Momentum Builds in Fight to Restore Child Care Cuts

Parents and Kids Confront Mayor on Cuts and Release Report on Impact of Lack of Child Care Options on Families

Elected Officials Spend Day as Child Care Providers

Less than a week after a super majority of Council members wrote to the Mayor decrying his so-called "solution" to child care in the City, which would leave thousands of kids without care, and days after 30,000 petitions were delivered to City Hall calling on the Council and Mayor to restore the money for child care, dozens of parents and children descended on the Mayor's house to ask "What should we do with our kids if there is no child care?" and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Borough President Scott Stringer spent the day as a child care provider to show their support for the issue.

Also, today, the Center for Children’s Initiatives, a nonprofit focusing on early care and learning, issued a report along with Wachs Family Fund of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations, with findings on what happens to New York City working families that lose child care.

The report is based on 83 interviews with NYC families eligible for a child care subsidy but unable to obtain one because of capacity cuts over the last 3 years. Strikingly, it finds that several parents reported that 311, NYC’s information line, informed them that the surest route to a child care subsidy was applying for public assistance [Executive Summary and Page 8].

Other report highlights:

• Parents interviewed see care not only as necessary so they can work – but they increasingly cite the educational value of high quality early learning programs. Several cited how unfair it was that only families earning “six figures” have access to excellent care. [Report Executive Summary and Page 9].
• A parent anecdote from Claudette, a home health aide earning $7.75 an hour providing care for elderly clients and the sole supporter for her 15 month old baby. When the center closed that provided care for her 15 month old while she worked full time, she desperately searched for a new caregiver. She couldn’t afford full-time care, so settled for part-time care out of her neighborhood. Claudette now has more than 45 minute commute to her part-time provider. She’s often late for work – threatening her future employment. She knows that going on public assistance would give her higher priority for care - but she’s trying to avoid that. [Report Page 3 - Sidebar]

“Without child care, I don’t know what I’m going to do,” said Kim Sandy, a single mother whose 3-year old son attends The Educational Alliance’s Lillian Wald Day Care Center. “I won’t be able to keep my job and provide for my family. So many parents depend on this care – for the Mayor to continue to cut child care just doesn’t make sense.”

“With the Mayor’s cuts, 7,000 fewer children from low income working families will have access to child care next year,” said David Nocenti, Executive Director of Union Settlement Association. “These children are more than just numbers – they are our city’s future, and they deserve safe, affordable, educational care that will set them on a path to success.”

Also, today, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer took part in the United Federation of Teachers “Daycare Provider for a Day” program by visiting home daycare sites where providers educate and care for pre-school children.

"Seeing firsthand how childcare providers help our children learn and grow is all the evidence you need that the Mayor's budget has the wrong priorities," said Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. "Today I was proud to spend a morning walking in the shoes of Linnette Ebanks and tomorrow I will continue to fight for her and the thousands of working families that depend on child care."

“New York must never balance its budget on the backs of children and family, but that’s exactly what these cuts to child care and early education accomplish,” said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. “Despite the Mayor’s restorations, the child care system at large is still under siege, and next year 7,000 fewer children from low-income families will be able to access care. This administration has worked to gradually dismantle such a critical social safety net; in total, the city has lost 14,000 child care slots in the past four years due to cuts of this nature. New Yorkers deserve more than a half-a-loaf response from City Hall on an issue that impacts our most vulnerable constituents and their children.”

City Prepares to Spend Nearly $1 Billion on Education Consultants as it Fires 4,100 Teachers by Rachel Monahan - NY Daily News

Read original...

As the city prepares to lay off 4,100 teachers, the Department of Education is planning to spend nearly $1 billion on consultants next school year, a new analysis shows.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer blasted the agency's budget as a "black hole" and took issue with the 6% increase on consultants, after his office pored over the latest budget documents.

"There are a whole lot of troubling increases that have nothing to do with spending money in the classrooms," said Stringer, noting the city's plans to lay off teachers was "political gamesmanship" and the "solution" may lie in the $20 billion Education Department budget.

"This is a black hole that gets darker and deeper as time goes on," he added.

"It's time to shine some light on what these services really are."

Stringer's analysis, which agency officials dismissed, found the agency is increasing its spending on consultants under the central administration budget by $25 million - with $23 million of the increase spent on computer services.

The analysis also found increased spending on consultants to recruit teachers by nearly $1 million - while the city is cutting teachers.

Education Department officials have said that it's necessary to continue recruiting teachers to shortage areas like special education even during cuts.

City Education Department officials rejected the analysis, saying that most of the consulting budget is for required services and directly goes to serving students with disabilities.

"The Borough President either fails to recognize an important fact about these consultant costs or he is intentionally misleading people," Chancellor Dennis Walcott said. "The truth is that over $840 million of the $981 million he cites are dedicated to direct services for our students with the vast majority going towards our students with disabilities which are services that are required under the law."%A0

Agency officials also disputed that the computer contracts are increasing so steeply, saying instead that they underestimated expenses last year.

