Campaign News

“When I moved into our manufactured housing community in North Fort Myers, it was a beautiful, peaceful place,” Mathers told the crowd of around 1,000 activists who’d converged on the city for a July 13 Tenant March on Washington.

“Now I have neighbors who are really struggling. They’re taking their medications every other day instead of every day and not eating the food they need to be healthy.”

Read the full article here.

New York Times - May 11, 2014, Room for Debate: Connie Razza - Public pensions are under threat from outright fraud as well as the financial sector’s drive to generate higher profits for itself, regardless of the cost to our communities. The public can take simple steps to eliminate this danger. Investments should be put in index funds, which typically outperform actively managed portfolios. A recent comprehensive study of the performance of state pension funds found that the 46 state funds studied could save $6 billion in fees annually, while achieving returns as good or better than their actively managed portfolios. Most privately managed pensions already pursue indexing strategies, through vehicles like Amalgamated Bank’s LongView Funds, and successfully secure strong retirement savings for participants. Public pension funds should index a significant portion of their funds under management to save billions while still generating first-rate returns.

Index funds outperform managed portfolios. Relying on them would save on fees and avoid underhanded behavior.

These funds would also save significant amounts in management fees by hiring talented in-house investment managers for significant portions of actively managed pension assets.

Any investment should be presented in plain language in a standardized, easy-to-read template, so trustees and pension participants know exactly what the product does, how it makes money and what its fees and risks are. Like cell phone agreements, all fees should be disclosed up front. Like credit card bills, actual returns and long-term, historical performance should be clearly presented. Oversight of fiduciaries should be bolstered and any who violate their responsibility to retirement funds should be pursued legally. When the State Employees Association of North Carolina hired a pension forensic investigator, they found that the state treasurer Janet Cowell had invested $30 billion in illegal, high-risk funds, causing $6.8 billion in losses. A more robust standing oversight body could have prevented much of that improper investment. The state should aggressively prosecute both pension trustees and private investment managers who put their own benefit above the interest of pension participants. More eyes on the management of retirement assets would help ensure responsible investment strategies and management. Creating a publicly managed pool of retirement funds would invest more residents in pension management, while ensuring that fewer workers would find themselves insecure in retirement. And, increased pension funds make possible more diverse, responsible investments for the actively managed portions of the funds. For instance, funds can take a decisive role in infrastructure investments that will both improve their communities and provide steady, long-term returns.

Source

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 3, 2013

Contact: Tony Perlstein, Center for Popular Democracy (917) 647-7751, TPerlstein@populardemocracy.org

REPORT:  NYC GOVERNMENT CAN RAISE $1B ANNUALLY FOR BUDGET AND CREATE $1 BILLION IN MAIN STREET STIMULUS BY USING $350B WALL STREET MARKET POWER

New York does enough business with Wall Street to renegotiate bad deals

On the heels of a mayoral victory won on the issue of inequality, a new report released today by the Center for Popular Democracy shows that New York City could generate an additional billion dollars annually for the city budget and generate a billion dollars in economic stimulus by effectively using its $350 billion per year in financial market power.  The report, “One New York for All of Us: Leveraging New York’s Financial Power to Combat Inequity” shows the city could save as much as $1 billion annually and stimulate the economy by about $1 billion more.

The city’s financial market power comes from the $200.4 billion that the city’s pension funds have invested in Wall Street institutions combined with an additional $150 billion in debt issuance and payments made and received.

“New York City is uniquely positioned to lead the way in holding Wall Street to an appropriate high standard,” said Connie Razza, lead author of the report and Director of Strategic Research Initiatives at the Center for Popular Democracy.  “We spend a ton of money with them, and we should use that clout.  The city and its related authorities have powerful financial leverage and economic power to demand short, medium and long-term changes from Wall Street that will save money for taxpayers, bring in more revenue for essential city services, and move new investments and new jobs into our neighborhoods and small businesses.”

The report kicks off a week of action 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.

“In 2013, New Yorkers voted for a Mayor committed to addressing the vast inequality in our city, and for a strong plurality of progressive City Council members committed to broader prosperity,” said Michael Kink, Executive Director of the Strong Economy for All Coalition. “In 2014, we’ll start to build a New York that works for all of us. This report maps the way – and tells us to begin by changing the way the city does business with Wall Street.”

“This is our moment,” said Camille Rivera, Executive Director of United NY.  “We have the opportunity to make real change in the city and the state, but only if our elected officials know we have their back.”

“One New York for All of Us” highlights concrete solutions to address the imbalance in the city’s relationship with Wall Street. The report details how reforming the city’s relationship with banks could save a minimum of $725 million each year for the city budget, withhold another $300 million in current bank subsidies banks until job-creation commitments are fulfilled, and stimulate the local economy by another $1 billion per year, creating nearly 17,000 jobs.

