Campaign News

San Jose Mercury News - April 9, 2014, by Raymond Blanchard - Every parent wishes their children will reach their highest potential to live the life they choose. We do everything in our power to make this wish a reality, and we know an extraordinary education is essential.

Fulfilling this wish is difficult, particularly in the Bay Area. When California, the eighth largest economy in the world, ranks 49th among the states in school spending, we know it's difficult for our schools to provide the best education possible.

That's why I enrolled my children in Gilroy Prep Charter School, a Navigator school that achieved the highest API score -- 978 -- in California for a first-year charter school in 2011-12. I also served on the Navigator Board for three years but recently resigned due to transparency and accountability concerns with the Charter Management Organization (CMO), a service some charters use to manage their finances.

Now I find that my concerns were not an aberration. A recent study by the Center for Popular Democracy (linked with this article at mercurynews.com/opinion) found mismanagement of funds, fraud and abuse to the tune of $80 billion, or $160,000 per child, across all California charter schools, and our state could lose another $100 million in 2015 to charter school fraud. That's enough money to pay full tuition and board for every student in California at a University of California school for four years.

The report found that charter schools in California undergo little monitoring of finances, and the districts that oversee charter schools do not have the resources to provide sufficient oversight. Over my three years on the Navigator board, the local districts only attended seven board meetings.

Charter schools were created to bridge the achievement gap by granting increased freedom to administrators, teachers and parents to innovate without being subject to most California education laws. I support charter schools and think many of them provide an excellent education: 60 percent of Santa Clara County charter schools outperform the districts in which they reside. As a former entrepreneur and venture investor, I am all for freedom, innovation, competition and choice.

But the charter school financial model is at risk of failing.

Charter Management Organizations use public money with little public accountability and transparency, and that's starting to cause material financial problems. Not all charter schools have a CMO and run very well on their own, and some CMO-run charter schools are clearly better than others.

In 2014, charter schools authorized by the Santa Clara County Board of Education received $42 million in public revenue, excluding the millions of dollars in philanthropic investments. Some CMOs charge the schools they manage up to 25 percent of school revenue, while our local district charges about 6 percent per school.

In Santa Clara County, 73 percent of charter schools spent $1,287 less per student than their district school peers in 2012-2013. That's worth a musical instrument, computer, books, iPad and field trip per child. Where does the money go? It's not clear, and that's a problem.

To avoid financial risks, charter schools should be held to the same types of regulations as other public schools and the boards that oversee them. All public schools should be given the same freedoms charter schools have to innovate.

My wish is that all public schools be excellent educational institutions and stewards of our tax money. However, we must improve transparency and accountability. I think this is a wish we can all agree on.

Source

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Alison R. Park (917) 805-0830, apark@populardemocracy.org; Neal Rosenstein (917) 575-4317, nrosenstein@nypirg.org; Chelsea Schuster (561) 843-0197, cschuster@citizensunionfoundation.org; Margaret Fung (212) 966-5932 x201, mfung@aaldef.org; Erik Opsal (646) 292-8356, erik.opsal@nyu.edu.  

Report: City Agencies Noncompliant with Voter Registration Law in 84 Percent of Client Interactions

Voting rights coalition working with Mayor, City Council, and agency heads to improve compliance

October 21, 2014, New York, NY – City agencies are not doing enough to help New Yorkers register to vote found a new report released today by the Pro-Voter Law Coalition. The coalition of groups is led by Center for Popular Democracy, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Citizens Union of the City of New York, and the New York Public Interest Research Group/NYPIRG.

Last summer, Mayor de Blasio issued his first Mayoral Directive aimed to improve city agency voter registration efforts. The City passed local Law 29, also known as the Pro-Voter Law, in 2000 to expand voter registration opportunities at municipal agencies. Information for the report, A Broken Promise: Agency-Based Voter Registration in New York City, was obtained through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests and field investigations, and revealed a lack of compliance across city agencies with the Pro-Voter Law. Key findings included:

Widespread failure to comply with the Pro-Voter Law’s requirement to provide voter registration application forms. Specifically, city agencies failed to do so in 84 percent of client interactions;

Efforts ranged from the inconsistent administration of the Pro-Voter Law, to an almost complete lack of apparent attempts to fully administer the law at the city agencies that responded to FOIL requests;

Increased noncompliance for limited English proficient New Yorkers. Only 40 percent, or 2 out of 5, of agency clients whose primary language was not English were given translated voter registration applications as mandated by the law; and

Agency staff received no regular training on voter registration procedures mandated by the law.

