Campaign News

NY Daily News - December 2, 2013, by Phyllis Furman - Coalition urges city to change its relationship with banks as a way to address income inequality.

Wall Street has put the squeeze on the city to the tune of $1 billion, a report due out Tuesday claims.

As much as $723 million worth of unnecessary fees and bad deals, coupled with $300 million in bank subsidies should be rejiggered, says a study from a new left-leaning coalition called New Day, New York Coalition.

"New York City could be saving $1 billion annually just by changing the way it does business with Wall Street," one of the report's authors, Connie Razza, director of strategic research initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy, told the Daily News.

The study, dubbed "Leveraging New York's Financial Power to Combat Inequality," kicks off a week of events organized by the group, culminating in a rally set for Thursday at Foley Square.

The coalition, whose members include veterans of Occupy Wall Street, labor unions such as 1199SEIU, and faith organizations, says its goal is to "draw attention to the ways Wall Street and big corporations continue to siphon resources away from average New Yorkers and point toward solutions that would help reduce inequality and build economic fairness."

Mirroring a key campaign theme of Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio, the report notes the huge disparity between the city's haves and have-nots, with the 1% controlling a whopping 40% of the city's income.

The city and its pension funds have tremendous leverage that can be used to bridge the gap, the study says: $350 billion that travels through the financial system.

"We should be using that leverage to demand a different relationship" with Wall Street, Razza said.

Among the key findings: the city, its pension funds and the MTA pay $563 million in Wall Street fees each year.

 

Rather than pay out megabucks to Wall Street big shots, the city should set up an in-house group to manage its pension assets and bond offerings, the report recommends.

That suggestion comes on the heels of a recent city report that showed fees paid by New York City pension funds surged by 28% to $472.5 million in the year ended June 30.

The idea of bringing the management of the city's money in-house isn't new.

New York's former chief investment officer, Larry Schloss, recommended just that before he recently stepped down. A number of public pension funds in Canada, including Ontario's $126 billion teachers' pension fund, have already moved in that direction.

But achieving that goal here is a long shot, said Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse Blog.

"Attracting and retaining qualified managers to manage money in-house is a huge challenge," Kolivakis told the News.

Patrick Muncie, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, noted the financial services industry's crucial contributions to the local economy.

"The financial services sector is a critical driver of New York City's economy, providing more than 400,000 jobs and generating $3 billion in tax revenue last year alone," he said.

A spokesman for outgoing New York City Comptroller John Liu said the report encapsulates many of the comptroller's efforts, including "better and more cost-effective in-house management of pension assets."

The report "effectively and succinctly aggregates the real underlying issues of deepening inequality," Liu said in a statement.

Reps for de Blasio and incoming New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, declined to comment.

Other recommendations of the report include holding banks to firm commitments to improve the community in exchange for the $300 million a year they receive in subsidies.

pfurman@nydailynews.com

What they want:

*Renegotiate financial deals to save up to $725 million each year

*Hold banks to commitments in exchange for $300 million in subsidies

*Banks should write down underwater mortgages to keep 86,000 families in their homes

Source  

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s surprise announcement to leave his position in December is making headlines and driving lots of commentary, but an important story lost in the media clutter happened three days before he gave notice. 

On that day, Duncan rattled the education policy world with news of a controversial grant of $249 million ($157 the first year) to the charter school industry. This announcement was controversial because, as The Washington Post reports, an auditby his department’s own inspector general found “that the agency has done a poor job of overseeing federal dollars sent to charter schools.”

Post reporter Lynsey Layton notes, “The agency’s inspector general issued a scathing report in 2012 that found deficiencies in how the department handled federal grants to charter schools between 2008 and 2011″ – in other words, during Duncan’s watch.

Even more perplexing is that the largest grant of $71 million ($32.5 the first year) is going to Ohio, the state that has the worst reputation for allowing low-performing charter schools to divert tax money away from educational purposes and do little to raise the achievement of students.

A number of Ohio officials were shocked by the news.

As a different article from The Post reports, Democratic Party Representative Tim Ryan “was alarmed” by the Education Department’s decision. Ryan called his state’s charter school sector “broken and dysfunctional.”

Ted Strickland, an ex-Governor and now Democratic candidate for a US Senate seat in Ohio, wrote Duncan a letter telling him to reconsider the Ohio grant. “Too many of Ohio’s charter schools are an embarrassment,” he states. Strickland quotes from a recent study showing charters in his state perform significantly worse than public schools. He points to a recent scandal in which the person in the state’s department of education responsible for oversight of charters had to resign because he was caught “rigging the books.”

Even Ohio Republicans are disturbed about Secretary Duncan’s generosity to charter schools in the Buckeye State. Like a parent who sees a visiting relative doling out chocolate bars to an already stimulated child, State Auditor Dave Yost quickly stated his concerns about the new charter school largesse to the media and his intention to track how the money is spent. Yost should know. An audit he conducted earlier this year found charter schools in the state misspend millions of tax dollars.

