Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Citizens Union



School Showdown

"Team excellence," reads the wall mural outside Jackie Robinson Middle School (MS 320) in Crown Heights. "Students and Teachers Working Together." To underscore the message, pictures of the baseball hero decorate the school, perhaps to exhort the Brooklyn adolescents to follow his path of achievement.

But, according to statistics, excellence remains a distant ideal at Jackie Robinson. The school has been on the state's Schools Under Registration Review list of low performing schools for years, and 96 percent of its students failed to meet the state standards for math last year. Only 18 percent met the standards for reading, compared to 39 percent citywide.

That record prompted New York City Schools Chancellor Harold Levy to select profit-making Edison Schools to operate MS 320 and four other troubled public schools.

That plan now stands at the center of a heated battle over privatization of schools and community control. State law requires that a majority of parents at a public school approve transferring that school to a private operator. Voting at these five schools began last week and will continue until March 30. When the ballots are counted, it appears possible that parents at some or all of the five schools will reject Edison's bid.

Why all the fuss?

While the current controversy involves only about 5,000 students, the stakes are high. Edison, which is the country's largest "education management organization" but still not profitable, is anxious for a toehold in New York and for a splashy success that could lead to its being given control of dozens of schools in New York and throughout the country.

A yes vote by parents would give privatization advocates a chance to put their favorite remedy to work in a high profile setting. But opponents, including some teachers and community groups, need a no vote to try to stamp out what they see as a dangerous trend before it spreads further. To heighten interest, the vote comes as President Bush is calling for the federal government to cut off aid to persistently failing schools -- schools similar to the five that Levy wants to turn over to Edison.

Going Private

In the last several years, there has been an increasing call for alternatives to public schools for parents who can't afford private schools. Charter schools and school vouchers have emerged as ways to provide school choice on a budget (see Charters and Vouchers).

Charters and Vouchers

If you have money, you probably have lots of educational options for your child. Some people see vouchers and charter schools as ways to extend those choices to middle and even low-income youngsters.

Taxpayer-funded "vouchers" would provide parents with a set sum usually less than $3,000 to spend on a public, private or parochial school. Critics assail vouchers for draining money from public schools, and the courts have been leery of spending public money for religious schools in possible violation of the First Amendment. Then too, most private schools cost far more than $3,000 a year, making vouchers of limited use to many families.

As a result, vouchers may well have run out of steam. Voters in California and in Michigan rejected ballot initiatives calling for vouchers in November. While President Bush has supported vouchers, he has avoided using the word. His education package called for something remarkably like a $1,500 voucher, but many observers predict it will be dropped from any final bill.

Now Bush has proposed allowing parents to deduct up to $5,000 of their yearly income for private school. Whatever the ideas pros and cons, it seems aimed at middle class and upper class parents who tend to be pretty satisfied with their public schools.

Meanwhile, charter schools have become a one size fits all reform, with some 500,000 students attending 2,000 charter schools across the country, according to the Center for Education Reform. They are hailed by conservative, free-market advocates in Arizona and by inner city parents seeking more community control and an alternative to often troubled public schools.

On the other side, teachers unions tends to reject them, no doubt because charters dont have to honor collective bargaining agreements or hire licensed teachers. In Arizona, teachers do not even have to be college graduates.

The arguments in the favor of charter schools echo many of those heard in other privatization debates: A private operator, freed from the constraints of bureaucracy and regulation, can provide better services more economically than government agencies. Charter schools receive a license, or charter, from the state or local government to open a new school or take over an existing one. The operators are exempt from school board regulations and collective bargaining agreements. The schools receive a per pupil allocation equal to or somewhat less than the district spends per student, so the bottom line for the school district is that spending remains the same. The verdict, though, is out on whether the companies manage to provide a better education. "Policy makers looking for proof that [charter] schools can best the public school system at improving academic performance would find a patchwork of conflicting evidence," writes Education Week. For example, a 1998 study by Western Michigan University found charter-school students scored lower on tests than their public-school counterparts. But in 2000, the Colorado Department of Education reported that children in charter schools do better on state tests than the average Colorado pupil.

Given Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's penchant for privatization and dismay over the performance of many New York City public schools, it was hardly surprising that he would advocate school choice. Perhaps in response to the mayor's interest, last summer Levy solicited bids from private companies to take over as many as 51 of the city's lowest performing schools. Fourteen companies responded, with Edison submitting plans to operate 12 elementary schools in September 2001 and as many as 45 schools over the next three years.

