Jumat, 10 Juli 2009

Working Families Party Endorses William Thompson For Mayor


From Dan Cantor, July 9, 2009, Working Families Party:

We wanted you to be the first to know - it's Thompson.

After WFP supporters voted on what questions to ask the mayoral candidates; after getting the candidates' live answers at our Mayoral Forum last week; and after pouring through thousands of comments on how they did - tonight we're proud to announce the Working Families Party is endorsing Bill Thompson for Mayor.

Less than an hour ago, the WFP's New York City Coordinating Council, the grassroots leadership of the party, voted to back Thompson - matching the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of WFP members and supporters who watched our Mayoral Forum and graded each candidate's performance.

Thompson has a clear message. He believes that city government must always put the middle class and working families first - above the real estate developers and corporate interests that have dominated our city for too long. In a Thompson Administration, Wall Street won't be the only street that matters anymore. Flatbush Avenue, Queens Blvd., The Grand Concourse, Victory Boulevard, and 125th St will have a real voice in City Hall.

At last Thursday's Forum, in question after question, Thompson spoke boldly about his support for our values and issues. The Mayor mostly did not. (You can watch the highlights here.)

When asked about campaign spending, Mayor Bloomberg told the hundreds of WFP supporters watching in the room and online: "rich people don't always win."

Our job now is to prove him right. From top to bottom, the Working Families Party has a ticket one can be proud of, starting with Bill Thompson. He is joined by John Liu and Bill de Blasio as city-wide candidates, and dozens of truly inspiring candidates for City Council.

Let's get to work.

-Dan
Dan Cantor
WFP Executive Director

PS: No one can match the Mayor in the cash department. But we don't need to. We just need enough to hit the doors and get our own message out.

The Working Families Party (WFP) is New York’s liveliest and most progressive political party. Formed by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together build a society that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

We fight to hold politicians accountable on the issues working- and middle-class families care about, like good jobs, fair taxes, good schools, reliable public transportation, affordable housing, and universal healthcare.

Working Families Mayoral Forum
July 6th, 2009
Mayoral Forum 09

Did you miss the Working Families 2009 Mayoral Forum? You’re in luck. Watch the YouTube below to catch the highlights of Mayor Bloomberg, Bill Thompson, and Tony Avella (pictured at left) answering questions WFP supporters helped pick. Or, use the livestream below that to watch the entire Forum.

More than 300 people attended, and hundreds more watched it live online. Check out the coverage in the New York Times and the Daily News (see below - Editor).

Rating the Mayoral Candidates’ Answers - Survey Results
Over 300 people attended the WFP Mayoral Forum held last Thursday, July 2nd. They came from unions, community organizations and WFP chapters from all five boroughs.

Following the presentations by the three candidates, 138 attendees filled out a survey that ranked the answers to each question.

Liveblogging the NYC Mayoral Forum
July 2nd, 2009
Mayoral Forum 09
LINK
[4:30pm]

There’s quite a lot of firsts taking place tonight. It’s the first open mayoral forum this electoral season. It’s the first time Working Families is broadcasting an event live on the web. It’s the first time we put a twitter widget up so that folks can chatter in real time while watching.

Will it work? We’ll know in exactly one hour. In the meantime, here’s the lyrics to our theme song:

WORKING FAMILIES TOGETHER
(to the tune of “Solidarity Forever”)

We have come from all across New York
To speak out true and loud
Black and white and brown and yellow
That’s the beauty of our crowd
Standing tall for working families
For we clearly recognize
That it’s time to organize

(Chorus)
Working Families Together
Working Families Together
Working Families Together
For together we are strong

Now the politicians promise
To solve problems large and small
And the corporations make believe
They love us one and all
But the truth is something different
And it’s right before our eyes
That it’s time to organize

(Chorus)

From the Concourse to the Village
To the Coney Island shore
From Corona to East Flatbush,
Staten Island - Even More!
Bushwick, Flushing, and the West Side,
In the South Bronx — We Will Rise
As we start to organize!

(Chorus)

Discussion
2 Responses to “Liveblogging the NYC Mayoral Forum”Suzannah B. Troy says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Thank you to the Working Family Party for providing the people of New York with this opportunity. I felt you did a good job and asked important questions. I am disappointed you did not ask the mayor and Bill Thompson about the conflicts of interests and financial scandals regarding the pension scandals and Christine Quinn — City Council slushgate.

Other wise you did a good job and thank you for the opportunity to hear New Yorkers ask important questions and the candidates answer. It did not change my decision — I am voting for the Tony Avella because as some of your representatives pointed out tonight — he is honest.

Terrance Newton says:
July 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm


Predictably Mayor bloomberg was arrogant in his responses. When asked if he would support some kind of public financing due to his unfair spending advantage, his response that he earned every dollar he made and some are born in advantages of good family and education. Does this mean that those who aren’t born rich, from good families, or superior education need not apply?

What about Barack Obama? Look at his humble beginnings. This mayor is out of touch with those who aren’t rich. Bill Thompson was right when he said that principals matter and what you stand for matters. New York city is a family. We have rich, middle class, and poor. Your money, family background, and education shouldn’t guarantee you leadership role in this city.

I was disappointed that no one brought up the mayors violation of term limits after saying that no politician should violate term limits.

We need to read the mayors privilege statement to Barack Obama to urge him to endorse Bill Thompson.

July 3, 2009
At Working Families Party Forum, Bloomberg Declines to Toe the Liberal Line
By DAVID W. CHEN, NY TIMES
LINK

Taking a page out of the playbook of Democratic mayors in Washington and San Francisco, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a mayoral candidates’ forum Thursday night that he supported paid sick days for people who work at large companies.

But Mr. Bloomberg, who has won the Republican and Independence Party lines in his bid for a third term in November, refused to parrot other liberal positions on issues like higher income taxes on the wealthy or stronger laws to protect tenants. He defended his homelessness policy, saying that the city’s shelter system had become “much more humane and civilized,” to the point where the shelters were “a lot more attractive” to families.

Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire and the wealthiest person in New York, also refused to limit his own spending on a campaign that could cost $100 million. Indeed, he questioned whether any election could ever be fair, because of advantages one candidate might have over another in education, family ties or party allegiance.

“Rich people don’t always win,” he said, in a response that drew some hisses and even laughter at the forum in Midtown Manhattan, sponsored by the politically liberal Working Families Party. “You can’t buy an election. The public is much smarter than that.”

It was the first time this campaign season that all three major candidates — Mr. Bloomberg and the two Democratic contenders: the city comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., and Councilman Tony Avella — appeared at the same event, albeit separately.

The party plans to endorse a candidate on July 9. And the choice is especially crucial to Mr. Thompson, the presumptive Democratic nominee, because he trails Mr. Bloomberg badly in polls and has watched many Democrat-friendly unions and officials back the mayor.

But judging by the crowd’s reaction, Mr. Bloomberg was the least popular of the three. He defended his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who has been criticized as aloof and unresponsive to parents and educators, saying: “Could he have better social skills? We all could. But his job is not to be a nice guy; his job is to deliver results.”

He drew some jeers, too, on the subject of housing, when he said that he thought “it’s pretty hard getting evicted.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who spoke first, got a more favorable reaction, though, on the issue of paid sick days. While he expressed concerns about the impact on small businesses, he said he was encouraged by the example set in San Francisco, which mandated paid sick time for all workers in 2007. “Certainly large businesses, I would support that,” he said.

For his part, Mr. Thompson hewed to core Democratic themes on housing, middle-class jobs and an income tax on the wealthy.

He was most animated when he talked about President Obama and nonpartisan elections — something that Mr. Bloomberg favors, but said Thursday night he would not pursue unless they became politically palatable.

“Can anyone here imagine Barack Obama on the Republican line? I can’t,” Mr. Thompson said. “I don’t believe in nonpartisan elections, and I never will.”

At some junctures, Mr. Thompson’s answers elicited little reaction. This was true when he talked about his own — and more full-throated — support for paid sick days and when he talked about so-called green jobs.

Mr. Thompson may have missed an opportunity to hammer away at an issue on which he and the Working Families Party were aligned against Mr. Bloomberg last fall: the mayor’s successful bid to change the term limits law.

But it was Mr. Avella who seemed to generate the most applause. He said that Mr. Thompson was part of a Democratic machine that would not change anything. And, in a line that may have drawn the loudest applause, he had a far different assessment of Mr. Klein’s tenure.

“It would be my pleasure as mayor to say to Joel Klein: You’re fired!” he said.

