Roger Green (Democrat)
Susan Metz (Green)
Ric Ocasio (Republican)
CAMPAIGN FEATURE:
American politicians have won election while serving time in jail, facing criminal charges or even after dying. But Roger Green may be the first who ever won an election after a probation officer's report described him as "having limited mental capacity or ...being dishonest."
Green, a member of the New York State Assembly from Brooklyn, resigned his post in June after pleading guilty to three counts arising from charges that he took free rides from a state contractor and then got reimbursed by the state for the supposed cost of the trips. Green received three years probation and had to pay $5,000. The probation officer's report was intended to guide sentencing in the case.
But Green faces little competition in his bid to recapture the seat from Fort Greene and Prospect Heights that he held for 21 years. As the deadline passed for filing for the Democratic primary, Green had challenges from two little known Democrats: Tammy Meadows of Prospect Heights and Guillermo Filpotts. A Republican, Ric Ocasio, and a member of the Green Party, Susan Metz, had also declared their candidacy.
The arena for the Brooklyn Nets at Flatbush and Atlantic avenues and the accompanying development appear to be the most heated issues in the area. Meadows is backed by an organization called Community Leadership for Accountable Politics that supports the development plan, according to Erik Engquist, who writes the Brooklyn Politics column for Courier-Life newspapers. Green also supports the arena but has taken a low profile on it and, said City Councilmember Letitia James, backs some conditions on the development plan.
Metz's platform opposes the Forest City Ratner plan for the arena and surrounding area. She also is against other development plans, including housing towers or box stores and objects to taxpayer funding for private developers. But like Green, she supports funding for education and other social programs.
Another issue could have been Green's record and the recent charges against him. Along with the court action, the Assembly ethics committee investigated Green. It concluded that the Brooklyn Democrat had to resign or face what committee chair Mark Weprin has called "serious" sanctions. And so Green resigned - for a little while.
But many prominent politicians in the area chose to sit the race out
Green's hiatus from the state house seems barely noticed. Although the Assembly web site mentions that he resigned in June, recorded phone messages at both his Albany and Brooklyn office advise callers they have reached the office of Assemblyman Roger Green. (Green could not be contacted for an interview.)
And Green's absence has not cost him the backing of influential supporters, including Brooklyn Democratic Party chief Clarence Norman, who is also a member of the state Assembly and under indictment. "We're supporting Roger Green 1,000 percent and he will get re-elected, period," Norman told the New York Times.
The major rivals whose names popped up in political columns in the past months have faded away. Those not running in the 57th include lawyer Hakeem Jeffries, who had mounted spirited challenges to Green in the past; Eric Adams of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care; and Robin Brown, president of the United Parents Association of New York City.
Daniel McCalla, who had considered a run to challenge Green's support of the Nets arena, said he was not able to get enough signatures in time for the July 15 filing deadline for the Democratic primary -- particularly since, he said, he figured the Democratic organization would challenge any signatures he did get. McCalla says he hopes to work for the election of Green Party candidate Metz in November.
The Working Families Party decided not to back Green's election, but also will not back any opponents to him, choosing to stay out of the 57th District race entirely.
In past elections, Green won support from a number of organizations, including Citizens Union, which praised his efforts to improve housing and education in his district. He has been active in the campaign to increase funding for New York City schools.
City Councilmember Letitia James, who used to work for Green, listed a number of things he has done for his district. He played a key role in the opening of Benjamin Banneker High School, has brought in money for efforts to combat AIDS, and won funding for programs to help high school students attend college and to promote youth entrepreneurship. He was instrumental in the founding of Medgar Evers College, she said, and is currently working to launch four new small high schools.
"When you read his biography, it's really impressive," she said. "All the good things outweigh that lapse of judgment" with the travel reimbursements.
That could explain the lack of heavyweight opposition to Green. But others offer a different explanation.
"It's a testimony to how effective Green and other long-term incumbents have been in discouraging young people from getting into politics," said Errol Louis , a Daily News columnist who has written frequently about the district. "They have planned to stay for their entire lives as if it were a tenured position. . . . This is the best example of that."
Rachel Leon, executive director of New York Common Cause, said it ultimately is "up to the voters if they want to elect him."
But she noted that the state legislature has refused to release the ethics committee report on Green, keeping from voters information they need. "If it's all on the up and up, people need that information to make an informed decision," she said.
When Green resigned, he avoided the sanctions reportedly recommended in the report, and the report remained sealed.
Journalists and good government groups have called for release of the report without success. And is it unclear whether its release could be required under the state Freedom of Information Act, according to Robert J. Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government.
Green concedes that, in 2001 and 2002, he took rides on a van owned by Correctional Services Corp., a private company that operated halfway houses for the state. Green then submitted mileage vouchers for the trips, many of them from Albany back home to his district, even though the rides had not cost him anything. The maneuver cost the state about $100 a week, according to an estimate by the Albany Times-Union.
Another state legislator, Gloria Davis of the Bronx, earlier was convicted of accepting bribes from Correctional Services, sentenced to three months in jail and gave up her seat. The state fined the company a record $300,000 for not accurately reporting to the state Lobbying Commission on gifts and services it gave legislators. According to Newsday, the company had more than $22 million worth of state businesses in the 1990s but no longer does business with New York.
In many interviews, Green leaves little doubt that he thinks he has been pursued by the legal system at least partly because he is black. In an interview with the Challenge Group of newspapers with a largely African-American readership Green said, that, in the current climate of "celebrity prosecutions," black are easier to go after than white because "we start off all already criminalized. This case is a prime example. The media criminalized me with a picture in handcuffs. They said that I should be thrown in jail."
