Campaign News

The proposal would allow workers to know their schedules ahead of time and earn overtime if they work more than eight hours a day. It would affect all Minneapolis businesses with more than one employee.

The Minneapolis restaurant scene is one of flavor, variety and growth. It’s just a slice of the local business scene but one councilmember said that scenery needs some change.

“We’re hearing about gaps in the workplace that are disproportionately affecting low-wage workers, women and people of color,” councilmember Elizabeth Gladden said.

So she and a list of other city workers have drafted a plan. It would mean workers get their schedule a month out, they get paid sick leave and any shift over eight hours would mean overtime.

Christina Cortez has worked at McDonald’s for nine years. She said knowing her schedule 28 days out would be huge.

“Then I wouldn’t have to worry, Am I going to schedule my appointment or my baby’s appointment on the day I’m actually supposed to be at work?” she said.

A partner at Hell’s Kitchen said his employees don’t seem to need a month’s notice.

“[We’ve talked] to our servers about, What do you want?” Pat Forciea said. “Everybody kind of agreed on two weeks.”

Joe Elliot, father to 4-year-old Jamir said the sick leave is what excites him. He said he didn’t get any when he broke his hand,

“I had to debate [whether] to stay home and relax, like the doctor said, or lose my job,” Elliot said.

But change comes at a cost.

“Maybe businesses feel it’s just too expensive to do business in Minneapolis, so I’m instead going to open up my restaurant in Edina or I’m going to open it up in Bloomington,” he said.

But he said if it all passes, he’ll see it through.

“We want to do what’s right for the people who work here and their families,” he said.

A March report from the Department of Health found that the lack of paid sick leave in Minnesota workplaces has contributed to contagious disease outbreaks and actually added to employers’ health care expenses.

WCCO also spoke with a labor attorney. He said the paid sick leave and overtime seem like reasonable changes, but scheduling 28 days out is a bit extreme. He said 14 days out would be more practical.

The council hopes to vote on an ordinance by the end of the year.

Source: CBS Minnesota

Executive Summary

In the ten years since Hurricane Katrina, post-storm changes to the state’s charter school law have dramatically grown the number of charter schools in the state. Since 2005, charter school enrollment in the state has grown 1,188 percent. Through this growth, the Louisiana Department of Education’s Recovery School District—created to facilitate state takeover of struggling schools—has become the first charter-only school district in the country, with other states lining up to copy its model. Louisiana taxpayers have invested heavily, paying billions of dollars to charters and state takeover schools since the storm, including over $831 million in the 2014/2015 school year alone.

The rapid growth and massive investment in charter schools has been accompanied by a dramatic underinvestment in oversight, leaving Louisiana’s students, parents, teachers and taxpayers at risk of academic failures and financial fraud. The state’s failure to create an effective financial oversight system is obvious, as Louisiana charter schools have experienced millions in known losses from fraud and financial mismanagement so far, which is likely just the tip of the iceberg. According to standard forensic auditing methodologies, the deficiencies in charter oversight throughout Louisiana suggest tens of millions of dollars in undiscovered losses for the 2013-14 school year alone.

Download the full report here.

In this report, we identify three fundamental flaws with Louisiana’s financial oversight of charter schools:

Oversight depends too heavily on self-reporting by charter schools or the reports of whistleblowers. Louisiana’s oversight agencies rely almost entirely on audits paid for by the charters themselves and whistleblowers. While important to uncover fraud, neither method systematically detects or effectively prevents fraud. The general auditing techniques used in charter school reports do not uncover fraud on their own. The audits commissioned by the charter schools use general auditing techniques designed to expose inaccuracies or inefficiencies. Without audits specifically designed to detect and uncover fraud, however, state and local agencies will rarely detect deliberate fraud without a whistleblower. Inadequate staffing prevents the thorough detection and elimination fraud. Louisiana 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 for existing staff—agencies are unable to uncover clues that might lead to fuller investigations and the discovery of fraud.

