Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

Every Day Is Father's Day


A little over a year ago, 32-year-old Samuel Maldonado was sitting in a jail cell. Today, he sits on the bed of his apartment in Crown Heights, stroking the hair of his three-year-old daughter Alyssa and proudly pointing to the nine framed certificates for completing various life-skills classes at the Fortune Society, an organization that works with ex-offenders.

There is a certificate for a course in anger management, for a nutrition class, and one showing that he works as a peer counselor for the organization. But Maldonado is especially proud of a certificate for a course in fathering.

“There is a difference between telling your children what do to – saying, `do this now!’ – and asking them to do something,” says Maldonado, who was estranged from his own father and for a time was on a course to repeat the pattern with his kids. “Children respond to respect.”

When he talks about parenting, Maldonado speaks not just from what he learned in the class, but also from years of experience.

Maldonado is the father of ten children, ages 17 to 3. Six are his biological offspring from four different mothers, and four are his stepchildren. Of the ten children, four live with Maldonado and his wife Margarita, but all of them cycle through the house from time to time.

“These certificates are reminders that things could be worse,” he says. “They are reminders of why I need to be here [with my children].”

Samuel Maldonado with his wife Margarita and three of his ten children - Melvin, 8, Celine, 7, and Alyssa, 3.

 

For decades, low-income men who have little or no connection with their children have been seen as one of the daunting problems of poverty that policymakers have been unable to address.

But today, government is increasingly looking to the same men as part of the solution to society's most difficult problems.

In 2003, following the lead of other cities across the nation, New York City launched its “fatherhood initiative,” programs to encourage poor men to be more actively involved in the lives of their children.

But can government really teach men how to be better fathers?

WHY FOCUS ON FATHERS?

There are 175,000 single-mother households with children living below the federal poverty level in New York City - or about 30 percent of all families, according to the Community Service Society.

These children are the ones that would ideally benefit if their fathers provided more financial - as well as emotional - support. And they are a segment of society that policy makers are struggling to help.

Across the nation, fatherless children are five times more likely to be poor and ten times more likely to be extremely poor, according to the National Commission on Children. Their risks are also greater for dropping out of school, and for alcohol and drug use, adolescent pregnancy and child bearing, juvenile delinquency, mental illness, and suicide.

Over the last half century, all levels of government have responded to these statistics with a series of programs aimed at helping single mothers and their children - food stamps, after-school programs, earned income tax credits, and welfare to work programs - but has largely ignored fathers.

“[The government] has invested $50 billion in efforts for poor women,” says Ronald Mincy, a professor of social work at Columbia University and editor of the book “Black Males Left Behind.” “There has been little done for men.”

But by the early 1990s, researchers and lawmakers began pointing to some of the critical issues associated with children who grow up without their fathers – and looking for ways to get men to reconnect with their families.

Following this trend, New York City currently allocates $3 million in federal Community Service Block Grants to 12 community organizations working with local dads. The goals of the program are modest: help 1,400 men living in the city’s low-income neighborhoods establish some kind of relationship with their children, and move the fathers toward providing some kind of financial assistance for their families.

Each social service organization that receives a grant already has a track record in the neighborhood and has some freedom in how it reaches these goals. Depending on the agency, men have access to a range of services, including assistance with family court and custody issues, job training, supervised visitations, and even “Me and Dad” field trips to the aquarium and the Queens Hall of Science.

“More broadly, we hope for an improvement in the child’s life,” says Cindy Colter, assistant commissioner for the Department of Youth and Community Development, the agency that administers the programs. “And of course, we hope that it improves the lives of the men as well.”

While fatherhood programs are new and receive a relatively small amount of government funding, they represent a growing movement.

In 2001, President George W. Bush named Wade Horn of the National Fatherhood Initiative to a high ranking position in the Health and Human Services agency to help create such programs. And when Congress reauthorized welfare reform legislation in February 2006, they earmarked an additional $50 million a year for fatherhood initiatives across the nation over the next five years.

“Hopefully, we are now are coming to a place of more concern for men, and we are including them in the solutions to address poverty,” says Mincy.

TEACHING PARENTING SKILLS

On a Monday evening in Brooklyn, five men sit at school desks in the upstairs room of a building on Wyckoff Avenue discussing what it means to be a dad in New York City in the 21st century. The group is known as the “Papas de Bushwick.”

“Now, as fathers you can do 99 good things, and then there is the one time when you lose it,” says Julio Diaz, who leads the discussion group. “What do you think your kids will remember?”

“The one time you lose it,” answers one man, shaking his head. “That’s all they remember.”

“Now what if we were able to hold back for just a few moments between that time when you feel an emotion and you act?” asks Diaz, pointing to chart entitled “Cycles of Reaction.” “How would that help us to stay out of trouble?”

For the men, it is not a rhetorical question.

Most attend the class because a family court judge has either required or strongly recommended that they do so. For 13 weeks, the men work through a support group curriculum of weekly sessions with titles like “The Roots of Fathering,” “The World of Feelings,” and “Healing the Father Wound.”

“By the third week of the class, for most men, it is no longer about the courts, but about their children,” says Franc Villalobos, who runs Papas de Bushwick, a program of the non-profit group Coalition of Hispanic Family Services and the Medical and Health Research Association of New York.

The men who have graduated from the program say they have learned tangible lessons: financial support is only a part of being a dad; discipline and punishment are not the same thing; and it only hurts the children to say negative things about their mother.

“Most men need a little coaching when it comes to parenting skills,” says Anthony Alexander, one of the veterans of the group.

The facilitators admit they face a great challenge.

“What we are really talking about is re-socializing men,” says Villalobos.

OBSTACLES FATHERS FACE

Men find that connecting with their children after a separation or divorce is not as simple as just wanting to be involved. They face a series of legal and financial barriers to being responsible dads – and poor fathers who are the focus of the fatherhood initiatives are particularly hard hit, because they often do not have the education or cannot afford the legal expertise needed to overcome them. In addition to teaching parenting skills, fatherhood initiatives also try to help address these problems for their clients.

Custody Issues

New York is one of only 13 states in the nation that does not have a joint custody statute. In New York State family courts, judges traditionally begin with the presumption that the primary caregiver - the person most directly responsible for the day-to-day care of the child - should be awarded custody, not that both parents should have an equal role in parenting. That is most often the mother.

The standard custody arrangement for many men is two weekend visitations a month.

“You have good fathers and bad fathers, and you have good mothers and bad mothers,” says Anthony Alexander, who endured years of legal battles to win custody of his children. “They should be judged equally.”

(Read an article about divorce and custody issues in New York).

Child Support

In New York, if a man named in a child support case denies being the father, he may have to go to court and take a DNA test. If it shows he’s the father, he will be ordered to pay the child support until the child is 21 years of age.

The amount of child support is based on the non-custodial parent's income and how many children are involved. (See a detailed chart of child support obligations by income level). And while child support is often a financial lifeline for single mothers and their children, it can leave many men feeling overwhelmed with debt, and even deter some from working because a significant portion of their pay can be seized.

Fathers are responsible for child support while they are in school, are unemployed, doing time in prison, or even if the mother marries someone else. As a penalty for owing child support, the government can suspend a driver’s license, refuse to grant a passport, or even sentence a man to jail for up to six months.