Mayor Bloomberg defends massive campaign spending: 'I made every dime that I have'
BY Adam Lisberg, DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF,Friday, July 3rd 2009, 4:00 AM
LINK

Handschuh/News
"I've used my money only to talk about what I would do and what I have done. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I can see," said Bloomberg.

"I made every dime that I have," Bloomberg told the Working Families Party candidate forum, sparking scattered hisses from the crowd of about 250.

"I've used my money only to talk about what I would do and what I have done. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I can see," said Bloomberg, who may spend more than $100 million on his campaign. "You can't buy an election. The public's much too smart for that. You can use it to get a message out."

Controller William Thompson and Queens Councilman Tony Avella, two Democrats vying to challenge him in November, both said Bloomberg should have raised income taxes on the wealthy rather than hike the sales tax by a half-point to balance the budget - and said Bloomberg's statement that "we love the rich" was staggeringly out of touch.

"What about the rest of us? Where do we go?" asked Thompson, who said rising taxes, rents and water bills threaten the middle class.

Avella launched a blistering attack on Bloomberg's record and policies, saying he allowed large developers to run roughshod over neighborhoods while ignoring the plight of the poor.

"Right now, it has nothing to do with you and I, and it is all about money," Avella said. "Money should not be moving the system. It should be the people of the city."

Bloomberg later said for the first time he would support requiring most businesses in New York to offer paid sick leave to workers, with exemptions for small employers. Avella and Thompson said they supported paid sick days with no exceptions.

The party has yet to endorse a candidate for mayor. (On July 9, 2009, WFP endorsed Thompson for Mayor - Editor)

Kamis, 09 Juli 2009

Mayoral Control of City’s Schools To Be Renewed



...no one is listening to the public outrage at the failure of the Bloomberg Administration to listen to parents in the public school system. But anti-Bloomberg groups are gathering momentum as they work against a continuation of the Bloomberg dictatorship and against all City Council members who voted for a third term without a referendum.

Stop King Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg King of New York

Christine Quinn: Behind the Smile


Organizing to Beat Bloomberg - July 7th Meeting!
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 00:00 Hypocrisy Highlighter The Herd - MyBlog
from BloombergWatch.com

Bloomberg Watch is organizing a meeting of groups and Web sites opposed to Bloomberg and all third-termers. Our date for the meeting will be the evening of Tuesday, July 7th and I'd love to have you attend and have you bring along anyone you'd think would like to be a part of this movement. Many members of the community have already RSVD'd, including staffers from both Thompson's and Avella's campaigns.

The idea is to organize as many oppositional groups as we can against Bloomberg and get a citywide campaign up and running before the election.

Where: Pecan's - 130 Franklin Street (between W. Broadway & Varick St in TriBeCa)
When: July 7th, 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Who: Organizations and those in the community opposing Bloomberg and all Third-Termers.

To attend, please RSVP with Mike at

mike@bloombergwatch.com

Seating is limited, so please RSVP as early as possible. If you plan on bring any others with you, please make sure to have them RSVP with me as well.

The Special Commissioner of Investigation will be out of a job.


Mayoral Control is to be Renewed
By Erik Engquist, Crain's NY Business
Published: July 9, 2009 - 6:30 pm
LINK

Sources say an understanding has been reached in Albany for the Senate to pass the Assembly’s bill (see articles below - Editor) renewing mayoral control of the city school system. The plan calls for the Senate to amend the bill at a later date.

Key Senate Democrats, notably Democratic conference leader John Sampson, want a few more checks on the mayor’s power than are provided for in the Assembly bill. But the Assembly has already adjourned for the summer, and senators don’t want to wait to renew mayoral control, which expired June 30. The Senate has been unable to vote on the bill, or any bill, because it has been mired in a leadership dispute that ended Thursday.

Amendments passed subsequently by the Senate would require Assembly approval, but an Albany insider says assurances have been received that the lower chamber would accept some modifications.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed the Assembly bill and has said he would oppose changes that would either prevent him from appointing a majority of members of the school system’s primary oversight panel or deny him the right to replace his appointees at any time. But a vocal constituency has been arguing for fixed terms for panel members so they can vote without undue pressure from the officials who appoint them.

The Senate can also be expected to add measures that would strengthen parental input into school system decisions.

Following the expiration of mayoral control after seven years, Mr. Bloomberg and the five borough presidents reconstituted the Board of Education, which ran the schools through 2002. The board hastily convened and voted to cede authority to the mayor’s schools chancellor, Joel Klein.

Mayor Bloomberg comes out in support of Assembly bill to extend mayoral control of city schools
By Kenneth Lovett In Albany and Frank Lombardi In New York
DAILY NEWS WRITERS, Updated Friday, June 12th 2009, 2:21 PM
LINK

Mayor Bloomberg came out for the first time in support of an Assembly plan to extend his control over the schools.

"It preserves the parts of mayoral control that really are important and addresses some of the criticism where people felt that you could do it better," Bloomberg said in his weekly WOR-AM radio show.

"You can always improve things; change, change, nothing bad about change."

The Assembly plans to print the bill this weekend and pass it sometime next week.

"If you destroy the essence of mayoral control then you just go right back to the old Board of education. This doesn't do that."

Bloomberg said he believes the votes are there in the Senate to pass the plan, "but then you don't know when they can vote."

The Senate this week has been paralyzed in the wake of a disputed leadership coup.

The mayoral control law expires June 30.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Education Committee Chairwoman Cathy Nolan unveiled the finalized plan to extend it another six years to the entire Democratic conference on Wednesday.

Under the plan, Bloomberg would continue to have eight appointments, including two who must be parents, to the Panel for Educational Policy.

The borough presidents would continue to have the other five appointments.

The appointees would continue to serve at will, despite a push by some Assembly members to require fixed, two-year terms. The schools chancellor no longer would be chairman or have a vote on the panel.

The board also would be required to vote on all no-bid contracts, any contract exceeding $1 million and any changes in education policy.

To close schools or change their use, there would have to be a six-month notice provision, a community impact statement and a 45-day prior public hearing as part of the process.

The city Independent Budget Office and the controller's office would have full auditing powers over the system to review not only spending but also performance data such as test scores and graduation rates.

The Assembly plan also would strengthen the role of the superintendents by requiring them to have an office and staff within their districts.

A coalition seeking to weaken mayoral control says the Assembly plan does not go far enough in providing oversight and parental involvement into the system.

"It's not a surprise that the mayor would bless this proposal," said Billy Easton, of the Campaign for Better Schools. "Without fixed terms, it rubber stamps his rubber stamp PEP."

Many Senate Republicans say they will support whatever bill the mayor backs - even if it comes from the Assembly.

A number of Democrats wanted more drastic changes.
Padavan
June 16, 2009
Editorial
Mayoral Control and the Schools

NYTIMES

The New York State Assembly is expected to pass a bill this week that would extend, and improve, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s direct control of New York City’s school system. The legislation extends the powers that have allowed Mr. Bloomberg to bring order to a school system that was once known mainly for patronage and gridlock. It also allows for greater transparency and more input from parents and communities.

It would preserve the mayor’s right to appoint a majority of the members of the board that advises him on school matters. But it also calls for several changes that would make that board slightly more independent and give it more of a voice in the policy-making process.

Mr. Bloomberg, for example, would be required to appoint parents to at least two of the eight seats that he controls on the 13-member board. Currently, the school system’s chancellor, who serves at the mayor’s pleasure, leads the board. The board would instead elect its own chairman. The board also would have broader powers and responsibilities, including greater authority over some procurement contracts. It would be required to hold well-publicized meetings at least once a month. In another step for accountability, the bill gives the city comptroller and the city’s Independent Budget Office the authority to examine scores, dropout rates and other data.

Parents and community groups have complained for years that they have nowhere to turn when they have problems that can’t be solved at the school level. The Assembly bill would require the city’s 32 district superintendents to maintain local offices expressly for the purpose of fielding parents’ complaints. That’s a good solution — but only if the local district offices don’t turn into large local bureaucracies or patronage dens.

On balance, the bill does a good job of preserving Mr. Bloomberg’s control, while giving parents a much-needed voice in their children’s education. It deserves swift passage by the Assembly and by the Senate, if it ever gets back to work.

Meet the new Board of Education
By Erik Engquist, Crain's NY, Published: July 1, 2009 - 12:43 pm
LINK

The Board of Education is back.

The expiration Tuesday night of the 2003 state law giving New York City’s mayor control over its schools means power reverts to the board, which was quickly reassembled by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the five borough presidents.