Jose Gonzalez, whose sons Alvaro, 10, and Allan, 9, attend Public School 73 in the Bronx joined a protest against budget cuts held yesterday at City Hall.

"We want a better education for our children. How are we going to do that?...They're really wasting money on consultants and contracts," said Gonzalez, a member of the Coalition for Educational Justice.

Victims of Gun Violence to Mayor Bloomberg: Condemn Wal-mart for Increasing Gun Sales

Wal-mart’s Cure For Struggling Sales? Reverse its Decision to Stop Selling Rifles, Shotguns and Ammunition at Many U.S. Stores

Communities and Families Plagued by Gun Violence Call on Mayor Bloomberg, a Strong Anti-Gun Advocate, To Tell Nation’s Largest Seller of Firearms it is Not Welcome in NYC

Victims of gun violence and leaders and families in communities plagued by gun violence, along with New York City elected officials, today denounced Wal-mart’s decision to sell more rifles, shotguns and ammunition at hundreds of stores nationwide after removing them from many stores five years ago.


Wal-mart’s decision comes after 7 consecutive quarters of same store sales declines in the U.S., which has spurred the retailer to pursue an aggressive urban expansion plan into New York City including a location in East New York, a neighborhood plagued by gun violence.


In 2008, Wal-mart enjoyed a major public relations boost when it announced it would participate in Mayor Bloomberg’s Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership- a move even the NRA derided as nothing more than a “public relations stunt.”


The families of gun violence victims urged the Mayor to be as serious as he says he is about preventing firearm deaths before they happen, by telling the nation’s largest firearms dealer that it is not welcome in New York City.


Jackie Rowe Adams from Harlem Mothers Save said, “The mayor needs to step up and renounce Wal-mart’s awful decision. We have seen what guns have done to our communities, and bringing in a Wal-mart to our communities would send the wrong message- that we condone their gun sale policies which put people’s lives in danger.


Parents United to Rally for Gun Violence Elimination (PURGE), founder Freddie Hamilton said: “I hope a strong anti gun advocate like Mayor Bloomberg will recognize a disastrous decision when he sees one and calls on Wal-mart to stop. We need fewer guns on the streets, and Wal-mart’s decision will only mean more guns on the streets.


Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said:"As the largest seller of firearms and ammunition in America, Wal-Mart does not belong in New York City. I urge Mayor Bloomberg to continue his leadership on gun control by joining the fight against Wal-Mart coming to our City.”


Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said:“The Wal-mart charm offensive ends today with news that the conglomerate plans to expand considerably the sale of weapons and ammunition. We know that the bullets that killed six people and wounded a United States Congresswoman in Arizona were purchased at Wal-mart, and now the retailer wants to make ammunition more accessible in both rural and urban markets. If the city wants to remain a leader on gun control, we need to take a hard stand against Wal-mart’s decision and make it clear that any corporation that looks for new markets to sell guns and fosters a culture of violence is not welcome in New York."


Councilmember Tish James said: “Any commercial establishment that sells guns by the truck-load does not belong in New York City. Guns are a scourge in New York City and no one sells more guns than Wal-mart, they don’t belong in our city.”


Councilmember Charles Barron: "East NY is plagued by the scourge of gun violence. And at the same time that Wal-mart is trying to buy their way into New York, they are quietly starting to sell guns and ammunition again. This is Wal-mart once again going back on a promise they’ve made because of their terrible sales, what other promises will they break?"


Councilmember Jumaane Williams said: "The gun violence in my district cannot be ignored and it cannot be accepted. Wal-mart bringing stockpiles of guns and ammo into our city would be a public safety hazard of the most heinous kind. This is the opposite of what we need to end gun violence in my district and in the City. Wal-mart is a company that will put lives in danger in order to turn a profit and I will not stand by and watch this happen without a fight."


When it comes to gun control and gun violence prevention, Wal-mart doesn’t appear to share New York’s values:

• Firearm sales: Wal-mart is the # 1 seller of fire arms in the US and takes in millions in profits from gun sales.
• Arizona: Wal-mart sold Jared Lee Laughner the ammunition he used in the Arizona shooting earlier this year, as was widely reported in the news media.
• Evading Laws: Wal-mart has a history of not complying with gun laws. In 2004, Wal-mart paid more than $14 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the California Attorney General alleging that the company committed thousands of violations of California state gun safety laws, including selling ammunition to minors and selling firearms to convicted felons, as was reported by the news media at the time.
• Wal-mart’s Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership is a sham: The partnership relies on voluntarily compliance, and there are no actual obligations for Wal-mart to comply.

Weiner Preps Mayorl Run by Richard Sisk - New York Daily News

Read original...

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) made it all but offical that he’ll run for mayor again in 2013 and all but certain that he’ll have the Clintons in his corner this time.

“I have a passing interest in the management of New York,” Weiner said in one of many asides during a Washington speech on the first anniversary of President Obama’s health care bill.

The launch-pad setting for the Weiner address was the Center for American Progress, a Clintonista think tank run by John Podesta, who was chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton.

