* Tax increases: 8.2 billion
Reductions to local government: 5.1 billion*
Fund shifts: 2.2 billion**
Transfers and other revenues: 2.1 billion***
Loans and borrowing: 3.3 billion
*Includes proposed current year reductions
**Includes shifting $500 million in local redevelopment agency housing funds
to the state
***Includes $1.5 billion anticipated revenues from tribal gaming activities
Source: California Budget Project
2003/2004 Spending Reductions
K-12 Education -- $4.5 billion
Community Colleges -- 0.9 billion
CSU/UC -- 1.3 billion
Medi-Cal -- 1.6 billion
SSI/SSP -- 1.1 billion
CalWORKS -- 0.5 billion
Reimbursements to local governments -- 4.2 billion
Source: California Budget Project
2003/2004 Tax Increases
Increase sales tax by one cent -- $4.5 billion
Restore top brackets on personal income tax -- 2.6 billion
Increase tobacco taxes -- 1.2 billion
Source: Governor's Budget Summary 2003-04
Lobby Day Involves Concerned Californians
Over 80 members and supporters of the California Interfaith Coalition came
together on March 25 at Westminster Presbyterian Church, across from the Capitol,
for the annual Legislative Issues Briefing Day, also known as "Lobby Day."
This year's program theme, "Seeking a Just Budget: An Interfaith Call to
Conscience, Education, and Action," focused on understanding the state
budget crisis and what can be done to promote just policy decisions in the face
of significant fiscal challenges. Co-sponsors included FCL, the California Council
of Churches, California Church IMPACT, California Catholic Conference, Lutheran
Office of Public Policy, and JERICHO. Among the dozen FCL staff and supporters
participating were Russ and Mary Jorgensen, Gil Hamilton, Grace Noda, Max and
Roberta Rothe, Rev. Glenn Fuller, Sister Stella Goodpasture and George Millikan.
The day included singing and faith reflections.
Keynote speaker Jean Ross, Executive Director of the California Budget Project,
gave an enlightening and sobering presentation on the nature and magnitude of
the state's budget problems. She noted that the Legislature and administration
could no longer resort to "cookie jar robbing" and faced very difficult
choices. Ross' emphasis on the budget as a "values document" reinforced
connections made throughout Lobby Day between advocates' beliefs and their impact
on the legislative process. She addressed the importance of strengthening support
for public services and the revenues needed to maintain them. Ross also focused
on the need to address long-term structural barriers and difficulties, including
the two-thirds vote required for budget passage, projected cutbacks in federal
funding resulting from tax cuts, and other policy changes.
Participants were encouraged to make appointments with their representatives
and join group visits with key legislative offices concerning budget issues.
After brief preparation sessions, groups headed to the Capitol for 15 to 90
minute meetings. Each group prepared an agenda and chose speakers. Comments
were straightforward but brief to respect time limits and allow for dialogue
with the staff member or legislator. FCL legislative advocate Jim Lindburg led
two group visits with the staffs of Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D.,
San Francisco) and Assembly-man John Campbell (R., Irvine). In the meeting with
Burton's staff, a diverse group addressed concerns about the needs of the poor
and homeless (from a church that serves them), prison spending and priorities,
support for childcare services (from Latinas in Merced), and the need for affordable
housing.
Afterward, several participants shared their thoughts on the Lobby Day experience.
Max and Roberta Rothe are members of the United Methodist Church of Davis and
long-time FCL supporters who have attended many Lobby Days. Max refers to himself
as one of the "old timers." For "new timers," Max points
out, Lobby Day familiarizes and humanizes the legislative process. Legislative
staff members were generally accessible and responsive. It's "great theater,"
says Rothe. He also notes the importance of developing connections with those
in decision-making positions, and developing the skills needed to be an effective
advocate.
In a full afternoon, Rothe met with his representatives, attended a meeting
with Assembly Budget Committee staff, and met with Assemblyman Campbell and
Senator Dick Ackerman (R., Tustin). He had positive feelings about these exchanges,
which addressed the need for fee and tax increases to close the budget deficit
rather than cutting further into needed programs and services. He found the
budget discussion very helpful in understanding structural challenges and tradeoffs.
Rev. Glenn Fuller, a retired Methodist minister who lives in Walnut Creek, also
shared his experiences.
