Posts
On this Presidents' Day, we see that our local President, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, is once again the leading voice on a crucial local issue that has been overlooked by many others. This time the topic is Food.
Earlier this month, Stringer took his Food Fight to the next level by publishing his information-rich Food in the Public Interest report. http://mbpo.org/uploads/foodinthepublicinterest.pdf The report addresses the importance of food as a driver of the health of our fellow residents, and it looks carefully at our local agricultural community, its relevance, and mechanisms for protecting and strengthening the agricultural activity in and around New York City. The report also discusses hunger prevention in our city, which is particularly relevant during this period of economic stress and high unemployment. We applaud each element of the report, and we highlight for you the connection between the food that we consume as NYC residents and the quality of health we enjoy as a result.
Fat City
New York City has already shown leadership in its ban on transfats in our restaurants and in its 2008 establishment of the requirement that all restaurants with at least 15 locations nationwide post the calories contained in each item on their menus. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/nyregion/17calorie.html Yet, it seems that much more must be done. We are starting this food fight with the trends working against us. The rate of obesity and the rate of diabetes each increased 17% between 2002 and 2004 according to Stringer's Food Report.
Manhattan Borough President Stringer's report also alerts us that, amazingly, most of New York City's adults are overweight or obese http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/survey/survey-2005obesity.pdf, and that a direct correlation has been demonstrated between the parts of New York City with the lowest levels of consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and the parts of our city that have the highest levels of obesity. Unfortunately, Upper Manhattan is near the top of the list of the areas affected by both the lack of consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and the abundance of obesity. As stated in the Borough President's report, one in six restaurants in Central Harlem and East Harlem serves fast food, while the number is only one in twenty-five restaurants on the Upper East Side. Upper Manhattan is in desperate need of greater availability of high quality fresh food, and our local Community Boards can use their land use approval authority to encourage such greater availability.
We caution our fellow New Yorkers to remember that weight is not always a good proxy for physical health. Men and women in excellent physical condition with an abundance of muscle and very low levels of fat will often be deemed overweight or even obese based on government guidelines. http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=86 Will Smith and Andy Roddick would be considered overweight, and Sly Stallone and Mel Gibson would be considered obese under the current government definitions. http://www.bmiscale.com/ Each of those four celebrities should be envied in terms of their apparent physical health, but the government guidelines use only height and weight for the overweight and obese labels. Individuals with large amounts of muscle don't fit well into the guidelines.
With that caution stated, it is clear that we need to improve the overall health in all communities within NYC. Upper Manhattan includes many of the neighborhoods in our city that need the most attention and have the most work to do to achieve better health.
Recommendations
Nutrition education is a key component of overcoming the negative health trends that are affecting our city's residents. Borough President Stringer makes a number of innovative and thought-provoking recommendations in his report. The recommendations range from local actions to national policies. Amongst them:
(1) Encourage the consumption of healthy food in place of junk food
• Encourage New York City government agencies to continue reducing the amount of unhealthy and processed food served
• Encourage private and nonprofit entities to replace junk food with healthy options through grants, tenant improvement funds, tax breaks, access to low interest loans, or applicable licenses and permit processes
(2) Expand nutrition education campaigns through public service announcements, subway advertisements, etc.
(3) Develop an ongoing collaboration between nutrition experts and the city’s education and youth agencies to improve nutrition education in public schools and after-school programs
(4) Advocate for an increase in the per pupil federal reimbursement rate for school meals, which would allow for upgrades to school kitchens, improved training for staff, and the purchase of healthier unprocessed ingredients
(5) Encourage employers to promote nutrition education and healthy eating practices in the workplace by creating an online clearinghouse of information to assist employers with implementing worksite health and wellness policies
(6) Offer incentives through private insurance, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and Medicare, for healthy weight and lifestyles, such as coverage for gym memberships and counseling for obesity
Monday, February 16, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Bloomberg Campaign Spending Limit Is Needed
Mayor Bloomberg has been in office for more than seven years, and as a billionaire, he has a First Amendment right to spend as much of his own money to seek re-election as he chooses. We are correct to ask him to place a voluntary limit on his own campaign spending as he seeks re-election in 2009.
He successfully convinced the New York City Council to overturn two referenda and to provide Mayor Bloomberg with a path to a third consecutive term as Mayor. At Manhattan Viewpoint, we have opposed term limits in general, but we were outraged to see the New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg conspire to defeat the votes of the people of NYC by eliminating term limits twice supported by wide margins in city-vote plebiscites. In October 2008, Manhattan Viewpoint begged the Mayor and the City Council to let the people decide whether they had changed their minds and were prepared to accept longer term limits or no term limits. We would have been supportive of a referendum to eliminate term limits, but we cannot support the anti-democratic and unfair approach that the City Council and Mayor chose to undertake. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/10/limits-of-term-limits-in-manhattan-and.html Because the Mayor has demonstrated a willingness to operate in an anti-democratic fashion, we suggest that agreeing to limit his 2009 campaign spending may help him earn back the credibility he lost in the effort to overturn the will of the people.
Bloomberg's Campaign Spending
Mayor Bloomberg spent $78 million to win re-election in 2005, and he spent $74 million when he ran for the first time in 2001. His Democratic opponent spent $9.5 million on his entire campaign to defeat the Mayor, while Mayor Bloomberg spent nearly four times that amount on television and radio advertising alone. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/nyregion/metrocampaigns/06mayor.html He received nearly 60% of the vote in his 2005 re-election bid and is considered a favorite in the 2009 race as well.
Nonetheless, all indications are that he plans to spend at least as much seeking re-election in 2009 as he spent in 2005.
New York City's Novel Campaign Finance Approach
In NYC, public financing of campaigns for public office is a reality, and the program providing that funding is very generous. It provides that all qualified candidates seeking New York City elected positions (City Council, Borough President, Comptroller, Public Advocate, and Mayor) receive a six to one match for every contribution received from a New York City resident up to $175 per contributor. To qualify, candidates must raise above a minimum level of campaign contributions from above a minimum number of individuals (for the Mayor's race, a candidate would qualify if she raises $250,000 from at least 1,000 people, with a maximum of $175 per contributor counting toward the minimum dollar level). http://www.nyccfb.info/candidates/candidates/limits/2009.htm?sm=candidates_
The six to one match comes with one large string attached. Total campaign spending is capped. For the Mayor's race, a candidate accepting the public financing in 2009 can spend only $6.2mm in the primary and an additional $6.2mm in the general election. Therefore, assuming the Democratic nominee for Mayor in 2009 is a candidate who has agreed to participate in the New York City campaign funding system, Mayor Bloomberg will face an opponent who will be limited to $12.4 million of total spending versus the Mayor's 2005 precedent of $78 million of spending.