Levy scaled back the proposal, choosing Edison, but deciding to privatize only five schools: MS 320, Middle School 246 in Flatbush, Intermediate School 111 in Bushwick, Community School 66 in Crotona Park and Public School 161 in Harlem. According to at least one estimate, barely 20 percent of students at these schools read at grade level. Levy also switched the emphasis from elementary schools to middle schools, where problems can be more intractable.

Looking at the school's in question, it would be easy to conclude that any change would be for the better and that Edison would easily win the elections. But that prediction would have ignored power struggles and high passions that such issues can incite in New York.

The community group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and a coalition calling itself People's Coalition to Take Back Our Schools launched a full attack on the plan, charging that parents were shut out of the process. Many of its members question the role of any private corporation in public education.

A key issue is who should control public schools. Noting that parents have been told the schools will be closed if they reject Edison, parent Cecilia McQueen said, "That's not a choice. It's an ultimatum. It's like you don't pay the ticket, you go to jail."

Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform which advocates charter schools wrote that the fight is "about who has power over education and who makes progress. Schools have been allowed for too long to act like monarchies whose subjects exist for their convenience."

As parents mulled their choice, both sides sought to influence the vote. Staff members at four schools reportedly leaked parents' phone numbers to Edison opponents who used them to mount a phone campaign featuring a taped message by former Mayor David Dinkins. Edison ran radio advertisements and handed out paraphernalia emblazoned with the company name.

The Mayor and the Chancellor The fight veered away from the children and instead centered on the ups and downs of powerful adults -- including Giuliani, Levy and Edison board chair Benno Schmidt. Joyce Purnick argued in the New York Times, "The standing of the mayor in minority communities is so shaky that he cannot champion his own cause. He is Edison's biggest problem, say elected officials."

That probably won't do the mayor much long-term damage. The brawl's effect on Levy is another matter. At a recent City Council hearing, there was general consensus that "the Board of Education and [Levy] could not have screwed this up more if they'd tried," Elisabeth Franck wrote in the New York Observer . What people seem to differ over is whether Levy's handling of the matter reflects his own ambivalence about turning public schools over to private operators or incompetence, particularly what Purnick termed "his tendency to act without much consultation."

Further complicating the picture -- and inflaming Edison's critics -- are the company's ties to the Giuliani administration and its stated need to make money in disadvantaged communities.

Meanwhile, the other side includes people worried about challenges to the educational status quo, teachers and staff concerned about keeping their jobs, and groups that see this controversy as a chance to score points for themselves and against Giuliani.

The Real Issue

In a better world, the fight would have revolved around whether Edison could provide the 5,000 youngsters in the schools with a better education than they would otherwise get. Here there seems to be enough conflicting evidence for well meaning people to disagree.

While the United Federation of Teachers and some parents say the schools are improving, few would say they're good. "The status quo isn't working, and it hasn't worked for years," says ACORN leader organizer Nathan Smith.

In light of that, why not Edison? "We don't have the political will to put in the money that would provide answers," says John F. Jennings, -director of the Center on Education Policy. Given that, he says, Edison offers "a pretty decent plan."

But Ellen Raider of the Coalition to Take Back Our Schools says New York can do better. "We have excellent schools in our city," she says. "We can replicate those excellent schools."

Edison's Plan

Edison has vowed to make a one-time investment of $2,500 per student in the schools, providing a home computer for every third grader, laptops for teachers and cable television in classrooms, as well as "tractor-trailers" full of books and materials.

"These schools are going to be five of the most watched schools in American," Edison founder Christopher Whittle has said. "Failure is not an option here....Our necks, corporately, personally and otherwise, are on the line."

In the classroom, teachers would use a fairly standard curriculum called Success for All and require a considerable degree of regimentation including uniforms. The school day would run an hour or two longer than the conventional school day.

Mary Procter of the Friendship Public Charter School in Washington, D.C. says this approach serves her inner city students well. Edison, she says, operates "a bread and butter school," similar to a good parochial school and has brought test scores up to almost average from woefully below.

A parent who Edison took on a visit to its Washington school told the Daily News, "What I saw was a public school that looked like a private school. Kids behaved. Teachers were enthusiastic." But one parent at a recent ACORN meeting griped that Edison schools are too much "like military academies."