He is another "old timer," having attended about 10 of these annual
Capitol programs. This time, he "came home on a high" after doing
a lot of positive networking. "It is so easy to feel impotent," says
Fuller, "being just one person among many Californians and wondering whether
what you do or say will make a difference." This experience "makes
one feel that one's presence and vote count. Your visit to a senator or assemblymember's
office can be important. You feel part of an informed, caring and responsible
community."
Rev. Fuller was part of a delegation that met with the budget directors for
Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson (D., Inglewood) and Senator Tom Torlakson (D.,
Concord). He found them both "sympathetic and encouraging." Fuller
was also encouraged by the connection he was able to make with a staff member
in an office where the legislator appeared to be less than supportive. "I
will be back next year," he added.
Libby Sholes, Public Policy Director with the California Council of Churches,
helped organize this year's "Lobby Day". A week later, over lunch
at the California Association of Nonprofits conference, she put her advocacy
skills to good use when a fellow participant expressed his concerns about a
legislator's proposal for a single-payer health care system (SB 921, Kuehl,
D., Los Angeles). Course by course, Libby gained his interest and confidence.
By the end of the day, he had become a supporter of the bill.
- Ira Saletan
Women in Prison: A Special Brand of Oppression
Women incarcerated in California's prisons are treated in ways
that ignore their gender-specific needs. From 1980 to 1999, the female prison
population increased 500 percent, with nearly 80 percent of these woman incarcerated
for drug-related offenses. This increase is largely the result of the "War
on Drugs." The inability of policymakers to come to grips with the root
causes of criminal behavior among women represents a serious failure of social
and public policy.
In addition to being poor, many incarcerated women suffer as victims
of sexism, racism and physical and/or sexual abuse, almost always at the hands
of men. According to a study done by the National Institute of Corrections,
71 percent of female prisoners in California have experienced ongoing physical
and/or sexual abuse before the age of 18. Sixty-two percent have experienced
ongoing abuse as adults.
Drugs and Poverty
Drugs often become a coping mechanism for women suffering physical
and sexual abuse, and substance abuse increases the likelihood of incarceration.
Though studies show that every dollar invested in substance abuse treatment
saves taxpayers $7 in social costs and lowers the rate of recidivism, only about
2 percent of the state's prison population are enrolled in intensive substance
abuse programs. With insufficient opportunities for education and job training
and a lack of reentry programs for women, it is no surprise that many return
to prison.
The National Institute of Corrections also found that 80 percent
of incarcerated women are mothers of children under the age of 18. Seventy percent
of those prisoners are single mothers and two-thirds serve as their family's
primary caretaker. Ten percent of female offenders are pregnant at some point
during incarceration. Women with felony drug convictions are banned for life
from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance,
food stamps, Pell grants and low-cost housing. Since children usually reside
with their mothers, these women and their children bear a greater burden than
men when denied access to these services. Women's wages are often garnished
to recover the cost of their children's foster care while they were incarcerated.
Children reunited with mothers whose incomes are inadequate suffer from an increased
risk of neglect and abuse. These obstacles make it difficult for women to provide
stable living conditions when reunited with their children.
Health "Care"
Because prison health care is based on a military model that assumes
a healthy male, women's medical needs are often overlooked. California requires
prisoners who are not completely destitute to pay $5.00 for each doctor appointment.
Often women must choose between seeing the doctor or buying needed hygiene items.
Indigent women prisoners are given only five sanitary napkins per month, according
to Cassie Pearson of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Little consideration
is given to preventive care. Since there is no systematic plan in place to provide
for regular pap smears and mammo-grams, reproductive and breast cancers often
go undiagnosed and untreated. Medical staff consist primarily of Medical Technical
Assistants (MTAs), often with minimal medical training. Available doctors are
usually male, and complaints of sexual harassment and abuse by medical staff
have resulted in several indictments.
Many expectant mothers who are incarcerated have a history of
substance abuse and poor health, and prison health care does not provide case
management for prenatal care. Pregnant woman are often deprived of adequate
nutrition and exercise. High-risk patients are not seen by obstetricians and
gynecologists, and few have access to sonograms. Ignoring obvious danger signs
ensures high rates of late-term miscarriages, premature deliveries and stillbirths.
Pregnant women are transported in restraints and shackled to their beds during
labor. Although many emergencies occur during evening hours and on weekends,
doctors are usually off-duty during these times.
