As many of our allies and supporters know, CPR is now in the midst of a nationwide search for our next executive director. Earlier this month, with the start of the school year, Matt Shudtz left us to be a full-time parent of young home-bound children whose schools and daycare are restricted to virtual learning.
So, it's time for us to find new staff leadership. We're looking for a dynamic leader prepared to guide our nearly 20-year-old organization into its next stage of growth and impact. Since the days in the early aughts when you could squeeze all our Member Scholars and staff around a medium-sized conference table, we've grown to have more than 60 Member Scholars across the nation and a permanent staff of eight, all working virtually even before the pandemic. And, importantly, we've had and continue to have real impact on a number of policy fronts.
Given the challenges confronting the nation, many of them the result of the Trump administration's unrelenting assault on our regulatory safeguards, the rule of law, democratic participation, sound science, good governance, the norms of civilized discourse, and more, we have our work cut out for us, whichever way the election turns out. And we're planning to continue fighting with vigor and determination for the causes we believe in – the issues described in detail on this blog and on our website.
I'm honored to lead the search process for our next executive director, working with a search committee of three fellow board members, Gilonne d’Origny, Amy Sinden, and Board President Rob Verchick, as well as CPR Policy Analyst Darya Minovi and CPR Special Projects Administrator Catherine Jones.
Some executive director searches are described publicly as wide open, but are in reality wired in advance for some internal candidate or favorite of board leadership. That's not the case here. We're looking far and wide, and we'd be delighted to hear suggestions. If you or someone you know might fill the bill – that is, someone with a track record of proven leadership, vision, staff management, solid communications skills, and an effective fundraiser, please be in touch. You'll find the job description and information on how to apply here.
We are particularly interested in candidates with diverse backgrounds and a commitment to incorporating values of Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (as articulated in CPR’s JEDI Statement) in all responsibilities and duties and in developing and executing a vision for CPR.
In addition, we're also in the market to fill a brand new position at CPR, a Digital Media Manger. The successful candidate for that position will be a social media ace who's had success across several social media platforms, has experience creating social media campaigns, has design experience, content management system dexterity, and is comfortable working virtually. That job description is here.
Showing 2,829 results
Michele Janin | September 28, 2020
As many of our allies and supporters know, CPR is now in the midst of a nationwide search for our next executive director. We're looking for a dynamic leader prepared to guide our nearly 20-year-old organization into its next stage of growth and impact.
Robert Verchick | September 25, 2020
For the Member Scholars and staff of the Center for Progressive Reform, Justice Ginsburg's passing is a moment for reflection, a time to celebrate her achievements, mourn what has been lost, and gird for what is to come. Because her death has triggered such an outpouring of emotion, we asked the CPR family to offer reflections on her life and legacy and have gathered them on our website. I encourage you to take a few moments to read them.
David Flores | September 25, 2020
On September 24, CPR and Waterkeeper Alliance convened the first in a series of webinars on climate-driven pollution and chemical disaster. The toxic floodwaters phenomenon only exists because of a set of intersecting policy failures, and it will take a bold and sophisticated community of activists to achieve intersecting reforms that prevent the harm of climate-driven pollution. Panelists Jamie Brunkow, Jordan Macha, and Victor Flatt are but a few within that community of climate and environmental advocates and scholars.
James Goodwin | September 24, 2020
An underappreciated side effect of the modern conservative movement now epitomized by Trumpism is its dogged pursuit of any legal argument to support “the cause,” no matter how ridiculous or specious. Long-settled questions like nondelegation and the constitutionality of independent regulatory agencies are suddenly, if bizarrely, up for grabs again. Add to this list a new line of argument – now germinating like a mushroom spore in horse manure – that posits that citizen suit provisions, such as those included in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, are unconstitutional infringements upon the so-called unitary executive.
Daniel Farber | September 22, 2020
With Sen. Mitt Romney's announcement that he would support consideration of a nominee before the election, it now seems virtually certain that President Trump will be able to appoint a sixth conservative justice. How will that affect future climate policy? Here is a preliminary threat assessment.
Rebecca Bratspies | September 21, 2020
Recently, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler spoke to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the EPA's founding. He used the opportunity to reiterate the agency's commitment to its “straightforward” mission to “protect human health and the environment.” He also emphasized that the agency’s mission meant “ensuring that all Americans – regardless of their zip code – have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean land to live, work, and play upon.” Yet just last week, EPA postponed an internal speaker series on environmental justice. The reason for this postponement: the appalling suggestion, as per a recent White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo, that recognizing racial disparities in environmental protection is somehow "un-American."
Joel A. Mintz, Victor Flatt | September 17, 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in a wave of worrisome and needless regulatory relaxations that have increased pollution across the United States. Recent reporting by the Associated Press and other outlets has documented more than 3,000 pandemic-based requests from polluters to state agencies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for waivers of environmental requirements. Numerous state governments, with the tacit encouragement of the EPA, went along with many of those requests.
Rena Steinzor | September 16, 2020
Presidents since Ronald Reagan have endorsed the assumption that government is too big and too intrusive. Yet the figurative poster children targeted by these chill words have been public health agencies heavily dependent on science-based decision-making as opposed to—as just one example—the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. No president has spent any concerted amount of time explaining how protective public health interventions, including regulation, make life better. No president has praised the civil servants who weather seemingly endless—and enervating—disputes over science and law that make it possible to deliver those protections. For the sake of the civil service and its broken morale, and for the American people, who are exhausted and rendered hopeless by the indiscriminate attacks on the government’s competence to keep the population safe, the next president should use the bully pulpit to advance a positive narrative about government’s accomplishments.
Joel A. Mintz | September 15, 2020
As I noted in a previous post, the pending case of United States v. DTE Energy, Inc. tacitly raises issues concerning the constitutionality of both Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) and the citizen suit provisions of environmental laws. This second post considers another constitutional issue that may emerge in the DTE Energy litigation: whether SEP agreements -- and citizen suits more generally -- interfere with a “core executive function” of the president and executive branch and longstanding constitutional notions of separation of powers. To resolve that question soundly, one must look to the text of the Constitution itself, the Federalist Papers, and the relevant body of law that the lower federal courts have already developed.