And if anybody missed the point that Weiner was likely to get the Clintons’ blessing and the big bucks that come with it, the speech also featured a not-so-surprise star turn by his stunning and savvy wife
Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As Weiner droned on about mandates and public options, Abedin entered stage right from a side door to take a front-row seat. “Hi Huma,” Weiner said. “Apparently there’s peace in the world, so she was able to stop by.”

Weiner later said his mayoral ambitions have not exactly been hidden. “Hey, news flash, I’m interested,” said Weiner, who was chased out of the 2005 primary by Mayor Bloomberg’s bankroll.

“It would be exceedingly coy of me, especially in this town (D.C.), to present that I’m not interested” in being mayor, Weiner said.

Weiner might also have a leg up on getting Bloomberg’s backing over potential rivals such as City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Controller John Liu, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Public Advocate Bill De Blasio.

Bloomberg calls Weiner “Anthony” and in off-the-record chats, loves to relate Weiner’s profane rants against Republicans.

Pols Accuse Bloomberg Of Bias Against "Living Wage" by Jaya Saxena - Gothamist

Is Bloomberg submarining wage earners..?

Read original...

In June, the city's Industrial Development Agency decided to pay $1 million to economists to study a living wage proposal for workers on city-backed developments. But now, Agency board members Comptroller John Liu, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. aren't so sure that study will be completely unbiased. Their representatives wrote, "The study will be subject to the biases of a study team that is being chosen by the mayor's office." And that bias would most likely be against a wage raise. If that's the case, then maybe he hasn't heard about the rent recently.

The proposal would require workers on city-backed developments to make $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without benefits. But the three pols say the Bloomberg Administration is already against raising wages, believing it would put a burden on businesses, which is why the pols are trying to take back their decision. But Seth Pinsky of the city Economic Development Corp. says they study is just looking for the truth. He said, "Just because we have opinions on the subject does not mean that we are 'cooking the books.'"

The study's goals are to collect information on the city's wage practices, evaluate the economical impact of wage requirements and, "Develop methodologies for the assessment of the impact of wage requirements on the City’s economy, workers and residents." We're going to go ahead and guess that higher wages are better for workers, but we're not economists or anything.

Officials Slam 'Callous' Dept. of Homeless Services Program That Uses 200 Families as Test Subjects by Tina Moore - NY Daily News

Read original...

Single mom Angie Almodovar, who lost her job in 2008 and is at risk of homelessness, called the program like 'Russian roulette.'

City officials called for a halt Tuesday to a "callous" Department of Homeless Services experiment that uses 200 struggling families as test subjects.

"Just when you think you've heard it all," said City Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-Manhattan). "It's inhumane. How cold-hearted and callous."

The Daily News revealed on Tuesday that the study randomly split 400 families in two groups - the "haves" and the "have-nots."

One group gets rental assistance, job training and other services through a one-stop program called Homebase.

The second group is barred from Homebase for up to two years and must find help on its own at other agencies. Researchers will track the families to see find who finds services and who winds up in shelters.

"It's bizarre. It's like they're being cast to the wind," said Councilwoman Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan).

The 400 people comprise about 5% of the 7,700 people who use the program every year.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer called for an end to the "cruel and heartless experiment," and Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) promised to work with the Bloomberg administration to "ensure families are not placed at risk." She declined to say if the test should be stopped.

Councilwoman Annabel Palma (D-Bronx), who heads the General Welfare Committee, said she'll call for hearings.

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond defended the experiment, saying it was needed to evaluate the program and is similar to one underway at the national level.

"There are some people who have questioned the effectiveness [of Homebase]," he said. "The city's [Independent Budget Office] said you can't tell with present data whether prevention programs are effective."

Sharon Lee, a spokeswoman for City Controller John Liu, said the study "practically screams for closer examination."

Homeless prevention groups are fielding an increasing number of calls from families in the "have-not" category, said Louise Seeley of the nonprofit group Housing Court Answers.

"While there are other resources for people facing eviction and homelessness, they are extremely limited and hard to reach," she said.

Addabbo Pushes Bill to Halt Watershed Drilling by Anna Gustafson - YourNabe.com

Read original...

State Sen. Joseph Adabbo said he was inspired to sponsor a bill that would place a moratorium on drilling near the city's water supply after speaking with the director of "Gasland."

State Sen. Joseph Addabbo’s (D-Howard Beach) bill calling for a moratorium on natural gas drilling near the upstate water supply may come up for a vote in the Senate this week, and Queens and city politicians said the legislation’s passage is crucial for the health and safety of 9 million city and Westchester County residents.

The bill would stop any drilling in the watershed, which provides drinking water for the city, until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completes its study of the effects of natural gas drilling on water and public health. The study began in March and is expected to end within two years.

The legislation would rule out the possibility that companies could use hydraulic fracturing, a process of extracting natural gas that entails injecting up to 5 million gallons of water laced with chemicals into the ground at high pressure to break the rock.