After delivery, the mother and newborn are separated within hours
or days of birth. If the mother has between six months to a year left on her
sentence, she may qualify for a reunification plan. Unless she has a relative
who is willing and able to provide for the child, and who can pick up the newborn
within 72 hours, the newborn infant is turned over to the county to be placed
into a foster home. Without a reunification plan, the child is put up for adoption.
The inability to bond with children often leads to depression and has harmful
effects on children's mental health as well.
The importance of maintaining familial bonds in order to promote
successful reentry into the community cannot be overly emphasized. The Community
Prisoner Mother Program (CPMP) allows women convicted for nonviolent offenses
to serve their sentences in live-in facilities with their children. Mothers
receive case management, including parenting classes, vocational training and
substance abuse treatment. According to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children,
women who serve their sentences in CPMP have a low recidivism rate. Unfortunately,
the number of CPMP facilities has been reduced from seven to two, and there
are only 48 beds available statewide.
In these ways, women incarcerated in California state prisons
endure oppression unique to their gender. Lawmakers and the Davis administration
are obligated to consider this gender-related discrimination and, with input
from prison reform advocates, women's organizations and citizens, devise solutions.
- Tracey Walker, FCL Intern
REFERENCES:
Bloom, B. and B. Owen, Profiling the Needs of California's Female Prisoners
- A Needs Assessment, National Institute of Corrections, US Department of
Justice, Washington DC, 1995.
Greenspan, Judy, HIV Chairperson, California Prison Focus, San Francisco,
CA.
Kizziah, M., Women in California Prison, California Commission on the Status
of Women, Sacramento, CA 2002.
Marshall, M., Health Care for Incarcerated Pregnant Women, American Society
for Bioethics & Humanities, Winter, 1999.
Pearson, Cassie, Staff Attorney for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children,
San Francisco, CA.
Rydell, C.P. and S. S. Everingham, Controlling Cocaine, prepared for the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army, Santa Monica,
CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND, 1994.
Rukaiyah, A, D. Onek and A. Riker, Double Jeopardy: An Assessment of the Felony
Drug Provision of the Welfare Reform Act. The Justice Policy Institute, San
Francisco, California (1998).
Simmons, C. Wear, PhD., Children of Incarcerated Parents, California Research
Bureau, Sacramento CA, 2000.
HIV at the Central California Women's Facility
At the Central California Women's Facility (CCWF), care for women with HIV/AIDS
is less than adequate. In California, 3.2 percent of the women entering prison
are HIV positive, yet prisoners are not tested until they show symptoms. Because
people infected with AIDS are stigmatized, protecting patient confiden-tiality
is an essential precursor to receiving treatment. Women who are HIV positive
used to keep one month's supply of medication in their cells, which protected
their confidentiality. That policy changed two years ago and was replaced with
"Direct Observation Therapy."
Women prisoners at CCWF now wait in outdoor lines, often for several hours,
regardless of weather conditions, to receive their medication. HIV positive
prisoners take one dose at the dispensing window and carry two doses back to
their cells with them. Because this is done in full view of staff and other
prisoners, prisoners at CCWF lose their right to confidentiality. The loss of
confidentiality likely deters some from seeking treatment while incarcerated.
FCL Joins Coalition for Effective Public Safety
FCL is pleased to have joined with other organizations to create the Coalition
for Effective Public Safety (CEPS). CEPS is committed to reducing prison spending
by supporting adult parole alternatives, safe sentencing alternatives, restoring
funding for programs that reduce recidivism, and ending prison construction.
The coalition has identified $1 billion in spending cuts that could be used
to reduce the severe spending cuts impacting our state's schools, the elderly,
and the poor, without jeopardizing public safety.
Other members of CEPS include the Civil Service Division, CSEA; SEIU Local
1000; the California Prison Moratorium Project; the Center for Juvenile and
Criminal Justice; Critical Resistance; the Drug Policy Alliance; Legal Services
for Prisoners with Children; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education
Fund and the Service Employees International Union, California State Council.
For more information, contact Jim Lindburg at (916) 443-3734, or JimL@fclca.org.
Southern California Report
by Carole Lutness, Co-Clerk, FCL Development & Outreach Committee;
Orange Grove Friends Meeting, Pasadena
Support for FCL is building in southern California, where representatives of
the FCL Development & Outreach Committee are reaching out to Meetings and
progressive organizations to inform people about FCL's work and encourage their
participation and financial support.
Using the 10-minute film "Speaking Truth to Power," committee members
are speaking about FCL's work, distributing literature and making
appeals. The film was well received at Southern California Quarterly Meeting
in mid-February.