In a brief first meeting, the board voted to retain Joel Klein as chancellor, who now reports to its seven members. It also passed a vote calling on the state Senate to renew mayoral control. In the near future, the board is not expected to make any fundamental policy changes. Most of the borough presidents are on good terms with the mayor and are not inclined to challenge him on school policy, with the exception of Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., whose appointee to the board abstained on the second vote. Also, officials expect new mayoral control legislation will be passed in Albany when the state Senate stalemate, now in its fourth week, is broken. But that could be weeks or months from now.

Mr. Bloomberg appointed two of his deputy mayors, Patricia Harris and Edward Skyler, to the board, and a third deputy mayor, Dennis Walcott, was tapped—presumably at the mayor’s request—by Queens Borough President Helen Marshall. The other members named Wednesday are Dolores Fernandez of the Bronx, Carlo Scissura of Brooklyn, Jimmy Yan of Manhattan and Edward Burke of Staten Island. The new board is an ethnically diverse mix of whites, Latinos and African-Americans.

The board developed a reputation for dysfunction in the 1980s and 1990s, leading Mr. Bloomberg to push for mayoral control after his election in 2001. The results have been mixed, but even critics concede that accountability improved when the chancellor had one boss.

The primary objection to the mayor’s handling of public schools has been his failure to engage parents in decision-making. Parent advocates have called for legislation providing for more input from outside the system.

“Many parents will celebrate the removal of an oppressive dictatorial system that has not served their children well,” said Leonie Haimson and Patricia Connelly of the Parent Commission on School Governance and Mayoral Control in a statement. “We look forward to working in the future with the Senate, the Assembly and the governor to install a new governance system with adequate checks and balances and a real voice for parents, in which no one, no matter how wealthy and powerful, can make all the decisions when it comes to our children.”

Supporters of mayoral control, however, hope the revival of the Board of Education is short-lived. “Yesterday’s inaction on mayoral control has shaken the confidence of business in the future of the city’s public education system,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group.

Back to you, Mr. Mayor Assembly bill leaves him in control of schools
BY Kenneth Lovett, DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Thursday, June 11th 2009, 4:00 AM
LINK

ALBANY - Assembly Democrats have finalized a bill that leaves the control of the schools in the hands of the mayor but boosts oversight of the education system.

Under the plan, Mayor Bloomberg would continue to have eight appointments, including two who must be parents, to the Panel for Educational Policy.

The borough presidents would continue to have the other five appointments, meaning the majority of the panel would be made up of parents.

The appointees would continue to serve at will, despite a push by some Assembly members to require fixed, two-year terms. But the schools chancellor no longer would be chairman or have a vote on the panel.

The board also would be required to vote on all no-bid contracts, any contract exceeding $1million and any changes in education policy. To close schools or change their use, there would have to be a six-month notice provision, a community impact statement and a 45-day prior public hearing as part of the process.

The city Independent Budget Office and the controller's office would have full auditing powers over the system to review not only spending but also performance data such as test scores and graduation rates.

The Assembly plan also would strengthen the role of the superintendents by requiring them to havean office and staff within their districts.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) said the goals were to keep mayoral control but add "a lot more transparency, a lot more accountability and a lot more local parent and community involvement."

He said there's a consensus agreement, but several Assembly members were upset the plan did not contain set terms for panel members and wouldn't expire again for another six years, meaning it would be in place for Bloomberg's third term, should he be reelected.

"A lot of people felt [the Assembly leadership] pretended to listen to their concerns but in the end did what they wanted," a member of the Assembly said. "I would be surprised if half the city delegation will vote for this."

It is unclear how the plan will be accepted in the Senate, which is in the throes of a chaotic leadership fight.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg - again - trips on Albany politics

Saturday, July 4th 2009, 2:25 PM
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants results from a Senate he can't control.
The Queens Republican, a 37-year veteran with friends in both parties, just happened to saunter through the Senate chamber Tuesday as the Democrats were gaveling into session.

He said he was cutting around the crowded lobby on his way to get a drink. But Democrats claimed he had tipped the Senate's 31-31 balance and spent the afternoon voting on bills.

"Absolutely no way," Padavan said later. "That wasn't the case."

But not everyone thinks it's that simple, because Padavan owes his job to Mayor Bloomberg.

The mayor campaigned hard last year to keep Padavan in office against a strong Democratic challenge from City Councilman James Gennaro.

The pseudo-quorum came a day after Bloomberg singled out Padavan as someone "able to stand up, regardless of the pettiness that may be pervasive up there, and do what's right."

And Bloomberg desperately wanted the Senate to pass his school control measure and sales tax increase before Wednesday's deadline, no matter where he got the "yes" votes from.

"I assume whatever reason he was there, it was a favor to the mayor," said one insider who knows both men well. "I think if mayoral control had been on the agenda, he would have stuck around to legitimize the quorum."

But it wasn't - and when the half-point hike in the sales tax came up for a vote, Democrats shot it down 18-14 in a stunning defeat for the mayor.

So if Padavan's chamber stroll was a ploy, it failed - just like so many of Bloomberg's other initiatives in Albany. And the mayor said he never saw it coming.

"When it became obvious that this was going to be a problem, we were as surprised as anybody," he said the next day.

The lost tax revenue will cost New York at least $60 million a month. Some Democrats may not have wanted to be on record supporting a tax hike, but Albany usually defers to a city's wishes.

"If we wanted it, they always did it," Bloomberg said. "And why they haven't this time, I don't know."

It may have something to do with the $1.3 million he gave Senate Republicans to keep them in control. Bloomberg bet big and lost.

And it may have something to do with Bloomberg's insistence that the Senate pass the version of school control he hashed out with former foe Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan), without changing a word.

Senators don't like being told what to do in the best of times. On Tuesday, that led even some city Democrats to vote against a bill that had been requested by their City Council.

Lawyers will have to sort out whether Padavan legitimized the Democrats' vote Tuesday, or whether the Senate can get another chance to pick up the sales tax bill again. But the episode shows that even when the Senate normalizes, Bloomberg still hasn't figured out how to get city business done in Albany.

"They're just trying to stick it to the mayor," Padavan said. "Let's say we hypothetically get past this. We'll be back here."

alisberg@nydailynews.com

Selasa, 07 Juli 2009

Email To All NYS Senators: Tell Us Where You Are on Mayoral Control and NYC BOE Reform

Dear Senators,

I am a parent of four daughters, all of whom have been, and one still is, in the public schools of New York City. I have been close to the politics of New York City my entire life, as my dad was Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York under Louis Lefkowitz, from about 1945-76.

As a great fan of the internet and the power of holding electeds -like you all- accountable for his or her actions online, I started a website called parentadvocates.org in 2002.

For the past ten years I have been active in the schools of New York City, as an advocate for the children and parents. What have I seen since 2002? Here is a partial list:

1. Removal – by force if necessary – of any child, parent, teacher, school staff/worker who speaks out about any theft, physical abuse, changing of grades, or other wrong that occurs and which is not properly addressed by the Principal or NYC BOE (whistleblower retaliation);

2. The implementation of a strategy to terrorize anyone who may advocate for a child, parent, or staff member who made a mistake or needs guidance and is not getting any;

3. Denial of services and academic support for all children who need the help, and violations of IDEA in notifying parents of what services/tests/guidance is being given their children, who is providing what services, when the IEPs are written and reviewed, and free and appropriate instructional support;

4. A school-to-prison pipeline for minority children with special needs using the “superintendent suspension” as a tool in making sure that all children who are “problems” are removed from the general education classrooms quickly by denying these kids remedial assistance;

5. Too many curriculum changes for any teacher to keep up with the training needed to be an excellent teacher, and the dumbing down of all major subject tests so that all students can graduate from high school at an eighth grade level. High school becomes what used to be middle school in terms of acquired knowledge;

This is what I have seen as an advocate who has represented the needs of children in NYC public schools at more than 20 impartial Hearings, countless IEP Reviews and Resolution meetings, and more than 100 superintendent suspension hearings. I know whereof I speak.

When you vote for any bill that continues Mayoral control you therefore agree to give Mayor Michael Bloomberg support in keeping his dictatorship over the schools, continuing the above-referenced actions, and keeping Joel I. Klein in his position as pseudo-Chancellor (he has no contract – see my article on my blog, “Fire Joel I. Klein” available here: (http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2009/07/fire-joel-i-klein-snake-oil-salesman.html).

We, the parents and teachers of New York City, will tally the votes given by each of you to the continuance of the strategies listed above.

What do you say to the stakeholders of the New York City public school system? We, your voting constituents, want to know.

Please reply by August 1, 2009 to betsy@parentadvocates.org. I will post your answer on my blog, NYC Rubber Room Reporter, at http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com. If I receive no answer, I will assume that you support the Mayor and I will put your vote on my blog as such, for the general public to see.