As the state has insufficiently resourced financial oversight, it has failed to create a structure that provides struggling schools and their students with a pathway to academic success. While underinvesting in the dissemination and implementation of successful strategies to lift academically struggling schools up, state lawmakers have continued to invest in both charter expansion and conversions of public schools to charters. Coupled with an unwillingness to help failing schools succeed, the rapid growth of charters has failed Louisiana children, families and taxpayers. Since 2005, approximately $700 million in public tax dollars have been spent on charter schools that currently have not achieved a C or better on the state’s grading system.

In this report we identify two fundamental flaws with Louisiana’s academic oversight of charter schools:

Underinvestment in systems that help struggling schools succeed. Lawmakers and regulators have invested in systems that set high standards and then close schools that fail to meet them, rather than helping them improve to meet the standards. This investment in a severe accountability system does not support schools achieve academic success. Heavy reliance on data that is vulnerable to manipulation. The state’s academic oversight system relies largely on sets of data that can be manipulated by regulators, authorizers, or the charters themselves. Without reliable data, schools, parents and the public have no way to accurately gauge academic quality at their schools.

To address these serious deficiencies in Louisiana’s system, we recommend the following:

Mandate New Measures Designed to Detect and Prevent Fraud

Charter school governing boards should be required to institute an internal fraud risk management program, including an annual fraud risk assessment. Charter school governing boards 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. The Louisiana Legislative Auditor should conduct regular fraud audits, prioritizing charter schools with heightened levels of fraud risk. Auditing teams should include members certified in financial forensics trained to detect fraud

Increase Financial 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. Center for Popular Democracy & Coalition for Community Schools 3 The Louisiana Legislative Auditor should create a dedicated charter school fraud hotline for whistleblowers. Charter school governing boards should post the findings of their annual fraud risk internal assessments on their websites. Oversight agencies should determine what steps the nonprofit governing boards and executives of charter schools have taken to guard against fraud over the past 10 years and issue a report to the public detailing their findings and recommendations. Charter school governing boards should provide parents of students enrolled in charter schools free access to all materials related to their fraud risk management program.

The state should impose a moratorium on new charter schools until the state oversight system is adequately reformed.

Redesign the System to Support Struggling Schools

Under the current system, when regulators find that a school is not performing well, they put the school on the “Intervention Ladder”. The Intervention Ladder should be replaced with mandatory hands-on long-term strategic support from the state and stakeholders. Lawmakers should invest additional resources to ensure that regulators have enough staff with the appropriate expertise to meet the significant turnaround needs in the state.

Redesign the Data Collection System

Lawmakers should mandate that underlying data comparators remain consistent from year-to-year to allow oversight officials and the public to accurately compare school performance. In cases where changes to underlying data are unavoidable, data should be presented using both old and new cut-scores for a period of three years. The state should invest in ongoing test erasure analysis. Regulators should implement a process to ensure that the school reported data used to calculate the School Performance Score (SPS) is reliable by conducting regular audits of school-reported data. The state and authorizers must make funding for regular data audits a priority. The Louisiana Legislative Audit should include a review of the LDOE’s data auditing in its regular audits of the agency. Finally, the legislature should mandate that all of the data used to calculate School Performance Scores be made available to the public, in its raw form.

Given the rapid and continuing expansion of state school takeovers and the charter school industry in the state through the investment of public dollars, Louisiana must act now to reform its oversight system. Without reform, Louisianans face many more years of failing schools and millions—if not billions—of dollars more lost to charter school fraud and financial mismanagement.

Download the full report here.

 

For bondholders sitting on Puerto Rican debt, Hurricane Maria may have come just when they needed it, just as a yearslong battle over the fate of the island’s financial future was beginning to turn against them. Or, depending on how the politics shake out, they could see their entire bet go south.

Read the full article here.

This is the third post in a series about ballot measures to raise the minimum wage in Colorado and three other states. The first post introduced a restaurateur in Denver who supports the increase and the national organization that persuaded him to go public with that support, is here. The second looked at how the provision could widen inequality among servers and kitchen workers.

There are 32 mostly state and local business associations that have signed on to Keep Colorado Working, the coalition formed to fight Amendment 70, which would raise the state’s minimum wage through a constitutional amendment. Only one of them, however, has actually contributed money to fight the ballot measure: The Colorado Restaurant Association and its political action committee have spent $359,000, which makes it the single largest Colorado contributor to campaign, which has raised $1.7 million to date.