This prompted invitations by several Friends Meetings, including Santa Monica,
Los Angeles, and Claremont. Santa Barbara Friends Meeting also hosted a well-attended
forum with FCL staff in February.
Shirley Price of Orange County Friends Meeting is another committee member
involved in this new outreach effort. Shirley and others hope to recruit Friends
to host an "FCL party" where the film can be shown to non-Friends.
Another objective is to arrange for members of the committee to make presentations
to groups or organizations to which they belong. As we have been reminded, over
70 percent of donors to FCL are not Friends. It is important to reach potential
supporters outside the Friends Meeting House as well as within it.
I sponsored a holiday party at my home in December and invited both Friends
and friends. Ten non-Friends saw the film and donated over $1,100 at the event.
The film has been shown to several Democratic Clubs in the Pasadena/Burbank
area and there are plans to show it to several other Clubs, as well as a book
club and a chapter of Americans for Democratic Action. If you are a southern
California reader who would like to have the film brought to your Meeting or
to host an event for non-Friends, please contact Carole Lutness at (661) 799-3632,
or by e-mail at dalutness@earthlink.net.
Other Activities
George Gastil of San Diego was among several FCL supporters from the south
to attend the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento in March. Most
of the presidential hopefuls spoke, which was informative in getting a "heads
up" about where they stand on important social justice issues. A strong
anti-war resolution was passed, as were resolutions on environmental issues,
support for a living wage, empowerment zones and civil rights for gays and lesbians.
As indicated by recent issues of the Newsletter, one focus of our efforts this
year is citizen advocacy and lobbying. There are at least three ways to be involved
as a citizen advocate: "cause" lobbying such as FCL, engaging in social
protests in the streets, and involvement in a political party. Though people
involved in one form of citizen advocacy may not understand all the work of
other advocates, there is a need for these different, complementary approaches.
The more that people know about and engage in these ways of speaking truth to
power, the more effective we will be as a whole in working with other advocates
and reformers.
Lee Storey
We were saddened recently to learn that Lee Storey of the Santa Monica Friends
Meeting, a generous long-time FCL supporter, died in late March. Lee will be
remembered by FCL for her compelling and beautiful illustrations in the Newsletter
(she also designed the current masthead). She contributed her graphic design
and editorial talents to FCL in other ways, including our 50th anniversary outreach
last year. Lee's support, creative gifts, and graceful presence will be greatly
missed.
Newsletter Editor Change
Stephen Myers with ACORN
Stephen Myers, FCL Newsletter editor for the past two years, has resigned.
Stephen recently became the lead organizer for the Sacramento chapter of the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN is a nationwide
organization that advocates on behalf of people with modest incomes for livable
wages, affordable housing, better schools, and community reinvestment.
We thank Stephen for his fine contributions to FCL and look forward to exploring
ways in which FCL and ACORN can work together.
We are pleased to welcome Doug Thompson and Cory Thompson-Briggs to FCL as
interim co-editors of the Newsletter. Doug was a member of the FCL staff from
1982 to 1990 and edited the FCL Newsletter for several years thereafter; his
son Cory is a student at UC Berkeley.
Coming to Dinner?
FCL's Northern California Annual Dinner is set for June 4 in Sacramento. Please
note that we need your registration by May 21; an additional $15 will be due
for late registrations. If you have not yet received an invitation and would
like to attend, contact the FCL office as soon as possible to reserve your place.
Call (916) 443-3734, or e-mail fcldevt@cwo.com.
We would be pleased to list you as a dinner sponsor; sponsorships start at
$150 including dinner. Regular dinner tickets are $60. Supporters of limited
means are encouraged to come at the $35 rate. Supporters may donate seats to
others - please do not let price inhibit you from attending.
It promises to be a wonderful evening. We will gather at Congregation B'nai
Israel and enjoy a catered dinner and special time with others who support FCL
or are getting to know us. Featured speakers Russ and Mary Jorgensen will talk
on "Carrying on the Heritage and Spirit of FCL."
Subscribe to the FCL Newsletter
You can have each issue of the FCL Newsletter mailed to your home or
place of business, simply by mailing a request to our office, together with
a check for $35 ($12 low-income). Bundle subscriptions to a meeting, congregation,
or other group may also be arranged at a cost of $75.
Friends Committee on Legislation
717 K St., Suite 500-B, Sacramento, CA 95814-3408
(916) 443-3734
|