Voluntary Spending Limit
With a seven-year record, very high name recognition, and control of the largest municpal government in the United States, one could argue that Mayor Bloomberg should be able to win re-election without outspending his opponent nearly 10 to 1 as he did in 2005. A voluntary limit of $38 million would give Mayor Bloomberg a 3 to 1 spending advantage over the Democratic nominee, and the advantage would be greater than the 3 to 1 ratio appears.
Mayor Bloomberg faces no primary. He is an independent candidate and will not be seeking the nomination of any major party. If he seeks the nomination of some of the minor parties, he will do so without a material challenge and will not need to finance a campaign to win those nominations. The Democratic nominee will face at least one serious opponent in 2009. By the time mid-September rolls around and the Democratic Party chooses a nominee, the Democratic nominee will be low on cash from the primary fight. That nominee will have to unite the voters he voted for her with those who voted for her opponent, and she will only be allowed to spend $6.2 million against Mayor Bloomberg. Therefore, a $38 million voluntary limit from the Mayor would give him a six to one spending advantage in the general election along with incumbency advantage and the advantage of a lack of a primary challenge to fight prior to the general election. Of course, the Mayor should not be expected to maintain a voluntary spending limit if his opponent is not subject to the spending limits.
When asked about imposing a spending limit on his own campaign last week, Mayor Bloomberg became aggrivated. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/testy-mayor-dodges-questions-on-campaign-spending/ He refused to address the question and labeled it ridiculous. In reality, the question is not worthy of ridicule, but his reaction might create problems for him as he seeks to defend his record and connect with voters in these very troubling times. Voters may properly ask whether the Mayor has become too imperial - changing laws created by the voters themselves and seeking a third term as the chief executive of our great city with his vast wealth potentially scaring away challengers and being used to monopolize the media time against the Democratic nominee in 2009. A voluntary spending limit would indicate that the Mayor is willing to allow the voters to make their choice without attempting to overwhelm them with his propoaganda. He would be saying that a six to one spending advantage is all he needs to win.
Above all, the Mayor should be careful not to dismiss the concern about campaign spending. In doing so, he might remind voters that he spends nearly every weekend in Bermuda and travels to and from Bermuda is his personal jet. He is susceptible to being considered out-of-touch, and stating that agreeing to spend no more than $38 million of his own money on his campaign is "on of the most ridiculous things [he has] ever heard" suggests he is not yet trying to be in-touch.
He successfully convinced the New York City Council to overturn two referenda and to provide Mayor Bloomberg with a path to a third consecutive term as Mayor. At Manhattan Viewpoint, we have opposed term limits in general, but we were outraged to see the New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg conspire to defeat the votes of the people of NYC by eliminating term limits twice supported by wide margins in city-vote plebiscites. In October 2008, Manhattan Viewpoint begged the Mayor and the City Council to let the people decide whether they had changed their minds and were prepared to accept longer term limits or no term limits. We would have been supportive of a referendum to eliminate term limits, but we cannot support the anti-democratic and unfair approach that the City Council and Mayor chose to undertake. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/10/limits-of-term-limits-in-manhattan-and.html Because the Mayor has demonstrated a willingness to operate in an anti-democratic fashion, we suggest that agreeing to limit his 2009 campaign spending may help him earn back the credibility he lost in the effort to overturn the will of the people.
Bloomberg's Campaign Spending
Mayor Bloomberg spent $78 million to win re-election in 2005, and he spent $74 million when he ran for the first time in 2001. His Democratic opponent spent $9.5 million on his entire campaign to defeat the Mayor, while Mayor Bloomberg spent nearly four times that amount on television and radio advertising alone. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/nyregion/metrocampaigns/06mayor.html He received nearly 60% of the vote in his 2005 re-election bid and is considered a favorite in the 2009 race as well.
Nonetheless, all indications are that he plans to spend at least as much seeking re-election in 2009 as he spent in 2005.
New York City's Novel Campaign Finance Approach
In NYC, public financing of campaigns for public office is a reality, and the program providing that funding is very generous. It provides that all qualified candidates seeking New York City elected positions (City Council, Borough President, Comptroller, Public Advocate, and Mayor) receive a six to one match for every contribution received from a New York City resident up to $175 per contributor. To qualify, candidates must raise above a minimum level of campaign contributions from above a minimum number of individuals (for the Mayor's race, a candidate would qualify if she raises $250,000 from at least 1,000 people, with a maximum of $175 per contributor counting toward the minimum dollar level). http://www.nyccfb.info/candidates/candidates/limits/2009.htm?sm=candidates_
The six to one match comes with one large string attached. Total campaign spending is capped. For the Mayor's race, a candidate accepting the public financing in 2009 can spend only $6.2mm in the primary and an additional $6.2mm in the general election. Therefore, assuming the Democratic nominee for Mayor in 2009 is a candidate who has agreed to participate in the New York City campaign funding system, Mayor Bloomberg will face an opponent who will be limited to $12.4 million of total spending versus the Mayor's 2005 precedent of $78 million of spending.
Voluntary Spending Limit
With a seven-year record, very high name recognition, and control of the largest municpal government in the United States, one could argue that Mayor Bloomberg should be able to win re-election without outspending his opponent nearly 10 to 1 as he did in 2005. A voluntary limit of $38 million would give Mayor Bloomberg a 3 to 1 spending advantage over the Democratic nominee, and the advantage would be greater than the 3 to 1 ratio appears.
Mayor Bloomberg faces no primary. He is an independent candidate and will not be seeking the nomination of any major party. If he seeks the nomination of some of the minor parties, he will do so without a material challenge and will not need to finance a campaign to win those nominations. The Democratic nominee will face at least one serious opponent in 2009. By the time mid-September rolls around and the Democratic Party chooses a nominee, the Democratic nominee will be low on cash from the primary fight. That nominee will have to unite the voters he voted for her with those who voted for her opponent, and she will only be allowed to spend $6.2 million against Mayor Bloomberg. Therefore, a $38 million voluntary limit from the Mayor would give him a six to one spending advantage in the general election along with incumbency advantage and the advantage of a lack of a primary challenge to fight prior to the general election. Of course, the Mayor should not be expected to maintain a voluntary spending limit if his opponent is not subject to the spending limits.