In 1999, Edison announced that its students saw their scores on national tests increase by 5 percent a year. But the numbers are murky about Edison in particular and charter schools in general. A recent Western Michigan University study funded by the National Education Association, a teachers organization, found students at Edison schools performed at levels similar to other nearby schools and do not make the kinds of gains of which Edison has boasted.

Some critics fault education management companies for offering a "cookie cutter" approach that does not allow teachers to adjust to individual students' needs. Again, though, others counter that such a standardized curriculum is precisely what's needed. In fact, the United Federation of Teachers says the public schools and Edison use many of the same methods.

While the New York City school board is trying to get Edison in, some members of the San Francisco school board are trying to revoke the company's charter for an elementary school there. These board members cite the high turnover of teachers since Edison took over a school coincidentally named Edison. And they allege the company has removed troubled or learning disabled students from the school.

Edison supporters, however, counter that test scores at the San Francisco elementary school have risen and that the school is more orderly and has greater resources than when the New York company took it over.

Profit Motive

"The kind of questions we need to ask the company," San Francisco school board president and Edison critic Jill Wynns Wynns told a recent gathering at ACORN headquarters in Brooklyn, "relate to their claims that they can take the same population, do better and make money."

Benno Schmidt, former president of Yale University, is chairman of Edison's board, and former Rep. Floyd Flake, the prominent Queens minister, is president of its charter schools division. Its founder Chris Whittle ran Esquire magazine and started Channel 1. Yet the operation of 113 schools and the marquee names have not translated into profits.

According to the New York Times, "for every dollar [Edison] has taken from school districts and charter schools, it has spent $1.36, racking up losses of $197 million since . . . 1992."

The economics of the private operators is dicey at best. On an average payment of $6,500 a student, a company must operate a school and pay staff, as well as returning money to shareholders.

Non-profits, of course, don't have to pay their investors. The Robert Treat Academy in Newark, N.J. gets $7,000 a child, while the Newark schools get $10,000 to $11,000. But Sharon Brennan, the school's board secretary, says her charter school "isn't wanting for anything." Without unionized teachers and a big overhead, she says, "the money goes into the classroom." And Kenneth Campbell, vice president of business development of one private education company, Advantage, says, "We think you can be financially and academically successful at the same time."

Companies like his and Edison claim they can do this by cutting bureaucratic overhead; avoiding collective bargaining agreements that not only dictate salaries but set rules as to what tasks teachers can and cannot do; and purchasing supplies and services more efficiently. Edison's "success depends largely on size," wrote Edward Wyatt in the New York Times, "generating economies of scale in buying textbooks, computers and the like to help lower costs and generate profits."

And so New York, the country's biggest school system, is key. Edison's stock reflects this. Between December, when the deal with the city was announced, and February, the company stock rose from $26.56 a share to $36.75. But then, as the deal ran into difficulties, the stock fell to $21 in early March.

Edison founder Whittle originally wanted to run private schools but was persuaded during Edison's early days that public school takeovers could be more profitable. And if the student body can be altered (as it is alleged some charters have done) so that the students are a bit easier to educate, so much the better for the bottom line.

Even so, "it's very hard for these private companies to come in and make money," Jennings says.

The John Reisenbach School in Harlem is in its second year of offering youngsters a nine and a half hour school day that includes classes in the morning and various projects in the afternoon. Spokesman Ted Faraone says the John Reisenbach Foundation, which funds the school, questions whether for-profit education can work. "You have potentially unlimited costs and capped revenues,' he says. "There is some question as to the viability of for-profit education."

Wall Street's Carl Icahn recently received a charter for a South Bronx school that will open in the fall. Although Icahn says his school, which he hopes to be the first of several, will cuts costs by trimming bureaucracy, he said, "it's not going to be profit-making. It's about making changes and making schools work."

Critics worry that Edison might cut corners to boost profits, scrimping on materials and technological innovations. A collapse of the company, of course, would mean that the city would have to reassert control over the schools or find another operator, something that would almost certainly be disruptive.

Parent Power

Regardless of the merits of Edisons proposal and despite its enormous resources, the company finds itself in a tight situation in New York. Its position must be approved by 51 percent of all parents in a school -- not just voting parents before it can assume control. Thats a tall order when less than 5 percent of parents vote in the school board elections and, according to one parent, only 30 or 40 parents out of several hundred showed up for a recent meeting at the Crotona Park school on the Edison proposal.

