The Washington Post - December 5, 2013 - The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency, asking it to disclose efforts to stop municipalities from...
Longtime legal residents aim for citizenship
Somos was one of 14 organizations nationwide to win the nonpartisan grant from Cities for Citizenship, a national initiative aimed at increasing citizenship among eligible U.S. permanent residents...
Somos was one of 14 organizations nationwide to win the nonpartisan grant from Cities for Citizenship, a national initiative aimed at increasing citizenship among eligible U.S. permanent residents and encouraging cities to invest in citizenship programs. The organization site says it is chaired by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, with support from the Center for Popular Democracy and the National Partnership for New Americans. Citi Community Development is the founding corporate partner.
Read the full article here.
The End of On-Call Scheduling?
Retailers have been under intense pressure from labor groups, regulators, and ...
Retailers have been under intense pressure from labor groups, regulators, and their own employees to end on-call scheduling—the practice in which shift workers are called to work on short notice, and are often uncompensated if it turns out to be a slow day. On Friday, New York attorney-general Eric Schneiderman’s office announced that J.Crew will end on-call scheduling nationwide this month. The retailer joins Urban Outfitters, Abercrombie & Fitch, Bath & Body Works, Gap, and Victoria’s Secret, which all have announced changes since Schneiderman’s office launched an inquiry into the practice at over a dozen companies.
“After discussion with my office, J. Crew has agreed to end on-call shifts nationwide and to provide one week of advance notice about schedules to employees at all New York store locations,” said Schneiderman in a statement. “Workers deserve protections that allow them to have a reliable schedule in order to arrange for transportation to work, to accommodate child-care needs, and to budget their family finances.”
This is the sixth agreement Schneiderman has reached with a major retailer. In April, the New York attorney-general’s office sent letters to 13 retailers asking for information regarding their scheduling policies: “We have been informed that a number of companies in New York State utilize on-call shifts and require employees to report in some manner, whether by phone, text message, or email, before the designated shift in order to learn whether their services are ultimately needed on-site that day,” said the letter.
The letter expresses concern that the practice might be in violation of a state regulation that employees who report for work must be paid for at least four hours (or the number of hours in a regular shift) of work. It cites the financial and personal strains for workers without predictable schedules—from being unable to work another job or attend school, to the strains of finding childcare last minute. Further, a report by the Economic Policy Institute found that the lowest income workers face the most irregular work schedules.
A spokesperson for Gap Inc. confirmed that all five brands—The Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Intermix, and Athleta—has phased out on-call scheduling globally by the end of September.* L Brand—the parent company for Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works—also confirmed that they have ended the practice nationwide.
Gap is also working on a pilot project with Joan Williams, a professor and director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies scheduling issues, on new ways to stabilize worker schedules. Lambert’s researchfound that 64 percent of food-service workers and half of retail workers receive less than a week’s notice for shifts.
For now, the shift away from on-call scheduling seems to be only gaining momentum: Earlier this week, Forever 21 was hit with a lawsuit from a former employee over unpaid on-call scheduling. And, for the seven remaining companies that Schneiderman’s office contacted (the identities of which are unknown), such momentum may soon be overpowering.
Source: The Atlantic
[created] | Published by: Newsweek
Trump’s Replacement for Janet Yellen as Fed Chair Should Follow Her Lead, Economists Say
Trump’s Replacement for Janet Yellen as Fed Chair Should Follow Her Lead, Economists Say
Not everyone was so optimistic in Powell. Sam Bell—a research adviser at Fed Up, a campaign to encourage the central bank to keep interest rates low, as Yellen did—also criticized the Powell pick...
Not everyone was so optimistic in Powell. Sam Bell—a research adviser at Fed Up, a campaign to encourage the central bank to keep interest rates low, as Yellen did—also criticized the Powell pick.
Read the full article here.
Fed more upbeat on economy, unclear on timing of rate hike
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade...