Key recommendations:

Key factual findings:

“Due to the bank-induced mortgage craze and crisis, 20% of New York homeowners owe more on their homes than the homes are worth,” explains New York Communities for Change Executive Director Jonathan Westin. “By adjusting bank-inflated mortgages down to fair market value, we could stimulate the local economy by as much as $1 billion and create 17,000 new jobs. It’s good for homeowners, good for communities, good for the city, and even good for banks – whose risk of defaults would drop dramatically.”

“This report highlights the power that our city has to take a stand to improve income inequality. The Great Recession has not eased for most New Yorkers. We have lost good jobs, and the remaining jobs have actually deteriorated. In banking itself, this is shockingly true,” said Deborah Axt, Make the Road New York’s Co-Executive Director. “Frontline bank workers report less pay, inadequate healthcare, and more work with less staff. A full 32% of surveyed bank workers even report working overtime without pay. It is a tragic moment in New York City history when we learn that the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in our nation, perhaps the world, seem to be committing wage theft.”

ABOUT NEW DAY NEW YORK COALITION

The New Day New York Coalition is a new coalition made up of community groups, faith organizations, labor unions, and veterans of Occupy Wall Street working for years on issues of economic fairness – united to organize a week of actions demonstrating that the vision and policy principles New Yorkers voted for in the past election have popular support and practical pathways forward.

The coalition includes Center for Popular Democracy; United NY; Strong Economy for All Coalition; ALIGN NY; New York Communities for Change; Make the Road NY; Alliance for Quality Education; Coalition for Educational Justice; Walmart Free New York; Coalition for the Homeless; Food and Water Watch; NY Citizen Action; Met Council on Housing; Community Voices Heard; United Federation of Teachers; Professional Staff Congress; Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (UFCW); Communication Workers of America Transport Workers Union Local 100; New York State Nurses Association; Service Employees International Union 1199 – United Healthcare Workers East; Service Employees International Union 32BJ; Alternative Banking; Not An Alternative; Beautiful Trouble; 99 Pickets; MoveOn NY; and others.

An Arizona employer is stiffing a small-business owner on a completed job, affecting dozens of low-income employees.

Sounds like the kind of greedhead Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families is targeting with its campaign to raise the minimum wage, right?

Wrong — the employer is Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families. The campaign refuses to pay the last $65,000 of a $965,000 bill to Sign Here Petitions, the company that hired the people who gathered the signatures that put the measure on this November's general-election ballot.

Sign Here owner Bonita Burks sued the campaign on September 21 to recover the balance due. In the meantime, Burks says, she has been unable to distribute final paychecks to the 45 to 50 petition gatherers she hired to get Prop 206 onto the ballot.

It's not as if the minimum-wage campaign can't afford to pay Burks, a Maricopa resident who has owned her own business for 12 years. Though the campaign ran short of money over the summer, its spokesman, Bill Scheel, confirms that Arizonans for Fair Wages expects to receive an influx of $1.5 million in donations any day now.

Scheel says the campaign intentionally shorted Burks' company because it didn't do its job well enough, resulting in tens of thousands in unexpected expenses.

If Arizona voters approve the minimum-wage measure in November, the state's minimum wage would go up to $10 an hour next year and rise to $12 in 2020. Waitresses and others who expect tips would see their wages increase from $5.05 to $7 by 2017, and to $9 by 2020. The ballot initiative also mandates that workers can take between three and five days of earned sick leave annually.

Much of the money for the campaign has come from out-of-state donors as part of a national effort by activists and labor unions. Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), the largest donor, is itself being funded by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Popular Democracy. The Commercial Workers union Region 8 States Council and California-based Fairness Project are also major contributors.

As New Times reported in August, a member of the political-strategy firm hired by the campaign, Javelina, loaned the campaign $100,000 after it ran short of cash while defending itself from a legal challenge that could have kicked the measure off the ballot.

Scheel, a cofounder of Javelina and spokesman for the campaign, said in August that he gave the campaign the loan on August 4 to cover unexpected expenses from a legal challenge by the Arizona Restaurant Association.

The restaurant owners behind the ARA, an influential organization led by Steve Chucri, one of five Maricopa County supervisors, doesn't want to see minimum wage go up and sued the campaign in an attempt to deny voters the right to decide the question. The ARA's lawyers argued that many of the campaign's signature gatherers were felons or had filled out their forms incorrectly, meaning tens of thousands of signatures should have been tossed. The workers are typically paid $3 to $5 for each signature they collect.

The ARA identified up to 85,000 signatures they claimed were no good, and expected to find even more invalid ones. At least 150,642 valid signatures were needed out of the 271,883 turned in by the campaign.

Yet before a deeper probe of the campaign's signature-gathering process occurred, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joshua Rogers dismissed the ARA's complaint because it hadn't been filed on time. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ruling on appeal.

The campaign had apparently run out money before the lawsuit was filed, though. On July 19, about two weeks after the July 7 deadline to turn in signatures to the state, Sign Here and the campaign — represented by Scheel — drew up a one-page amendment to their original contract. In the amendment, Burks made clear that the campaign owed $186,884.60 and would assess a late fee of $1,000 per day starting on July 18.