It would be comforting to think that the Edison controversy, however it turns out, will heighten public resolve to do something about troubled schools. Given the history of public education, though, the media and public attention is likely to move elsewhere once the hot controversy ends and the big names go elsewhere. When that day comes, the students at Jackie Robinson will again be largely ignored as they strive for excellence.


Indecent: The New Ruckus at the Brooklyn Museum

In his new blast at a work of art at the Brooklyn Museum, a photographic version of The Last Supper that features a naked black woman (the artist) in the role of Jesus, the mayor has again demonstrated his lack of understanding, both about art and about what constitutes a cultural institution's responsible use of public money. His decision to appoint a Decency Commission is also not based, despite his claims, on an accurate reading of the Supreme Court's decision in the Karen Finley case.

The arts do not exist merely to provide a pretty experience. Artists have always challenged the norms of their times, whether through paintings, literature, song, dance or in today's world, film, photography, performance art and video art. This response to the world is not simply for the purpose of shocking, although by definition a strong challenge to the status quo will shock many people. The challenge from artists comes from what they perceive. The result is sometimes interesting, sometimes a failure, and sometimes stunning in its awareness. It may also take decades for the larger public to recognize the validity of an artist's view. History has demonstrated repeatedly that it is often a mistake to label a piece of art as blasphemous or without merit or simply "bad."

The display or performance of that challenging art by a cultural organization supported with taxpayer dollars has provided politicians like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Jesse Helms with what they feel is a responsibility to intercede on behalf of the public. They rail against these cultural groups and ignore the Constitution, and the decisions of the courts, and insist that these cultural groups are irresponsible. In fact, just the opposite is true. Museums, concert halls, and stages should and must be places of public debate and dialogue. It is the essence of accountability on the part of arts groups to provide that forum, whether they use taxpayer dollars or not.

What kind of society can we build or maintain if we debate social norms only in the privacy of our homes? This controversy is about more than artists and their First Amendment rights. It is really about the right of the public to hear and see dissenting views. That means that some parts of the public will be offended, some will be bored, and some will be excited by the challenge. There are many reasons why this country has absorbed without constant war a barrage of differing cultures, languages, and religions. One very important reason is that we allowed public debate, display and even proselytizing about these differences. We might not enjoy all of it, but the founders of this country created an avenue for the expression of these differences without punishment. Artists and arts groups honor that commitment when they accept public dollars and refuse to censor. The mayor would dishonor that heritage and also punish those whose views differ from his or his Decency Commission.

To suggest, as the mayor has done in the past, that such views might be acceptable in "private" institutions, but not in "public" institutions is misleading, since no such distinction exists. All of the cultural groups in city-owned buildings are not-for-profit entities governed by Boards with exactly the same legal status as any other not-for-profit cultural group. The effort to claim these groups as "public" because they bear names such as Brooklyn Museum, or Museum for the City of New York, is an attempt to equate real estate relationships with legal status and governance issues. "Public" versus "private" has no basis in law, and the media's careless acceptance of this non-distinction has only clouded the understanding of the average citizen as to what is really going on.

We do not have, and cannot have, two classes of cultural groups in the city. One that accepts public money and abides by standards set by a Decency Commission, and another that has no public money and presents whatever it chooses. Almost every museum in the city receives some city tax dollars although the differences in amounts of funding between the cultural groups in city-owned buildings and those not in city-owned property is considerable. Literally hundreds of cultural groups would be subject to the Decency Commission.

The Mayor's understanding of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Finley case is also at variance with reality. The Finley case dealt with Congressional language that instructed the National Endowment for the Arts to include "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" in the list of considerations it uses to evaluate grant requests. However at the same time Congress rejected efforts to prohibit awards that would have the effect of denigrating particular religions, or of denigrating people on the basis or race, sex, handicap or national origin. The Supreme Court upheld what have been called the "decency standards" only after finding that such standards did not preclude awards to projects that might be deemed indecent. The standards could not punish particular views. In short, you can have a decency standard, but you cannot define it so that it is used to discriminate against particular viewpoints.