“Let me be clear: I am not against drilling, but I am totally against a process that certainly has questionable ingredients that should not be in our water,” Addabbo said. “Imagine not being able to use your water for fear of drinking carcinogens, plastics and toxins. The danger of hydraulic fracturing so close to the New York City watershed is easy to imagine. Toxic byproduct can seep into our drinking water and turn our once pristine water into a severe health risk.”

According to a report prepared by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, seven states in the country have experienced serious incidents of water contamination and explosions near hydraulic fracturing sites.

The method has been criticized by city government officials and environmentalists who often cite a 2008 report from the U.S. Land Management Bureau that said groundwater in Sublette County, Wyo., which has one of the country’s largest natural gas fields and where hydraulic fracturing was commonly employed, was contaminated with benzene, a substance that has been linked to cancer and nervous system disorders.

Addabbo said his concern over natural gas drilling upstate became more urgent after he met with Josh Fox, the writer and director of the movie “Gasland,” an environmental documentary chronicling the natural gas boom. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year and landed a Special Documentary prize.

City Councilman James Gennaro (D-Fresh Meadows) is interviewed in the film. Gennaro, a longtime advocate against hydraulic fracturing near the watershed, has thrown his support behind Addabbo’s legislation.

Hydraulic fracturing “is completely unregulated by the federal government and poses unacceptable risks to drinking water supplies throughout the country,” said Gennaro, chairman of the Council Environmental Protection Committee.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) is also backing Addabbo’s legislation. A version of Addabbo’s bill is being sponsored by state Assemblyman Steven Englebright (D-East Setauket).

What is Hydrofracking and How Could It Stop Us From Drinking Our Water by Senator Joe Addabbo...

Read original...

What is hydrofracking and how could it affect our drinking water even though it takes place over one hundred miles away? I asked myself that same question until a constituent, Brian Dooley, President of the Glendale Property Owners Association, educated me about the process. New York City has some of the cleanest, safest and most reliable drinking water in the country. However, the safety of our drinking water is in danger. Our drinking water is being put in jeopardy by big business oil companies who want to drill for natural gas dangerously close to New York City’s upstate watershed using a process known as hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrofracking.


This drilling process uses toxic chemicals under high pressure in water to break up rock formations deep underground releasing the natural gas. The targeted material for this natural gas drilling runs through approximately eight states including Pennsylvania and upstate New York and is known as the Marcellus Shale. The hydrofracking drilling method requires millions of gallons of water that the United States Department of Energy considers one of the most toxic industrial byproducts produced by gas and oil drilling.^[1] Let me be clear, I am not against drilling, but I am totally against a process that certainly has questionable ingredients that should not be in our water. Recently, I met with Josh Fox, writer and director of the movie Gasland, to discuss this issue and my education and concerns about hydrofracking grew.


The danger of hydraulic fracturing so close to the New York City watershed is easy to imagine. Toxic byproduct can seep into our drinking water and turn our once pristine water into a severe health risk. According to a report prepared by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, entitled Uncalculated Risk, seven states across the country have experienced serious incidents of water contamination and explosions near hydraulic fracturing mines.


Imagine not being able to use your water for fear of drinking carcinogens, plastics, and toxins.


To protect our drinking water I have introduced and sponsored legislation to place a one year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in New York State. We need time to fully understand a report currently being prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the potential dangers of hydraulic fracturing and its possible affects on the New York City watershed. The unknown, long term affects of the components of hydrofracking could be dangerous, if not fatal. Why take a chance with our precious drinking water. We should be certain that New York City’s water supply will not be damaged.


The risks are simply too high to just recklessly move forward with hydraulic fracturing. Over eight million people in New York City rely on clean safe unfiltered surface water collected in the watershed. We cannot put the health of New York City residents at risk. The harm to our city’s and state’s infrastructure, economy, and most importantly public trust far outweigh any benefits of moving forward immediately with hydrofracking.


In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf we have seen firsthand the effects of ignoring common sense safety measures. While I know that upstate landowners stand to make huge amounts of money from the gas companies as they lease their land to allow the drilling and that the process creates jobs, I believe it is irresponsible and dangerous to permit drilling so near our water supply without taking the time to fully understand its ramifications.


Please go to my website here  to sign the petition supporting my legislation calling for a one year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Together we can protect our drinking water. 

###

For additional ways to protect our City’s drinking water please call Senator Aaaabbo's  office at 718-738-1111 or 718-497-1630 or email addabbo@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Joe Addabbo Calls for a Moratorium on Hydrofracking in Upstate Watershed...

Wants Halt to Drilling that Affects NYC Drinking Water until EPA Impact Study Is Completed

To protect the drinking water for almost nine million New Yorkers, NYS Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., is sponsoring a bill that calls for a moratorium on drilling for natural gas or “hydrofracking” in the upstate watershed. Currently, the bill sits in the Environmental Conservation committees in both the Senate and the Assembly. It may come up for a vote in the Senate before the end of the current legislative session, scheduled to resume the week of July 12.