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade.
Fed officials voted unanimously to keep the target rate at zero for now, after wrapping up their regular two-day policy-setting meeting in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. In a carefully worded statement, the central bank noted that the economy has expanded “moderately.” It pointed to solid job gains and lower unemployment as signs that the labor market has improved, adding that underemployment has also diminished.
Perhaps most important, the Fed characterized the risks to its outlook for the economy as “nearly balanced” — the same description it used after its previous meeting. Some analysts believe that the Fed will move once the risks are weighted more evenly.
U.S. stock markets spiked after the release of the Fed statement but quickly settled back down. Both the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 average were up about half a percentage point in mid-afternoon trading.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said several times that she expects the central bank will raise its benchmark federal funds rate before the end of the year, a move that would herald the end of the central bank’s unconventional — and controversial — efforts to resuscitate the American economy.
Many investors and economists believe the moment will come during the Fed’s meeting in September, which would be followed by a news conference allowing Yellen to explain the central bank’s decision more fully. But a vocal minority think the Fed will wait to move in December, the next meeting with a scheduled news conference. A few economists — including two officials within the central bank — believe the Fed should hold off until 2016 to be sure the recovery is solid.
Fed officials have debated how strong of a signal to send as the moment of liftoff nears. But the central bank has repeatedly emphasized that its decision will depend on the evolution of economic data — and so investors should look to the numbers for the green light for action.
A key figure will be the government’s estimate of second quarter economic growth slated for release Thursday. Falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a sharp slowdown in the growth of consumer spending helped drive an unexpected contraction in the economy over the winter. Fed officials are hoping that second quarter GDP growth will prove the dip was merely temporary.
A stronger reading would also align with the pickup in hiring over the past two months. Unemployment is nearing its lowest sustainable level, making some officials antsy for the Fed to start tapping the brakes on the economy.
But others have argued that exceptionally low inflation means the Fed has plenty of time to act. Price growth remains well below the central bank’s 2 percent target, and officials have said they want to be “reasonably confident” it is moving up before tightening policy. In June, the central bank had stated that energy prices “appear to have stabilized.” But on Wednesday, it cited further declines in energy prices, along with the falling price of imports, as reasons inflation has remained low.
The Fed slashed its target interest rate to zero when the country was in the grips of the financial crisis in 2008, and it has stayed there ever since. In addition, it pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in an effort to lower longer-term rates and spur borrowing among consumers and investment among businesses. Unwinding those policies will likely take years.
Meanwhile, the Fed is facing renewed scrutiny in Congress. The House Financial Services committee on Wednesday passed a bill that would require the central bank to explain when it deviates from certain monetary policy models, disclose more information on salaries and allow for audits of the Fed's decision-making process. Another bill sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady would create a commission to examine the Fed, which recently celebrated its centennial.
“The Fed is trying to do too much,” Brady said in an interview. “It can be the right tool, but not for everything and everybody.”
The central bank is also facing pressure from the other end of the political spectrum. A coalition of community activists and labor groups is urging the Fed to leave its target rate unchanged amid elevated unemployment rates among minorities.
“Until we reach genuine full employment, there is no reason for the Fed to contemplate putting people out of work and slowing down our economy via interest rate hikes,” the Fed Up campaign said in a statement.
Source: The Washington Post
Groups sue feds over foreclosure fighting tactic
The Washington Post - December 5, 2013 - The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency, asking it to disclose efforts to stop municipalities from using eminent domain to bail out underwater homeowners and make its dealings with the financial industry more transparent.