And Green has reportedly said, that white politicians have committed similar infractions and gotten away with them.
While conceding he made "a mistake," Green has also sought to minimize his offenses. As he pleaded guilty, Green reportedly told the court, "This was done by me because of a longstanding unwritten policy that members who live at a distance receive travel reimbursement whether expenses were actually incurred or not."
In his attacks on the culture of state government Green may have an unlikely ally in Albany County District Attorney Paul Clyne. "My reaction is that they (the legislature) should stop assuming their membership is honest," he was quoted as saying.
7/16/04
CAMPAIGN UPDATE:
Roger Green appears ever closer to regaining the Assembly seat he resigned from in June. He now faces no opposition in the Democratic primary. And the Board of Elections removed Green Party candidate Susan Metz from the general election ballot on the grounds that she had not filed a required form with the Board of Elections by the deadline. Metz unsuccessfully challenged challenged the decision, saying that she filed several hundred more signatures than the 1,200 needed. In a statement on her web site, she said she plans to continue to fight. For now, though, she is off the ballot, leaving only Republican Ric Ocasio to face Green in the overwhelmingly Democratic district.
And Green got additional help from his past and probably future colleagues in the Assembly who continue to refuse to release a copy of an ethics committee report on the filing of false travel expenses that led him to step down. The Assembly denied a Freedom of Information request from the New York Times to make the report public.
CANDIDATE BIOGRAPHIES:
Roger Green (Democrat): A former teacher and the founder of Vanguard Urban Improvement, Roger Green won election to the Assembly in 1981. He served as chair of the Black and Hispanic Caucus and of the assembly Committee on Children and Families. Green resigned in June after pleading guilty to petty larceny charges.
Susan Metz (Green): A community activist and former teacher, she is running on a platform opposing construction of a basketball arena for the Nets in downtown Brooklyn.
Ric Ocasio (Republican): He ran against Green in 2002, winning 4 percent of the vote.
09/22/04
A teacher from Brooklyn is mounting a write-in campaign for the Assembly against Roger Green, a veteran of the Legislature who is seeking re-election after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and resigning earlier this year. The challenger,
Susan Metz of Prospect Heights, submitted petitions to run as a Green Party candidate, but earlier this month the Board of Elections denied her a place on the ballot for technical reasons. Ms. Metz is due to announce today that she will run as a write-in
candidate rather than drop out of the race. The only other candidate on the ballot is a Republican, Ricardo Ocasio, who lost to Mr. Green in 2002 by a vote of 700 to 18,023. Write-in candidates rarely win elections, but Ms. Metz wants to give voters
of the 57th Assembly District another choice on November 2. (NY Sun)
09/07/04Roger Green’s resignation from the State Assembly appears to have had little effect on him. He has no opponents in the Democratic [primary, could make as much as $92,000 when – as it now appears likely – her returns to the state legislature in January and he even managed to collect state pay this summer. To some, the Green story seems to epitomize much that is wrong in Albany. “We have lost our ability to blush,” Republican Assemblymember Thomas Kirwan of Orange County said. "As (former U.S. Sen.) Phil Gramm said, as long as you don't get caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, you'll get re-elected. I guess we could test the limits of that, too." (Associated Press)
08/30/04Opponents of the proposed Nets arena are now seemingly without a candidate to oppose arena supporter Roger Green for the State Assembly. Opponents had rallied around Green Party candidate Susan Metz and collected thousands of signatures for her. But Metz reportedly left town without filing her candidate's statement of acceptance form with the Board of Elections and so did not make the ballot. Tammy Meadows reportedly withdrew her candidacy and Guillermo Filpotts failed to make the ballot as well. (Courier-Life Newspapers, reprinted by Lambda Independent Democrats)
8/22/04 With sunshine peeking through the clouds onto a crowded street festival at a Baptist church in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, Roger L. Green worked the crowd in typical campaign mode. He shook hands, slapped backs and spoke with nearly everyone along the way. But none of the voters questioned him about an issue that would normally draw intense scrutiny for a candidate seeking re-election: his resignation from the Assembly two months ago and his earlier guilty plea to charges that he billed the state for false travel expenses. In fact, his conviction will be little impediment to his returning to office, since he is running unopposed. As a New York State lawmaker running for office under a cloud of legal troubles, Mr. Green is hardly alone. (New York Times)
The State Assembly has refused to release an ethics committee report on Roger Green’s filing of false travel expenses. The Assembly rejected a Freedom of Information request from the New York Times, citing Green’s privacy and saying, in essence, it would not release the report because it did not have it. (New York Times)
7/12/04
Not Running -- Robin Brown, who had been mentioned as a possible successor to Roger Green, was appointed to the Commission to Plan for New School Funding Dollars by Council Speaker Gifford Miller and will not run for office this year.