What is hydrofracking and how could it affect our drinking water even though it takes place over 100 miles away? Earlier this year, Brian Dooley, President of the Glendale Property Owners Association and Addabbo’s constituent, educated the Senator about the process. Dooley explained that while New York City has some of the cleanest, safest and most reliable drinking water in the country, the safety of the city’s drinking water is in danger, put in jeopardy by big business oil companies who want to drill for natural gas dangerously close to New York City’s upstate watershed using a process known as hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrofracking.

This drilling process uses toxic chemicals under high pressure in water to break up rock formations deep underground releasing the natural gas. The targeted material for this natural gas drilling runs through approximately eight states including Pennsylvania and upstate New York and is known as the Marcellus Shale. The hydrofracking drilling method requires millions of gallons of water that the United States Department of Energy considers one of the most toxic industrial byproducts produced by gas and oil drilling.

“Let me be clear, I am not against drilling, but I am totally against a process that certainly has questionable ingredients that should not be in our water. Recently, I met with Josh Fox, writer and director of the movie Gasland, to discuss this issue and my education and concerns about hydrofracking grew,” explains Addabbo.

The Senator warns: “Imagine not being able to use your water for fear of drinking carcinogens, plastics and toxins. The danger of hydraulic fracturing so close to the New York City watershed is easy to imagine. Toxic byproduct can seep into our drinking water and turn our once pristine water into a severe health risk. According to a report prepared by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, entitled Uncalculated Risk, seven states across the country have experienced serious incidents of water contamination and explosions near hydraulic fracturing mines.”

“To protect our drinking water, I have introduced and sponsored legislation to place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in New York State and would keep the state Department of Environmental Conservation from issuing drilling permits, until 120 days after an impact study is completed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [The study began in March and a completion date has not been set, but is expected to take up to two years.] We need to slow down and take time to fully understand a report currently being prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the potential dangers of hydraulic fracturing and its possible effects on the New York City watershed. The unknown, long-term effects of the components of hydrofracking could be dangerous, if not fatal. Why take a chance with our precious drinking water? We should be certain that New York City’s water supply will not be damaged,” adds Addabbo.

Concludes the Senator: “The risks are simply too high to just recklessly move forward with hydraulic fracturing. Almost nine million people in New York City rely on clean, safe, unfiltered surface water collected in the watershed. We cannot put the health of New York City residents at risk. The harm to our city’s and state’s infrastructure, economy, and most importantly, public trust -- far outweigh any benefits of moving forward immediately with hydrofracking.”

“In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, we have seen first-hand the effects of ignoring common-sense safety measures. While I know that upstate landowners stand to make huge amounts of money from the gas companies as they lease their land to allow the drilling and that the process creates jobs, I believe it is irresponsible and dangerous to permit drilling so near our water supply without taking the time to fully understand its ramifications.”

Senator Addabbo urges New Yorkers to work together to protect our precious drinking water. Concerned New Yorkers are invited to go to the Senator’s Web site at http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/joseph-p-addabbo-jr to sign his petition in support of his legislation calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. For additional ways to protect our city’s drinking water, please call the Senator’s district offices at 718-738-1111 or 718-497-1630, or email him at addabbo@senate.state.ny.us.

Five Out Of Five Democrats Agree: Everyone Hates Hiram - Gothamist

Read original...


The five Democratic hopefuls for Attorney General will have some sparring ahead in their future endeavors to replace current AG Andrew Cuomo, but at least there is one thing right now that unites them all, beyond party lines and policies: a distinct disdain for one Hiram Monserrate.

Richard Brodsky, Sean Coffey, Eric Dinallo, Kathleen Rice and Eric Schneiderman all have heartily endorsed Democrat Francisco Moya for the 39th Assembly District seat over Monserrate, who recently began his political comeback by screaming outside a church. Moya said of the endorsements, "I'm honored that these 5 statewide leaders recognize my commitment to reform. Their endorsement demonstrates that even while Democrats may disagree on some things, we are ready to come together for the cause of reform and restoring honesty to our state government." And don't forget the cause of keeping Monserrate out of government!

The five pols join several other prominent politicians who have endorsed Moya over Monserrate, including Sen. Jose Peralta, who defeated Monserrate in a March special election; Julissa Ferreras, who holds Monserrate's old City Council seat; and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Manhattan BP Scott Stringer and former city Comptroller Bill Thompson.

Daily News political reporter Celeste Katz spoke with all five pols, who offered some serious anti-Monserrate fervor: former Federal Prosecutor Sean Coffey said, "Hiram Monserrate is grossly unqualified to be part of our growing reform movement and should instead focus on reforming himself. His many abuses range from the physically violent to the deep abuse of public trust that came as a result of his abhorrent behavior. Hiram Monserrate is a criminal who is part of the problem, not the solution." And Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said, "It is also important that the people of this district and the people of New York reject Hiram Monseratte’s campaign. He has been convicted of domestic violence. Crimes like this need to be taken seriously. The people of this district can help be rejecting his candidacy.”