“Why is the Department rewarding this unacceptable behavior,” Strickland asked in his letter.

Money For What?

Certainly throwing unaccounted for federal tax money at charter schools is nothing new.

A recent report from the Center for Media and Democracy found that over the past 20 years the federal government has sent over $3.3 billion to the charter school industry with virtually no accountability. That report notes “the federal government maintains no comprehensive list of the charter schools that have received and spent these funds or even a full list of the private or quasi-public entities that have been approved by states to ‘authorize’ charters that receive federal funds.”

But Secretary Duncan has been particularly generous to charter schools. One of the conditions states had to meet to win a Race to the Top grant, his signature program, was to raise any caps they may have had on the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the state. His department warned states receiving waivers to the onerous provisions of No child Left Behind not to do enact any new policies that would undermine charter schools’ “autonomy.”

Congress has done its part too, raising the amount of federal money going to charter schools through the Charter School Grants program.

The CMD report cited above calculated that the feds are expected to increase charter school funding by 48 percent in FY 2016, which would have been Duncan’s last year on the job. That’s about $375 million more for charters estimates journalist Juan Gonzalez.

Yet at the same time federal support for charter schools continues to grow, revelations increasingly show the results of that spending are frequently disastrous.

Dollars For Disaster

A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy and the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) uncovered over $200 million in “alleged and confirmed financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement” committed by charter schools around the country.

The report follows a similar report released a year ago by the same groups that detailed $136 million in fraud and waste and mismanagement in 15 of the 42 states that operate charter schools. The 2015 report cites $203 million, including the 2014 total plus $23 million in new cases, and $44 million in earlier cases not included in the previous year’s report.

Authors of the report called $200-plus million the “tip of the iceberg,” because much of the fraud “will go undetected because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.”

Adding to concerns over how federal funds for charter schools are used, state audits, like the one conducted in Ohio, have also found widespread financial fraud and abuse committed by these schools.

Although the CPD-AROS report made policy recommendations for mandatory audits of charters and increased transparency and accountability for these schools, none of those recommendations seem to have gotten any attention, much less action, from Duncan and his staff.

A Process Cloaked In Mystery

Both the ends and the means of federal grants to charter schools remain mostly a mystery. Not only do we not know what happens to most of the money; we don’t know how recipients for the money are chosen.

As CMD’s Jonas Persson writes on that organization’s PR Watch blog, “The public is being kept in the dark about which states have applied for the lucrative grants, and what their actual track records are when it comes to preventing fraud and misuse … The U.S Department of Education has repeatedly refused to honor a CMD request under the Freedom of Information Act for the grant applications, even though public information about which states have applied would not chill deliberation and might even help better assess which applicants should receive federal money.”

Also unknown are the names of the “peers” who review applications for the grant money. 

How Ohio became chosen for more charter school money is especially enigmatic, not only because of the bad reputation of the state’s charter schools, but also because of the circumstances of how the state’s application was pitched to Duncan and his staff.

Soon after the announcement of the grant, the Akron Beacon reported a Ohio Department of Education official who helped obtain the $71 million in federal money was the very same official who resigned in July “after manipulating data to boost charter schools.” The official resigned a mere two days after filing the grant application.

What’s also interesting about the new federal grant money for Ohio charters is its timing.

Was Money Timed For Youngstown Takeover?

As the Beacon report notes, “The additional federal dollars come as the Ohio Department of Education decides how to distribute $25 million set aside by state lawmakers to help charter schools pay rent, purchase property, or renovate buildings. The money is yet one more assist to charter-school proponents in need of a building. Rent and building acquisition are two of the biggest deterrents to start-ups.”

The grant to Ohio also seems especially well timed to the targeted takeover of one of the most troubled school districts in the state, Youngstown.

As a recent report in Belt Magazine explains, “The Youngstown City Schools, which could lay claim to the title of the worst school district in the state … had been under academic distress for the past five years. Enrollment had dropped 21 percent since 2010.”

This summer, a House education bill with bipartisan support was about to sail through the legislature when State Senator Peggy Lehner, the chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, suddenly introduced an amendment.

“The amendment,” Belt reporter Vince Guerrieri recounts, “informally dubbed ‘the Youngstown Plan,’ allows for the dissolution of the academic distress commission of any district that’s gotten an F grade for three years in a row or has been under academic distress for at least four years. Youngstown is the only school district that meets that qualification.”

“Within 12 hours of the introduction of the amendment, it had passed the legislature,” Guerrieri writes.

The fast-tracked legislation sets up, according to an NPR outlet in the state, “a five member Academic Distress Commission with a three member majority chosen by the state school superintendent. That group then appoints a CEO with extraordinary powers. He could not only change the collective bargaining agreement with teachers but also create or contract with charter schools.

State school board member Patricia Bruns – a Democrat – says bypassing local elected officials including the school board is unconstitutional. ‘Their idea is to take over the schools, dismantle what’s there, and dole them out to private, for-profit charters.’