“The system beats us down,” says David Cortez, a father in the Papas de Bushwick program. “It sees us as a cash cow.”

(Read an article about child support issues in New York).

Employment

Over the last two decades as the national and local economy have grown, almost every demographic group – even low-skilled women with children – have seen some improvements in employment rates. One notable exception is young African-American men.

A recent New York Times article highlighted the plight of African-American men in America:
- 65 percent of black males in their 20s who drop out of high school are jobless
- 50 percent of black males in their 20s who graduate from high school are unemployed
- And 60 percent of black males in their 30s who did not finish high school have spent time in prison.

Some experts draw strong connections between low employment rates and the 70 percent fatherlessness rate in the African American community.

"One of the reasons why black males have higher incarceration rates than other populations is because they are more likely to grow up without their fathers," says Mincy.

(Read an article about employment and job training in New York).

QUESTIONING THE MOVEMENT

While there is growing support for the idea of government programs encouraging fathers to be financially and emotionally invested in their children’s lives, there are also skeptics.

The National Organization for Women has raised concerns that fatherhood initiatives may divert money and efforts away from helping single mothers, who most often bear the responsibility for raising and supporting their children. And the organization is particularly suspicious of the federal policy that aims to promote the institution of marriage as part of its fatherhood efforts, arguing that it discriminates against nontraditional families.

“We should care about supporting the well-being of all families, regardless of how they are constituted,” Jacqueline Payne, policy attorney for the NOW Legal Defense Fund testified before Congress.

While some organizations like the non-profit group National Fatherhood Initiative have been instrumental in promoting men’s programs, other fathers’ rights advocates say the money and effort would be better spent reforming custody and child support laws, which they argue are rooted in a 1950s idea of family.

“We send these guys to all of these classes so they can learn to be involved with their children,” said Jim Hayes, president of the Fathers and Families in New York. “And many find that there is a whole system that prevents them from doing that.”

Even some advocates for the poor argue that the focus on fathers may be too narrow and question the notion that, if fathers just pay their child support or visit more often with their children, the problems of poverty will be addressed.

CAN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS GIVE DADS AND KIDS WHAT THEY REALLY NEED?

In an ideal world, men would learn how to be effective fathers from their fathers or from the other male role models in their lives. But the majority of men in the city’s fatherhood programs did not have supportive male figures in their lives growing up.

“I grew up with a single mom because my dad died at an early age, but there was a network of black men in my community,” Walter Fields of the Community Service Society said in a recent interview on WNYC radio. “Part of it is two-parent households, but we also have to rebuild the social fabric that has been destroyed.”

Can these types of programs do that?

Fatherhood initiatives are still too new – and have such modest goals – that is difficult to demonstrate their overall success, but some initial studies of similar programs across the nation have produced mixed results. (An evaluation of a program in Connecticut, for example, found that many fathers were actually deterred from establishing a relationship with their children because the program was also seeking child support compliance.)

But some experts argue that the initiatives can be useful in providing peer groups where men can talk about the challenges they face and in helping some men get jobs to support their families.

From an economic standpoint, the amount of money being spent on these programs is small, and so a few successes can add up. “If you can change one out of 30 or 40 guys, then it’s a worthwhile investment,” says Robert Lerman, economist at American University and the Urban Institute, who has done research on the issue.

The more difficult challenge, others say, is helping fathers who do not live with their children to become the kind of parent that a kid really needs.

When most non-custodial fathers get together with their kids for the few days a month, their main objective is to have fun. They go to the park, a ballgame, or the circus, and their goal is to repair – or just to maintain - a relationship with the child.

But these may not be the activities that the child needs most.

In just a few hours a week, it is difficult to discipline, follow a student’s progress in school, and know if a child is hanging out with the wrong crowd. In other words, the fathers have to figure out how to both have fun and hold a child accountable.

“I don’t think there is any father that doesn’t have trouble negotiating that tension,” says Mincy. “A guy who is a non-custodial parent is even more reluctant to go into that space.”

Still Carlos Rivera, who helps lead parenting classes at Papas de Bushwick, says he has seen first hand that fathering skills can be taught, but not always in the ways the curriculum suggests. “The younger men learn from the older ones and that can help fill that missing role,” says Rivera. “But that is also when the book goes out the window and the real work begins.”

BEGINNING WITH THE BASICS

On a Thursday morning, half a dozen men in aprons, most in the early 20s, buzz around a kitchen preparing a lunch of macaroni and cheese, chicken and egg salad, French bread, and fruit salad dessert.

The men, all with criminal records and all fathers, are participants in a weekly ritual known as “Miss Betty’s Practical Cooking Class” at the Fortune Society, a Chelsea organization that works with people who have criminal records.

Miss Betty is Betty Wilson, an instructor who teaches the men nutrition, cooking skills, as well as table etiquette.

“Sit, sit,” says Miss Betty, instructing the men to sit down at a table and taking the baseball cap off of one young father.

“I never used to eat at the table before,” says Mike Davis, the 25-year-old father of a five-year-old son and 19-month old daughter. “I always ate in my bedroom or in front of the T.V.”

“I’d be lying if I said I ate at the table,” says another man. “But I do cook for my kids.”

The goals of the cooking class are to give men practical kitchen skills, educate them about how to prepare nutritious meals, create an activity they can do with their kids, and encourage them to get in the habit of sitting and talking with their families.

“After eight weeks, the guys can’t wait to show off their skills,” said Sophia Strong, who heads up the family programs at the Fortune Society. “Before this, the best they could offer was buying their kid sneakers.”

Samuel Maldonado says that the fathering class he took has made him calmer with his children, more conscious of what he says and does, and more of a “people person.” As a peer counselor, he now helps other men who are new to the program.

But the most practical impact is that he is even around his children at all.

“If it wasn’t for this, I’d probably be in jail right now,” he says.

RELATED LINKS:

National Fatherhood Initiative
New York City Fatherhood Initiative
NYC Fatherhood Initiative Providers
Father’s Rights Association of New York State
New York Father’s Resources
Fathers and Families New York
Fathering Magazine
New York State Child Support Services
Interactive Tour of Child Support Services

 

 

 

Wireless Access


Earlier this month the New York Times criticized the slow growth of wireless Internet access in New York City, which was the centerpiece of Andrew Rasiej's bid for the office of public advocate last year. The Times noted that free or low-cost wireless access is particularly needed in poorer neighborhoods, where the cost of DSL or high-speed service is prohibitive.

New York City's current patchwork approach to wireless access is markedly different from that of other cities and many rural communities. The national trend is toward developing free or low-cost wireless networks that are accessible anywhere within a given region. New York City has focused on wireless access in parks.

Thus far the Department of Parks and Recreation has been trying to provide wireless access in selected parks through partnerships with various non-profit and commercial groups. In addition, several organizations have worked independently to "light up" selected parks. For example, the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation provides wireless access in Bryant Park, and the Alliance for Downtown New York provides the same service in eight public spaces, including three parks, in lower Manhattan. Both groups worked with NYC Wireless, a non-profit organization that advocates universal wireless access in New York City.