When asked about imposing a spending limit on his own campaign last week, Mayor Bloomberg became aggrivated. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/testy-mayor-dodges-questions-on-campaign-spending/ He refused to address the question and labeled it ridiculous. In reality, the question is not worthy of ridicule, but his reaction might create problems for him as he seeks to defend his record and connect with voters in these very troubling times. Voters may properly ask whether the Mayor has become too imperial - changing laws created by the voters themselves and seeking a third term as the chief executive of our great city with his vast wealth potentially scaring away challengers and being used to monopolize the media time against the Democratic nominee in 2009. A voluntary spending limit would indicate that the Mayor is willing to allow the voters to make their choice without attempting to overwhelm them with his propoaganda. He would be saying that a six to one spending advantage is all he needs to win.
Above all, the Mayor should be careful not to dismiss the concern about campaign spending. In doing so, he might remind voters that he spends nearly every weekend in Bermuda and travels to and from Bermuda is his personal jet. He is susceptible to being considered out-of-touch, and stating that agreeing to spend no more than $38 million of his own money on his campaign is "on of the most ridiculous things [he has] ever heard" suggests he is not yet trying to be in-touch.
Monday, February 2, 2009
NYC Fails to Protect Its Foster Children in AIDS Trials
Late last week, the Vera Institute of Justice released its 500-page detailed report regarding New York City's foster children and their participation in HIV/AIDS clinical trials from the late 1980's through 2001. These trials tested medications for treating the symptoms of HIV/AIDS in children. http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/clinicaltrials-appendix.pdf
The report provides us with an opportunity to catalogue the numerous deficiencies in NYC's efforts to protect foster children during these clinical trials, and it exposes the lack of adequate data available to us today as we seek to understand and correct these deficiencies.
The New York Times suggested in its January 27, 2009 article that allegations about poor procedures and a lack of protection of foster children in clinical trials have been refuted by the Vera report. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/nyregion/28foster.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=foster%20childen%20hiv&st=cse The New York Times clearly misunderstood the report.
Alarming Failure to Protect Our Children
Based on information available to it, Vera states in its report that of the 25 children who died while participating in the medication clinical trials none died as a result of the medication provided to them in those trials. But, Vera's lack of access to the medical records of the deceased foster children raises questions about their ability to accurately determine the causes of death of these children. See Page 225 of the report.
The report reviewed the experiences of 532 foster children, but there are another 264 foster children for whom Vera received insufficient information to determine whether those 264 children were or were not participants in clinical trials. Moreover, for twenty-two of the foster children who participated in the trials, Vera hasn't received adequate information to determine whether these children were ever even infected with HIV. See Page 203 of the report.
Of the 532 foster children, 98 participated in the clinical trials without the approval of the Commissioner of the NYC Administration for Children's Services. The Commissioner's approval was required for the participation of foster children in any clinical trials. See Page 239 of the report.
Twenty-one percent of the children, or 112 children, participated in clinical trials despite the fact that their parents had not signed the required informed consent documents. For at least seven children, the person who signed an informed consent form was not legally authorized to do so. Kinship foster parents, parents without parental rights, and child welfare staff signed the forms in contradiction of the policies in place to protect the children. Even when forms were signed by legally authorized individuals, those individuals likely were often confused about the nature of the trials to which they were consenting. Many informed consent forms contained technical language difficult for people without a medical background to understand. Often, the informed consents from legally authorized individuals were obtained in violation of federal rules for obtaining such consents. These violations include handwritten notes for informed consent in lieu of official documents, consent accepted over the phone, coercive tactics used to obtain consent, and consent sought or obtained from parents who may not have been competent to provide it. See Pages viii to ix of the report.
Three of these children were enrolled in a phase I clinical trial even though Children’s Services’ policy barred participation in phase I trials. Phase I trials are the first stage of testing in human subjects. These trials are designed to assess the safety and tolerability of a drug. Approximately half of the trials could have been phase I (32 of 65 treatment trials). Vera was unable to identify any phase for 18 of the 65 treatment trials, and they could not determine whether the foster children participated in the phase I or the phase II aspect of 14 phase I/II trials. See Pages 355 to 357 of the report.
Data Deficiency
For 30 percent of the foster children, some part of the child welfare file was lost or destroyed. Records often did not contain documentation required by state regulations. See Page ix of the report.
Only the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has the right to conduct or authorize a review of medical and clinical trial records of foster children who participated in HIV/AIDS trials—even when hospitals agree to have the files reviewed. NYC Administration for Children’s Services asked NYSDOH to permit it to review this information. The NYSDOH refused those requests. See Page xii of the report.
Because Vera was not permitted to review Internal Review Board (IRB) minutes from the hospitals where clinical trials were conducted, Vera was unable to determine whether or not independent advocates were required for compliance with federal regulations and Children’s Services policy in many trials. See Page 257 of the report. The federal government reviewed the IRB minutes from Columbia University Medical Center's IRB and determined that Columbia failed to follow federal regulations with regard to determining the need for independent advocates. See Page 127 of the report.
Preventing Future Failures
Our city and our state must make the protection of our foster children a high priority, while aggressively undertaking efforts to treat the symptoms of AIDS and prevent the spread of HIV amongst our children. We must demand that New York City and New York State work together to correct the alarming deficiencies discovered and revealed in the Vera report. Our children deserve better protection.
The report provides us with an opportunity to catalogue the numerous deficiencies in NYC's efforts to protect foster children during these clinical trials, and it exposes the lack of adequate data available to us today as we seek to understand and correct these deficiencies.
The New York Times suggested in its January 27, 2009 article that allegations about poor procedures and a lack of protection of foster children in clinical trials have been refuted by the Vera report. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/nyregion/28foster.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=foster%20childen%20hiv&st=cse The New York Times clearly misunderstood the report.
Alarming Failure to Protect Our Children
Based on information available to it, Vera states in its report that of the 25 children who died while participating in the medication clinical trials none died as a result of the medication provided to them in those trials. But, Vera's lack of access to the medical records of the deceased foster children raises questions about their ability to accurately determine the causes of death of these children. See Page 225 of the report.
The report reviewed the experiences of 532 foster children, but there are another 264 foster children for whom Vera received insufficient information to determine whether those 264 children were or were not participants in clinical trials. Moreover, for twenty-two of the foster children who participated in the trials, Vera hasn't received adequate information to determine whether these children were ever even infected with HIV. See Page 203 of the report.
Of the 532 foster children, 98 participated in the clinical trials without the approval of the Commissioner of the NYC Administration for Children's Services. The Commissioner's approval was required for the participation of foster children in any clinical trials. See Page 239 of the report.