“Under previous Mayoral administrations, New York City has broken its promise to city voters by failing to comply with the Pro-Voter Law, and failing to create an electorate that is truly representative of our city,” said Steven Carbó, Director of Voting Rights and Democracy Initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy. “We are heartened by Mayor de Blasio’s recent Mayoral Directive and his strong commitment to voter registration—and we look forward to working closely with his administration to realize our shared objectives.”

“Fourteen years ago, the threat of a veto by Mayor Giuliani weakened key provisions of the Pro-Voter Law, and then Mayor Bloomberg failed to properly implement it for 12 long years,” said Neal Rosenstein, Government Reform Coordinator of NYPIRG. “It’s time for today’s Council to strengthen the law and for Mayor de Blasio to clearly break with his predecessors and make sure it’s effectively implemented. Potential city voters deserve to be able to register as easily as New Yorkers can at DMV offices across the state under the federal Motor Voter Law.”

“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy and increasing civic engagement is essential in making sure all New Yorkers are fully represented in government,” said New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. “That’s why it’s essential that the Pro-Voter Law is fully enforced and I thank the Center for Popular Democracy, Citizens Union, NYPIRG, The Brennan Center for Justice, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund for their recommendations to strengthen compliance and engage more citizens in elections.”

“Voter participation is essential to our democracy, and with plummeting voter turnout, we must ensure that New Yorkers have more convenient opportunities to register to vote,” said Dick Dadey, Executive Director of Citizens Union. “This report outlines a needed framework for a model agency voter registration program that will result in robust efforts to encourage more New Yorkers to register.”

“Nothing is more important to democracy than voter participation. These are smart strategies to break down barriers to registering to vote for those who may be least likely to do so,” said Council Member Brad Landers. “Our city is strongest when everyone’s voices are heard.”

“Long lines and Election Day chaos are potent symbols of our nation’s broken voter registration system, and our research show that the same is true here in New York City,” said DeNora Getachew, Campaign Manager and Legislative Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “Our city needs to join the growing national movement to modernize elections by requiring agencies to electronically transmit voter registration information directly to the board of elections, instead of continuing to use outdated paper forms. This digital-age solution is win-win for voters and election officials. It will increase voter registration rates, save the city money, and make voter rolls more accurate.”

“We face a crisis of non-participation in New York City: Of the 8.5 million residents of New York City, only 4.3 million are registered to vote,” said Council Member Ben Kallos. “City law dictates that our government help register voters—but this report shows that, in the vast majority of cases, it simply isn't happening. City agencies must comply with the law to offer voter registration forms to New Yorkers. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it is our democracy, if we can keep it. And the task of keeping it must involve immediate action to remedy the failures of implementation of our city’s Pro-Voter laws.”

“Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are the nation’s fastest growing racial group and comprise almost 14 percent of New York City’s population. Along with other communities of color and immigrant communities, these are important members of our city’s electorate who deserve to participate fully in the political process,” said Margaret Fung, Executive Director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. “Compliance with the law’s language access mandates, including translated voter registration forms and bilingual staff at city agencies, is a critical first step to ensure meaningful civic engagement from all of New York’s communities.”

“Voter registration is essential to ensuring a broad and inclusive electorate,” said Javier Valdes, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York. “The City should do absolutely everything it can to ensure that all eligible New Yorkers have the opportunity to participate in our democracy.”

The Pro-Voter Law requires 18 city agencies and, under certain circumstances, their associated subcontractors, to provide voter registration forms to all persons submitting applications, renewals, or recertification for agency services, or notifying the agency of a change of address. The law included each of the City’s 59 community boards as well.

In its report, the Pro-Voter Law Coalition made 12 recommendations including the following:

Establish comprehensive protocols by December 31, 2014 to ensure that all agencies provide voter registration applications to clients when they apply for services, renewal or recertification for services and change of address relating to such services and promptly transmit all completed voter registration applications to the NYC Board of Elections;

Require agencies to use coded voter registration forms specific to each agency. Solicit quarterly reports by the Board of Elections on the numbers of forms submitted by city agencies (a model protocol is proposed in City Council Intro 356 of 2014); and

Mandate that agency staff provide the same level of assistance in completing voter registration forms as is given to other agency transactions. This should include verbal assistance.

Members of the Pro-Voter Coalition are available for interviews with the media.