The ACLU, Center for Popular Democracy and other nonprofits filed a freedom of information lawsuit against the agency Thursday in federal court in San Francisco.Richmond, Calif., was the first city to officially codify the divisive foreclosure fighting plan, which has drawn zealous opposition from Wall Street and Washington. Two lawsuits challenging the use of eminent domain have been thrown out, but will likely be refiled. The city has not yet used eminent domain to seize a mortgage.Irvington, N.J., is moving forward with the strategy, and the city council in Newark took its first steps toward moving forward with a plan Wednesday. Yonkers, N.Y., is considering it, but other places have scrapped the idea because of opposition from banks or legal hurdles.The agency said in August it may initiate legal challenges against municipalities that want to use eminent domain to fight foreclosures and could direct regulated entities to stop doing business in those places. The nonprofits said most of the cities exploring the use of eminent domain have been besieged by foreclosures and have predominantly low-income, minority populations.The nonprofits filed freedom of information requests with the agency in October, seeking communication between agency leadership and representatives of the banking, mortgage and financial industry, and records of meetings between the agency and financiers, among other requests.FHFA acknowledged, but did not complete, the requests, according to the lawsuit, so the groups sued. The nonprofits are asking for the documents to be procured on an expedited basis.“The FHFA has taken an aggressive stance on this issue in a way that has harmed minority communities. The public deserves to know why,” said Linda Lye, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in a statement.A FHFA spokeswoman said the agency is not commenting on the lawsuit.By using eminent domain, municipalities can circumvent mortgage contracts, acquire loans from bondholders, write them down and give them back to the bondholders with reduced principals. According to Cornell University law professor Robert C. Hockett, who devised the plan, only government has the power to forcibly sidestep mortgage contracts.The tactic only works with so-called private label security mortgages, or ones that are not backed by the federal government.FHFA oversees government-backed loans owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They cannot be seized by eminent domain.The lawsuit said one of the agency’s “statutory mandates is to help the housing market recover,” and threatening to sue municipalities that try to use eminent domain conflicts with that obligation.“By threatening legal action,” the suit said, the agency “effectively blocks the communities hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis from pursuing one potentially effective solution on behalf of their residents.”The suit also said the agency’s threats to deny credit to communities raises Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act concerns.Members of the financial industry have said they fear using eminent domain could be a slippery slope, and penalizes people who save and invest in mortgage-backed securities.In Washington, Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Calif. Republican Rep. John Campbell proposed legislation that would bar the federal government from backing mortgages in places that use eminent domain to seize mortgages. SIFMA, a group that represents security firms, banks and asset managers and 11 other groups sent a letter to Congress opposing the use of eminent domain.Last month, 10 members of Congress sent a letter asking the head of FHFA to rescind its threat to sue places that use eminent domain.Source
[created] | Published by: Rewire
111 Miles in Ten Days: Marchers Take Nonviolent Message From Charlottesville to D.C.
111 Miles in Ten Days: Marchers Take Nonviolent Message From Charlottesville to D.C.
About a hundred people are walking north from downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, the scene of a white supremacist rally and riot this month, to Washington, D.C., 111 miles away. The journey—a...
About a hundred people are walking north from downtown Charlottesville, Virginia, the scene of a white supremacist rally and riot this month, to Washington, D.C., 111 miles away. The journey—a nonviolent response to the violence of the hate groups that descended on Charlottesville—is expected to take ten days.
They are led by the Reverend Cornell William Brooks, a civil rights lawyer and former president and CEO of the NAACP.
Read the full article here.
[created] | Published by: Next City
Texas Cities Exploring Creative Ways to Protect Residents from Deportation
Texas Cities Exploring Creative Ways to Protect Residents from Deportation
Sarah Johnson, director for Local Progress — a national network of elected officials — says she is seeing momentum for these kind of policies. “There is an interest from all of our members in...
Sarah Johnson, director for Local Progress — a national network of elected officials — says she is seeing momentum for these kind of policies. “There is an interest from all of our members in Texas and in other states across the country in really pursuing the strongest possible policies to protect immigrants at this time,” Johnson says.
Read the full article here.