Thank you,
Betsy Combier
NYC public school parent
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter

Sent to:

eadams@senate.state.ny.us; addabbo@senate.state.ny.us; aubertin@senate.state.ny.us; breslin@senate.state.ny.us; diaz@senate.state.ny.us; dilan@senate.state.ny.us; duane@senate.state.ny.us; bfoley@senate.state.ny.us; johnson@senate.state.ny.us; jdklein@senate.state.ny.us; lkrueger@senate.state.ny.us; kruger@senate.state.ny.us; monserra@senate.state.ny.us; onorato@senate.state.ny.us; oppenhei@senate.state.ny.us; schneide@senate.state.ny.us; serrano@senate.state.ny.us; squadron@senate.state.ny.us; stachows@senate.state.ny.us; stavisky@senate.state.ny.us; scousins@senate.state.ny.us; athompso@senate.state.ny.us; valesky@senate.state.ny.us; sampson@senate.state.ny.us; shuntley@senate.state.ny.us; montgome@senate.state.ny.us; parker@senate.state.ny.us; perkins@senate.state.ny.us; savino@senate.state.ny.us; hassellt@senate.state.ny.us
alesi@senate.state.ny.us; bonacic@senate.state.ny.us; espada@senate.state.ny.us; farley@senate.state.ny.us; flanagan@senate.state.ny.us; fuschill@senate.state.ny.us; golden@senate.state.ny.us; hannon@senate.state.ny.us; ojohnson@senate.state.ny.us; lanza@senate.state.ny.us; larkin@senate.state.ny.us; lavalle@senate.state.ny.us; leibell@senate.state.ny.us; marcelli@senate.state.ny.us; maziarz@senate.state.ny.us; mcdonald@senate.state.ny.us; morahan@senate.state.ny.us; nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us; padavan@senate.state.ny.us; ranz@senate.state.ny.us; robach@senate.state.ny.us; saland@senate.state.ny.us; seward@senate.state.ny.us; skelos@senate.state.ny.us; athompso@senate.state.ny.us; volker@senate.state.ny.us; cyoung@senate.state.ny.us; senator@senatorlibous.com

Senin, 06 Juli 2009

Gov. Paterson Asks NYS Treasurer To Stop Senators' Paychecks


State Sens. Dean Skelos, R-Rockville ,left, and Thomas Libous, R-Binghamton look excited yesterday as the extraordinary session of the state Senate got underway. The session lasted three minutes.

Paterson Talks Tough, Albany Circus Nears Month Mark
Governor may be learning to love Espada however

By MICHAEL GORMLEY
LINK

Gov. David Paterson said yesterday that he'll use a statewide tour this week to turn up the heat on senators who remain gridlocked in a monthlong power struggle.

"I have taken advantage of my travel to speak to New Yorkers directly," Paterson said after the Senate adjourned again following another extraordinary session he called.

He said in separate events over the weekend that New Yorkers' message was clear: "Don't let them off the hook. Make them stay and work."

The tough talk comes as it was reported that the governor may be closer to accepting turncoat Democrat Bronx Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. as the leader of the divided Senate.

"Whatever you think of [Espada], he has been given the highest position on the coalition side," Paterson told the Daily News. "You may not like him, but you have to respect him. That is where he is."

No bills were debated or passed in Sunday's session, which wrapped up in a record three minutes..

Two Senate factions continue to refuse to recognize each other's leaders so no legislative action was made on critical bills, including some that would extend laws that expired during the standoff.

Paterson, a Democrat, said he doesn't see either side budging in the conflict, which began with a coup June 8 by a Republican-dominated coalition versus the Democratic majority.

Since that meeting, both sides have sought to first work out the mechanics of a power-sharing arrangement, such as reworking the committee system and how to assign bills to a vote.

In an interview Sunday, Paterson called that "avoidance behavior."

"You can't do anything until you settle the leadership," he said.

Paterson said he will continue to act as a mediator if asked, but he again was critical of both sides and said he continues to push to withhold their paychecks and expense checks until they return to a working session. Paterson, who plans to run for election in 2010, has seen his record-low poll numbers rise when he was sharply critical of the senators, who he said have "ground government to a halt."

The jammed Senate is now evenly split after one of the dissidents defected back to the Democratic conference. Action on critical bills has been stymied for weeks.

Senators' staffs are trying to negotiate a compromise in closed-door talks begun after Paterson met with leaders from both sides on Thursday to start mediating a power-sharing solution. Senators from both sides welcomed the offer to mediate and said they were pleased Paterson had stopped criticizing the Senate for the standoff, which consumed the last two productive weeks of the 2009 regular legislative session.

"Talks are continuing, and our goal remains the same: Come to a workable solution that allows the Senate to get back to passing critical legislation," said Austin Shafran, a spokesman for the Democratic conference.

Mark Hansen, a spokesman for the GOP coalition, said Sunday evening that talks continue, but he had no further comment.

Senate Democrats meanwhile have managed to pull together support for a bill that would extend mayoral control over schools. But, of course, that legislation is contingent upon the divided Senate agreeing upon a method of sharing power, according to the New York Post.

Senate Democrats have agreed to drop a provision that Mayor Bloomberg's appointees to the Panel for Education Policy.would serve fixed terms -- instead of at the mayor's pleasure. For now, the Senate appears poised to adopt a measure similar to the one that passed in the state Assembly, according to the Post.

No Paychecks for You Paterson tells state treasurer to freeze senators' direct-deposit pay
By JENNIFER MILLMAN, Jul 6, 2009
Associated Press
LINK

Enough is enough.

Gov. David Paterson has had enough of state senators' clownish refusal to get back to business – so much so that he's launching a direct assault on their bank accounts.

Here's a look at some of the key players behind the Albany power struggle.

Paterson has asked the state treasurer to block direct-deposit payments to the senators' accounts, and plans to ask a judge Monday whether they should be paid at all, according to The New York Daily News.

Efforts to stop paying the boorish senators have already been set in motion, with State Controller Thomas DiNapoli asking a court to determine whether his office has the authority to withhold their paychecks beginning on Wednesday.

While DiNapoli is asking a judge whether his office has the power to block payment, Paterson is taking things to a higher level.

"We want a direct ruling on whether it's right or wrong for them to be paid when our position is they have abdicated their role," the governor told the Daily News.

The Senate has remained deadlocked 31-31 for nearly a month since two dissident Democrats joined a Republican-backed coup. Sen. Hiram Monserrate, of Queens, switched back to his party a few days later, leaving the chamber in a state of paralysis from which it has yet to recover. The senators haven't conducted any real state business since June 8.

"It's also our contention that they have been derelict in their duties," Paterson said, according to the Daily News. "Government has been shut down by the Senate. Cities and counties are losing money off of this."

The lame duck Senate has left some key pieces of legislation on the table, including bills to increase the sales tax in several locales, which would provide communities millions of dollars in much needed tax revenue.

Paterson's argument is simple: If the senators can't reach an accord on who presides over the chamber, there's no one to sign off on their paychecks.

Apparently undeterred by the threat of losing their cash flow (or intent to keep it for doing nothing), senators argue that Paterson and DiNapoli are way out of line – that their jobs include much more than voting on legislation and that both parties have worked together when a judge ordered them to, according to the Daily News. They admit, however, that they refused to work together when Paterson was the one telling them to do so.

Paterson says the senators' argument has no merit whatsoever.

"They come in for two minutes, stare at the ceiling, wish each other happy birthday, salute the flag for Independence Day and go home," he said. "We see that as they're convening, but not deliberating. They're present, but not working. No work, no pay."

Pointing to the fact that the state can stop paying senators if they don't pass a budget by April 1, Paterson says the same should hold when it comes to failure to meet local monetary deadlines.

Both parties continued to negotiate yesterday, although the leaders of the warring factions did not meet directly with Paterson, who had arbitrated the discussions last week. Senators from both sides say they plan to meet more in the coming days, but none say a deal is imminent.

From Betsy Combier:

Dear Governor -

How come you gave huge raises to your staff in February?

Just Asking.