Parks Department Strategy

The parks department first solicited bids for vendors to provide wireless access in 2003. Despite skepticism from some City Council members and NYC Wireless, the department perceived wireless access as a means of generating new revenue. The bid sought out companies willing to pay a significant license fee to outfit some of the city's largest parks, in exchange for selling subscriptions and/or pay-as-you-go wireless access. Few vendors were interested, and over a year later the contract was finally awarded to Wi-Fi Salon, a small firm in Manhattan. Although Wi-Fi Salon has successfully launched wireless service in part of Battery Park, it is almost one year behind schedule for launching wireless service in nine other parks throughout the city. The parks department has given Wi-Fi Salon a deadline of the end of this summer for completing this contract, and may approach other vendors if this is not met.

Because the original bid did not generate as much interest or revenue as anticipated, the parks department issued a second bid for wireless vendors earlier this year. The new bid has lower licensing fees, allows vendors to bid on one park at a time rather than multiple parks only, and assumes that wireless access will be free to all individuals. In addition, there are shorter deadlines for completing projects once a contract is awarded. There are early signs of success for this approach; NYC Wireless is involved in providing wireless service in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, and a Long Island company will work on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and in Brooklyn's Columbus Park.

NYC Wireless Perspective

Even though NYC Wireless successfully competed for the recent parks department bid, Executive Director Dana Spiegel expresses concerns about it. He believes that wireless service should be treated as an amenity that is as important as a park bench. Spiegel also worries that, because of the costs associated with responding to the parks department bid, many qualified groups have ignored it.

Spiegel feels that the city should pay for park access if no other funds are available. With that said, in many instances parks conservancies or "Friends of" groups could pay for installation and maintenance of wireless service. However wireless access is funded, Spiegel argues that it is a modest financial proposition, which pays for itself in the creation of more vibrant parks.

Most NYC Wireless projects have not included the parks department. Union Square, Tompkins Square and Stuyvesant Cove Parks all offer wireless service established by NYC Wireless and interested local groups. A similar installation at Brooklyn Bridge Park is currently in development.

Narrowing the Digital Divide

One of the most important goals of universal wireless access is to narrow the digital divide. The South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation and Urban Communications Transport Corporation recently launched the first freely available wireless network in the South Bronx. Urban Communications Transport is a minority-owned business that was initially founded to provide wired Internet access in disadvantaged communities, and has now moved into the wireless realm. If the South Bronx network proves successful, it could serve as a model for similar networks in other neighborhoods throughout the city.

 

City Council Stated Meeting - June 13, 2006


Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.

MEETING SUMMARY:
COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT

The New York City Council voted to change its own internal policies regarding employment discrimination and harassment.

One amendment bans all forms of workplace harassment - whether it is racial, ethnic, religious or sexual in nature. It requires that anyone who receives a complaint report it to the speaker’s office.

Another amendment establishes a new code of conduct for council members. It defines "disorderly behavior" and gives the council new powers to discipline anyone who violates the rules, ranging from an official reprimand to expulsion from the council.

"This sends a strong message of zero-tolerance of any type of harassment," said Speaker Christine Quinn.

Quinn ordered a review of the body's harassment policies shortly after taking office in January. Last year, Queens Councilmember Allan Jennings (who is no longer in office) was found guilty of improperly firing one employee on his staff and creating a hostile work environment.

The council spent nine months investigating the incidents, and former Speaker Gifford Miller was criticized for how he handled the complaints.

"We saw over the course of that nine-month investigation that we need to make City Hall a very serious place," said Councilmember Joel Rivera, who chaired the committee charged with dealing with the Jennings' case. "I'm sure with these changes that we will not have anyone else who needs to appear before our Standard's and Ethics Committee in the future - knock on wood."

CHILD ABUSE REPORTING
Another council bill will require that the Administration for Children's Services provide new quarterly reports on its efforts to combat child abuse. Under the legislation (Intro 15-A), the agency must report information such as the number of child abuse complaints it receives, how many cases each staff person is working on, and how the agency is responding to individual incidents.

The bill was drafted in response to the death of Nixzmary Brown, a 7-year old girl who was beaten to death by her stepfather while under the supervision of the agency.

Councilmember Bill deBlasio said that if the new regulations had been in place at the time, Brown's death might have been prevented.

"We need public accountability, and we haven't had it up until now," said deBlasio. "We will be able to see what is working, what is not working and make changes accordingly."

HEALTH BENEFIT FUND
As part of this year's budget proposal, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the creation of $2 billion trust fund for retiree health benefits. The fund is a plan to pay for future health care costs for city employees.

The council has supported the plan and recently allocated $1 billion toward the plan.

At the meeting, the council voted to officially create the fund that will be monitored by the city comptroller.

"This is a good and bold idea," said Quinn.

(For another view of the health fund, see a Gotham Gazette article)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS VEHICLES
In recent years, the council has worked to require that city-owned vehicles meet certain fuel and hybrid technology standards in an effort to reduce pollution. At the same time, lawmakers do not want the regulations to limit the city's ability to purchase the specialized emergency vehicles it needs.

The council passed an exemption from the fuel-efficient requirements (Intro 208-A) for certain buses and emergency response vehicles used by the Department of Corrections. The office of emergency management, the sheriff’s office, police department, and the fire department are already allowed to bypass the regulations when purchasing emergency equipment.

"This bill makes sure that the Department of Corrections has the tools they need to do their job," said Councilmember James Gennaro.

All of these bills passed by a vote of 50 to 0.

The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2006.

 

2006 City Council Stipends


Each New York City Council member makes a base salary of $90,000. However, council members can also earn an additional stipend or "lulu" ranging from $4,000 to $28,500 for serving in various leadership positions or as a chair of a committee. In 2006, the council awarded itself a total of $479,500 in stipends.

One member decided not to take the extra money; Councilmember Tony Avella declined $8,000 for chairing the Zoning and Franchise Committee. Five others members - Letitia James, Andrew Lanza, Melissa Mark Viverito, Darlene Mealy, and Rosie Mendez - do not receive stipends or chair committees.

The following chart is organized by categories "Leadership Positions," "Standing Committees, " "Subcommitees," and "Select Committees" and by the size of the stipend, from the largest to the smallest.

New York City Council members are also the only local elected officials who are allowed to earn outside income from other jobs. See a chart of non-city income earned by council members.