(Courier-Life Newspapers)
6/28/04
Daniel McCalla, a 29-year-old resident of Fort Greene and music director at a Bedford-Stuyvesant church, is preparing to challenge resigned Assemblymember Roger Green in the Democratic primary. McCalla, who has virtually no money
for the campaign, will try to make the election a referendum on redevelopment plans, including the Nets arena. (Courier-Life Newspapers)
6/14/04
Roger Green told members of Lambda Independent Democrats that he would rather have not resigned, but he did so in a deal with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to prevent (or at least forestall) the release of the Assembly Ethics Committee's
report on his misconduct. Green, who is black, also said that at least two white politicians - Governor George Pataki and Borough President Marty Markowitz - had also committed similar ethics violation and not been forced from office. (Courier-Life Newspapers)
6/9/04
In an extensive interview, Roger Green says he was hounded from office by Republicans and resigned as an act of "public contrition." (Challenge Group Newspapers)
6/1/04
Green Resigns Roger Green, a member of the State Assembly from Brooklyn, resigned his seat. Green has pleaded guilty to taking free rides from a contractor then billing the state, resigned Tuesday. The Brooklyn Democrat's resignation
came after the chamber's Ethics and Guidance Committee reviewed the case. (Newsday/Associated Press)
5/24/04
Eric Adams, founders of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, said he would not run for the Assembly seat in the 57th district because he is afraid he would not meet the residency requirements. (Courier-Life Newspapers)
4/12/04
A number of possible candidates are trying to decide whether to run for the Assembly seat from the 57th District held by Roger Green. (Courier-Life Newspapers)
2/16/04
Roger Green's guilty plea to petty larceny charges ends his legal aspects of the case but raises a number of political questions. The guilty plea seems likely to derail any plans Green might have had to run for Congress and could
affect his chance of being re-elected to the Assembly seat he has held since 1981. (Courier-Life Newspapers)
Learn More:
• Albany's Dysfunction
• Blame Albany
• How Albany Controls New York City
• Will Albany Scandals Lead to Reform?
• Albany Rules?
• Upstate Downstate Debate
Eye on Albany Campaign 2004 home
CLOGS have moved to a new location. If you are not automatically directed to the correct page, click the following link: |
This summer, in the race to succeed former State Senator Guy Velella in The Bronx; or in the jockeying for position among those who would seek the mayor's office next year, it seems there is no better way to cast doubt on your opponent than by using the R Word: Republican.
Of course, State Senator Guy Velella is a Republican who was forced to resign in disgrace and is currently serving time in Rikers Island prison for accepting bribes. So maybe it's not too surprising that his credibility, and that of his party, might not be at its peak right at the moment.
When it comes to the mayor's race, it is always a little strange to see a Republican mayor in New York City, where Democrats have a five-to-one registration advantage over Republicans. This is the third Republican mayoral administration in a row (since Giuliani was elected twice), which is a first in New York City politics.
Then, summer in New York this year meant all those parties -- no, not political parties, actual parties: book parties for Bill Clinton, premiere parties for Michael Moore, a huge, glamorous, star-studded blowout fundraiser at Radio City for the newly conceived Kerry-Edwards ticket. Whatever else may be true, the Democrats sure are having a lot of fun here this summer.
From a public relations standpoint, all of this is unfortunate timing, considering that thousands of red, white, and blue-clad, elephant wearing, George W. Bush loving, dyed in the wool, partisan, loyalist Republicans are going to descend into the city of New York just next month.
But then again, New York has always been home to a vast array of diverse populations, and if they could learn to live in peace, there may yet be hope for the Ds and Rs.
The R Word
The particular ways in which the Republican label has been used as an epithet in recent weeks were highlighted at a press conference early this month.
Standing on the steps of City Hall, two former rivals for the Democratic mayoral nomination, Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer, were seen doing what they have rarely been known to do: agreeing. They held a press conference to announce their joint endorsement for Assemblyman Jeffrey Klein, one of the Democratic candidates running in the open State Senate seat in The Bronx, which had formerly been held by Guy Velella.
Not only did both Green and Ferrer indicate their support for Klein, they both expressed their disregard for Klein's opponent, Democratic Assemblyman Stephen B. Kaufman. Because Kaufman has received public support from Republican elected officials, and financial support from Republican donors, he is apparently no longer considered a bona fide Democrat.
Talking about Jeffrey Klein, Mark Green said, "He's a real Democrat. It's important that real Democrats come out and endorse real Democrats."
Which left little room for doubt that there were no fake Democrats on the steps of City Hall that day.
The Three Ds
But it's not just the state senate contest in which the Republican shadow looms large. The race for the mayor's office, set to be decided in November 2005, will begin almost as soon as the results of this year's election are counted.
Michael Bloomberg, the Republican first-term mayor, has had to do his own share of defining, distancing, and defending.
Defining, because quite often, Michael Bloomberg will seek out particular policy positions or advocate for particular issues that are in direct contrast to the national Republican agenda.
Distancing, because Bloomberg finds himself drawing closer and closer to a re-election campaign while the city draws farther and farther from the party whose banner he is forced to carry.
Defending, because for all his reticence, Bloomberg does support some of his fellow Republicans both financially and politically. And his rivals haven't failed to notice.
One man who would like to replace Bloomberg, Council Speaker Gifford Miller, took Bloomberg to task earlier this month. He called on the mayor to lobby his fellow Republicans in Congress for increased federal aid. Other Democrats with their sights set on Gracie Mansion have made similar statements, designed to remind voters that the mayor is in the same political party as George W. Bush.
Of course, in politics, things can change. It's possible that by next year, Republican will no longer be the R word it has become this summer.
Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.Â
Â
Also: • Noise In Community Gazettes
|
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed sweeping changes to the city's noise code, cracking down on everything from fireworks to ice cream trucks to nightclubs. However, as a constituent recently told me, not all of these city-wide efforts will have a local impact.
"Noise from fireworks really isn't a problem on my block," the person said. "The kind of noise problems my neighbors and I have are more localized and often get ignored."