Borough Presidents Can Introduce Laws -- They Just Don't by Kathleen Lucadamo - NY Daily News

Read original....

The oil giant's not the only BP playing defense.

The city's five BPs -- borough presidents -- argue what they need is MORE power, not banishment, as many have suggested.

So I looked at the one little-known power they have: The ability to introduce laws.

According to their respective offices, it has been used about a half dozen times in the last decade.

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall has done it twice in nine years. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has done it twice in five years. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. has done it once (the living wage bill) in two years.

Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro has never done it in nine years. And Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz has done "it once in the past year, and on one or two occasions earlier" during his nine-year tenure.

None of their laws have passed so far.

When the Charter Commission stripped the BPs of most authority in 1989, they gave them the ability to introduce laws in the City Council just as the mayor does.

The bill is introduced by a Councilmember "by the request of the borough president."

"We were trying to make players in the legislative process by giving them power to push an agenda," said Eric Lane, who headed that commission.

Now, the borough presidents disagree on its value.

"'By the request of the borough president?' What the hell does that mean?" said Molinaro, noting if the legislation is good, the Council members will want the credit for themselves.

"It's another weakness in the city charter," he said.

It makes more sense, he said, for him to negotiate with the three Staten Island Council members to make changes. Still, he acknowledged the larger boroughs don't have it as easy.

Stringer called it "a good weapon if it's not overused."

"It's a very effective way to weigh in on issues and work with local council members," he said.

Marshall, Diaz and Stringer said they'll be using it more in the future. The five BPs want broader powers including authority over agency bosses in their borough and an independent budget.

The latest charter revision is examining their role as well as a host of other issues but Lane suggests that their ability to introduce laws remain.

"Even if they don't use it, somebody will," he said.

City Officials, Civil Rights Leaders, and Grassroots Organizations Rally Against Nonpartisan Elections...

Click here to view these pictures larger

A growing coalition of city officials, civil rights leaders, civic groups and grassroots organizations rallied today near City Hall against a controversial proposal to make New York City elections nonpartisan, a move soundly rejected by New York City voters in 2003.

The groups say nonpartisan elections have been shown to suppress voter turnout, deny voters critical information about candidates, privilege well-known and wealthy candidates and make it harder for minority candidates to compete in elections. The rally is being held on the same day that the Charter Revision Commission is holding a hearing on voter participation issues, including nonpartisan elections.

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said: “Nonpartisan elections undermine our democracy. They create a political system that is dominated by wealth, suppresses voter turnout and makes it harder for minority candidates to compete. Our broad coalition will fight to stop nonpartisan elections and preserve the diversity and integrity of our City’s democracy.”

“Voters want to know where candidates stand,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn. “Party affiliations are important because they clearly tell voters where candidates stand on many social and fiscal issues that matter to our city’s electorate.”

Former Comptroller Bill Thompson said: “New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly in 2003 that knowing a candidates party is important to them and helped them identify the candidates’ core values and beliefs. Knowing your elected officials beliefs matter and the Charter Commission should listen to the voters of New York City and reject nonpartisan elections.”

“So-called minorities have been a majority in New York City for decades, but we've still had only one Mayor of-color, and the first majority minority City Council was elected just 6 months ago,” said Hazel Dukes President of the NAACP New York State Conference. “We've made tremendous racial progress in this city, but non-partisan elections threatens to undo those gains. The Charter Commission should listen to the voters of New York City and reject this bad idea.”

“Adopting nonpartisan elections would be rolling the dice with the city's democracy," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. “This proposal risks reversing decades of gains by minorities in city government at a moment when New York is more diverse than ever before.”

“Simply put, political parties give voters an idea of the beliefs of candidates,” said Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. “To increase voter turnout, we should be looking for ways to make it easier for voters to know where candidates stand, not more difficult. I’m a proud Democrat, and when I say that, I know it means something to people. The reality is, doing away with party affiliation gives unfair advantage to those who can buy the most name-recognition. The party system—be it two parties, three, or even more—is the best way for the electorate to form like-minded communities and to figure out which candidates share their civic goals.”

“The question of nonpartisan elections was already placed before the voters of this City in 2003, and it was soundly rejected by a two-to-one margin. The Charter Revision Commission should not waste its time rehashing old business, especially unpopular ideas that have the potential to disenfranchise African-American and Latino voters. The voters have already sent a crystal clear message that they do not want nonpartisan elections, and asking them again would only waste time and resources that could be put to better use,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.

Susan Lerner, Executive Director, Director of Common Cause said, “Study after study reveals that nonpartisan elections actually decrease voter turnout and disadvantage minority and working class voters. If we truly want to increase civic participation, the Commission should look into changing the time of the municipal election to the fall when federal elections are held and instituting a Vote by Mail system. The Commission should be looking to put more information on the ballot, rather than less.”

Dan Cantor, Working Families Party Executive Director said: “Voters know nonpartisan elections weakens our democracy and gives another leg up to wealthy candidates who can outspend the competition. That’s why they’ve resoundingly rejected the idea, and why the Charter Commission should too.”