While some may wonder if the Finley ruling has any real meaning, it is clear that it does not mean you can establish a Decency Commission to decide that the pictures in our museums, the words spoken on stage, the books in our libraries, or the lyrics of a song are indecent and cannot receive public funding. Artistic expression is by definition a particular viewpoint. It is trite but true that one person's idea of decency is another's expression of a different view. That is not to suggest or imply that pornography is acceptable and should be supported by public funding. Pornography and indecency are not the same, and attempts by the city's lawyers to equate the two in the Sensation case were met with incredulous questions from the judges.

Social norms change. The process is troubling, even unpleasant, and sometimes not good for us. Challenges to religion are especially complex as they touch on some of the most deeply cherished feelings of people. The Mayor and others are not correct in saying that today's artists somehow find Catholicism an especially acceptable target. Artists work from their heart, head and experiences; the artists whose work has so offended the Mayor are in fact Catholic. Strong artistic statements about fundamentalist Christianity are part of the artistic work of the past few years, but those generate little reaction from elected officials. Could it be because there is no group similar to the Catholic League?

It is naive to believe that this hullabaloo has no cause other than the art itself. Published information both in the current situation and in the Sensation exhibit strongly imply that either the press or the Catholic League brought these exhibits to the administration's attention. Certainly except for opera, the Mayor is not noted for enjoying the arts. He does enjoy the political limelight and he enjoys taking on the pose of the righteous fighting opponents whom he paints as silly, dumb or "political.".

Many also believe that this controversy is a diversion from the mayor's recent budget proposals, which recommend a two-thirds cut in the Department of Cultural Affairs' funding for several hundred arts organizations. That recommendation was released on January 25. It received almost no attention from the media. As usual a bevy of capital grants were highlighted by the Mayor and the press followed his lead and made much of them. This is the Mayor's last budget and he now has a perfect record for recommending bone deep budget cuts to the arts. Is it possible that City Hall is laughing at how easy it is to get the press, and hence, the public, to ignore the really important issues?

Neither the artistic community nor the citizens of New York need or deserve a Decency Commission to censor art. It would be helpful, however, if the Mayor would stop taking an axe to the funding for the arts. That would actually benefit the taxpayers.

However, if he must go ahead, and I am sure he will, I nominate Eve Ensler, author of the Vagina Monologues in which Donna Hanover recently starred, as the first member. Or perhaps the mayor should appoint Hanover herself, his estranged wife, the mother of his children.

Norma Munn is Chair of the New York City Arts Coalition, founder and President of the Artists Community Federal Credit Union, and former Chair of The City Club of New York.

Making Art Matter: A Plan to Redesign the Department of Cultural Affairs

Over the last year, a number of arts professionals have met in small groups to discuss how the city might better use its resources to support the cultural community. One of the constant themes is the need to change the Department of Cultural Affairs. Final recommendations of this city-wide planning effort will not be complete until next spring. But here is one blueprint for a new cultural agency.

A new Department of Cultural Affairs should have a broad mission aimed at supporting, nurturing and developing the professional arts industry. It should:

1. support the creativity of the city's artists
2. provide resources for economic development within the arts industry
3. protect the diverse cultural heritage of the city
4. sustain both mid-sized and well established cultural groups
5. encourage and nurture new, emerging art forms and smaller arts groups
6. promote arts education and act as a partner in effort to expand arts education in the public school system
7. develop access to the arts throughout the city

There is an assumption that the city's current financial support is targeted to professional arts of high quality. Since Cultural Affairs does not utilize an evaluation system based on artistic excellence for most of its contracted funds, that belief is not justified.

Two things are clear in the current system. It serves nether the professional non-profit arts groups, nor professional artists well, and it places the emerging or gifted amateur in competition with the professionals. This has the effect of lowering the public relations value of city support to professional arts groups when they solicit private funding sources, while creating a paperwork burden for the emerging groups.

Agreeing that Cultural Affairs should focus on professional arts and artists would clarify its purpose, as well as limit its role. Emerging groups, preprofessional, and gifted amateurs, if supported by taxpayers, should be funded through a local, decentralized process. Some argue that these kinds of activities should not receive taxpayer funding; others feel that many of these individuals and groups offer important local resources.

A new Cultural Affairs should use an evaluation system based on artistic merit to ensure that tax funds provide the very best to every citizen. The expectation of high quality art is as much the right of every New Yorker as safe streets. Mediocre art does not contribute to a civil society; quality art can and does.