Indeed, while dozens of local food services businesses have chipped at least $105,000 to the effort, which has raised $1.7 million to date, more than $1 million has come into the coalition’s coffers from out of state, including $850,000 from a shadowy business group called the Workforce Fairness Institute. Other large national contributors include Darden, the Olive Garden’s parent corporation, and the National Restaurant Association.

But all this is far less than the $2 to $3 million that opponents had anticipated spending to try and defeat the amendment. And it is dwarfed by the $5.2 million that advocates for the vote, working under the name Colorado Families for a Fair Minimum Wage, have raised. Most of their money has come from national unions and union-backed organizations like The Fairness Project and progressive philanthropies like the Center for Popular Democracy and the Civic Participation Action Fund.

In a campaign awash with money, the efforts of Business for a Fair Minimum Wage, which has been organizing Colorado businesses to support the amendment, are fairly modest. Business for a Fair Minimum Wage founder and C.E.O. Holly Sklar won’t say how much her group is spending in Colorado, but the effort is being funded by Dr. Bronner’s, the organic soap-maker with a long history of activism. (She declines to further identify its funders, except to say that they comprise businesses and foundations.) Dr. Bronner’s has made raising the minimum wage a top company priority, even relabeling some of its soap bottles with “Fair Pay Today!” “People should be able to make ends meet on the wages they get,” says David Bronner, C.E.O. of his family’s company, which is registered as a benefit corporation. “They should not have to rely on inefficient government programs like food stamps and housing assistance. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize companies using the welfare system to keep wages low.”

Bronner says his company has given about $75,000 to Business for a Fair Minimum Wage. “We really like what they’re doing,” he says. “I think it’s really important that policy makers hear from business owners, that business owners too see value in raising the minimum wage, and it isn’t just about labor groups and worker rights.”

Outside of Colorado, business groups have mounted little more than token opposition. In each of Arizona, Maine, and Washington, where advocates have raised over $1 million to promote their respective ballot measures, opponents have raised $100,000 or less, according to state campaign finance records. The Arizona Restaurant Association sued to try and prevent the minimum wage from making the November ballot, but hasn’t spent any money combating it since then. (The group’s president and C.E.O., Steve Chucri, didn’t respond to requests for comment.) The state chamber of commerce has agreed to kick in $20,000.

In Maine, the state restaurant association has spent nearly $78,000 to fight the ballot amendment through its political action committee, but apart from small contributions from Darden ($7,500) and the National Restaurant Association ($2,500), the opposition has recorded no contributions from out of state.

It’s not clear — even to some of the principals — why Colorado became the battlefield of choice in the fight over minimum wage at the expense of media outlets in Arizona, Maine, and Washington. “Why they’re not putting money to fight it here is a mystery to me,” says Maine Restaurant Association president and C.E.O. Steve Hewins of the national organizations, though he allows that “Maine to a degree is off a lot of radar screens.”

The National Restaurant Association declined to respond directly to Hewins’s charge of neglect. But in an emailed statement, the organization’s spokesman, Steve Danon, wrote, “While we work in partnership, our state restaurant associations take the lead on these issues, as they know what works best for restaurateurs in their state. We’ve been vocal on opposing drastic increases to the minimum wage overall.” The Workforce Fairness Institute and Darden didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But Tyler Sandberg, who is managing the Keep Colorado Working campaign, suggests that perhaps national groups are drawn to the Colorado initiative because, as a constitutional amendment, it “is the worst-written of all of them.” But he also says he’s made a point of soliciting those contributions. “When we saw all the national money coming in on the other side, we realized we would have to fight fire with fire and seek national contributions as well.”

Sklar says her pro-wage-hike business group is focusing on Colorado because the Arizona and Washington measures also include paid sick leave, which is beyond her group’s scope, and in Maine a local small-business coalition is pressing the case.

In any event, the vast sums spent in Colorado appear to have made little difference. Polls in all four states show the wage increase winning by similar margins, with 55 percent to 60 percent of voters backing it.

By Robb Mandelbaum

Source