Kamis, 02 Juli 2009

Fire Joel I. Klein, the Snake Oil Salesman Without a Contract



Smug with his success at creating a public school administrative structure that denied anyone who disagreed with his policies a chance to speak and that openly violated every law and regulation designed to protect children, teachers, and all personnel in NYC public schools, Joel I. Klein has, for seven years, fearlessly and arrogantly walked amidst a daily hailstorm of anger and opposition from parents and stakeholders because he is immune to all public criticism. Indeed, on Wednesday July 1, 2009, a few hours after the shamelessly fake and deliberately harmful Department of Education went out of existence, Klein was re-appointed unanimously to his position as "Chancellor" in name only (he has no contract - see the letter he was given by Bloomberg which I received after filing a freedom of information request) by the new members of the instantly created New York City Board of Education. I contacted a friend of mine who is an Attorney specializing in contract law, and he told me that all contracts need an expiration date. He said that this letter is not a contract. Somebody file a complaint with the Bar Association and get him disbarred. Please!!!!. General Counsel Michael Best and Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon also must go.

But that's not enough. We must mobilize the entire city to fight what happened on Wednesday July 1, 2009: the undemocratic re-establishment of dictatorial leadership of the NYC public schools under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, with a new gang at the helm appointed to MAKE SURE that the Mayor continues his control. Congratulations to Jane Hirschmann from Time Out From Testing for her statement at this meeting.

On tuesday June 30 at 12 midnight Education Law 2590 (scroll down to 2590 -Editor)expired, and the "old" decentralized Board of Education was re-instated. Or so the law said. However, there has been no law-abiding top official at the pseudo city agency, the NYC Department of Education, since its inception in 2002, nor was there anyone who would squeak up about the runaway, fast moving train that ran through all regulations and rights in the law books and threw all of these guides and rules away. It was that bad, folks.

Any opposition or question about what was happening inside and outside of Tweed (NYC BOE headquarters) was met with threats, deliberate harm of the individual making the inquiry, and, if neither of these tactics "worked" to silence the person, then a strategy was put into place to pursue immediate separation of this person from gainful employment. The NYC BOE must protect its' house of straws from any wind.

We know that Mayor Bloomberg demands total allegiance to every decision, whim, policy, and statement. He brought Joel Klein from Washington D.C. because Klein was an excellent protector of Bill and Hilary Clinton's public and private lives while Bill was President. Joel Klein took Vincent Foster's office the day after Foster committed suicide. On wikipedia is this:

"Wrestling with clinical depression, Foster was prescribed the mild sleeping aid/anti-anxiety pill Trazodone over the phone by his doctor, though he only had taken a few before he died. The next day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, a federal park in Virginia. He was found with a gun in his hand and gunshot residue on that hand. An autopsy determined that he was shot in the mouth and no other wounds were found on his body. A suicide note of sorts, actually a draft of a resignation letter, was found torn into 27 pieces in his briefcase, a list of complaints specifically including, "The WSJ editors lie without consequence" and lamenting, "I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport."

Linda Tripp, of Monica Lewinsky fame, told Congress that there was only one person she was afraid of in the Washington government: Joel Klein. When asked why, she answered that he kept files on anyone who crossed his path, and went after the person who committed this "crime":

" Printed from JudicialWatch.org
Nov 9, 1999 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

JOEL KLEIN'S ENEMIES LIST
CLINTON ANTITRUST CHIEF IN WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE DURING FILEGATE

Tripp Says He Kept "Files on Others," Including Starr's Office
Link

(Washington, D.C.) Joel Klein, the Clinton Justice appointee and Assistant Attorney General prosecuting the Microsoft antitrust case was in The White House Counsel's Office around the time period that Republican FBI files were illegally gathered by the Clinton White House. Indeed, after the death of Vince Foster, Klein filled Foster's job and occupied his office. Linda Tripp, (pictured at right) who worked with Klein, testified in the Judicial Watch Filegate lawsuit that she understood that these FBI files were being uploaded into a computer in the White House Counsel's Office. In the least, Mr. Klein was at "the scene of the crime" around the Filegate time period. Tripp testified that Klein kept files on others, including Ken Starr's office, for intimidation purposes.

Tripp recounted in her testimony how Klein said that being a good lawyer wasn't enough, "that in order to survive, we have to be good politicians too." Tripp also testified that Klein "scared" her.

"Is the Microsoft case a matter of the Clinton Administration once again doing favors for selected Clinton/Gore donors - this time Microsoft's competitors in Silicon Valley and elsewhere?" asked Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel. Klayman was a trial lawyer on the famous AT&T case for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

"The past news that Joel Klein had breakfast at the home of Netscape's CEO just before the suit against Microsoft was filed raises significant questions about Mr. Klein's possible involvement in a political payback," stated Klayman.

Judicial Watch believes the involvement of the Clinton Justice Department's "tainted" political operatives such as Joel Klein has pushed the ongoing antitrust action against Microsoft. The group filed a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act to see if politics and campaign contributions have influenced its actions against Microsoft. When the Clinton Justice Department failed to respond, Judicial Watch filed suit. The case remains pending and active.

Video and transcripts of Ms. Tripp's testimony about Mr. Klein are available upon request. Ms. Tripp's deposition testimony about Mr. Klein can be found at pages 375-77, 400-05, 485-90, and 798-803 from her testimony of January 5, 1999 and January 22, 1999. The transcripts are available on the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org.

© Copyright 1997-2002, Judicial Watch, Inc."


Joel was appointed "Chancellor" pursuant to Education Law 2590, and clause "H" states that he "must have a contract". He never had one. He became head of the new Board of Education, re-named the Panel For Educational Policy, (pictured below at the May 2009 meeting) to provide an alias for the group as they violated Open Meetings Law and their own Bylaws. For example, teachers were terminated behind the closed doors of Executive Sessions held before the public PEP meetings began. This violates Open Meetings Law Section 105. Another example of the PEP members' disdain for the rule of law is that the PEP Bylaws require a Secretary (Section 1.5) - who happens to have been General Counsel Michael Best - who must write the minutes. There are no minutes.(I filed a freedom of information "FOIL" request).

The By-Laws state that every year there will be a "review, evaluation, and assessment of the Panel's role and functions for the purpose of identifying and implementing changes that will improve its effectiveness." (Section 1.6, p. 5). In answer to FOIL requests made for these assessments, Michael Best wrote that the PEP has no official or administrative function, and there are no reviews of the PEP or of the performance of Joel Klein. So in March, 2004, I wrote what I thought Joel Klein's Performance Review should look like.

Patrick Sullivan told me on September 18 2008 at a meeting with Senator Liz Krueger on a third term for Bloomberg that there was a RAND report given to all PEP members (indeed, he had it in his hand as he told me about it) that Mr. Klein had told him and all PEP must not be given to anyone. I asked Patrick for a copy of this report as a member of the public and a concerned citizen, but he refused, and said that he would check with the Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, the person who appointed him. Neither Stringer or Sullivan ever replied to my request. Stringer susequently made his support of Mike Bloomberg publicly known by appointing his Attorney Jimmy Yan to the "new" Board of Education on July 1, 2009. The NYC BOE answered my FOIL for the RAND document with "sorry, this request is denied". I'm appealing.

Scott Stringer is now on the list for removal from office by the parents and teachers of the NYC public schools.

I am a proud voter, and one of the most outrageous policies of the 2002-2009 Department of Education was the removal of participation by anyone "outside" of the clique of Bloomberg/Klein teletubbies. We, the general public, have no vote, and therefore we have no representation of our interests at Tweed. The Community Education Councils are, in my opinion, entities full of people who want to look good and act like they have power but dont. CEC members are elected by "selectors" picked from the positions of President, Secretary, and Treasurer of Parent Associations. The people "represented" by the "selectors" are not similar to the diversity of New York City public school parents/guardians. The lawsuit brought by a man named Kramer in 1969 to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kramer v Union Free School District won the right of all taxpayers to vote for their district school board. NYC has no elected school board, and the general public now has to take the "new" Board of Education as valid until we as a class action or as a critical mass of concerned citizens get our legislature to change this. Teacher Hipolito Colon sued Joel Klein, and others (NYSUT has since been removed as a Defendant) in October 2006, and this case now has survived two motions by the City of New York to dismiss. New York State Supreme Court Judge Eileen Rakower has said "no" to dismissal, twice. The public thanks her for her stand against all odds.