[created] | Published by: Refinery 29
I'm Still Recovering From Hurricane Maria — & Here's What I Want You To Know
I'm Still Recovering From Hurricane Maria — & Here's What I Want You To Know
For activists like Xiomara Caro of the Center for Popular Democracy, it's all emblematic of a larger trend: that the struggles of Puerto Rico are its own, borne under the indifferent gaze of the...
For activists like Xiomara Caro of the Center for Popular Democracy, it's all emblematic of a larger trend: that the struggles of Puerto Rico are its own, borne under the indifferent gaze of the United States.
Read the full article here.
Risking Public Money: California Charter School Fraud
Executive Summary
In 1992, California became the second state in the nation to pass legislation authorizing the creation of charter schools. Since the law’s passage, which originally...
Executive Summary
In 1992, California became the second state in the nation to pass legislation authorizing the creation of charter schools. Since the law’s passage, which originally authorized 100 charter schools, the number of charter schools in California has grown rapidly. Today, California is home to the largest number of charter schools in the country, with over 1100 schools providing instruction to over half a million students. In the 2013-14 school year, California charter schools received more than $3 billion in public funding.
Download the full report here.
Despite the tremendous investment of public dollars and the size of its charter school population, California has failed to implement a system that proactively monitors charters for fraud, waste and mismanagement. While charter schools are subject to significant reporting requirements and monitoring by oversight bodies, including chartering entities, county superintendents and the State Controller, no oversight body regularly conducts audits.
In 2006, California took a step in the right direction by amending the Charter Schools Act to permit county superintendents who suspect fraud or mismanagement at charter schools to request an “extraordinary audit” from the Financial Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a state agency charged with helping local educational agencies fulfill their financial and management responsibilities. Although FCMAT only conducts an audit when requested to do so, its findings reveal internal control deficiencies and various forms of mismanagement ranging in severity and form—from inappropriate self-dealing by charter school staff to the spending of thousands of public dollars without documentation. Even after 2006, charter schools in California continue to operate year in and year out without regulator-level audits that are designed specifically to determine whether the public dollars funding these privately managed schools are being spent properly. This lack of appropriate government audits is a problem, especially given the findings of FCMAT’s audits.
The number of instances of serious fraud uncovered by whistleblowers and the FCMAT suggests that the fraud problem is likely not isolated to the charter operators that have been caught. In fact, California’s charter oversight system’s deficiencies suggest that the $81,400,000 in fraud, waste and abuse by charter operators that has been uncovered to date is likely just the tip of the iceberg. Based on conservative estimates, California stands to lose more than $100 million to charter school fraud in 2015. The vast majority of this fraud perpetrated by charter officials will go undetected because California lacks the oversight necessary to identify the fraud. In this report we describe three fundamental flaws with California’s oversight of charter schools:
Oversight depends heavily on self-reporting by charter schools or by whistleblowers. California’s oversight agencies rely almost entirely on audits paid for by charter operators and complaints from whistleblowers. Both methods are important to uncover fraud; however,neither is a systematic approach to fraud detection, nor are they effective in fraud prevention. General auditing techniques alone do not uncover fraud. The audits commissioned by the charter schools use general auditing techniques rather than techniques specifically designedto detect and uncover fraud. The current processes may expose inaccuracies or inefficiencies; however, without audits targeted at uncovering financial fraud, state and local agencies willrarely be able to detect fraud without a whistleblower. Oversight bodies lack adequate staffing to detect and eliminate fraud. In California, the vast majority of charter schools are authorized by local school districts that lack adequate staffing to monitor charter schools and ferret out fraud. Staff members who are responsible for oversight often juggle competing obligations that make it difficult to focus on oversight and identify signs of potential fraud and abuse.To address these serious deficiencies in California’s system, we recommend the following reforms:
Mandate Audits Designed to Detect and Prevent Fraud
Charter schools should be required to institute an internal fraud risk management program, including an annual fraud risk assessment. Charter schools should be required to commission an annual audit of internal controls over financial reporting that is integrated with the audit of financial statements charter schools currently commission. These integrated audits should require auditors to provide an opinion on the quality of internal controls and financial statements. Oversight agencies, such as the State Comptroller’s Office and Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), a state agency, should conduct audits on charter schools once every three years. Auditing teams should include members certified in Financial Forensics trained to detect fraud.Increase Transparency & Accountability
Oversight agencies should create a system to categorize and rank charter audits by level of fraud risk they pose to facilitate public engagement. Oversight agencies should post the findings of their annual internal assessments of fraud risk on their websites. Oversight agencies should determine what steps charter school nonprofit governing boards and executives have taken to guard against fraud over the past 10 years and issue a report to the public detailing theirs findings and recommendations. Charter school authorizers should take fraud risk assessments into account when evaluating whether to renew a school’s charter. Until the state implements the oversight mechanisms described above, authorizers should only approve new charters that commit to the fraud controls recommended above.Given the rapid and continuing expansion of the charter school industry and the tremendous investment of public dollars, California must act now to reform its oversight system. Without reform, California stands to lose millions of dollars as a result of charter school fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Download the full report here.