While I applaud Mayor Bloomberg's resourcefulness in setting up the city's 311 help line and analyzing the data to conclude that noise is New Yorkers' top quality-of-life complaint, the information from 311 is not being used as well as it could be to solve the problems plaguing New Yorkers.
The city's 311 system provides only city or borough-wide data, which hides evidence of where local noise problems originate. For example, the mayor can tell us that noise complaints in Manhattan have increased from 5,000 to 5,050 in one month, but he can't tell us if 50 of those calls are coming from the same raucous bar or even a specific block.
311 data is also not shared with local officials like City Council members, community boards, or the public. 311 rarely, if ever, refers calls to the community board - despite their roles as local ombudsmen and their established relationships with local police, agency heads and businesses - their members and staff may not learn about many of the problems in their communities.
That is why I have drafted a piece of legislation (Introduction 174) that would require the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications to provide local information about 311 calls - including the locations, types, and numbers of complaints - to local officials. With my bill, council members, community boards and the public (through www.nyc.gov) would receive monthly reports on 311 complaints broken down into data that they could actually use.
As citizens use the 311 service to seek relief from problems, they are not turning to their local community boards as frequently, and thus the city is not benefiting from the expertise that boards provide in problem solving. A 311 call may lead to dispatching a police officer to fine a noisy local nightclub, only solving the problem for one evening.
Involving the community boards and council members who grant permits and oversee zoning, however, is the most effective way to address consistent problem-areas. It is the difference between treating a symptom and curing a disease.
Sharing 311 data with local officials can also solve other quality-of-life problems, and can be cost effective. Last week, I had 30 constituents who live on a quiet block call my office about a rat infestation. If we had the local 311 data sooner, we might have caught the infestation before it became rampant.
However, at a recent City Council hearing on the bill, the officials from the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications said they were unwilling to support the bill, citing the difficulty in sorting the enormous centralized databank of complaint information and integrating data from older computer systems into local reports.
It certainly will cost something to create a larger database, but the ultimate savings in money and efficiency will be worth it.
Community boards were created in order to combat this kind of monolithic, centralized approach to government, which often leaves local concerns unidentified and neglected. We've seen a revolution in using local data to combat other citywide problems, such as in the New York Police Department's use of CompStat.
Noise control - along with many other issues - merits the same approach.
Mayor Bloomberg needs to use 311 to empower local officials to fulfill their charter-mandated jobs of planning for the future, or his next big noise complaint might be the combined cries of city residents whose quality of life is suffering from poorly identified local problems.
New York City Council Gale Brewer represents the Upper West Side and chairs the City Council committee on technology.
The Citizen is in another location. If you are not automatically directed to the correct page, click the following link: |
New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
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.
STATED MEETING - June 28, 2004
Quote of the Day:
"Mayor Bloomberg is clearly not committed to the rights and needs of domestic partners and the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. He feels comfortable with a hypocritical veto... but the council will protect those rights and make sure that the laws of the city treat all people, all families, and all workers the same." - Councilmember Christine Quinn on the mayor's veto of the Equal Benefits Bill.
Meeting Summary:
In an effort to pass as much legislation as possible before their summer break, the New York City Council considered a dozen measures on June 28th, including overriding a veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, passing a series of new laws, and approving a zoning plan that will transform downtown Brooklyn.
"We accomplished more today than the State Legislature did all year," quipped Councilmember Lew Fidler.
The major item of the day was an override the mayor's veto of the Equal Benefits Bill (Intro 137-B), legislation that requires companies that contract with New York City to provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
Municipal employees were given domestic partner benefits beginning in 1998, but currently companies or organizations that have contracts to provide services for New York are not required to abide by the same rules.
The legislation applies to religious organizations and institutions, some of which oppose gay and lesbian relationships. Groups like the Salvation Army and the New York Archdiocese opposed the bill and said they may stop providing benefits to employees altogether or stop providing services.
Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the bill because he said that the city should not use the contracting process to promote social policies, and a handful of City Council members agreed.
"It is ironic that some people who usually fight to keep God out of government, today have no problem using government to regulate God," said Peter Vallone, Jr. who voted with the mayor.
But supporters argued that the legislation provides an exception for religious groups that allows them to give benefits - not by virtue of domestic partnership - but because family members live in the same household.
The council needed "yes" votes from two-thirds of the 51 members to override the mayor's veto; 41 members voted for the bill, 4 voted against it, and 3 abstained. (Simcha Felder, Dennis Gallagher, James Oddo, and Peter Vallone, Jr. cast "No" votes. Michael Nelson, Allan Jennings and Joseph Addabbo Jr. abstained.)
The council also passed a bill (Intro 142) making it illegal for police officers to use racial or ethnic profiling to fight crime. This is already a standard part of police department procedures, but the measure makes it an official city law. Both the mayor and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly support the legislation.
"This helps us to work together to fight crime, not our citizens," said Councilmember Phil Reed.
Another bill, the Dignity for All Schools Act (Intro 188-A), will require the Department of Education establish clear guidelines that prohibit harassment and bullying in schools. While council members acknowledged that they cannot legislate student behavior, they insist that school officials can do more to prevent and report harassment.
"For too many going to school means going through a gauntlet of taunting and teasing, pushing and pulling," said Councilmember Alan Gerson. "The greatest shame in all of this is the complicity of government and bureaucratic officials who accept it as part of growing up."
The City Council also approved a rezoning of downtown Brooklyn that will transform the area into a new corporate, retail, and residential district. The council said the action would eventually build 4.5 million square feet of office space and 1,000 new apartments. The project is expected to create 18,500 new office jobs and 8,000 construction jobs.