The campaign "understands and agrees that the final invoice amount is requires for [Burks] to pay individuals already-earned monies," the contract states, adding that if Burks is sued by the signature gatherers, the campaign will cover the costs.

Scheel signed the amended contract.

About a month later, Burks says, Scheel promised falsely that the money was on the way.

Burks provided New Times with a screenshot that shows a text exchange with Scheel on Friday, August 19:

"Bill, Please send me a text once the wire has been. Thank you," Burks texted.

"The wire has been initiated," Scheel texted back.

But the following Monday, the money had not materialized in Sign Here's account.

"Sorry," Scheel informed Burks in another text. "We have been on conference calls with the national funders all morning. We've been instructed to hold off any further wires till after the Supreme Court rules on the appeal, which we hope will be Friday."

The state Supreme Court upheld Rogers' ruling on August 30, clearing its final hurdle to make the ballot.

Scheel says Sign Here invoiced the campaign a total of $965,000, of which the campaign paid $900,000.

"We paid 93 percent of everything that was due," he says.

The campaign contracted with Sign Here for more than just making the ballot, he argues: "It was about making sure circulators were qualified. She promised 80 percent validity — it came in at barely 50 percent. That's not acceptable."

The lawsuit cost the campaign $70,000 in legal fees, and Burks' company "nearly put the campaign in jeopardy," he says.

Scheel admits that he doesn't know whether Judge Rogers would have thrown out enough signatures to void the measure, had the ARA's challenge been filed on time.

"No one ever did the math on our side," he says.

But that isn't the issue, Scheel maintains. Burks didn't properly vet the signature gatherers, which cost the campaign $70,000 by leaving a potential vulnerability for the ARA to exploit.

The campaign recouped $33,500 of the legal fees via a settlement with the ARA, Scheel says. Arizonans for Fair Wages could have asked for up to $55,000 in legal fees, but decide to settle rather than prolong the fight, he says.

Scheel also confirms, as he told New Times in August, that the campaign is about to receive $1.5 million in donations from its national backers to pay for marketing and promotion of the measure in the final weeks before the election. Some of that money has already trickled in, he says, and the campaign has used it to pay 15 of the signature gatherers who haven't received checks from Sign Here.

Burks did such a poor job, Scheel says, that according to the campaign's calculations, she owes the campaign $35,000.

Gathering signatures for a ballot initiative can be a good way to make extra money, typically paying between $3 and $5 per signature.

Gathering signatures for a ballot initiative can be a good way to make extra money, typically paying between $3 and $5 per signature.

"She's a small-businessperson who unfortunately and sadly dropped the ball," he says.

Burks says she's upset and frustrated by the situation. Signature gatherers keep contacting her, asking when they'll get their last checks.

"They're hurting bad," she says. "My phone's blowing up every day."

By her account, adding in the $1,000-a-day late fee, Arizonans for Fair Wages now owes her company $143,000.

"I'm standing firm: You owe the money, you need to pay it," she says.

Burks says she doesn't have the money to pay the petition gatherers the remainder of what they're owed and says she made "no profit" on the project. Campaign officials took advantage of Sign Here to make a strong final push to collect more signatures before the July 7 deadline, even though they were broke at the time, she adds.

"They told me in the last week: Get as many as you can because our volunteer efforts suck," she says. The workers came up with an additional 35,000 signatures.

"My team and I, we worked so hard in the 120-degree heat," she says. "I was paying bonuses. I haven't made one damned dime on it. I really wanted to see it happen, for the people."

At least one signature gatherer is suing Burks in Maricopa County Justice Court.

Donna Fox worked for Sign Here before returning home to Kingsport, Tennessee. She has been staying in Scottsdale for the past couple of weeks, making the nearly 2,000-mile trip to resolve the issue.

Fox says her work for Sign Here was impeccable, and that Burks' company owes her $1,320 for her last week's work. She is suing for three times that amount, as allowed under state law.

She could probably make a deal to get her money from Arizonans for Fair Wages, Fox says. "But I don't trust them."

Even if she wins her suit, Fox says she's not sure whether she'll ever see her money. But she's hoping Burks wins her suit against the campaign, which Fox believes treated Sign Here badly.

"This is like Donald Trump strategy," Fox says of Arizonans for Fair Wages. "You can do the work, but we're not paying you. They don't walk the walk they're talking. This is nothing more than business for them."

As for Burks, with whom Fox says she shares a friendly, albeit contentious, relationship: "I chew her out all the time. I tell her she's a complete shithead because she led people to believe the check was in the mail."

The campaign offered to settle the suit for $32,500, Burks says, but she turned them down because it wouldn't cover the money she owes to the petition gatherers.

"My circulators really need their money to pay rent and put food on the table," Burks says. "I believe Arizona Fair Wages just don't care about the people who worked so hard to get their issue on the ballot."

By BY RAY STERN

Source