Fraud and Financial Mismanagement in Pennsylvania's Charter Schools
Charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania school children since 1997. Yet every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be...
Charter school officials have defrauded at least $30 million intended for Pennsylvania school children since 1997. Yet every year virtually all of the state’s charter schools are found to be financially sound. While the state has complex, multi-layered systems of oversight of the charter system, this history of financial fraud makes it clear that these systems are not effectively detecting or preventing fraud.
Download the full report.
Indeed, the vast majority of fraud was uncovered by whistleblowers and media exposés, not by the state’s oversight agencies. In this report we identify two fundamental flaws with Pennsylvania’s oversight of charter schools:
General auditing techniques alone do not uncover fraud. Pennsylvania oversight agencies rely on general auditing techniques, but not those specifically designed to uncover fraud. The current processes may expose inaccuracies or inefficiencies; however, without audits targeted at uncovering financial fraud, state agencies will rarely be able to detect fraud without a whistleblower. Adequate staffing is necessary to detect and eliminate fraud. Pennsylvania inadequately staffs its charter-school oversight agencies. In order to carry out high-quality audits of any type, auditors need enough time. With too few qualified people on staff, and too little training, agencies are unable to uncover clues that might lead to fuller investigations and the discovery of fraud.To address these two fundamental flaws, we propose targeted reforms of the existing oversight structure:
Mandate Audits Designed to Detect and Prevent Fraud
Charter schools should institute an internal fraud risk management program, including an annual fraud risk assessment, and audits that specifically investigate high-risk areas. Existing oversight bodies should perform targeted fraud audits focused on areas of risk or weakness through the annual fraud risk assessments. Auditing teams should include members certified in Financial Forensics trained to detect fraud.Increase Transparency & Accountability
All annual audits and fraud risk assessments should be posted on authorizers’ website; Charter authorizers should create a system to categorize and rank charter audits by the level of fraud risk they pose to facilitate public engagement. Charter schools should voluntarily make the findings of their internal assessments public. Charter school authorizers should perform comprehensive reviews once every three years rather than once every five years as is current law. The Attorney General’s office should conduct a review of all charter schools in Pennsylvania to identify potential fraud or inadequate school oversight by boards of directors or executives and publicize the findings.Improve Protections against Future Fraud
The state should enact other legal protections such as a statewide False Claims Act that encourage whistleblowers to report instances of fraud. The state should impose a moratorium on new charter schools until the state oversight system is adequately reformed.Pennsylvania cannot afford to wait. Since 2000, charter school enrollment in the state has doubled three times and Pennsylvania’s students, their families, and taxpayers cannot afford to lose another $30 million misspent or misdirected within the charter school system. While the reforms proposed will require additional resources, they represent a smart investment in our communities and in our future.
Download the full report.
3 days ago
3 days ago