Beth Fertig of WNYC wrote the follwing about the PEP:

"WNYC News Blog
Mayor’s School Panel: An Advisor or Rubber Stamp?
By Beth Fertig
May 18, 2009

Legislators have spent much of this year holding hearings on the issue. Supporters of the mayor credit him with school improvement; but critics claim he’s abusing his authority. Much of the controversy has to do with an obscure panel that meets once a month. In the summer of 2002, Albany gave Mayor Bloomberg something previous mayors had only dreamed about: control over the nation’s largest school district. Finally, the mayor could appoint the Chancellor, not the Board of Education. He wouldn’t have to fight any more with board members who could reject his proposals. The board was replaced with a new Panel for Educational Policy, an advisory body. And most of its 13 members would be appointed by the mayor and answer directly to him.
Bloomberg was in great spirits that July when he announced the seven educators and business leaders he’d appointed to the panel.
“Let me remind you that unlike the past Board of Ed, these members are all volunteers. They do not get a salary. They do not get a car and driver. They don’t get all of those other perks (laughter). We didn’t tell you that?”
It was a light-hearted moment. But the mayor grew serious when a reporter asked him how much independence his panel members would be allowed to exercise.
“Their job is to give advice to the chancellor. Not advice to the press. I do not expect to see their names ever in the press answering a question either on the record or off the record. That’s exactly what’s wrong with the current system right now. And it’s not going to happen. It has not happened elsewheres in this system and I would not tolerate it for 30 seconds.”
The mayor was true to his word. In 2004, Bloomberg removed three panel members right before they could vote against his plan to stop promoting third graders who scored poorly on state exams.
Since then, education groups and parents routinely refer to the panel as a rubber stamp for the mayor. But one former legislator who co-wrote the law putting Bloomberg in charge of the schools says that wasn’t its intention.
“While it was certainly the intent of the state legislature and the governor in 2002 to provide significant mayoral authority, it certainly was not the intent to provide mayoral autonomy.”
Steve Sanders is former Chairman of the State Assembly’s Education Committee. He’s now lobbying for the New York State School Boards Association, which worries about the precedent in giving a city mayor so much power. Sanders says the 2002 law was designed so the panel could provide real oversight of the mayor’s leadership. But he says Bloomberg is violating the spirit, if not the letter of the law, by not using the panel as a real sounding board.
A New York Times analysis found the mayor’s seven appointees miss, on average, a quarter of the monthly meetings. Three of them were absent at last month’s meeting in the Bronx, where several parents testified that there weren’t enough seats in the new construction and renovation plan. Josh Karan came from Washington Heights to address the meeting.
“Seven schools still have trailers, we have buildings without gyms, auditoriums, art rooms, lunch at 10 a.m.”
A few minutes later, the panel’s chairman, Chancellor Joel Klein, called for a vote on the $11.3 billion capital plan. It passed with only one dissenter, Patrick Sullivan.
Sullivan is the Manhattan Borough president’s appointee to the panel, and often the lone dissenter. Each borough president gets an appointee. Sullivan says the lopsided vote shows why the law needs to be clarified to give panel members more oversight over matters like contracts and the school construction budget.
“The key thing is everybody understands there’s limited resources and prioritization. But we have to have a real planning process with a real needs assessment and explain this is how we determine how many seats are needed in what parts of the city and it’s just not there.”
There are several proposals for strengthening the panel. The teachers union and a group called the Parent Commission believe the mayor should no longer appoint a majority of its members. Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins thinks this would be good for democracy.
“If you can’t but mimic the mayor then you are denying the public that alternative voice, that alternative idea, that kind of debate that our democracy is built on.”
But Mayor Bloomberg and his supporters argue the public schools are NOT a democracy. That was the problem with the old board of education, says Bloomberg, which was dominated by special interests.
“The bottom line is when you have these committees, what happens invariably is somebody doesn’t like change, change is scary. And with the more people you have more likely you’re going to have one person who doesn’t like any given change. And I can’t think of any change that would have passed if you go by committee if you go back to the old Board of Ed days.”
Bloomberg says the current system is working and the rising test scores are proof. He also notes that President Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, has endorsed keeping mayoral control in New York.
But New York’s model of mayoral control has fewer checks and balances than in other cities. Boston, Chicago and Oakland, for example, all have mayoral control but their school boards get to pick the superintendent – and in Oakland some board members are elected. Joseph Viteritti, a professor of public policy at Hunter College, wrote a book called “When Mayors Take Charge.” Viteritti concludes that the mayor of New York should control the Panel for Educational Policy. But its members should have fixed terms, so they can debate issues without the fear of being removed.
“I think it’s important to have a board that reviews policies and that requires the chancellor to explain policies in a public forum and have an open discussion about them and have hearings about it. I mean, one of the things that the old Board of Education did right, and there weren’t many, was that there was always a public discussion about issues.”
Viteritti was on a committee appointed by the Public Advocate to study mayoral control. It also called for giving either the state or city comptroller more power to audit the school system. And it recommended that community education councils, or local school boards, have more power in approving superintendents and the opening and closing of schools. Parents have complained about feeling shut out.
Albany lawmakers will decide next month on whether to renew the law or amend it. Both Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith have said they want to keep the mayor’s majority on the Panel for Educational Policy. But Queens Assemblyman Rory Lancman says lawmakers are considering other changes to provide more parental input because they’re getting an earful from their constituents.
“When parents call my office or talk with me about their child’s education it’s at a much greater intensity than it is when they’re talking about garbage pickup or state of their parks. And parents want an opportunity to be involved in the decision making process regarding their kids education.”
Lancman says that should be a warning to Mayor Bloomberg. If he doesn’t give some ground to parents, lawmakers could make a deal without him because local politicians are the ones most likely to feel the wrath of the voters."

Now, that's where we are at.- Betsy Combier, Editor


A second-grade student at Public School 130 in Chinatown working on an interactive chalk board. As annual school spending has risen to $22 billion, the Bloomberg administration has given principals more responsibility and control over their school budgets, as well as higher pay.

July 1, 2009
With More Money, City Schools Added Jobs
By JENNIFER MEDINA and ROBERT GEBELOFF, NY TIMES

In the seven years since Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took the reins of the city’s schools, he has rolled out numerous statistics as proof of his accomplishments, including rising graduation rates and test scores.

But one of the clearest ways to see what he and his schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, have done with public education is to track what they have done with its money.

They have overseen a large expansion in annual school spending, to $22 billion from $13 billion, with the additional money pumped in from Mr. Bloomberg’s budget and from the state. And that has allowed them to reshape the system to reflect the central elements of the mayor’s philosophy: smaller schools, relentless assessments of progress, and higher salaries for administrators to attract top talent.

A New York Times analysis of seven years of education spending has found a number of changes in how dollars are allocated. There are now 1,075 more principals and assistant principals, even as overall student enrollment has fallen, largely because the city has broken up a number of underperforming schools into smaller schools. There are more administrators, like academic coaches who track test scores, and more support staff, with tasks like patrolling hallways and monitoring attendance.

And more administrators are earning top dollar. The number of employees making more than $150,000 has risen to 240, up from 175 in 2002, when those salaries are adjusted for inflation. The number earning at least $125,000 has more than tripled, to 1,935.

Some shifts were driven by necessity. While the number of teachers in regular classrooms has dropped, hundreds more special education teachers were added to keep pace with a 26 percent jump in students needing those services. There are also thousands more special education assistants and therapists.

Much of the increase in the overall budget has been used to pay for rising teacher salaries, pensions and benefits, as well as the growing debt for new school construction.

But in many ways the spending patterns reflect the Bloomberg administration’s mindset that money attracts people who can bring business-world success to the public arena. Mr. Klein has supported salaries reaching nearly $200,000 for several of his deputies, saying that the pay reflects their qualifications and responsibilities, and that they could be earning far more in the private sector.

Education Department officials say that the size of the teaching corps is in line with the student population, which dropped to 1,029,459 in 2008 from 1,091,717 six years earlier, and that having more support staff frees teachers to concentrate on the classroom.

Mr. Klein has also pushed principals to take on greater responsibility, and his ideal, he has often stated, is to allow principals to spend their money as they see fit. They can decide, for example, whether to hire another math teacher or to use the money for after-school programs instead. In concert with this philosophy, many of the highest-salaried employees today are principals, not administrators: 53 principals made $150,000 or more last year, whereas none were earning that much as recently as 2006, when those salaries are adjusted for inflation. That does not include performance bonuses of up to $50,000 for principals of schools that perform well on standardized tests.

“There is absolutely a priority to attract and keep the best talent, and there is no doubt better pay helps us with that,” Mr. Klein said, adding, “When I tell people that they can earn $200,000 for being a principal in New York City, that really gets them paying attention.”

In line with the mayor’s affinity for using numbers to judge success, one of the largest areas of growth in the central administration has been in the department’s accountability office, which measures performance on state tests and issues school report cards.

But as legislators decide whether to keep city schools under the mayor’s control, one of the major criticisms is that the school system itself could be more accountable, particularly in the way it spends money.

Since 2002, the department has remained in a gray area of being technically neither a state nor city agency. It has come under repeated criticism from the city comptroller, who is Mr. Bloomberg’s likely opponent in the November mayoral election, and other officials for awarding contracts without bidding, a practice generally prohibited in other city agencies.