The rezoning only applies to MetroTech, not the planned Brooklyn Nets basketball stadium, but some area residents still oppose the plan.
One point of contention relates to properties on Duffield Street, where some of the buildings may have been used in the underground railroad, the network of people who helped black slaves escape from the South. The council agreed to hold hearings on the historic significance of the area in July or August and will make recommendations to the city's landmark committee for preserving the area if needed.
The Brooklyn rezoning passed by a vote for 47 to 0, with one abstention from Brooklyn Councilmember Charles Barron, who said that he could not support the measure until the issue of the historic significance of the area was resolved.
The council also passed a bill (Intro 223-A) that would help crack down on people who pose as immigration lawyers and prey on undocumented residents and a measure (Intro 261-A) giving New York City students voter registration cards when they graduate. Other legislation extended a moratorium on fines for store awnings (Intro 272-A), established new regulations for sidewalk news stands (Intro 363-A), and updated fire codes (Intro 248).
Finally, the City Council passed a series of resolutions - that do not carry any legal action - but represent the official view of the legislative body.
Resolution 71-A calls on the state to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Resolution 152-A rejects Mayor Bloomberg's education policy of holding back third graders who do not pass a standardized test.
Resolution 203-A opposes the federal government's plan to cut Section 8 vouchers for low income New Yorkers.
Resolution 324 supports home health aides who are seeking a raise.
And Resolution 389-A calls upon the mayor and other city officials to protect First Amendment rights of protestors at the Republican National Convention in August.
The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2004.
For an archive of past meetings and council votes, visit Gotham Gazette's Searchlight.
Related Articles: Louie Jones: Why Poor People Will Take to the Streets Suneel(a) Mubayi: Going Beyond Mass Protest Protesters Have A Right To Use The Park The Rally Threatens The Beautifully Restored Lawn
|
In 15 years of protesting, Mary Finelli had never been arrested until she visited New York, and took part in an animal rights protest scheduled to coincide with the meeting of the World Economic Forum.
"It was quite an organized march," she recalled. "Everyone was walking single file. It was very well-behaved."
Police were out in full force, Finelli said, and demanded the protesters disperse, but then blocked them from leaving. "The next thing we knew, everybody was being arrested," said Finelli, who spent two days in a cockroach-ridden cell with dirty mats to sleep on and no privacy, even in the bathroom.
Civil liberties advocates complained of such treatment two years ago, and they fear that it will be repeated this summer, when many thousands of people plan to gather in New York to protest the Republican convention from August 30 to September 2. Last week, the City Council held hearings on the issue of how the city has, and should, handle protests.
Police concede they are wary.
"The threat of terrorism is just about paramount in all of our thinking for all of these events," Chief of Department Joseph Esposito told reporters recently. "We'd have to be out of our minds not to have that as the paramount concern."
Dan Perez, an attorney who has filed suit on behalf of Finelli and others arrested during the World Economic Forum protests, counters that even when fears of terrorism run high, the First Amendment still stands. "Unless we want to live in an outright police state, we have to put up with protest and demonstrations."
Meanwhile, more than a dozen groups have requested permits to march or rally during the convention and not received them so far. So far, only the labor group, the AFL-CIO, seems close to winning approval for its plans to protest Bush administration policies while the Republicans are in town.
City officials say again and again that they will protect the right to protest. "The bottom line is if you want to express yourself in this city you are free to do so," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week. But the questions some ask are - how far, and how fair?
Protesters have long encountered official resistance in New York as elsewhere in the country. At the turn of the 20th century, New York police met picketing workers with nightsticks and arrest. During World War I, police arrested some 2,000 New Yorkers for opposing U.S. involvement in that conflict.
Following what many considered police excesses during the1960s and '70s, the city adopted a more tolerant attitude toward political activism. In 1985, for example, the police agreed to limit their surveillance of lawful political activity, such as protests and meeting.
But the official tolerance of protest faded during the Giuliani administration. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani limited access to City Hall plaza for press conferences and protests. At the 1998 "Million Youth March" in Harlem, police restricted the movements of marchers by confining them in pens, then stormed the stage to end the rally and buzzed the crowd with helicopters.
"People who hold views unpopular with Mayor Giuliani and his administration routinely have to go to court to win the right to hold marches in New York City," the New York Times said in a 1998 editorial.
Norman Siegel, a lawyer who used to head the New York Civil Liberties Union, said he brought about some 27 challenges against the Giuliani administration on First Amendment issues and won virtually all of them. The former mayor, Siegel says, was "the quintessential authoritarian."
But the rocky relationship between the city and protesters has continued into the Bloomberg administration, exacerbated by security concerns after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. "The Bloomberg administration is less forgiving of dissent than the Giuliani administration, and I never thought I'd say that," said Perez.
Days after Bloomberg took office, the police department went to court, asking that it be allowed to increase its surveillance of political activity, even when no law was being broken. The department said the rules adopted some 18 years earlier were "not workable in the context of terrorism." The court largely agreed.
Soon after, the World Economic Forum, which usually meets in Davos, Switzerland, came to New York City to show solidarity with the city following September 11. The New York Times hailed the police handling of protests at the event. But Perez has filed suit on behalf of about 35 people arrested during the conference. One key issue is that people arrested for protesting were detained for 40 hours, more than twice as long as the average person arrested during the conference for other offenses. "It seems punitive. It seems retaliatory," Perez said.