POSITION MEMBER STPIEND TOTAL
Leadership Positions
Speaker
Christine C. Quinn $28,500 $118,500
Majority Leader/Health Joel Rivera $23,000 $113,000
Deputy Majority Leader/Consumer Affairs Leroy G. Comrie, Jr. $20,000 $110,000
Minority Leader James S. Oddo $18,000 $108,000
Assistant Majority Leader/General Welfare Bill de Blasio $15,000 $105,000
Assistant Majority Leader/Youth Services Lewis A. Fidler $15,000 $105,000
Majority Whip/Standards and Ethics Inez E. Dickens $11,000 $101,000
Minority Whip Dennis P. Gallagher $5,000 $95,000
Standing Committees
Finance David I. Weprin $18,000 $108,000
Land Use Melinda R. Katz $18,000 $108,000
Housing and Buildings Erik Martin Dilan $10,000 $100,000
Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse & Disability Services G. Oliver Koppell $10,000 $100,000
Women's Issues Helen Sears $10,000 $100,000
Aging Maria del Carmen Arroyo $10,000 $100,000
Civil Rights Larry B. Seabrook $10,000 $100,000
Civil Service and Labor Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr. $10,000 $100,000
Contracts Yvette D. Clarke $10,000 $100,000
Cultural Affairs, Libraries & International Intergroup Relations Domenic M. Recchia, Jr. $10,000 $100,000
Economic Development Thomas White, Jr. $10,000 $100,000
Education Robert Jackson $10,000 $100,000
Environmental Protection James F. Gennaro $10,000 $100,000
Fire and Criminal Justice Services Miguel Martinez $10,000 $100,000
Governmental Operations Simcha Felder $10,000 $100,000
Higher Education Charles Barron $10,000 $100,000
Immigration Kendall Stewart $10,000 $100,000
Juvenile Justice Sara M. Gonzalez $10,000 $100,000
Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Alan J. Gerson $10,000 $100,000
Oversight and Investigations Eric N. Gioia $10,000 $100,000
Parks and Recreation Helen D. Foster $10,000 $100,000
Public Safety Peter F. Vallone, Jr. $10,000 $100,000
Rules, Privileges and Elections Diana Reyna $10,000 $100,000
Sanitation and Waste Management Michael E. McMahon $10,000 $100,000
Small Business David Yassky $10,000 $100,000
State and Federal Legislation Maria Baez $10,000 $100,000
Technology in Government Gale A. Brewer $10,000 $100,000
Transportation John C. Liu $10,000 $100,000
Veterans Hiram Monserrate $10,000 $100,000
Waterfronts Michael C. Nelson $10,000 $100,000
Subcommittees
Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses (Land Use)
Jessica S. Lappin $4,000 $94,000
Planning Dispositions and Concessions (Land Use) Daniel R. Garodnick $4,000 $94,000
Drug Abuse (Mental Health)
Annabel Palma $4,000 $94,000
Public Housing (Housing and Buildings)
Rosie Mendez $4,000 $94,000
Senior Centers (Aging)
James Vacca $4,000 $94,000
Select Committees
Community Development
Albert Vann $4,000 $94,000
Libraries Vincent J. Gentile $4,000 $94,000

Non-City Income for New York City Council Members


The chart below lists the range of "non-city income" that members of the New York City Council declared in 2004 (the most recent year available). This income is in addition to the $90,000 a year salary each council member earns and any stipends for serving as a chair of the committee or in a leadership position. (Click here for a list of council salaries and stipends).

Each council member is required to fill out a financial disclosure report with the Conflict of Interest Board, listing outside income and its sources. Although council members do not have to disclose the exact amount of outside income earned, they are required to give a range. The categories are $1,000 to under $5,000; $5,000 to under $35,000; $35,000 to under $60,000; $60,000 to under $100,000; $100,000 to under $250,00; $250,000 to under $500,000; $500,000 or more.

Council members who did not declare additional information are not listed. Also there is no information availabe for eight members - Inez E. Dickens, Daniel R. Garodnick, Jessica S. Lappin, Melissa Mark Viverito, Darlene Mealy, Rosie Mendez, James Vacca, and Thomas White, Jr. - who did not take office until January 2006. Some information in the report is illegible and is marked with a "?" in the chart.

COUNCIL MEMBER
SOURCE
TYPE OF INCOME
RANGE OF OUTSIDE INCOME
TOTAL INCLUDING COUNCIL SALARY AND STIPEND
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Avella, Tony Park Ave. Securities Dividends (Jointly Owned) $1,000 $5,000 At least $91,000
Brewer, Gale B and B? Income $5,000 $35,000 At least $105,000
DeBlasio, Bill John Edwards for President, Inc. Consulting $5,000 $35,000 At least $105,000
Fidler Lewis A. Roberts & Fidler PC Salary and Distribution
$35,000 $60,000 At least $179,000
Roberts, Fidler and Mirasol Draw $5,000 $35,000
Plaintiff Funding Corp Salary $35,000 $60,000
Emigrant Savings Bank Bank Interest $1,000 $5,000
Roslyn Savings Bank Bank Interest $1,000 $5,000
Janney Montgomery Scott Bond Dividends $1,000 $5,000
Munder Funds Dividends $1,000 $5,000

Gerson, Alan J.

Inheritance from Uncle Pension and Annuities $5,000 $35,000 At least $105,000
Jackson, Robert Cornell University Extension Program Salary for Instructor $1,000 $5,000 At least $101,000
Koppell, G. Oliver Koppell, Leavitt, Kerson and Duane LLP
Law Firm Income $5,000 $35,000 At least $241,000
Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates Law Firm Income $100,000 $250,000
Coyle & Assoc. LLP Law Firm Income $1,000 $5,000
State of NY Pension $35,000 $60,000
Lanza, Andrew J. TD Waterhouse
Dividend Inc. $1,000 $5,000 At least $92,000
US Treasury Interest Inc. $1,000 $5,000
McMahon, Michael E. O'Leary, McMahon and Spero Salary $100,000 $250,000 At least $200,000
Apple Bank
Interest $1,000 $5,000
CitiBank
Interest $1,000 $5,000
City + Suburban
Interest $1,000 $5,000
North Fork
Interest $1,000 $5,000
Recchia, Domenic M. Self-Employed
Law Practice Income $100,000 $250,000 At least $310,000
Stratton, VT
Rental Income $5,000 $35,000
Stratton, VT
Rental Income $5,000 $35,000
Stratton, VT
Sale of Property $100,000 $250,000
Seabrook, Larry B. John Jay College
Adjunct Prof. $5,000 $35,000 At least $105,000
Sears, Helen U.S. Treasury
Social Security $5,000 $35,000 At least $123,000
IRA
? $5,000 $35,000
Chase Bank
Interest $1,000 $5,000
Independence Bk
Interest $1,000 $5,000
UBS
Dividends $5,000 $35,000
?
Annuity $1,000 $5,000
?
? $5,000 $35,000
Stewart, Kendall Kendall Stewart - Podiastrist
Medical Practice $60,000 $100,000 At least $160,000
Vallone, Jr., Peter Vallone & Vallone
Law $5,000 $35,000 At least $106,000
Valley Rock Realty
Real Estate $1,000 $5,000
Vann Albert Rent
  $5,000 $35,000 At least $104,000
Social Security
$5,000 $35,000
Weprin, David I. Sieratzki Ceccarelli & Weprin LLP Law Firm
Draw $5,000 $35,000 At least $218,000
Sterne, Agree & Leach Inc.
Investment Banker Salary $100,000 $250,000
Misc. Law Firms of Counsel Work
$5,000 $35,000
Yassky, David Aim Aggressive Growth
Sale of Mutual Fund Shares $1,000 $5,000 At least $102,000
Yassky Wyndham Partnership Limited Partner; Real Estate $1,000 $5,000

 

 

 

Salaries For Elected Officials


What job pays at least $90,000 a year and still leaves enough free time to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income?