Equally important, a new Cultural Affairs must distribute funds equitably across all five boroughs, within and among racial and ethnic groups, and between those organizations in city owned buildings and the rest of the arts groups. The factors complicating that effort are many, but the most difficult is simply that roughly 75 percent of the professional arts groups in the city are located in Manhattan. Even within Manhattan, arts groups are not widely distributed. The majority are located below 57th Street.

The low level political bickering that pits Manhattan against the other four boroughs is particularly detrimental to the arts. Many of those who work in Manhattan-based non-profit groups live elsewhere. They take their paychecks home to that other borough. In addition, substantial numbers of the arts groups in Manhattan clearly have citywide audiences and programs. However, it is also a legitimate concern of other boroughs that their much larger population be fairly treated.

One solution is to emulate a restriction placed on state funding for the arts, which requires a minimum per capita amount be spent in each county or borough. A per capita requirement provides a base line level of funding for everyone. Funding above that base line amount is common in many counties depending on the level of arts funding. A similar process could be devised for the five boroughs.

Access, equity, merit-based evaluations, support for arts education and protection of the diverse cultural heritage of the city are rational ideas that many can, and do, support. Suggesting that a new Cultural Affairs provide funding for individual artists would be widely welcomed in the arts, but elected officials can be expected to have a different reaction. Artists cannot be counted on to adhere to the status quo; they challenge, disturb and sometimes shock. One would hope that this city that calls itself the cultural capital of the world is adult enough to put all that in perspective and recognize the without artists, we would not be able to make that boast.

Almost as disconcerting to many, within the arts and elsewhere, is the notion that a new Cultural Affairs should promote economic development in the arts. The city's usual approach is to support culture because it attracts tourists, and claim that as economic development. Cultural tourism is important, but it requires a thriving cultural industry. To provide funds for marketing but not for general operating costs is like taking out an ad to sell a house, but neglecting to fix the leaky roof or replace the ancient furnace.

Yet every economic study about the cultural sector shows that it is a industry which employs tens of thousands of people and attracts creative talents useful in other industries. Public officials fret and worry about the real estate sector, Wall Street, the construction industry, Silicon Alley, biotech, etc, etc. Tax incentives to stay in the city, to relocate, upgrade, and expand are commonplace approaches in order to keep the jobs in those industries in the city. Not so in the arts. The Joffrey Ballet left town with no discernible concern from the city—Ès elected officials. Only 80 jobs, but a telling example of a blind eye.

The estimated 1000 professional non-profit arts groups in the city are almost uniformly understaffed. Speaking hypothetically, the city could allocate funds for one job per group at an average of $45,000 per person for $45 million per year. That is a paltry sum compared to the tax breaks provided to a number of large corporations over the past few years. Since artists and arts groups create products that add to the economy, they also earn a substantial amount of their annual budgets. Enhancing their ability to increase their product results in greater overall wealth for the city -- just like new jobs do in other industries.

Economic development treats the arts groups as the entrepreneurial business they are, albeit with an unusual product. It is an investment approach; not a hand-out. It could also do much to overcome the thirty five year history of inadequate and meager public funding that has left this industry perpetually undercapitalized. The latter is a major factor in the fiscal instability plaguing most non-profit arts groups, and every level of government has contributed to that condition by its short sighted funding policies.

Giving a new Cultural Affairs economic development responsibilities could also mean paying serious attention to the commercial arts. Many in the non-profit arts fear this. The resources of the commercial arts, and their largely unfettered ability to contribute political dollars, are not insignificant. But the intertwining of commercial and non-profit arts is increasing, and in any case, the commercial arts also contribute to the well being of the city. As it stands now the city does deal with the commercial arts, but on an ad hoc basis. Priorities about the use of resources and expectations as to results might benefit everyone.

A public policy debate is needed on these and other issues affecting the arts. Many within the arts are intent on seeing that the upcoming mayoral and City Council elections provide a long awaited opportunity for that debate.


Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice

Gotham Gazette: Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Silent Amid Intensifying Calls for Sexual Harassment Hearings Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Silent Amid Intensifying Calls for Sexual Harassment Hearings Gotham Gazette: State Board of Elections Curtails Power of Enforcement Counsel State Board of Elections Curtails Power of Enforcement Counsel Gotham Gazette: Republican Slate Seeks to End Statewide Drought Republican Slate Seeks to End Statewide Drought Gotham Gazette: How Insurgent Forces Activated, Educated and Brought the IDC Down How Insurgent Forces Activated, Educated and Brought the IDC Down


The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.