“Nonpartisan elections will further disengage low-wage communities of color from the political process,” said Hector Figueroa, 32BJ Secretary-Treasurer. “We should be focusing on strategies to reach out to these communities, not to turn them away.”

Report On The NYC Schools Closing Lawsuit Appeal by Richard Barr - NYC Public School Parents blog...

Read original...

Oral arguments in the City's appeal of the State Supreme Court Decision by Judge Joan Lobis -- which blocked the DOE from its threatened closing of 19 schools -- were heard yesterday (5/13) in the State's Appellate Division, at 27 Madison ave., Manhattan. One reason why it was of particular importance to me (neither of my 2 children has attended one of the schools threatened with closure by the DOE) is because I am a graduate of one of those that is -- Christopher Columbus H.S. in the Bronx.

The case is known as Mulgrew vs. Board of Ed.

First up before the 5-judge panel was NYC Corporation Counsel attorney Alan Krams appealing the decision on behalf of the DOE.

Mr. Krams said that in her decision, Judge Lobis -- who had ruled that DOE had provided insufficient notice and impact analysis about its plan to close the schools -- had mistakenly applied the higher standards of environmental statutes (SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act) rather than education law, which does not require as much in the way of impact analysis.

One of the judges pointed out to him that the extension of Mayoral control of the schools which passed the State Legislature in 2009 was predicated on requirements such as community notification re: school closings.

Mr. Krams acknowledged that DOE had failed to give School Leadership Teams (SLTs) formal notice, but he reiterated that the lower court had treated it like SEQRA and had applied too high a standard for notification. He said that education law gives the school officials the power to make the sole determination about school closings.

A judge pointed out to him that the 2009 education statute requires that educational impact of a decision like this be determined. Various judges expressed skepticism about whether the impact of the closings on students and community was adequately taken into account by the DOE.

Mr. Krams said the process can't work if the DOE must take into account how each student can get the same programs at a new school as he or she had at the school they want to close. He also said that the UFT, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the closings, does not have standing to sue, a claim greeted with skepticism from the bench. The reason, he said, is because the UFT is an unincorporated association, so it would only have standing to sue if ALL of its members were affected.

Now it was the turn of the attorney for the plaintiffs, Charles Moerdler of Stroock and Stroock and Lavan. He said the 2009 statute was negotiated between the DOE and the State Legislature, with the Chancellor having a direct role in the negotiations, and that the DOE was reneging on the agreement in the way they've handled this matter. He said there is no compliance with the requirements of the statute and that the DOE is essentially saying that students and teachers must be held accountable for their behavior and performance, but there is a different standard for us.

Mr. Moerdler said that Judge Lobis had briefly referred to SEQRA in her decision, saying it is instructive in this instance, but that she in no way suggested that its provisions were binding on the process here. He said that the DOE was required to give proper notice to the CECs, and that the CECs and SLTS were supposed to have joint hearings with the DOE on this and they didn't get them.

He said that DOE gave no notice to the Bronx and Manhattan Borough Presidents or the Chair of the City Council Education Committee, all of whom became co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. He said that of the 19 schools slated for closing, 14 were proficient by the DOE's own measures and 5 of them in every respect. The DOE then, he said, came up with NEW standards to justify the closings.

A judge asked Mr. Moerdler if negotiations between the 2 sides are taking place, and he said they are trying to avoid having to request a contempt motion against DOE (for failure to comply with all aspects of Judge Lobis' order), and are attempting to negotiate an outcome to the suit.

He reiterated that DOE violated a statute they'd jointly negotiated, deliberately failed to comply with it, and had pretty much admitted that they (DOE) had not invited CECs and SLTs to participate in the process because they were afraid that those groups "would thwart the process" of the closings.

Mr. Krams then spoke again, returning to his contention that the UFT had no standing to sue. A judge asked him if he was really saying that a teacher in a school being closed would not be injured by that closing. Mr. Krams said the elected officials did not have standing to sue because they would not be injured themselves by the closings -- only their constituents would. Judges were skeptical of that one as well, as you might expect.

He then said that CECs are not in the picture for the high school closings, because only K-8 schools have CECs. He said high schools are under the sole control of the Chancellor. (This of course leaves out that there are borough-wide high school councils and a citywide council on high schools. I mentioned that to some of the plaintiffs outside the courtroom after the oral arguments were concluded, and they said they were aware of that omission and had mentioned it in their papers.).

Mr. Krams concluded by saying that the public was heard loud and clear in the 19 individual hearings and in the PEP hearing about all 19. (Having attended the December hearing at Columbus for it and a smaller school, Global Academy, which is located in the same building and was also targeted by DOE, and having attended the subsequent P.E.P. meeting, I can say unequivocally that the public may have been heard, but what they said was totally discounted in the decisions, because just about everyone who spoke objected to the closings.)

That was it. It is not known how long it will take for a decision to be announced. For what it's worth, it seemed to me that the judges reacted more positively to the attorney for the plaintiffs than to the attorney for the DOE.