So was the federal grant to Ohio timed to pay for the take over of Youngstown schools?

That’s the question Ohio edu-blogger and public school advocate Jan Resseger wants answered. She points to an article by Akron Beacon education reporter Doug Livingston who alleges the new funding for charter schools in Ohio is “designed specifically to pay for the fast-tracked state takeover of the Youngstown schools.” Livingston backs up his claim with a quote from Arne Duncan’s press secretary Elaine Quesinberry who confirmed, “that the Ohio education officials filled out the grant application with the intent to direct money to charter school startups in academic distressed areas. Only two, Youngstown and Lorain, currently fit that description.”

What ‘Reform?’

Meanwhile, as the House bill containing the Youngstown Plan passed with extraordinary haste, another bill to make charter schools more transparent and accountable remained mired in contentious through the summer recess. That bill now seems likely to get approved by the legislature, based on reports received at press time. But “there’s no clear magic bullet” in the bill, according to a Cleveland news outlet, at least in terms of reforming charter schools in the state.

“The bill makes several small changes,” the reporter contends. “Private and for-profit charter school operators will have to provide more information to the public about how they spend tax dollars they are paid to run the schools.” But “the books won’t be anywhere near as open as a public school district’s.”

Also, what amounts to accountability for charters seems especially weak under the provisions of the new law. “The Ohio Department of Education will start to publicize which operators run each school and give information to the public about the academic performance of the schools that each operator runs. That will let families know the track record of the people running a school.” It will? How many families will dig into state reports to make decisions about where to send their kids to school?

A Hands-Off Policy For Charter Schools?

For his part, Secretary Duncan seems little interested in how new federal grants to charter schools will be spent, saying it’s “largely up to states and the public agencies that approve charter schools,” according to the Post article cited above. “At the federal level, we don’t have a whole lot of leverage,” he mused.

This seems an oddly resigned comment from an education secretary whose department has made the minute scrutiny of state policy governing nearly everything having to do with public education – from standards, to teacher evaluations, totutoring requirements.

Why would a secretary so often accused of leading an unprecedented overreach of federal intrusion in state education policy suddenly become so nonchalant about oversight of charter schools?

It certainly doesn’t help dampen suspicion that Duncan’s replacement as acting secretary will be John King, the controversial former New York State Education Commissioner, who has deep ties to the charter school industry.

Before becoming New York Commissioner, King helped to found and operate a charter school management organization with schools in New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

Because King will be acting secretary, no nomination process or Congressional hearings will be needed to approve the leadership change.

Source: Salon

Campaign for America's Future - March 11, 2015, by Isaiah J. Poole - At the office of Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, more than 2,500 demonstrators, most wearing white “We Rise” T-shirts, staged a protest against cuts in Medicaid and other social services. In Albany, N.Y., more than 2,000 people marched to the state capitol to protest education funding cuts. In Denver, dozens of activists came out in support of immigration rights measures, including driver’s licenses for undocumented workers.

These are just a few of the dozens of actions that took place in 16 states today as part of “We Rise: National Day of Action to Put People and Planet First.” Local and national progressive organizations mobilized around different aspects of a common agenda that stood in opposition to the right-wing and corporatist policies pushed through state legislatures in these states. The actions were all broadcast under the Twitter hashtag “#WeRise.”

“What we saw today was a stirring of the democratic spirit,” said Fred Azcarate, Executive Director of USAction. “People are upset at elected officials who spend more time working for big corporations and wealthy campaign donors than representing the people they were elected to serve. Today, people rose up to reclaim government and demand that legislators work for them and their families.”

The states where We Rise demonstrations were organized also include Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The events were led by groups affiliated with National People’s Action, Center for Popular Democracy, USAction, and other allies.

“Apparently conservatives believe they have a mandate to give big corporations another free ride on the backs of everyday people,” said George Goehl, Executive Director of National People’s Action. “But they’re wrong. They have no such mandate. Instead, as we can see in the resistance to draconian policy or Chuy Garcia’s campaign to unseat Rahm Emanuel as Mayor of Chicago, there is a new brand of populism taking root in America. People are fed up with politicians doing the bidding of big money. They’re ready for leaders who will work for, not against, people and the planet.”

“Politicians working primarily on behalf of big corporations are making it harder and harder for families to get by,” said Ana María Archila, Co-Executive Director of The Center for Popular Democracy. “Our families won’t stand for this, and today thousands of workers and families raised our voices in state houses across the country to demand that elected officials join us in leveling the playing field so that each and every family can thrive.”

The Campaign for America’s Future is working with two of the organizations behind today’s “We Rise” events, National People’s Action and USAction, in sponsoring the “Populism2015″ conference in April, with the Alliance for a Just Society. One goal of that conference is to build political momentum from today’s events around a populist progressive agenda “for people and the planet.” Register for the April 18-20 conference in Washington through the Populism2015 website.

Moments after pivotal Sen. Jeff Flake announced he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the Arizona Republican was confronted with the consequences.

Read the article and watch the video here.