“Right now, we don’t have all the information we need,” said Ronnie Lowenstein, the director of the city’s Independent Budget Office. “People come to us and say, what does this mean, how much are we really spending, what are other ways of looking at this?”

Legislation passed by the State Assembly would hand oversight of the department’s budget to the Independent Budget Office, which could have the ability to independently assess other numbers, like graduation rates and school-level spending. The change has not been opposed by the mayor, and Mr. Klein has said that he would welcome an outside agency looking more closely over the department’s numbers.

“I think much of this is politics,” Mr. Klein said in an interview last week. “We have always been open to oversight and we have been audited repeatedly.”

It is still unclear whether the State Senate, stuck in a leadership battle, will pass the Assembly’s bill or press for more changes to the law. Mr. Bloomberg’s control of the schools was set to expire at midnight Tuesday, meaning that the schools could revert to supervision by an independent Board of Education, although most officials believe the mayor would be able to maintain stewardship until an agreement in Albany is reached.

Shifting Responsibility

The new billions result partly from Mr. Bloomberg’s spending decisions, and partly from a lawsuit filed by a group called Campaign for Fiscal Equity, which successfully argued that Albany was shortchanging the city’s schools. But the group is not necessarily pleased with the results.

“You would think that the school of today compared to the school of yesterday compared to the school of seven years ago would be a richer environment, that there would be a rich art curriculum or more intimate experiences,” said Helaine Doran, the deputy director of the group. “There is just no tactical feeling that things are any better.”

The sheer size of the department’s budget makes it unlike any other city agency. The city’s next largest agency, the Human Resources Administration, which administers welfare, has about $9.2 billion, less than half of the education budget, according to the Independent Budget Office. The Police Department spends $7.3 billion.

Mr. Bloomberg has spoken proudly of trimming the central administration. “You can’t say, ‘Let’s cut the bureaucracy,’ ” he said in January, amid budget negotiations in Albany. “We have taken $250 million out of the bureaucracy and moved it into the classroom. We have streamlined everything we possibly can.”

The overall increase in school spending is partly attributable to increased teaching salaries and pensions as well as paying off debt for school construction, which has more than doubled in the last six years. The mayor has raised teacher salaries 43 percent through contract negotiations, with the average salary now at $70,104.

Generous pensions have been won over many years by the teachers’ union, a consistently powerful force in Albany, where pension laws are passed. The mayor and the teachers’ union recently reached an agreement, which still needs legislative approval, to trim the cost of pensions for future hires.

Significantly, the Bloomberg administration has also shifted more responsibility and control over school budgets to principals.

Lily Woo, the principal of Public School 130 in Chinatown, said she has been able to take money that in other years would have been spent on hall supervisors and reallocate it to buy supplies like computers and smart boards, which combine technology with traditional chalk boards. Funds that would have been used for a single reading teacher have instead paid for extra hours for a teacher already on staff to work with small groups of children during their lunch time or a free period.

“If you asked schools to effect change without letting them control their money,” she said, “it would be like giving a cook a Bunsen burner and telling them to make a four-course meal.” The number of regular-classroom teachers has dropped by more than 1,600 to 61,549 since the Bloomberg administration took over, according to the Times analysis, which used seven years of payroll data, budget documents, audits and statistics produced by the department at the request of The Times.

Meanwhile, the costs of special education teachers, as well as their assistants and supplemental therapists, has soared along with the number of special education students: 103,228 last year, up from 81,268 in 2002.

There are 4,500 new school aides, who typically supervise lunchrooms and school yards. More than 2,000 secretaries who previously worked in district offices, which lost much of their role, now work in the schools, according to Education Department data.

Over all, enrollment has declined, and the average class size has shrunk about 5 percent from kindergarten through eighth grade, to 23.3 from 24.5. The department’s stated goal is 20 students per class for kindergarten through third grade, but it does not have a target class size for grades above third.

The teacher-to-student ratio, which includes teachers in areas like physical education or lab who are not assigned to particular classrooms, has decreased slightly: to 1 to 15 in 2008 from 1 to 16 in 2002.

The centralization of the school system has allowed the city to do away with administrators who once worked in regional or district offices. In their place, for example, the Education Department has increased the number of education analysts and education officers, to 724 from 415 in 2002. Lawrence E. Becker, the head of human resources for the Education Department, said that those titles could include everything from a central administrator looking at financial data to a school-based worker monitoring student test performance.

The number of lawyers has also nearly doubled, to 118. Education officials say the additional lawyers are needed to more aggressively pursue teacher discipline cases and to handle a growing number of lawsuits asking the city to pay private school tuition for special education students.

Efforts at Accountability

Chancellor Klein has attracted dozens of administrators who had little experience in public schools. Many came from careers in law or business, with hefty salary requirements. James Liebman, the department’s chief accountability officer, who also teaches part time at Columbia Law School, made just more than $196,000 in 2007, when Chancellor Klein earned $250,000, the same salary he has received since he began in 2002.

“Many of these people could be earning far, far more in the private sector,” Mr. Klein said. Referring to the deputy chancellor who oversees political and labor relations, he added: “Somebody like Chris Cerf could be earning well over $1 million if he were out practicing law.” Mr. Cerf earned $196,575 in 2008.

Photeine Anagnostopoulos, the department’s chief operating officer, said her $177,000 salary was less than what she earned in her first job after graduating from business school 25 years ago.

Of all the changes Chancellor Klein has made during his tenure, perhaps none has attracted more attention than the power he has given to the Office of Accountability, which has created several systems to track and measure student performance and improvement in the schools. According to Education Department numbers, the office grew to about 110 people in 2008 from about two dozen in June 2001.

Officials say the growth reflects the fact that the office’s role has undergone big changes in the last several years. The office now issues annual letter grades for each individual school in addition to developing ways for principals and teachers to monitor student improvement. According to The Times’s analysis, the accountability office payroll totaled $9.4 million in 2008.

Critics have accused Mr. Klein of putting too much faith and money into the accountability office. Last fall, the Independent Budget Office released a report estimating that the department would spend more than $350 million on accountability-related measures from 2007-9. The department objected, saying that the audit included several costs that could not be directly attributed to the office. For example, according to the department, $17.6 million was spent on school inquiry teams, including school staff.

“This is the backbone of the system,” Mr. Klein said. “Without accountability, you spend all the time arguing over what you spent the money on, not what results you got for that money.”

KLEIN ON 'BEST YEAR': I'D GET A FOR EFFORT
By YOAV GONEN, Education Reporter, June 26, 2008 --
LINK

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said it was the best year of his tenure. There were gains in state reading and math scores and incentive programs for teachers, principals and students. Klein touched on these issues, and some controversies, in an exclusive interview with The Post.

Q: You've talked about how smoothly the school year started - did it stay that way?

A: What surprised me was how smooth it was given all the changes we made. Remember, we eliminated the regions, downsized the bureaucracy, downsized central [administration] and brought in all the school support organizations. That's a lot of stuff, if you will, and compared to the first reorganization, there's no question that this was much smoother.

Q: What are some of the highlights of the school year?

A: I think the major highlight of the year is the [test] results. I'm a results guy, and the results were big. Probably the second major thing was the implementation of the accountability system, which I believe is long-term, big and meaningful . . . The charter scores were really dynamite. To have charter schools in the city of New York that are 92 percent African-American and Latino, 80 percent poverty, performing at the same level as the state of New York or even a little better is really a remarkable thing. [And] we got a pay-for-performance deal with the UFT [United Federation of Teachers].

Q: Speaking of charters, there is some opposition growing in District 22 to the Hebrew Charter School that could open there in 2009. Are you concerned at all that it's going to turn into a lightning rod the way [Arabic-themed school] Khalil Gibran did?

A: I hope not. We've done [dual language] schools with such success . . . I think [the Khalil Gibran issue] was a combination of two unfortunate things - a lot of misunderstanding about what Khalil Gibran was about and then a real focus on the principal, the original principal, and I think that created some noise. I hope this Hebrew charter school - which again will be dual language, which has got zero religion to it - will be successful, but I guess we have to stay tuned.

Q: Was there anything you wish had gone differently - like the teacher-tenure legislation [not allowing school districts to use student performance in tenure decisions] in Albany, for example?

A: I wish it hadn't occurred. On the other hand, I think it did surface the issue really at the national level . . . I clearly wish that the economy was otherwise and we wouldn't have to go through budget cuts. But by and large I thought this was a smooth year.

Q: What about complaints about the report-card grades for schools?