It is the job of a New York City Council member - or at least it is for one. Brooklyn Councilmember Dominic Recchia, who makes $90,000 a year in council salary and an additional $10,000 for chairing the council's cultural affairs committee also earns about a quarter million dollars or more in outside income, according to city documents.

What city government job pays $150,000 a year and provides a car and driver, but has no real power over city policy?

There are at least six such jobs: public advocate and the five borough presidents, who were stripped of most of their authority years ago, but whose positions remain nonetheless.

This summer, there is a debate over whether or not these elected officials deserve a pay raise.

TOP COUNCIL EARNERS IN 2004
Domenic M. Recchia
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $10,000
Outside Income: At Least $210,000
TOTAL: At least $310,000
G. Oliver Koppell
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $10,000
Outside Income: At Least $141,000
TOTAL: At least $241,000
David I. Weprin
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $18,000
Outside Income: At Least $110,000
TOTAL: At least $218,000
Michael E. McMahon
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $10,000
Outside Income: At Least $100,000
TOTAL: At least $200,000
Lewis A. Fidler
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $10,000
Outside Income: At Least $79,000
TOTAL: At least $179,000
Kendall Stewart
Council Salary: $90,000
Stipend: $10,000
Outside Income: At Least $60,000
TOTAL: At least $160,000

Click here for more information about councilmembers' outside income.

Michael Bloomberg recently appointed a commission to consider the compensation for the office of mayor, comptroller, public advocate, borough president, district attorneys, and members of the City Council.

The commision will consider factors like:
. The cost of living in New York
. What similar positions in the private sector pay
. Additional stipends for council members
. If it is a full-time or part-time job
. The amount of time since the last raise

And then they will make a recommendation to the mayor in July.

Proponents of a salary increase argue it has been seven years since local officials got their last increase.

"I think its time for the council to get a raise, yes," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn recently told the New York Post editorial board.

But critics question the rationale and the process.

For one thing, the City Council gets to vote for its own salary increases. It is also the only elected position that is allowed to be part time. About a quarter of the members also earn outside income - as lawyers, investment bankers, and political consultants, and one is a foot doctor.

The debate raises a difficult question: How much should public service pay?

COST OF LIVING IN NYC

New York City is one of the most expensive cities in the world. Money Magazine calculates that the cost of living in the city is 138 percent more than the national average. In turn, New York City elected officials are among the highest paid in the nation.

Currently, the salaries for local officials are:
- Mayor $195,000
- Comptroller $160,000
- Public Advocate $150,000
- District Attorney $150,000
- Borough President $150,000
- Council Member $90,000

However, the median income of all workers in New York City is only $41,509 - which means that the mayor earns five times more and a City Council member earns more than two times more than the average New Yorker.

Some believe this is plenty.

"I'm fine with $90,000," said Queens Councilmember Tony Avella. "I think that is enough."

But others argue that most elected officials work long hours and make decisions that affect millions of people - and that higher salaries help attract the highest caliber of people, especially in a city where many expect to - and need to - earn high wages.

"The salaries do not compensate for the time and effort and energy needed to serve," said John Zaccone, who works for the Staten Island Borough President and was one of only three people to testify at a June 1 hearing on the issue. "The salaries must not act as a deterrent to qualified people seeking public office."

PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE SECTOR

Michael Bloomberg accepts just $1 a year as the mayor of New York City. Because of his personal wealth, he has the luxury of refusing a city paycheck.

But most politicians need to pay the bills while they engage in public service, which invariably sparks a debate when the issue of compensation arises: How much is an elected official worth?

One way to think about the issue is to consider what similar jobs in the private sector pay. By this measure, many elected officials are underpaid.

At $195,000 a year, New York City has the highest paid mayor in the nation, but he is the boss of more than 300,000 city employees. CEOs of smaller corporations make many times more; the chairmen of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs, for example, each earn more than $30 million a year.

District Attorneys, who currently make $150,000, only earn about the same as a first year associate at a private law firm. Some good government groups and newspaper editorial boards have urged a pay increase for prosecutors.

"The compensation for the district attorneys should be increased by a greater amount than for other offices given how low the pay is for those who are members of the legal profession in service to the city," Dick Dadey of Citizens Union (the sister organization of Citizens Union Foundation which publishes Gotham Gazette) recently testified.

However, it is difficult to compare jobs like the public advocate or borough president, which have little powers over city policy or the budget. They spend much of their time advocating for certain causes, serving as government liaisons, or acting as cheerleaders for their communities.

Critics who have argued that these government jobs should be eliminated are particularly opposed to giving them raises.

"The $150,000 salary is a gross overpayment for the worthless post of public advocate," the Daily News editorial board wrote.

Still others argue that public service is fundamentally different than working in private industry. People should be motivated by a desire to help others, they say, not by money.

"Public service has never been about becoming rich unless you are corrupt," Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group argues. "It's supposed to be about serving the public, by definition, and the gratification is not monetary."

SHOULD COUNCIL STIPENDS BE BANNED?

The City Council Speaker has power to give members stipends - also known as "lulus" - in addition to the base salary of $90,000 a year.

Currently, 46 of the 51 City Council members receive stipends. They range from $4,000 to $18,000 for serving as chairs of various committees. Some earn additional stipends for leadership positions ranging from $5,000 up to $28,500 for Council Speaker Christine Quinn. (Click here for a full list of salaries and stipends.)

Bronx Councilmember Joel Rivera earns an additional $23,000 a year for chairing the health committee and for serving as majority leader, a title that carries no real responsibilities other than, as the rules state, "appointing party officers as he deems appropriate." The lulus bring his total annual salary to $113,000 a year.

There is also Deputy Majority Leader Leroy Comrie (who earns an additional $20,000), and Assistant Majority Leaders Bill deBlasio and Lewis Fidler (who each earn an extra $15,000) and Majority Whip Inez Dickens (who earns an additional $11,000). And it is not just the Democrats who enjoy the lulus. Two of the three Republicans in the council also have leadership roles. James Oddo earns an additional $18,000 as the minority leader and Dennis Gallagher earns $5,000 for being the minority whip.

All told, the council members approved a total of $479,500 in stipends for themselves this year.

Some critics have called for an end to the practice because it gives the speaker power to dole out money or take it away from those who grow too independent - and it is a way for council members to boost their own salaries without going thorough the proper process.

"Why not have any salary increases tied to the elimination of stipends, which can be used to punish or reward members?" said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

IS IT A FULL-TIME JOB?

All elected officials are required to work full-time and are not allowed to earn outside income from other jobs, with one exception: members of the New York City Council.

At least 17 of the 51 current City Council members earn outside income from law firms, political consulting jobs, apartment rentals, or pensions, according to records from the Conflict of Interest Board.

Although the financial disclosure forms that the council members are required to fill out only list a range of earned income and not the exact amount, the records show that a half a dozen council members make close to a quarter million dollars a year in income. (Click here for a complete chart of information on the additional income earned by the current members of the City Council.)

In 2004, Brooklyn Councilmember Bill deBlasio made somewhere between $5,000 and $35,000 as a consultant for John Edwards' failed president campaign.

The same year, Brooklyn Councilmember Kendall Stewart made at least $60,000 working as a podiatrist.