Twenty-one percent of the children, or 112 children, participated in clinical trials despite the fact that their parents had not signed the required informed consent documents. For at least seven children, the person who signed an informed consent form was not legally authorized to do so. Kinship foster parents, parents without parental rights, and child welfare staff signed the forms in contradiction of the policies in place to protect the children. Even when forms were signed by legally authorized individuals, those individuals likely were often confused about the nature of the trials to which they were consenting. Many informed consent forms contained technical language difficult for people without a medical background to understand. Often, the informed consents from legally authorized individuals were obtained in violation of federal rules for obtaining such consents. These violations include handwritten notes for informed consent in lieu of official documents, consent accepted over the phone, coercive tactics used to obtain consent, and consent sought or obtained from parents who may not have been competent to provide it. See Pages viii to ix of the report.
Three of these children were enrolled in a phase I clinical trial even though Children’s Services’ policy barred participation in phase I trials. Phase I trials are the first stage of testing in human subjects. These trials are designed to assess the safety and tolerability of a drug. Approximately half of the trials could have been phase I (32 of 65 treatment trials). Vera was unable to identify any phase for 18 of the 65 treatment trials, and they could not determine whether the foster children participated in the phase I or the phase II aspect of 14 phase I/II trials. See Pages 355 to 357 of the report.
Data Deficiency
For 30 percent of the foster children, some part of the child welfare file was lost or destroyed. Records often did not contain documentation required by state regulations. See Page ix of the report.
Only the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has the right to conduct or authorize a review of medical and clinical trial records of foster children who participated in HIV/AIDS trials—even when hospitals agree to have the files reviewed. NYC Administration for Children’s Services asked NYSDOH to permit it to review this information. The NYSDOH refused those requests. See Page xii of the report.
Because Vera was not permitted to review Internal Review Board (IRB) minutes from the hospitals where clinical trials were conducted, Vera was unable to determine whether or not independent advocates were required for compliance with federal regulations and Children’s Services policy in many trials. See Page 257 of the report. The federal government reviewed the IRB minutes from Columbia University Medical Center's IRB and determined that Columbia failed to follow federal regulations with regard to determining the need for independent advocates. See Page 127 of the report.
Preventing Future Failures
Our city and our state must make the protection of our foster children a high priority, while aggressively undertaking efforts to treat the symptoms of AIDS and prevent the spread of HIV amongst our children. We must demand that New York City and New York State work together to correct the alarming deficiencies discovered and revealed in the Vera report. Our children deserve better protection.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama, Clinton, Gillibrand and Donovan Take on New Roles and Manhattan Benefits
What an incredible week. We returned to Manhattan from the Inauguration in Washington, DC to find that the impact of the election of President Obama was still rippling through New York State.
In a week that saw Senator Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and NYC Housing Commissioner Shaun Donovan become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, we welcomed a new President into the White House with a memorable Inauguration, and we witnessed the selection of our new junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand by Governor Paterson. In each case, we are fortunate to be represented by and served by these individuals.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Our association with Kirsten Gillibrand http://kirstengillibrand.com/free_details.asp?id=1 dates back to the 1998 Senate race in which Chuck Schumer took on Al D'Amato. D'Amato had generally been viewed as difficult to defeat, and Senator Moynihan was reluctant to work against the re-election of his partner from New York State. Kirsten and I were part of a small group of young professionals who raised tens of thousands of dollars for the 1998 campaign. The principal fundraising events were large parties at night clubs, and the most memorable of those parties took place on the same night that the New York Yankees completed their sweep of the San Diego Padres to win the 1998 World Series.
We listed Kirsten Gillibrand as one of our preferred choices for the US Senate seat when we question the media's attraction to Caroline Kennedy. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/12/audacity-of-hope-in-carolines-visit-to.html We did so both because we have known Senator Gillibrand for more than a decade and because we know that she will serve our state well.
Senator Gillibrand was so drawn to public service that she left her very promising legal career at a top Manhattan law firm to join Andrew Cuomo's Housing and Urban Development Department in Washington. After the Bush victory over Al Gore in 2000, she practiced law in Manhattan again for a while but ultimately returned to the Albany area where she was raised. I was so grateful to have her as a host when I led a fundraiser for State Senator Barack Obama's US Senate race in June 2004 in mid-town Manhattan. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/11/reminiscing-obama-in-manhattan-june.html I was far more excited to see her elected to the US House of Representatives two years later.
Some detractors have noted that Senator Gillibrand's House of Representatives record is less liberal than many members of the New York Delegation to the House of Representatives. We are eager to point out that her centrist stances make her more likely to be able to hold onto her Senate seat in 2010 and in 2012 (she will need to run state-wide twice in two years in order to gain her own six-year term). Moreover, she is well-regarded by left-leaning organizations with high credibility while being unpopular with conservative organizations. She received an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 90% rating from the ACLU. She is a progressive who grew up in an area with a strong hunting culture. When she represented that same area as an adult, she reflected her constituents' desires for gun rights. Her ability to understand rural voters and hunters will serve her well in the US Senate, and the depth of her knowledge of New York City will affect how she looks at gun issues as she seeks to represent our entire state. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nygill0125,0,7080288.story
Senator Gillibrand is a hard working and tenacious leader with tremendous intellect and a very natural understanding of the challenges that face hard working families in New York State. She and her husband have two young children, and she is extremely well connected in NYC. She defeated an incumbent Republican member of the US House of Representatives in 2006 in a Republican district, and she served her constituents so well that she defeated a former head of the New York State Republican Party (who had virtually unlimited personal financial resources for the race) in the 2008 race by an eye-popping margin of 62% to 38%. She has proven herself to be an excellent student of the issues and a gifted fundraiser. Governor Paterson should be commended for such an excellent choice.
Secretary Shaun Donovan
This week, NYC's Housing Commissioner became our nation's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Here in Manhattan, housing is one of the most important public policy issues facing our leadership. Shaun Donovan knows the issues we face in New York City because he has been working to solve them. We look forward to benefiting from his leadership. http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/about/bio-shaun-donovan.shtml
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama
Finally . . . We finally were able to watch President Bush leave the White House and President Obama enter the White House. Our credibility with the world is being restored by our new President with the help of our new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28791738/ Secretary Clinton was an extraordinary Senator and a tremendous inspiration. We will miss having her looking out for just our state; she now represents all of the interests of the United States all over the world on behalf of our new President.