The war in Iraq further increased tensions, culminating in the February 15, 2003, protests against the U.S. action. While cities around the world allowed protests against the impending war, New York City police cited security concerns and refused to grant a permit for a march past the United Nations. Police directed demonstrators to block-long pens created with barricades. More than 250 people were arrested, many for trying to get to the rally. Others tried to leave but were prevented from doing so.
"It was not their finest moment," said Siegel.
In a suit filed over the city's handling of the protests, the New York Civil Liberties Union seeks to stop the police from such tactics as putting up barricades and using horses to control crowds, as well as searching demonstrators and detaining people in vans for long periods of time without food, water, or access to bathrooms.
"The NYPD crackdown on peaceful protest that happened at the anti-war protests [in 2003] cannot be repeated at the convention," the union's associate legal director, Christopher Dunn, said when the case was filed last year.
City officials have blamed the demonstrators themselves for many of the problems. Mayor Michael Bloomberg faulted United for Peace and Justice, which sponsored the demonstration, for refusing to discuss possible alternate march routes.
And police department officials testified that they would not rule out some of the tactics they have used in the past. Esposito, for example, said the department might use pens again.
By early June, some 15 different groups had requested police permits for 20 to 25 events immediately before and during the Republican convention, according to Paul Brown, deputy commissioner for public information. The department had asked that anyone needing a sound permit or a march permit for the convention period submit their request by June 15, but has now extended the deadline to late July.
The police have not disclosed the criteria they will use in deciding whether to grant or deny the permits. "Applications will be reviewed taking into consideration the needs of the community businesspeople, the commuters and needs of security," an unidentified Police Department official recently told Newsday.
So far, no permit has received final approval. According to a police spokesperson, the department has offered the AFL-CIO 8th Avenue and 30th Street for a rally on September 1, but the labor federation has not officially accepted and received the permit. Clearly, though the AFL expects the demonstration to go ahead. In a written announcment, it announced the Labor Day rally -- five days before the actual holiday -- to "protest the Bush administration's policies."
And a group called One People's Project reportedly received a permit for a concert in Tompkins Square Park only to have it revoked by the parks borough commissioner for Manhattan.
The other organizations are still waiting. Activists hoping to hold protests say the delay in granting permits complicates planning and creates confusion. "Permits delayed are permits denied," Councilmember Bill Perkins said during the hearings on the protest issue last week.
The lack of permits galls many protesters who see the city making huge efforts -- ad campaigns, special events, reduced rates, closed streets -- to welcome the Republicans. "Mayor Bloomberg has indicated numerous times he's rolling out the red carpet for the Republicans National Convention," says Bill Dobbs of United for Peace and Justice. "Well he's slamming the door on people who hold opposing views."
So far, the most attention has focused on the request by United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war coalition, to hold a rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park the day before the convention. The Parks Department denied the request, saying it would damage the grass, which it restored in 1996, (See related stories for and against the permit.) While the area once held huge crowds for special events, the department says the lawn can no longer accommodate more than 80,000 people. The protest organizers anticipate 250,000.
The city has offered an alternative site in Flushing Meadows Park or on West Street. Neither is acceptable, says Dobbs. The Queens site is too far away and West Street is far from mass transit and completely unsheltered, which could present health risks to demonstrators on a hot summer afternoon.
In its fight for the permit, the group attracted an odd array of allies including the pro-war New York Post which reminded the city, " 'Keep Off The Grass' appears nowhere in the First Amendment."
But Park Commissioner Adrian Benepe has said the issue is not one of quashing protest but protecting a cherished part of New York. "Central Park is a respite from the city, a place for people to lay out and picnic," Benepe told the Washington Post. "They have a right to protest, but they don't have a right to destroy the Great Lawn."
Negotiation continues between groups planning demonstrations and the city, with each side accusing the other of delay tactics.
And activists are pursuing other avenues as well. Last week a City Council committee approved a resolution calling on the city to "protect and uphold First Amendment rights. And U.S. Representative Major Owens of Brooklyn and other members of the New York congressional delegation have sent the mayor what they term a "Memorandum of Understanding" that they would like him to sign. It asks that that city allow demonstrations near Madison Square Garden, refrain from investigating protesters participating in legal demonstration and train police on First Amendment issues.
The memo has been sent to the city law department for review.
The possibility of court challenges looms if the city denies permits. In fact, one protester already has plans to go to court. Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition, said he will seek a restraining order against New York for "crushing the First Amendment." He claimed the city has not told him when or how he can demonstrate -- or acted on his request to have some 1,500 people pray outside Madison Square Garden on August 28. "I think the city of New York wants a sanitized event," he told reporters. "If they had their way, they would put a fence around Manhattan and just let the delegates in."
While they probably agree with him on little else, many of the other demonstrators share Mahoney's belief that the city is making a concerted effort to stifle dissent
There is, says Siegel, an "atmosphere of almost a criminalization of dissent. ... Protesters cannot discount the possibility that the hampering of the right to protest is because of the content of the protest."
Jeff Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing some of the organizations seeking permits, questions the approach of city officials. "They don't get the first amendment," he said. "They don't take it seriously. It's the organic law of the United States."
In a written testimony submitted to City Council, State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried called upon the city government to "learn from history." He continued, "There may be some in the Republican Party who think that provoking disruption on our streets will benefit them politically. The Bloomberg administration should not be playing into their hands."
But Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly say that, along with protecting the right to protest, they have other concerns. In explaining the denial of the permit for the Central Park rally, Bloomberg has cited public safety. "What we have to do in this city," he said, "is make sure people have a right to protest . . . and people that want to go about their business without protesting, they have rights too."