After Years of Complaints, Union Sues City Over Class Size Dollars by Maura Walz - GothamSchools

Read original...

UFT President Michael Mulgrew announces the union's lawsuit. Behind Mulgrew are, from left to right, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, NAACP NY President Hazel Dukes, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Yolanda Morales, a plaintiff in the suit.

The city teachers union, along with a coalition of parents and advocacy groups, sued the Department of Education this morning, charging it with not spending allocated state money on reducing class sizes.

Since 2007, the state has allocated nearly $761 million for class size reduction, yet class sizes in schools across the city have risen over the past two years.

The lawsuit accuses the DOE of causing the class size increase by willfully misusing those funds.

“As far as we are concerned, this is deliberate,” UFT President Michael Mulgrew said in a press conference at union headquarters this morning.

“New York City how has the highest class sizes in New York State,” Mulgrew said. “$760 million, for what?”

The lawsuit, filed this morning in the State Supreme Court in the Bronx, was brought by a coalition of parents, activist groups, the UFT, the New York chapter of the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation.

“The charges are without merit,” DOE Press Secretary David Cantor said.

Class size is one of six areas the state money is supposed to target as part of a legal agreement known as the Contracts for Excellence. The state has allocated the targeted funding since 2007 as part of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE), which charged that the state was underfunding city schools.

(The UFT was not a plaintiff in the original CFE suit, although the union did file a brief in support of the plaintiffs and then-union president Randi Weingarten testified in the case.)

City officials and their critics have been arguing over how to explain rising class sizes in the city for several years. DOE officials have repeatedly said state class size reduction funds have been included in principals’ budgets, but the city’s wider budget cuts have caused principals to reduce teaching staff anyway.

Nevertheless, city officials argue the state funds have prevented class sizes from growing even more.

At the press conference today, Mulgrew disputed that argument, saying a pattern of class size increases began before the fiscal crisis that led to widespread budget reductions.

The city first reported an increase in class sizes last school year, when class sizes in all grades grew by fractions of a point, with the largest increases happening in early grades. This school year, the jump in class size across all grades was substantially bigger.

DOE officials sent out a table today highlighting that average class sizes in all grades except kindergarten have decreased since the 2001-02 school year, the year before Mayor Michael Bloomberg assumed control over the school system.

But critics say those numbers mask larger class size increases in many high needs schools. Even before the city’s average class sizes began to rise, a state report showed that more than half of city schools reported increases in either their class size or student-teacher ratios.

Mulgrew also criticized the DOE’s defense that principals have discretion to spend funds on Contracts for Excellence programs other than class size reduction, saying it is Chancellor Joel Klein’s responsibility to ensure the money is spent on this issue.

“You cannot pass the buck,” he said.

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who joined the lawsuit’s plaintiffs at the press conference today, said the DOE’s approach to allocating state funds to schools without monitoring how they are used was unacceptable.

“It sounds like a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” he said.

A DOE official said that schools with high class sizes are actively instructed to use the state funds on class size reduction, and once a principal commits in their budget to using the funds to hire new teachers, the DOE’s budget system won’t allow them to divert the funds elsewhere.

Plaintiffs said the suit is a last resort after years of lobbying the DOE to properly dedicate the money. Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, one of the plaintiffs, has called on the state to withhold Contracts for Excellence funds until the city commits specifically to reducing class sizes.

Mom Comes to Defense of Aide Who Lost Her Job Over Comments About Obama on Facebook by Ben Chapman and Celeste Katz - NY Daily News

Read original...

Michal Landor

The mom of the city aide who lost her job after making incendiary comments about President Obama and race on Facebook Wednesday said her kids were raised to respect everyone.

"We're not racist, and that's it," said Lee Landor's mom, Michal.

"She's young and maybe a little naive. What she said was something everyone was talking about, and it just got out of hand."

Lee Landor, 24, quit as deputy press secretary to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer this week after word got out about her scathing comments regarding the arrest of Harvard Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Obama's reaction to it.

"O-dumb-a, the situation 'got out of hand' because Gates is a RACIST, not because the officer was DOING HIS JOB," Landor wrote on her page late Friday morning. She also said she was sick of seeing whites portrayed as "evil racists."

Landor has defended herself, saying she is not prejudiced, that she voted for Obama and that her comments were taken out of context.

Michal Landor noted she herself was born in Morocco, where her family lived until persecution pushed the family to move to Israel.

"They boycotted my father's business and he went bankrupt, and they tried to kill my brothers," she said.

The mother said she raised her kids "to accept everybody and anybody, and you don't judge by race or color."

As for the Facebook comments, "She didn't think someone would take it out of there and make a big thing. You get fired for something you say," Michal Landor said.

Stringer says he considers the matter closed.

"People have the right to express themselves, but I also have an office to run," he said, calling Landor's postings "inappropriate."

"We have a lot of work to do, [and] I think we acted swiftly and dealt with the issue immediately," he said.

ckatz@nydailynews.com