After a cold day that was both physically and emotionally draining, the Inaugural Balls were an excellent way to complete the celebration of the peaceful transfer of power that our country accomplishes so regularly and ordinarily without much attention beyond those fascinated by government and politics. As I watched President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama dance at the Mid-Atlantic Ball, I thought about a particular portion of his Inauguration Speech and how the man who was gliding so effortlessly across the dance floor now faced enormous challenges and lofty expectations. I was reminded that he knows the enormity of the challenges and that as he inspires us, he is himself inspired by the courage and sacrifice of those who have gone before us and paved the way for us to enjoy the blessings of liberty and to have the tools to face our own crises with confidence. In his speech on January 20, 2009, President Obama said:
So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words to be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/
We are ready to meet our challenges with our new President, our new Secretary of State, our new Secretary of HUD, and our new junior Senator from NYS, and we are grateful to have such talent working on our behalf.
In a week that saw Senator Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and NYC Housing Commissioner Shaun Donovan become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, we welcomed a new President into the White House with a memorable Inauguration, and we witnessed the selection of our new junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand by Governor Paterson. In each case, we are fortunate to be represented by and served by these individuals.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Our association with Kirsten Gillibrand http://kirstengillibrand.com/free_details.asp?id=1 dates back to the 1998 Senate race in which Chuck Schumer took on Al D'Amato. D'Amato had generally been viewed as difficult to defeat, and Senator Moynihan was reluctant to work against the re-election of his partner from New York State. Kirsten and I were part of a small group of young professionals who raised tens of thousands of dollars for the 1998 campaign. The principal fundraising events were large parties at night clubs, and the most memorable of those parties took place on the same night that the New York Yankees completed their sweep of the San Diego Padres to win the 1998 World Series.
We listed Kirsten Gillibrand as one of our preferred choices for the US Senate seat when we question the media's attraction to Caroline Kennedy. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/12/audacity-of-hope-in-carolines-visit-to.html We did so both because we have known Senator Gillibrand for more than a decade and because we know that she will serve our state well.
Senator Gillibrand was so drawn to public service that she left her very promising legal career at a top Manhattan law firm to join Andrew Cuomo's Housing and Urban Development Department in Washington. After the Bush victory over Al Gore in 2000, she practiced law in Manhattan again for a while but ultimately returned to the Albany area where she was raised. I was so grateful to have her as a host when I led a fundraiser for State Senator Barack Obama's US Senate race in June 2004 in mid-town Manhattan. http://manhattanviewpoint.blogspot.com/2008/11/reminiscing-obama-in-manhattan-june.html I was far more excited to see her elected to the US House of Representatives two years later.
Some detractors have noted that Senator Gillibrand's House of Representatives record is less liberal than many members of the New York Delegation to the House of Representatives. We are eager to point out that her centrist stances make her more likely to be able to hold onto her Senate seat in 2010 and in 2012 (she will need to run state-wide twice in two years in order to gain her own six-year term). Moreover, she is well-regarded by left-leaning organizations with high credibility while being unpopular with conservative organizations. She received an 8% rating from the American Conservative Union and a 90% rating from the ACLU. She is a progressive who grew up in an area with a strong hunting culture. When she represented that same area as an adult, she reflected her constituents' desires for gun rights. Her ability to understand rural voters and hunters will serve her well in the US Senate, and the depth of her knowledge of New York City will affect how she looks at gun issues as she seeks to represent our entire state. http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nygill0125,0,7080288.story
Senator Gillibrand is a hard working and tenacious leader with tremendous intellect and a very natural understanding of the challenges that face hard working families in New York State. She and her husband have two young children, and she is extremely well connected in NYC. She defeated an incumbent Republican member of the US House of Representatives in 2006 in a Republican district, and she served her constituents so well that she defeated a former head of the New York State Republican Party (who had virtually unlimited personal financial resources for the race) in the 2008 race by an eye-popping margin of 62% to 38%. She has proven herself to be an excellent student of the issues and a gifted fundraiser. Governor Paterson should be commended for such an excellent choice.
Secretary Shaun Donovan
This week, NYC's Housing Commissioner became our nation's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Here in Manhattan, housing is one of the most important public policy issues facing our leadership. Shaun Donovan knows the issues we face in New York City because he has been working to solve them. We look forward to benefiting from his leadership. http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/about/bio-shaun-donovan.shtml
Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama
Finally . . . We finally were able to watch President Bush leave the White House and President Obama enter the White House. Our credibility with the world is being restored by our new President with the help of our new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28791738/ Secretary Clinton was an extraordinary Senator and a tremendous inspiration. We will miss having her looking out for just our state; she now represents all of the interests of the United States all over the world on behalf of our new President.
After a cold day that was both physically and emotionally draining, the Inaugural Balls were an excellent way to complete the celebration of the peaceful transfer of power that our country accomplishes so regularly and ordinarily without much attention beyond those fascinated by government and politics. As I watched President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama dance at the Mid-Atlantic Ball, I thought about a particular portion of his Inauguration Speech and how the man who was gliding so effortlessly across the dance floor now faced enormous challenges and lofty expectations. I was reminded that he knows the enormity of the challenges and that as he inspires us, he is himself inspired by the courage and sacrifice of those who have gone before us and paved the way for us to enjoy the blessings of liberty and to have the tools to face our own crises with confidence. In his speech on January 20, 2009, President Obama said:
So let us mark this day with remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At the moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words to be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/
We are ready to meet our challenges with our new President, our new Secretary of State, our new Secretary of HUD, and our new junior Senator from NYS, and we are grateful to have such talent working on our behalf.
Monday, January 19, 2009
NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Outrage
Today is the day our nation celebrates the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, and it is a day in which Manhattan Viewpoint highlights a traditional civil rights frustration - race based police enforcement tactics used by the NYPD and the impact of the racialization of law enforcement.
It was successful opposition of this type of government sponsored racial discrimination that is the most remembered element of Dr. King's leadership. His greatest legacy is the national consensus that exists today that discrimination against people of color, even by private institutions and individuals, is unacceptable and harmful. Many types of racial discrimination have been outlawed by federal and state statutes, and many types of racial discrimination persist. One of the most pervasive and and insidious forms of continuing racial discrimination is the discrimination perpetrated by law enforcement personnel against the residents they have pledged to protect.
Racial Disparity Revealed
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released data that CCR received from the NYPD as a result of an ongoing class-action suit related to accusations of race-based "stop and frisk" activity by the NYPD.
The statistics will not be surprising to people of color who live in New York City, but all of us should be alarmed to see that our suspicions about law enforcement behavior and our extrapolations from personal experiences are in fact supported by the evidence. After analyzing over 1.6 million stops in New York City from 2005 to 2008, the CCR shows us that 80% of those stops are people of color, despite the fact that people of color represent only 53% of the New York City population. In addition, only 10% of stops are of white New Yorkers, though white New Yorkers are 44% of the New York City population. The disparity speaks for itself and helps explain why views of law enforcement personnel are very different in communities of color than they are in other communities.