One anonymous police department official told New York magazine, "We have more important things to worry about than a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries and anarchists. They're amateurs. It's the professionals, the terrorists, that we're focused on."
Law enforcement officials in Boston, which will be the site of the Democratic convention in July, have issued stringent rules for protest permits during the gathering and announced plans to search people. This even though the Democratic convention promises to attract far fewer protests -- and will not be attended by a sitting president. And, citing fears of terrorism, Boston officials have announced plans to close North Station and miles of roads, including a major highway.
The FBI has termed both conventions targets for possible terrorist attacks, although no specific threats have been reported. The March bombings of commuter trains in Madrid days before Spain's elections increased the concern. "Whether the events in Madrid actually affected the election, the terrorist mind might think that they did affect the election process," Pasquale Damuro, assistant FBI director has said. "So of course there's a concern that they would possibly look at trying to conduct a terrorist attack during the conventions here to try to affect the election."
Law enforcement officials worry that terrorists can use legitimate rallies as a cover for more nefarious activities. "There is an added awareness of needing to break demonstrators into smaller groups because, inevitably, you will have some people among them who will want to cause serious trouble," security consultant Bo Dietl told the Christian Science Monitor.
Even Siegel concedes that 9/11 "does change the balance. It's a different field." And, he says, the civil rights community has to acknowledge that. But he and others believe the city can make things safer by being more forthcoming about its plans. "The overwhelming majority of protesters who come to demonstrate are peaceful and non violent," he said. "The government makes a huge mistake in not showing the respect to protesters that they should get."
The fact that the Republican Party will meet in a state where the president's approval is a paltry 36 percent according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll - and probably even lower in the city - presents additional problems. "What's really complicating the whole security scheme . . . on top of all the protesters and terrorism stuff is this president," former Deputy Police Commissioner John Timoney told a British reporter recently. "There just seems to be this visceral dislike of him, more so than anyone we've seen in the past. The expectation is that you're going to get a lot of motivated people showing up."
For now, the city has been close-mouthed, not only about the permits but about security for the convention in general, including what streets may be closed, restrictions on businesses near the garden and other possible measures.
With so much still unclear two months before the Republicans arrive in town, no one can be sure how the protesters and police will deal with one another. Many people will protest -- permit or no permit. The level of organizing and the web activity heralding one event or another, requesting rides, looking for housing, all indicate a massive effort is underway that will almost certainly not stop.
Whether the event will be peaceful or not, remains to be seen. After all the city of Chicago went to great lengths to woo the 1968 convention only to see it turn into a disaster as club-swinging police confronted anti war protesters outside the convention hall. In the end, the Democrats lost the election and the city -- and its mayor -- lost their reputations.
Related Articles: Suneel(a) Mubayi: Going Beyond Mass Protest Protesters Have A Right To Use The Park The Rally Threatens The Beautifully Restored Lawn
|
On August 30, I will be marching with thousands of other New Yorkers in the Poor Peoples’ March and Rally for Justice. We plan to march from Union Square to Times Square in one of a half a dozen different protests and rallies This will take place while the Republican National Convention is in New York City.
But what makes the Poor People’s March different is that we are not just ideologues who have an issue with George W. Bush. We are people who are trying to survive day to day. We face real issues like high unemployment, a lack of affordable housing, and a lack of a health care.
The march is being organized by a coalition of non-profit groups called Still We Rise. We work on issues like poverty, housing, homelessness and AIDS/HIV. We come from neighborhoods like the South Bronx, Harlem and Bed-Stuy. Our faces will reflect the issues facing the city.
We are marching during the Republican National Convention to let all public officials -- Republicans and Democrats -- know that they must have a platform that addresses basic human rights in this country. We are marching for the rights of every New Yorker.
One of the main issues that we are rallying around is HIV and AIDS. I have been living with HIV since 1986. I am blessed to be able to march and be vocal and visible. People think that the epidemic is over because we have pills and some people are living longer. But people are still dying. And in New York City we have an increase in rates of infection in %0}{½?munities of color because of the policies of national and local administrations.
The Still We Rise platform focuses on five main issues.
The Poor People’s March will be peaceful, and we are seeking a permit from the city. We do not want to risk arrest at this demonstration, and so we will not be doing civil disobedience.
And we hope that this is more than just a one-day event. We are not just exercising our right to protest, but are forming a coalition of people who will register people to vote, especially individuals who have been ignored by politicians. We are also meeting with local officials to remind that that we vote.
If there was ever a time to be speaking out and voting, it is now. We are not the policy wonks or talking heads. We are people live with the day-to-day results of this administration’s policies. This is our chance to come out and make our voices heard.
Louie Jones an organizer for the New York City Aids Housing Network and Still We Rise.
Â
Related Articles: Louie Jones: Why Poor People Will Take to the Streets Suneel(a) Mubayi: Going Beyond Mass Protest The Rally Threatens The Beautifully Restored Lawn |
New York City and the Department of Parks and Recreation have denied United for Peace and Justice a permit for approximately 250,000 people to protest the Republican National Convention and hold a rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park on August 29.
As an organizer of the rally, I understand that the city faces a tremendous challenge with the Republicans coming to town. We are mindful of this and feel that we have proposed the simplest, most clear-cut and safest way for New Yorkers and people from across the country to exercise our First Amendment rights.
The convention will be at Madison Square Garden. We filed for a permit that would allow us to march up Eighth Avenue past the Garden and then continue to Central Park West and into Central Park.