The Center for Popular Democracy promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda. Visit www.populardemocracy.org and www.twitter.com/popdemoc.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism.

Citizens Union is a nonpartisan good government group dedicated to making democracy work for all New Yorkers. Citizens Union serves as a civic watchdog, combating corruption and fighting for political reform. We work to ensure fair and open elections, honest and efficient government, and a civically‐engaged public. Principled and pragmatic, Citizens Union is an independent force for constructive reform, driving policy and educating the public to achieve accountable government in the City and State of New York.

The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) is New York State's largest student-directed research and advocacy organization. NYPIRG is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit whose principal areas of concern are environmental protection, consumer rights, higher education, government reform, voter registration, mass transit and public health.

The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), founded in 1974, is a national organization that protects and promotes the civil rights of Asian Americans. By combining litigation, advocacy, education, and organizing, AALDEF works with Asian American communities across the country to secure human rights for all.

With every passing day, the Fed is slowly but surely losing the game.

Only it is not just former (and in some cases current) Fed presidents admitting central banks are increasingly powerless to boost the global economy, even if they still have sway over capital markets. What is far more insidious to the Fed’s waning credibility is when former economists affiliated with the Fed start repeating mantras that until recently were only a prominent feature in the so-called fringe media.

This is precisely what happened today when former central bank staffer and Dartmouth College economics professor Andrew Levin, special adviser to then Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke between 2010 to 2012, joined with an activist group to argue for overhauls at the central bank that they say would distance it from Wall Street and make its activities more transparent and accountable to the public.

Levin is pressing for the overhaul with Fed Up coalition activists. Many of the proposed changes target the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which are quasi-private and technically owned by commercial banks in their respective districts.

All of that is not surprising. What he said to justify his new found cause, however, is.

“A lot of people would be stunned to know” the extent to which the Federal Reserve is privately owned, Mr. Levin said. The Fed “should be a fully public institution just like every other central bank” in the developed world, he said in a conference call announcing the plan. He described his proposals as “sensible, pragmatic and nonpartisan.”

Why is that stunning? Because it has long been a bone of contention if only among the fringe media, that at its core the Fed is merely a private institution, beholden only to its de facto owners: not the people of the U.S. but to a small cabal of banks. Worse, the actual org chart of who owns what is not disclosed, even as the vast majority of the U.S. population remains deluded that the Fed is a publicly owned institution.

As the WSJ goes on to note, the former central bank staffer said he sees his ideas as designed to maintain the virtues the central bank already brings to the table. They aren’t targeted at changing how policy is conducted today. “What’s important here is that reform to the Federal Reserve can last for 100 years, not just the near term,” he said.

And this is coming from a former Fed employee and Ben Bernanke’s personal advisor! That in itself is a most striking development, because now that the insiders are finally speaking up, it will be a race among both current and prior Fed workers to reveal as much dirty laundry as possible ahead of what is increasingly being perceived by many as the Fed’s demise.

To be sure, Levin’s personal campaign for Fed transformation will not be easy, and as the WSJ writes, what is being sought by Mr. Levin and the activists is significant and would require congressional action. Ady Barkan, who leads the Fed Up campaign, said the Fed’s current structure “is an embarrassment to America” and Fed leaders haven’t been “willing or able” to make changes.

Specifically, Levin wants the 12 regional Fed banks to be brought fully into the government. He also wants the process of selecting new bank presidents—they are key regulators and contributors in setting interest-rate policy—opened up more fully to public input, as well as term limits for Fed officials.

This would represent a revolution to the internal staffing of the Fed, which will no longer be at the mercy of its now-defunct shareholders, America’s commercial banks; it would also mean that Goldman Sachs would lose all its leverage as the world’s biggest central bank incubator, a revolving door relationship which has allowed the Manhattan firm to dominate the world of finance for the decades.

Levin’s proposal was made in conjunction with the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up coalition, a group that has been pressuring the central bank for more accountability for some time. The left-leaning group has been critical of the structure of the regional banks, and has been pressing the Fed to hold off on raising rates in a bid to make sure the recovery is enjoyed not just by the wealthy, in their view.

The proposal was revealed on a conference call that also included a representative from Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, although all campaigns were invited to participate.