Exacerbating the problem of the racial disparity in stop and frisk activity is the reality of the apparent harassment of residents. The arrest rate from all stops is extremely low, and it is uniformly low across racial categories. Therefore, the skewing of this high-nuisance, high-humiliation yet low-value law enforcement technique toward law-abiding residents of color in our city increases our focus on ending the both the discrimination and the widespread use of the practice.
Lack of Discipline
We learned back in July that our city's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) had repeatedly recommended disciplinary action against NYPD personnel for improper stop and frisk activity and that the NYPD had made a practice of taking no action against those NYPD personnel.
As in so many aspects of life, the first step for the Mayor and the Police Commissioner is to admit they have a problem. Their failure to acknowledge the reality of the racial discrimination suffered by New York City's residents at the hands of the NYPD makes fixing the problem impossible.
There are those that argue that racial profiling is a legitimate tool of police work and should continue, but they typically fail to understand the real impact of racialized policing. In 1999, former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton talked about the early days of his career in law enforcement in Boston, and he described the police response to escalating numbers of stolen Lincoln Continentals. He said that white drivers were assumed to own the Lincoln they drove and that young black males in Lincolns would be stopped.
It was successful opposition of this type of government sponsored racial discrimination that is the most remembered element of Dr. King's leadership. His greatest legacy is the national consensus that exists today that discrimination against people of color, even by private institutions and individuals, is unacceptable and harmful. Many types of racial discrimination have been outlawed by federal and state statutes, and many types of racial discrimination persist. One of the most pervasive and and insidious forms of continuing racial discrimination is the discrimination perpetrated by law enforcement personnel against the residents they have pledged to protect.
Racial Disparity Revealed
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) released data that CCR received from the NYPD as a result of an ongoing class-action suit related to accusations of race-based "stop and frisk" activity by the NYPD.
The statistics will not be surprising to people of color who live in New York City, but all of us should be alarmed to see that our suspicions about law enforcement behavior and our extrapolations from personal experiences are in fact supported by the evidence. After analyzing over 1.6 million stops in New York City from 2005 to 2008, the CCR shows us that 80% of those stops are people of color, despite the fact that people of color represent only 53% of the New York City population. In addition, only 10% of stops are of white New Yorkers, though white New Yorkers are 44% of the New York City population. The disparity speaks for itself and helps explain why views of law enforcement personnel are very different in communities of color than they are in other communities.
Exacerbating the problem of the racial disparity in stop and frisk activity is the reality of the apparent harassment of residents. The arrest rate from all stops is extremely low, and it is uniformly low across racial categories. Therefore, the skewing of this high-nuisance, high-humiliation yet low-value law enforcement technique toward law-abiding residents of color in our city increases our focus on ending the both the discrimination and the widespread use of the practice.
Lack of Discipline
We learned back in July that our city's Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) had repeatedly recommended disciplinary action against NYPD personnel for improper stop and frisk activity and that the NYPD had made a practice of taking no action against those NYPD personnel.
The Daily News reported that the CCRB had referred 74 stop and frisk complaints to the NYPD as of July 2008, and only 15 of the 74 complaints resulted in any discipline of the law enforcement personnel involved. In May 2008, eight complaints were substantiated by the CCRB, and none of the eight complaints resulted in any discipline.
Racial Discrimination in Law Enforcement Is Unacceptable
Racial Discrimination in Law Enforcement Is Unacceptable
As in so many aspects of life, the first step for the Mayor and the Police Commissioner is to admit they have a problem. Their failure to acknowledge the reality of the racial discrimination suffered by New York City's residents at the hands of the NYPD makes fixing the problem impossible.
There are those that argue that racial profiling is a legitimate tool of police work and should continue, but they typically fail to understand the real impact of racialized policing. In 1999, former NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton talked about the early days of his career in law enforcement in Boston, and he described the police response to escalating numbers of stolen Lincoln Continentals. He said that white drivers were assumed to own the Lincoln they drove and that young black males in Lincolns would be stopped.
As a result, many stolen Lincolns were recovered. Of course, the value of recovering the Lincolns is undoubtedly outweighed by the stress, humiliation, and lost respect for the police experienced by all of the law-abiding black males who were stopped because they were black and male and driving a Lincoln. Moreover, the value of recovering the stolen Lincolns would be outweighed by the message sent by the law enforcement approach: white Bostonians can steal as many Lincolns as they wish without fear of being stopped by the police. It is the celebration of the recovered Lincolns to the exclusion of a focus on the horrors of government-led racial discrimination that permits our problems here in New York City to persist.
As we celebrate the life of Dr. King today and inaugurate a new President tomorrow, we set our sights on brighter days ahead for our country. We must also raise our voices to demand an end to race based policing by the NYPD here in our neighborhoods.
As we celebrate the life of Dr. King today and inaugurate a new President tomorrow, we set our sights on brighter days ahead for our country. We must also raise our voices to demand an end to race based policing by the NYPD here in our neighborhoods.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Paterson Budget Properly Reduces Juvenile Detention Facilities and Improves Safety in Manhattan
We are grateful to Charisa Smith for serving as our guest blogger for this week's Manhattan Viewpoint. She currently serves as the Director of the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. http://correctionalassociation.org/JJP/index.htm Her mini-bio appears after the blog entry.
With New York State in a fiscal crisis, the closure of several underused juvenile incarceration facilities would generate much needed savings. For example, the Great Valley facility in upstate New York costs $1.7 million to keep open. http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-close-underused-facilities.html This facility has no residents, employs less than 30 individuals. http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf It is part of an ineffective juvenile prison system that includes as many as 500 empty beds. http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-op-ed-successful.html
The Governor's budget proposes closing six juvenile jail facilities — including Great Valley — and three evening reporting centers, while two residential centers would be downsized. The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) spends more than $170 million to operate its juvenile placement facilities. The agency estimates the downsizing of its facilities will result in $12 million in savings in 2009-10 and $14 million in 2010-11. http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBudget0910/fy0910littlebook/BriefingBook.pdf).
Why should the state spend between $150,000 and $200,000 to incarcerate a child for one year http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-op-ed-successful.html when it would cost only $12,000 per year to send a child to a community-based alternative program that would vastly improve outcomes for both the child and society at large? http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/proposals_for_reform_2006.pdf
Why should the state spend between $150,000 and $200,000 to incarcerate a child for one year http://juvenilejusticenow.blogspot.com/2008/12/buffalo-news-op-ed-successful.html when it would cost only $12,000 per year to send a child to a community-based alternative program that would vastly improve outcomes for both the child and society at large? http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/proposals_for_reform_2006.pdf
Creating smaller, rehabilitation-oriented, community-based facilities for court-involved youth can be coined as "right-sizing" the juvenile justice system. Paterson's plan to continue right-sizing the system can significantly improve services for children and reduce the number of youth who are unnecessarily incarcerated.