There are few open spaces in Manhattan where large groups of people can congregate within walking distance of Madison Square Garden. The Great Lawn is ideal. This area of the park can handle large crowds. It has held concerts by the New York Philharmonic and Metropolitan Opera, and other events like a visit from Pope John Paul II in 1995.
We are seeking a permit for the entire Great Lawn, not just the oval in the middle. Around the oval are six ball fields and room for people to gather and hear the rally.
The city has suggested that we move the march to Flushing Meadow Park in Queens. This is not acceptable. We should be allowed to protest near the convention and make our concerns heard.
The fact that we were denied a permit, although upsetting, is not surprising. When we were organizing the February 15, 2003 rally against the war in Iraq, we put in a request to march past the United Nations on First Avenue. The city adamantly refused to grant us the right to march anywhere in Manhattan.
I still do not understand the logic of that decision from a safety or a public relations point of view. The only explanation I can imagine is that officials were trying to confuse people and undermine the effectiveness of the demonstration.
I am not saying that the city is doing the same this time, but we are concerned about the city’s political agenda. In the last several years, it has become more difficult to get permits to march in New York City. And the dynamics between police and demonstrators have grown worse. Is it just a coincidence that a Republicans are coming to town and our Republican mayor has denied a permit to march?
My hope is that city officials will come to their senses and allow us to march and rally. We have already launched a national campaign to put pressure on the mayor, who should recognize that this is the best plan for the day.
But one way or another we are going to protest. They will not silence us.
Leslie Cagan is a co-chair of United for Peace and Justice.
Related Articles: Louie Jones: Why Poor People Will Take to the Streets Suneel(a) Mubayi: Going Beyond Mass Protest Protesters Have A Right To Use The Park |
Central Park is over 150 years old. If over the years all the schemes to construct buildings and hold events in the park had been accepted, there would be no park left today.
Now the park faces a new threat. An organization opposed to U.S. foreign policy wants to use the Great Lawn for a rally the day before the Republican National Convention. They anticipate an attendance of 250,000, including many out-of-towners who will have traveled to New York City to participate.
The purpose of the event has no relation to the decision on the use of the park, except as it affects the likely conduct of the demonstrators. The Great Lawn would not be an appropriate site for a memorial service for Ronald Reagan, which would attract a vastly different crowd.
The Great Lawn is a very different place than it was in 1982 when it was the site of a huge anti-nuclear rally. The last two mass events on the Great Lawn – the premiere of the Disney movie Pocahontas and Pope John Paul 11’s visit – took place in 1995. Shortly after the pope’s visit, the city began a major restoration of the area.
Today, the lawn cannot accommodate hundreds of thousands of people. Its limit is about 85,000, with everyone standing. The overflow would overwhelm adjacent areas of the park, hurting trees and shrubs. In addition, the thousands who would have to be turned away would swarm over Fifth Avenue and Central Park West, blocking traffic and most likely expressing frustration at being excluded from watching the events.
The restoration of the Great Lawn included the installation of an underground drainage system to deal with water that came from the former reservoir on the site, a surface drainage system to keep rainwater from forming ponds on the lawn, and an irrigation system with almost two miles of piping to keep the grass green. That elaborate substructure for irrigation and drainage would be jeopardized by intense use.
During the restoration, the lawn was covered with 25,000 cubic yards of topsoil and planted with five varieties of Kentucky bluegrass, with a sprinkling of perennial. To give the roots a chance to penetrate nine inches deep into the sandy loam topsoil, the lawn was closed to the public for nine months. This grass is likely to be highly disturbed by thousands of people standing on it for several hours. It would take a long time to heal.
It cost $18.2 million to renovate the lawn. Some of the funds came from private contributions. How can the city ask citizens for money to restore the park if it will be destroyed when an enormous crowd holds an event?
And this would not be the last such gathering. The courts are very protective of First Amendment rights, as they should be. If the city grants a permit for one political event on the Great Lawn, it will be hard pressed to deny permits to any other group that wants to express its views. That means the lawn would be repeatedly trampled, with each successive event doing additional damage.
There are ample alternate sites for the proposed rally. Dag Hammarskjold Park, across from the United Nations, has been a traditional forum area. If needed, the crowd can overflow onto adjacent streets. If that site is not sufficient, the protest could be held in Flushing Meadows- Corona Park. That park offers unlimited space, and access to transportation. It was also an early site of the United Nations General Assembly.
Natural areas should be protected from exploitation for transitory purposes. In particular, people devoted to peace, justice and the environment should not threaten or injure the existing environment in order to attract public attention to their cause.
The restoration of the Great Lawn transformed a dust bowl into an extraordinary landscape and a pastoral retreat for city dwellers and visitors. Today the Great Lawn is home to 92 trees, including American and English elms, red and sugar maples, four varieties of oaks, silver and little leaf lindens, and flowering crabapples and cherry trees. Salamanders, fish and frogs live in Turtle Pond's clean waters, and turtles sunbathe on its banks.
Both the city and the Department of Parks & Recreation will co-operate to offer alternate sites for the rally in a large park or public place. We Americans are proud of the civil liberties that we, unlike other less fortunate people around the world, enjoy. For a century and a half, New Yorkers have enjoyed the unusual delicacy of Central Park, with the Great Lawn recently restored to exceptional beauty. With good judgment, we can have both civic beauty and civil liberties, without infringing on either.
Henry Stern is former Commissioner of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation%3ꄨ›p>