Queens Councilmember David Weprin, who chairs the finance committee, made at least $110,000 in additional income from his work as a lawyer and investment banker. And Bronx Councilmember Oliver Koppell earned at least $141,000 in outside income from his law firm and pension payments from his time in the State Assembly.

Brooklyn Councilmember Dominic Recchia is the biggest earner in the council. In 2004, Recchia made somewhere between $210,000 and $570,000 in addition to his council salary from his law practice as well as rental and sales income from properties in Stratton, Vermont.

The exception that allows council members to earn outside income dates back to a time when there were fewer members and they had little power. Today, however, each council member represents approximately 157,000 people and votes on legislation, the city's $50 billion budget, and land use items.

Some believe it should be a full-time position.

"Just ask my wife, this is not a part time job," said Councilmember Joseph Addabbo, who estimates he works 12 to 15 hour days, six or seven days a week and recently introduced a resolution that would designate the council position as a full-time job.

Still, while many council members want to do away with the stigma of it only being part-time, most are reluctant to limit their colleagues' ability to earn outside income.

"I didn't want to jam this law down anybody's throat," said Addabbo.

This year, good government groups support a modest pay increase for council members, but also called for making the job full-time and eliminating council stipends.

DO THEY NEED A RAISE NOW?

In New York City, the salaries for local elected officials are supposed to be reevaluated every four years through an official process. The mayor appoints a three-member commission with a name as obscure as its task: the Advisory Commission for the Review of Compensation Levels of Elected Officials.

Over the next month, the commission will consider factors like cost of living, trends across the country, and the responsibilities of the officials, and make a recommendation on salary changes to Mayor Bloomberg by July. The mayor can accept, reject, or modify the recommendation. It then goes to the City Council for a vote.

In the past, some politicians, who recognize that the subject of pay raises is touchy, have ignored the commission's suggestions.

In 1995, elected officials were given across the board increases, but Public Advocate Mark Green refused to accept the $20,000 increase because he was being forced to lay off members of his staff because of cutbacks.

In 1999, five City Council members voted against a 28 percent pay increase for themselves, some calling it "unconscionable" and a "windfall" for politicians (although the measure passed and they still accepted the extra money).

And in 2003, billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided that the city's budget woes were so bad that he refused to even appoint a commission as required by city law, and instead postponed it.

But now that the city's fiscal situation has improved - and the next local election isn't until 2009 so voters who are angered by any pay increases are likely to forget by the next election day - most observers believe there will be some kind of pay increase this year.

Under the rules, current council members will vote to increase their own salaries. Congress as well as representatives to the State Legislature are only allowed to vote for increases for those people elected in the next term to prevent such a conflict.

Critics also scoff at the notion that elected officials haven't had a raise in seven years. Because of term limits, most haven't even been in office that long.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer took office in January. Of the 51 council members, 34 members have been in office for only four years, and eight have held office for just six months.

"It's a safe bet none of them campaigned in November on a pledge to raise his or her own salary," argued the Daily News editorial board.

Additional reporting by John Pham, Daniel Rivoli, and Shoshana Schwartz

Related Links:

2006 City Council Member Salaries and Stipends
Non-City Income for NYC Council Members - 2004
Advisory Commission for the Review of Compensation Levels of Elected Officials

 

New City Council Bills


At its most recent meeting on May 24, 2006, the New York City Council passed several bills that made taxis more accessible to the disabled and more environmentally friendly.

Members of the council also introduced more taxi-related bills, as well as bills on smoking, cell phones, and POW/MIA flags.

TAXIS

According to the Council, many people in the taxi industry lack sufficient knowledge of the benefits of clean air vehicles. Several council members sponsored a bill (Intro 352) that would require that the Taxi and Limousine Commission to conduct an education campaign explaining the virtues of hybrid vehicles to taxicab owners. The bill also would require the commission to approve at least one more hybrid-electric car model that could be used as a taxi.

The Council introduced a related bill (Intro 353) to require clear identification marking clear air taxis, as well as increased public information concerning the vehicles.

Finally, a bill was introducing calling for the creation of a Central Accessibility Dispatch System (Intro 356), which would to allow the public to find taxis with access for disabled passengers by calling 311.

TOBACCO

Tobacco use costs the City almost $300 million per year in direct costs, in addition to the foregone income of workers who miss work due to smoking-related illnesses, according to a study by the Columbia University Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. According to New York City’s Bureau of Tobacco Control, 25 New Yorkers per day (over 9,000 per year) die of smoking-related diseases.

Ninety percent of these smokers began the habit before twenty-one years of age, according to the American Lung Association. Now Councilmember Joel Rivera wants (Intro 360) to raise the legal age of buying tobacco in New York City to twenty-one. According to Rivera, this bill would “help prevent the initiation of smoking by teenagers and improve the general health of all New Yorkers.”

The legal age for purchasing tobacco in New York is set at both the city and state level. The state sets a minimum age at which tobacco can be purchased. All cities must enforce this standard, but they are permitted to set their own, more stringent laws as well.

CELL PHONES

Most electronic devices – including cell phones – have been banned in city schools since 1988. But these laws were rarely enforced until this spring, when Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein announced that mobile metal detectors would be randomly set up in schools. This move angered many students and parents, who said that, for many students, carrying a cell phone is a safety issue.

Councilmember Lewis Fidler and the City Council recently entered the fray, introducing a bill (Intro 351) to allow schoolchildren to carry cell phones to and from school.

[See “Hanging Up on Parents?” and “Cell Phone Ban Angers Students” for more on the cell phone controversy.]

POW/MIA FLAG

In an attempt to make sure that children respect the sacrifice of combat soldiers, Councilmembers James Oddo and Dennis Gallagher have proposed a bill (Intro 358) requiring the display of the Missing In Action/Prisoner Of War flag on all Department of Education properties where the American flag is flown.

“You learn the main subjects [in school], but you also learn main values, and one of those values is that we honor our soldiers past and present, and honor their sacrifices,” said Christopher Decicco, a spokesperson for Councilmember Oddo.

The Department of Education would be required to pay the costs of the flags, whose exact price is uncertain. In 2003 the Council passed a similar bill requiring that the Parks Department display the POW/MIA flag in about 800 public locations. Spokesperson Decicco feels that the new bill is similarly uncontroversial.

 

Giving Voters Real Choices


In January, Judge John Gleeson ruled on the case Lopez Torres vs. the New York State Board of Elections, which held that highly qualified candidates for Supreme Court deemed to be not sufficiently loyal to the party are unable to secure the nomination in New York.

Margarita Lopez Torres ran for civil court with the support of the party in 1992 and later decided that she wanted to run for Supreme Court. After she got her seat on the civil court bench, she was given instructions from the county leader to hire a particular court attorney. Lopez Torres determined that the particular court attorney was not qualified for the position and refused to hire him. When time came for the Supreme Court nomination, she was told that the party needed loyalty – that those who stand by the county party can move on to the Supreme Court, those who do not stand by the party, cannot.

In the brief to the court, the defendants do not argue that the convention system serves judicial integrity or judicial independence. They do argue that the system serves the party associational interests and an interest in racial, ethnic and geographic diversity.