Incarcerating fewer children will actually make for a safer New York. A 1999 OCFS study found that 81 percent of boys and 45 percent of girls released from OCFS custody were rearrested within 36 months. http://correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/factsheets/Youth_in_OCFS_Nov07.pdf
Yet New York City's Administration for Children's Services' Juvenile Justice Initiative diverts foster youth who are placement-bound as a result of juvenile delinquency findings, and reports that fewer than 35 percent of participating youth have been rearrested or violated probation. http://correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/factsheets/Youth_in_OCFS_Nov07.pdf Other alternative to incarceration programs boast recidivism rates as low as 20 percent. http://www.gothamgazette.com/print/2541 Further, in his State of the State Address on January 7th, Governor Paterson noted that “. . . crime in New York has decreased for 17 consecutive years. Today, New York is the safest large state, and the fourth-safest state overall, in the entire nation.” http://www.ny.gov/governor/keydocs/speech_0107091.html
New York State cannot stop at closing juvenile jails. A commitment to reinvesting public money saved from right-sizing into much less costly alternatives to incarceration and detention, and other community programs, is integral to New York's well-being. Government officials must have the foresight to recognize that community-based alternatives are the key to saving taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be spent on government benefit programs, more incarceration, and law enforcement in the future.
These alternatives help turn troubled youth into productive citizens and restore hope to impoverished communities. Further, alternative programs better prepare children to reintegrate into society by providing access to services that include mental health and medical care; evidence-based, family-focused programs that have proven to reduce youth crime; substance abuse treatment; youth development and employment programs; and special education services.
Proponents of juvenile facility closures can anticipate opposition from public employees' unions, some community members and certain legislators who voice concerns about job losses. OCFS has publicly stated its intention to help staff from the affected facilities secure positions at other facilities or other state agencies. Further, in a time in which all sectors are cutting positions, keeping facilities open that are underutilized and fundamentally unhealthy for youth to save jobs becomes harder and harder to defend.
Paterson's plan to reduce juvenile facility capacity deserves broad-based support. So do additional community resources that would provide youth with needed support services to enable them to become law-abiding citizens. In times like these, the New York State must implement and enhance programmatic remedies that save money, enhance public safety and reform our juvenile justice system.
Charisa Smith is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School. She has worked in the juvenile justice field for six years and currently directs the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. Ms. Smith co-directed Yale’s Legislative Advocacy Clinic. With her deep devotion to public service, Ms. Smith has worked for two human rights organizations in Latin America, a New Jersey Assemblywoman, U.S. Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, the Covenant House Youth Advocacy Center, the Youth Law Center, and a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.
Charisa Smith is a graduate of Harvard University and Yale Law School. She has worked in the juvenile justice field for six years and currently directs the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. Ms. Smith co-directed Yale’s Legislative Advocacy Clinic. With her deep devotion to public service, Ms. Smith has worked for two human rights organizations in Latin America, a New Jersey Assemblywoman, U.S. Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, the Covenant House Youth Advocacy Center, the Youth Law Center, and a New Jersey Superior Court Judge.
Most recently, prior to joining the Correctional Association, Ms. Smith was part of the Legal Aid Justice Center’s JustChildren Program through an Arthur Liman Public Interest Law Fellowship. There, she spent two years conducting re-entry advocacy for juveniles in Virginia. Ms. Smith is a licensed attorney in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Manhattan Provides Historical Precedent for Burris
US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Governor of Illinois prior to that Governor's legal troubles and asked that the Governor not appoint three Black elected officials to the Senate who were rumored to be under consideration by the Governor. Reid gave the Governor only white candidates to choose from, including one who had recently lost and election. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article Leaving aside how insulting it is to Black Americans to learn that Harry Reid thinks it is important that no Black person is selected by the Illinois Governor to join the US Senate (which currently has no Black members), we are dismayed that Harry Reid is not now seeking forgiveness and backing the Black man selected by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. We are left wondering why Harry Reid is focused on ensuring that no Black Americans are part of the US Senate. We are hoping that New York's Senators will guide Harry Reid to a less self-destructive position.
Reid, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000146 has stated that he will block the seating of the recently appointed Senate-designee Roland Burris as the next Senator from the State of Illinois. http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=16973&cat=topnews Yet, the controversy Reid and his supporters are creating was settled 40 years ago in a Supreme Court Case focused on a larger-than-life Congressman from right here in Upper Manhattan.
As New Yorkers, we have two Senators with law degrees from first class institutions (Senator Schumer graduated from Harvard Law School, and Senator Clinton graduated from Yale Law School, where the author of this blog completed his legal education approximately 25 years after Senator Clinton), and we can hope that they will encourage Reid to change his position and avoid the humiliation he seems to be courting. Ironically, President-Elect Obama also attended a top-notch law school (Schumer's Harvard), but he has expressed his full support for the Reid position. In doing so, Obama is opposing Supreme Court precedent and (hopefully unintentionally) conspiring with those determined to keep the Senate free of African Americans.
Historical Context
The most relevant Supreme Court case giving us guidance into the Roland Burris situation in 2009 is the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack. http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html The "Powell" in Powell v. McCormack is Adam Clayton Powell, the legendary Harlem Congressman. In 1967, he was denied his seat in the House of Representatives by a majority vote after being re-elected to his seat in the 1966 elections. The Speaker of the House (McCormack) based the denial on allegations of corruption against Congressman Powell, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee at the time.
The Supreme Court decided that the House could only deny a seat to an elected member who failed to meet the qualifications listed in the Constitution (25 years of age, resident of the state of New York, and a citizen of the United States for at least seven years - in the case of the Senate, it is 30 years of age and nine years of citizenship). Powell could have been seated and then expelled by a two-thirds vote.
As we look at the Burris case, we fail to see any element of the situation that distinguishes it from the Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. McCormack, and Harry Reid has failed to suggest any reason that it would end differently. Burris is 71 years old and has been a US Citizen since birth. He has been a resident of Illinois virtually every moment since birth as well. Moreover, Roland Burris has an essentially spotless record as an ethical public servant, and he has a long and respectable record as an elected official representing all of the people of Illinois. We have no reason to believe that he will not be an effective Senator for those same people, and Harry Reid has no basis to prevent Roland Burris from becoming a Senator.