The WSJ adds that according to Levin, who knows the Fed’s operating structure intimately, says the members of the regional Fed bank boards of directors, the majority of whom are selected by the private banks with the approval of the Washington-based governors, should be chosen differently. The professor says director slots now reserved for financial professionals regulated by the Fed should be eliminated, and that directors who oversee and advise the regional banks should be selected in a public process involving the Washington governors and local elected officials. These directors also should better represent the diversity of the U.S.

Levin also wants formal public input into the selection of new bank presidents, with candidates’ names known publicly and a process that allows for public comment in a way that doesn’t now exist. The professor also wants all Fed officials to serve for single seven-year terms, which would give them the needed distance from the political process while eliminating situations where some policy makers stay at the bank for decades. Alan Greenspan, for example, was Fed chairman from 1987 to 2006.

As the WSJ conveniently adds, the selection of regional bank presidents has become a hot-button issue. Currently, the leaders of the New York, Philadelphia, Dallas and Minneapolis Fed banks are helmed by men who formerly worked for or had close connections to investment bank Goldman Sachs.

Levin called for watchdog agency the Government Accountability Office to annually review and report on Fed operations, including the regional Fed banks. He also wants the regional Fed banks to be covered under the Freedom of Information Act. A regular annual review hopefully would insulate the effort from perceptions of political interference, Mr. Levin said.

* * *

While ending the Fed may still seem like a pipe dream, at least until the market’s next major crash at which point the population may  finally turn on the culprit behind America’s serial boom-bust culture, the U.S. central bank, Levin’s proposal would get to the heart of the most insidious conflict of interest in the US: the fact that the Federal Reserve works not for the people of America, but for its owners – the banks.

Which is also why, sadly, this proposal will be dead on arrival, as its passage would represent the biggest loss for Wall Street in the past 103 years, far more significant than anything Dodd-Frank could hope to accomplish.

By Zero Hedge

Source

The week of October 14 was a busy one for economic reports. It was also a busy week for the talking heads inside the Federal Reserve. Note that the most recent speeches this past week, even after having only three of 10 votes in September for a hike, still show a bias for the Fed to raise rates.

With the November Federal Open Market Committee meeting scheduled just days ahead of the election, the odds makers (the federal funds futures) are now focusing on a December rate hikes — but not quite 100% of a chance, at least ahead of Friday’s Janet Yellen speech.

Fed Chair Yellen gave the luncheon keynote address at the Boston Fed’s 60th Economic Conference. This was titled “The Elusive Recovery,” which may not sound hawkish at all. Still, she did not directly address interest rate hikes in her speech. But Yellen did say that the Federal Reserve may need to run a “high-pressure economy” to reverse damage from the 2008 to 2009 crisis that depressed output. In short, Yellen fears that our economic potential is slipping, and it may require aggressive steps to rebuild economic growth.

Eric Rosengren, president of the Boston Federal Reserve, said on Friday that the odds of a rate hike were very high in December. His view is that unemployment has fallen faster than expected and he is not worried about inflationary dangers.

Also on Friday, Loretta Mester, president of the Cleveland Fed, participated in a round table discussion with the Common Good Ohio (in Cleveland), which is affiliated with the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up Campaign. Mester has been on the record in recent weeks as saying that the jobs market and inflation are enough to justify a rate hike.

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Patrick Harker said on Thursday that the uncertainty stemming from the U.S. presidential election might be an argument for delaying a rate increase, at least until after the November ballot. Hint: December.

Neel Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed, has tried to remain on the sidelines for vocalizing rate hike talk outside of what Yellen says. Still, on Thursday he talked about more sluggish growth and maintained that the Fed and other agencies need a remedy for the “too big to fail” banks.

William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve of New York, sounded a tad more dovish. His take is that the Fed can be gentle with gradual rate hikes. He also pointed out that the Fed is not political when making interest rate decisions.

Esther George, head of the Kansas City Fed, did not address the economy nor rate hike views when speaking on Wednesday. Still, she did talk about the need for better bank cybersecurity and security of payments. George is considered one of the more hawkish Fed presidents.

Chicago Fed President Charles Evans was deemed as being noncommittal on Monday when he spoke. Still, he was signaling a December hike: “December could be an appropriate time to do it, but I don’t see any urgency either.” That was in a CNBC interview.

Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer spoke on October 9 and spoke about gross domestic product somehow recovering to 2.75% for the second half of 2016, a higher view than average. Fischer has been more hawkish of late and said that September’s decision was a close call. He said that he expects inflation to rise and that gradual rate hikes would be sufficient to get to Fed back to a neutral stance.

By Jon C. Ogg          

Source