The first interest – the party’s rights to freedom of association – does not, in our view, include its right to exclude its own members from the nomination process. And geographic diversity can be addressed without burdening voters’ rights simply by imposing residency requirements on the judicial candidates, which do not now exist, or by reducing the size of the judicial districts, so that there would be smaller districts from which each judge would run. Racial diversity is a serious interest and whether or not the system in place or other alternatives created will be a great concern.

SHAM ELECTIONS

Related Articles:

Selecting the Most Qualified Candidates
Michael Cardozo, the counsel for New York City, argues that while merit selection is the best way to appoint judges, screening panels that recommend the best judicial candidates is the most practical approach.

Creating A Diverse Judiciary
Paul Wooten, who has served as a delegate to Brooklyn’s Democratic judicial convention, argues that, for the most part, the current system works and elects judges that represent the diverse city.

We begin with the premise that sham elections are not consistent with democracy. And sham elections are what we have under the current convention system. Our state constitution requires that our Supreme Courts judges must be elected. But the convention system allows the county leaders to usurp from the voters the power to select the justices.

During the course of the litigation, for example, evidence was entered that the New York County Democratic leader said that he had the votes to “kill someone.” In other words, “I can’t guarantee that I can always make you, but I can surely block you.”

That means that nobody becomes a Supreme Court justice unless the county leader agrees. In fact, after 13 days of hearings, 24 witnesses, and 10,000 pages of evidence, there was no evidence of a single person ever becoming a Supreme Court justice over the objection of a county leader. Between 1994 and 2002, 96 percent of all Supreme Court nominations statewide were completely uncontested.

In our view, if there are going to be elections in New York, then voters should have some real choice in selecting who is going to be on the bench. Now, whether there should be elections at all in New York is a different question, but in this case, the defendants argued that there is no right to meaningful participation in judicial nominations. To me, that is tantamount to the claim that meaningless participation is enough.

Having political parties control who is nominated to the Supreme Court is not consistent with judicial independence, impartiality or integrity.

AN ARGUMENT FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS

The district court preliminarily enjoined the operation of the convention system. That means that until trial or until the legislature changes the system, the convention system is not in force. The original injunction would have defaulted to the fallback process in the statute, which are primary elections.

There were primary elections many decades ago, the convention system was put in the place, and so when the judge knocked down the convention system, he simply did what he deemed to be the least intrusive thing he could do, which was to reinstate the process that existed before.

This is the first real opportunity in decades to revisit the issue of how judges should be selected. If this decision is upheld on appeal, it will probably be the last opportunity we will have for decades. The party leaders have controlled this process for many years and unless we have an opportunity now, it is unlikely that will ever be able to persuade them to change.

The Brennan Center has not taken a position that open primaries are the best decision. We have not taken a position as to what we think the best system is. We believe there is more work to be done before we can make that decision.

The problem with the current system is that the party leaders control the selection. I am concerned that just tinkering with the system is going to replicate the problem.

More formal screening panels, for example, would not eliminate loyalty tests. Candidates will still know that at the end of the day, that the party leader will have the power to block the nomination. As long as that is the case then we have not addressed the constitutional problem.

As long as there is a system that allows the party leader to exercise that veto, we are still going to have highly qualified candidates who are going to self-select themselves out of the process.

So the candidates who come before the commission will not necessarily be the most honest, most competent, the people with the highest ethical standards. They will be the people who know that they can make a case to the party leader.

RESPONDING TO FOUR CONCERNS ABOUT ELECTIONS

The alternative – primary elections – should not be evaluated as a fallback system alone, but in terms of what they could be if there were appropriate amendments.

1. Money

The first concern about primary elections for Supreme Court is the cost. Some worry that quality candidates who either cannot or do not want to raise large sums of money will not run for office, or that they will be outspent by self-financed candidates. Public funding would address most of this issue.

We have done studies of judicial races and the cost of campaigns across the country, and we have found that the most expensive races are for the high court seats. People are spending millions of dollars on judicial races where there is no higher body in the state to overrule the judge, so it is a very important policymaking position. But we are not seeing, for the most part, very expensive trial court races.

2. Geographic Diversity

Another concern is geographic diversity, and reducing the size of judicial districts would address this issue. If a candidate can run in a single county, then candidates are not in the position to beg for scraps from the leader from the most powerful county.

For example, people in Staten Island have to convince the Brooklyn party leader that they deserve a seat on the bench. If Staten Island had its own district, they would have a much better opportunity to have geographic diversity.

3. Women on the Bench

On gender diversity, the Women’s Bar of the State of New York has submitted an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. They do not address the underlying issue of constitutionality, but some members are concerned that the move from a convention system to primarily elections will depress gender diversity in New York State courts. They argue “women will not be able to compete on equal footing with historically more politically entrenched candidates for Supreme Court justice.”

I find this ironic because right now women are at the mercy of politically entrenched, male party leaders.

I don’t think that they are likely to be facing greater entrenchment in an open primary. In 2002, the New York State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts found that only 17 percent of Supreme Court justices were women. Even in New York City, 26 percent of Supreme Court justices were women, where as 47 percent of Civil Court judges were women. Civil Court judges run in primaries countywide, just as Supreme Court judges would have to do.

4. Racial Diversity

I also want to talk about racial diversity. In 2001, 92 percent of the Supreme Court justices of color in the state were from New York City. Even in New York City, from 1992 to 2002, people of color held 39 percent of civil court seats, but only 27 percent of Supreme Court seats. So in New York City, where we have majority populations of color, there is reason to believe, especially if there is public funding, that communities of color will be able to elect judges.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE

The one thing that public financing and smaller districts would not address is the fundamental question of whether the election of judges is appropriate in the first place.

Many people believe that institutionally the judiciary is not designed to answer to the tyranny of the majority and that the election process is fundamentally flawed. I’m not sure I agree with that. But even if you do believe that, now is an amazing opportunity for people of the state of New York to engage in a discussion about what is the best system.

Deborah Goldberg is the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice

 

 

 

 

 

Selecting the Most Qualified Judges


I have long been a strong believer in merit selection. I personally believe it should be our ultimate goal. Unfortunately, I also think it’s not a realistic goal to be achieved in the near future.

I do not want to have open primaries. I have real questions about whether or not voters really can meaningfully cast their vote in primaries. I don’t know what issues judges are going to campaign on, or how voters can intelligently exercise their franchise.

THE PROBLEM OF MONEY

In Texas, there is a story (that I believe is only half apocryphal). Two people try a case before a judge. The judge says, “I want the record to reflect that a lawyer for the plaintiff gave me $10,000 for my campaign and the lawyer for the defendant only gave me $5,000 for my campaign.” And the lawyer for the defense says, “Judge, can we adjourn so I can write you a check?”

If we have open primaries, the issue of money is something that everyone should be very concerned about. Public financing would partially address the issue, but it would not address how voters make their decisions.



Related Articles

Giving Voters Real Choices
Deborah Goldberg of the Brennan Center argues that with certain reforms, primary elections could address many of the current problems in selecting judges.