History of Black Senators
The US Senate has a poor record with regard to Black members. Since Reconstruction, only 3 Black Senators have taken their place in the Senate chamber. Two of them were from Illinois, and both of those were elected since 1990 (an one of those two has been elected President of the United States). Roland Burris would be the fourth Black Senator since Reconstruction, and the third from Illinois, but he would be the only Black member of the Senate. The US Senate currently has no Black members. It has never had more than one Black Senator at any time since Reconstruction, and it has had zero Black Senators during the vast majority of Congresses since Reconstruction. When the Congressional Black Caucus challenged the election of George W. Bush in 2000, they were unable to even force a debate on the legitimacy of his election because no Senator would rise in support of their protest. There were no Black Senators in 2000, just as there are none today. Roland Burris, by becoming the only Black member of the US Senate, would play a huge role in giving the American People a reason to believe that the US Senate represents all of the people.
The first Black member of the US Senate was elected by the State Legislature of Mississippi during reconstruction. Hiram Rhodes Revels had to fight his way into the Senate. The Republicans had won the Civil War and abolished Slavery, and the Democrats were determined to keep this first Black member out of the Senate. The Democrats argued that, based on Plessy v. Ferguson, no Black person in the United States was a citizen until the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868. Given the requirement of nine years of citizenship, Revels would not have qualified to be a Senator in 1870, when he was elected. The Republicans controlled the Senate and seated Revels (some Republicans argued that because he had some white ancestry, he was a citizen before the ratification of the 14th Amendment), making him the first Black US Senator. http://baic.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=14
Roland Burris would be an excellent addition to the very short list of Black US Senators - Revels, Blanche Bruce, Ed Brooke, Carol Moseley Braun, and Barack Obama.
Burris Preferable to Scalia
With no Black members of the US Senate, Harry Reid wants to exclude the Black man coming from Illinois to serve in the US Senate, but Harry Reid has stated that he'd support Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41270-2004Dec6.html
We'd recommend that Senator Reid develop greater discomfort with Scalia obtaining greater power and influence while embracing the concept of having Roland Burris http://www.gshllc.com/AT_Burris.shtml, a Black American, serve along side Senator Reid in the US Senate.
Reid, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000146 has stated that he will block the seating of the recently appointed Senate-designee Roland Burris as the next Senator from the State of Illinois. http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=16973&cat=topnews Yet, the controversy Reid and his supporters are creating was settled 40 years ago in a Supreme Court Case focused on a larger-than-life Congressman from right here in Upper Manhattan.
As New Yorkers, we have two Senators with law degrees from first class institutions (Senator Schumer graduated from Harvard Law School, and Senator Clinton graduated from Yale Law School, where the author of this blog completed his legal education approximately 25 years after Senator Clinton), and we can hope that they will encourage Reid to change his position and avoid the humiliation he seems to be courting. Ironically, President-Elect Obama also attended a top-notch law school (Schumer's Harvard), but he has expressed his full support for the Reid position. In doing so, Obama is opposing Supreme Court precedent and (hopefully unintentionally) conspiring with those determined to keep the Senate free of African Americans.
Historical Context
The most relevant Supreme Court case giving us guidance into the Roland Burris situation in 2009 is the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack. http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html The "Powell" in Powell v. McCormack is Adam Clayton Powell, the legendary Harlem Congressman. In 1967, he was denied his seat in the House of Representatives by a majority vote after being re-elected to his seat in the 1966 elections. The Speaker of the House (McCormack) based the denial on allegations of corruption against Congressman Powell, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee at the time.
The Supreme Court decided that the House could only deny a seat to an elected member who failed to meet the qualifications listed in the Constitution (25 years of age, resident of the state of New York, and a citizen of the United States for at least seven years - in the case of the Senate, it is 30 years of age and nine years of citizenship). Powell could have been seated and then expelled by a two-thirds vote.
As we look at the Burris case, we fail to see any element of the situation that distinguishes it from the Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. McCormack, and Harry Reid has failed to suggest any reason that it would end differently. Burris is 71 years old and has been a US Citizen since birth. He has been a resident of Illinois virtually every moment since birth as well. Moreover, Roland Burris has an essentially spotless record as an ethical public servant, and he has a long and respectable record as an elected official representing all of the people of Illinois. We have no reason to believe that he will not be an effective Senator for those same people, and Harry Reid has no basis to prevent Roland Burris from becoming a Senator.
History of Black Senators
The US Senate has a poor record with regard to Black members. Since Reconstruction, only 3 Black Senators have taken their place in the Senate chamber. Two of them were from Illinois, and both of those were elected since 1990 (an one of those two has been elected President of the United States). Roland Burris would be the fourth Black Senator since Reconstruction, and the third from Illinois, but he would be the only Black member of the Senate. The US Senate currently has no Black members. It has never had more than one Black Senator at any time since Reconstruction, and it has had zero Black Senators during the vast majority of Congresses since Reconstruction. When the Congressional Black Caucus challenged the election of George W. Bush in 2000, they were unable to even force a debate on the legitimacy of his election because no Senator would rise in support of their protest. There were no Black Senators in 2000, just as there are none today. Roland Burris, by becoming the only Black member of the US Senate, would play a huge role in giving the American People a reason to believe that the US Senate represents all of the people.
The first Black member of the US Senate was elected by the State Legislature of Mississippi during reconstruction. Hiram Rhodes Revels had to fight his way into the Senate. The Republicans had won the Civil War and abolished Slavery, and the Democrats were determined to keep this first Black member out of the Senate. The Democrats argued that, based on Plessy v. Ferguson, no Black person in the United States was a citizen until the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868. Given the requirement of nine years of citizenship, Revels would not have qualified to be a Senator in 1870, when he was elected. The Republicans controlled the Senate and seated Revels (some Republicans argued that because he had some white ancestry, he was a citizen before the ratification of the 14th Amendment), making him the first Black US Senator. http://baic.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=14
Roland Burris would be an excellent addition to the very short list of Black US Senators - Revels, Blanche Bruce, Ed Brooke, Carol Moseley Braun, and Barack Obama.
Burris Preferable to Scalia
With no Black members of the US Senate, Harry Reid wants to exclude the Black man coming from Illinois to serve in the US Senate, but Harry Reid has stated that he'd support Antonin Scalia for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41270-2004Dec6.html
We'd recommend that Senator Reid develop greater discomfort with Scalia obtaining greater power and influence while embracing the concept of having Roland Burris http://www.gshllc.com/AT_Burris.shtml, a Black American, serve along side Senator Reid in the US Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)