A: The report cards were probably one of the noisy periods. But . . . I can't tell you how many principals said to me, 'You know, chancellor, I didn't get the right grade but I promise you I won't get the same one next year,' so I think that had a big impact.

Q: Where do things stand on the budget cuts - is there any hope that Albany is going to loosen restrictions on the funds at this point?

A: I don't believe that's going to happen . . . We are looking at a variety of strategies.

Q: Like what?

A: I'd rather not get ahead of the story.

Q: If you had to assign a grade to yourself for the school year, what would it be?

A: This was in my view the best year we had. I always like to say the grade is 'A' for effort and other people can grade our performance.

Q: What's next?

A: Now that we have so much information . . . we're going to be able to really home in on what schools made real progress. We're going to [focus] on which schools are really moving the English-language learners, which schools are moving in special education.

Q: What's in store for you after Bloomberg's term ends - would you like to stay on as chancellor?

A: I would like to keep serving . . . I think education is going to be a part of my life. I'm now doing this national [equality] project, which I'll continue to push on . . . I've got many, many things that I want to do - not the least of which is to write a hell of a book about my 7½ years as chancellor.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com

Rabu, 01 Juli 2009

The United States Supreme Court Makes It Harder To Prove Age Discrimination

GROSS v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (No. 08-441)
526 F. 3d 356, vacated and remanded.

GROSS v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
No. 08–441. Argued March 31, 2009—Decided June 18, 2009

LINK

Petitioner Gross filed suit, alleging that respondent (FBL) demoted him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against an employee “because of such individual’s age,” 29 U. S. C. §623(a). At the close of trial, and over FBL’s objections, the District Court instructed the jury to enter a verdict for Gross if he proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was demoted and his age was a motivating factor in the demotion decision, and told the jury that age was a motivating factor if it played a part in the demotion. It also instructed the jury to return a verdict for FBL if it proved that it would have demoted Gross regardless of age. The jury returned a verdict for Gross. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury had been incorrectly instructed under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 , for cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an employee alleges that he suffered an adverse employment action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations—i.e., a “mixed-motives” case.

Held: A plaintiff bringing an ADEA disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. Pp. 4–12.

(a) Because Title VII is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion, this Court’s interpretation of the ADEA is not governed by Title VII decisions such as Price Waterhouse and Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U. S. 90 . This Court has never applied Title VII’s burden-shifting framework to ADEA claims and declines to do so now. When conducting statutory interpretation, the Court “must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination.” Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U. S. ___, ___. Unlike Title VII, which has been amended to explicitly authorize discrimination claims where an improper consideration was “a motivating factor” for the adverse action, see 42 U. S. C. §§2000e–2(m) and 2000e–5(g)(2)(B), the ADEA does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor. Moreover, Congress neglected to add such a provision to the ADEA when it added §§2000e–2(m) and 2000e–5(g)(2)(B) to Title VII, even though it contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways. When Congress amends one statutory provision but not another, it is presumed to have acted intentionally, see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244 , and “negative implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest” where the provisions were “considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted,” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 . Pp. 5–6.

(b) The ADEA’s text does not authorize an alleged mixed-motives age discrimination claim. The ordinary meaning of the ADEA’s requirement that an employer took adverse action “because of” age is that age was the “reason” that the employer decided to act. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604 . To establish a disparate-treatment claim under this plain language, a plaintiff must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse decision. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U. S. ___, ___. It follows that under §623(a)(1), the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that “but-for” cause. This Court has previously held this to be the burden’s proper allocation in ADEA cases, see, e.g., Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U. S. ___, ___–___, ___–___, and nothing in the statute’s text indicates that Congress has carved out an exception for a subset of ADEA cases. Where a statute is “silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion,” “the ordinary default rule [is] that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.” Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. 49 . Hence, the burden of persuasion is the same in alleged mixed-motives cases as in any other ADEA disparate-treatment action. Pp. 7–9.

(c) This Court rejects petitioner’s contention that the proper interpretation of the ADEA is nonetheless controlled by Price Waterhouse, which initially established that the burden of persuasion shifted in alleged mixed-motives Title VII claims. It is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance. Whatever Price Waterhouse’s deficiencies in retrospect, it has become evident in the years since that case was decidedthat its burden-shifting framework is difficult to apply. The problems associated with its application have eliminated any perceivable benefit to extending its framework to ADEA claims. Cf. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36 . Pp. 10–11.

526 F. 3d 356, vacated and remanded.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

The United States Supreme Court makes it harder to prove age discrimination

In a 5-4 decision issued on Thursday, the United States Supreme Court made it much harder for plaintiffs in cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) to prove discrimination. The Court held in Gross v. FBL Financial Servs, Inc., that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action.

6/23/2009
An employee claiming age discrimination as a result of an adverse action must now show that age was the sole or “but for” reason for the adverse action. In a 5-4 decision issued on Thursday, the United States Supreme Court made it much harder for plaintiffs in cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) to prove discrimination. The Court held in Gross v. FBL Financial Servs, Inc., that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The Court in Gross found that the familiar burden-shifting approach to liability set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, does not apply to cases brought under the ADEA. In Price Waterhouse, the Court held that when an employee in a case brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, proves that illegal discrimination played a part in an employment decision—even if other, legitimate factors also motivated the decision—the employer could win only by proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken into account the employee’s protected trait (gender, race, etc). The Court rejected this burden-shifting approach in Gross. This case is welcome victory for employers to be sure, given the increased number of age discrimination charges as a result of the economic environment, but a pro-employee Congress could reverse the result before employers even finish celebrating.

FBL Financial Services, Inc. (“FBL”) reassigned Jack Gross, who had worked for more than thirty years for FBL, and transferred his duties to a younger coworker. At trial in district court, Mr. Gross presented evidence suggesting that FBL reassigned him in part because of his age. The district court instructed the jury that it should find for Mr. Gross “if he proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that FBL demoted him . . . and that his age was a motivating factor in FBL’s decision.” The court said that age was a “motivating factor if it played a part or a role in FBL’s decision.” Lastly, the court instructed the jury that FBL should prevail if it proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have demoted the plaintiff regardless of his age. After a verdict for Mr. Gross, FBL appealed to the Eighth Circuit, which ordered a new trial, holding that the jury instructions were incorrect under the Price Waterhouse standard. The Court of Appeals held that Price Waterhouse permitted burden-shifting in ADEA cases only when direct evidence of discrimination was produced.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both the district court’s jury instructions and the Eighth Circuit’s decision. The Court reasoned that because Price Waterhouse decided Title VII claims, and not ADEA claims, it did not control Mr. Gross’s suit. First, the Court noted that, unlike Title VII, the ADEA’s text does not permit claims in which age is a “motivating factor” in the employer’s adverse decision.

The Court noted that Congress amended Title VII and the ADEA contemporaneously, and while it added specific language to Title VII permitting mixed-motive claims, it failed to add the same language to the ADEA. This omission, the Court reasoned, demonstrated Congress’ intent to preclude ADEA claims where age was simply a “motivating factor.” In addition, the Court held that cases like Price Waterhouse and Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, which interpreted Title VII provisions, were inapplicable to ADEA claims. Thus, the burden-shifting analysis developed in Price Waterhouse, requiring an employer to present evidence that its decision would have been the same regardless of a discriminatory motive, did not apply to ADEA claims, even when the plaintiff presented some evidence that age played a role in the employer’s adverse decision.

Citing Supreme Court precedent interpreting similar language, the Court held that “because of” an employee’s age meant that a plaintiff must present “but for” evidence of causation in order to win. In other words, the plaintiff must show that the employer would not have done what it did absent age discrimination. The Court held that the burden of persuasion in any ADEA case—mixed motive or otherwise—is that a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct evidence or circumstantial evidence) that age was the “but for” cause of the employer’s challenged conduct or decision.

Lastly, the Court criticized the Price Waterhouse decision, concluding that “it is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today” and calling the Price Waterhouse burden-shifting framework “difficult to apply” such that “the problems associated with its application have eliminated any perceivable benefit to extending its framework to ADEA claims.”

The Court’s decision in Gross makes it much harder for plaintiffs to prove age discrimination in cases in which the employer presents evidence that its decision was motivated by legitimate business considerations. Plaintiffs must now prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the plaintiff’s age, he or she would not have been subject to the employer’s adverse decision. Since the last elections, several pieces of pro-employee legislation, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Employee Free Choice Act, have continued winding their way through the United States Congress. Under the current pro-employee climate in Congress, the Gross decision may well instigate an amendment to the ADEA’s language that mirrors that of Title VII, permitting age discrimination claims to be brought in which age is a “motivating factor” for the employer’s decisions.