Creating A Diverse Judiciary
Paul Wooten, who has served as a delegate to Brooklyn’s Democratic judicial convention, argues that, for the most part, the current system works and elects judges that represent the diverse city.

A PRACTICAL SOLUTION

I do not think that you are going to be able to generate a consensus for merit selection anytime in the foreseeable future. I do not think that you are going to be able to generate consensus on public financing for judicial candidates. If we believe that, I think we are kidding ourselves.

So if we are not going to get merit selection and if the open primary approach is not particularly desirable, then let’s look at the judicial conventions system and ask what is wrong with it and see if it can be corrected.

I think there are two fundamental problems with the convention system. As Judge Gleeson pointed out, it is virtually impossible for anyone who wants to buck the county leader to get elected. So, we have to look at how you can correct that.

The second issue is the “Clarence Norman” problem. Testimony in the case demonstrated that the county leader has had virtual dictatorial power of the quality of the people coming out of the system. There are a lot of judges who should be on the bench. But there are also a lot of people who were able to make deals and they should not be on the bench, but they are.

REFORMING JUDCIAL CONVENTIONS

So how do you correct these flaws?

1. Easier Ballot Access

The first flaw, which I’ll call the constitutional flaw, has two basic issues. One is the number of signatures required for a delegate to get elected. Both the Feerick Commission and Mayor Bloomberg have suggested that you change that 500-signature requirement to 250 to make it easier for people to get on the ballot.

2. Fewer Delegates

The second issue is that under the current statute each party can determine how many delegates there should be at a judicial convention. So if you have a large convention, and you want to run as a maverick candidate, you not only have to get a lot of signatures, but you have to have support from a lot of people at the convention.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed that the smallest assembly district within the particular judicial district has one delegate, and that the number increase based on population in each district. The Feerick Commission suggested that you have weighted voting to achieve the same balance. Either way, you have to cut down the number of delegates.

3. Screening Panels

So how are we going to ensure that the most qualified people come out of the convention system and not just people who pass some minimal professional criteria?

Unfortunately, the New York State Constitution gets in the way of this. The constitution says that the only qualifications for judges is that you have to be a certain age and you have to have practiced law for a certain period of time. You cannot say that you have to be found “highly qualified” to run for judge.

But what you can do – and this is what the Feerick Commission, Judge Judith Kaye, and the mayor have all proposed – is set up a judicial qualification commission. The commission finds the people at the convention who are qualified to be a judge.

The mayor has pushed this one step further; he has suggested that the qualification commission find the three most highly qualified candidates for each slot.

You cannot mandate that the convention only select from those three people, but if you have a statute and you create this commission I would hope that this would force the parties to adhere to the recommendations of the qualifications commission.

There can be lengthy debate – if we get that far – as to who should pick the members of the judicial qualification commission.

However that is done, you must establish an independent judicial commission and then you ask those people to find the most qualified people. Those are the names are presented to the convention. I think this would change the entire dynamic. We have an opportunity. I hope we can get the State Legislature to wake up and take on this debate.

Michael Cardozo is the corporation counsel for New York City

 

 

 

 

Conventions Create A Diverse Judiciary


I was first elected as a judicial delegate in Brooklyn in 1982. At that time, the conventions were very quick, they only lasted one day. The county leaders picked the judges. And most of the judges who came out of the convention in the early 1980s were white, and no one cared about how the convention worked and who got elected. That was just how it was.

I want to explain how the judicial convention works today.

Every assembly district is allotted a certain number of delegates – anywhere from five to eight people – based on the party turnout from the previous gubernatorial election. Delegates run on the slate with the district leaders, who are party officials, and they go to the convention. The judicial delegates, either by voice vote or hand vote, determine who wins the nomination for Supreme Court justice.

In the early 1980s, white judges were elected and qualified African-Americans and Hispanics could not get elected. But over the last thirty years, the population of white residents in Brooklyn went down and the African-American and Hispanic populations have risen.

Today, African-American and Hispanic populations control the two most populous districts in Brooklyn and as a result elect judicial delegates who are black and Hispanic. They have, in turn, elected African-American and Hispanic judges to the bench. We have a larger percentage of African American judges in Brooklyn than in some states. And that is a direct result of population changes, the judicial conventions, and how they work.

Because of judicial delegates, we have African-Americans and Latinos on the bench.

WHY MERIT SELECTION WON’T WORK

Related Articles

Giving Voters Real Choices
Deborah Goldberg of the Brennan Center argues that with certain reforms, primary elections could address many of the current problems in selecting judges.

Selecting the Most Qualified Candidates
Michael Cardozo, the counsel for New York City, argues that while merit selection is the best way to appoint judges, screening panels that recommend the best judicial candidates is the most practical approach.

From my experience, the best way can power sharing for minorities is through some kind of elective process. I have huge concerns about the merit process. I’ve looked at them; I’ve been on screening panels. The merit process does not work for me.

Look at the current situation in the merit screening process of the governor. The governor has been in office for ten years, and he has a merit process for the appellate division. The first division of the appellate division has a huge African-American and Latino population in Brooklyn and Queens. But of the 16 appellate judges in the division, there is only one African American and one Hispanic.

Of the 60 Courts of Claim judges, which are appointed by the governor, we have one African-American and three Hispanics. And the one African-American judge was a candidate for Congress and basically he was appointed at the request of the Democratic Party in Queens. It had nothing to do with merit.

The Brooklyn family court –whose judges are appointed by the mayor - services the largest minority population in the state. We have no African-American family court judges. Not one.

Merit selection boards appoint people who look like them. The judicial conduct commission has 11 members, all appointed, and has no minority representative. Under merit selection, the majority of the people in the room are not people of color. When it comes down to the question of “who is the best?” or limiting it to the best three out of ten, there is a strong likelihood that people of color will be eliminated.

REFORMING CONVENTIONS

 

There are problems with the judicial conventions, but there are things that can be done to make judicial conventions better.

First of all, we have to let the delegates determine who the judicial candidate is.

In my experience, whenever a candidate gets enough momentum to become a threat at the judicial convention, the party leader always adopts that candidate. Some would say, a person didn’t get elected because the county leader opposed them, but nine times out of ten, consensus means that they did not have enough support. Consensus means that the party is holding things together, and that is how you are chosen.

The Gleeson decision talks about a “super majority” that is needed to challenge a judicial convention, but I dispute that. In the 1980s, we ran delegates in assembly districts against delegates from the country organization.

We found that you don’t need a super majority to challenge the judicial convention. All you have to do is have enough delegates to support you – about one-third – so that you can go to the convention with enough votes to negotiate.

Here are other four ways to improve the judicial convention:

1. Make the judicial delegates public.

2. Open the convention.

3. Allow candidates to speak at these events.

4. Allow time for electioneering.

And if you are going to keep the judicial conventions, give them the right to choose. To now say, you are smart enough to be elected by the direct vote of the people, but you are not smart enough to determine who is best qualified, and we have to put a panel up here to filter who you can choose from, strikes against my sense of what electoral politics are.

When you run for State Senate or Assembly or Congress, there is not a panel to determine if you are a good candidate. The public has the ability with input from bar associations, to determine who the best judges are.

Paul Wooten heads up Paul Wooten and Associates

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years