Norman Siegel Skewers Betsy Gotbaum

Generally politicians will say nice things about their predecessors (unless they're George Bush), especially when they are of the same party and not running against each other. That was what all the Public Advocate candidates did last night, except for one. Norman Siegel gave his audience a heaping dish of what he actually thought of Betsy Gotbaum's performance as New York City's Public Advocate.

From The Daily Politics:

“If you think Betsy Gotbaum did a good job as public advocate, you should vote for one of the other three people," he said. "I think she was not a good public advocate. She was not visible, she was not vocal and most people in the city do not know who the public advocate is."

"This office has had atrophy since Mark was there and that is unacceptable," Siegel continued. "The office now is up for debate on whether it will continue. So for everyone to continue in this Alice in Wonderland world and talk about how she is a good advocate, I respectfully disagree."

Say what you want, but Siegel was 100% honest about how he truly feels. That might be a quality New Yorkers should consider when deciding who will advocate for their best interests in the course of the next four years.

Blogger Battles NYPD And Wins, Sorta

It has always been an uphill struggle for bloggers in this town, this state and this country for that matter. The establishment did not take the online community seriously for a long time and now, things are beginning to change. Politicos realize that we've helped elect candidates and win battles with the supposed conventional wisdom. Well that struggle is an ongoing process, including right here in New York. Today however, we won another battle, thanks to Norman Siegel and blogger Rafael Martinez-Alequin.

From The Daily Politics:

Maverick City Hall blogger Rafael Martinez-Alequin has won his battle to get the NYPD to give him an official press card, the DN's Frank Lombardi reports.[...]

One wrinkle: The crendentials are "identification" cards, which offer less access than those issued to "working press." The latter allow the bearer to cross police lines.

Martinez-Alequin and Siegel said the three would continue their federal suit despite being granted press credentials.

"This is an important first step, but only a first step," Siegel said. We still need to address the constitutional problems in the system of granting press crednetials in new York City that has run amok and needs to be changed immediately, so the lawsuit continues."

Siegel said he would prefer to see the city Department of Consumer Affairs handle press credentials, calling it inappropriate for a high-profile agency like the police department to have the final word on who is a journalist.

So Martinez-Alequin has his press pass, or at least something that looks like it. The NYPD didn't give all the way, but with that lawsuit pending, hopefully they'll be irrelevant to the process in due time. Your Free Press is now one step closer to the rest of the traditional media's position inside City Hall.

The People Have Spoken Mr. Mayor!

"It's over! It's over! It's over!" could be heard across City Hall Park this afternoon as Norman Siegel led a press conference decrying Bloomberg's term limit power play. The people, starting with the fifty or so that came to the steps of City Hall on a Sunday are fighting against the Mayor and members of the Council that are trying to overturn the will of the voters by legislative fiat.

The hour-long event had speakers such as State Senator Eric Adams, Councilwoman Letitia James, activist Phil DePaolo, Democracy for New York City members Dan Jacoby, Josh Skaller and many other concerned citizens from across the five buroughs.

As one of those citizens that stood on the steps with a sign in hand, the energy was real and people were ticked off that the Mayor thinks he can get away with this. There are too many reasons to let Bloomberg and the council members in his pocket (like Quinn and Felder) to overrule the will of the people.

Just because we are in tough financial times, that does not mean that we should change the rules of the game with an election coming up. New Yorkers protested a similar power grab in 2001 and we should do the same now. As one speaker this afternoon pointed out, Bloomberg is a part of the "Wall Street" that got us in this mess in the first place. It is time for a new direction in this city, but if New York truly wants to get rid of term limits, they should do it in a referenda two years or more from now, when we aren't tempted to make rash decisions for one particular billionaire.

While the reaction to Bloomberg's quest to hold onto power (and name change to Hizzoner) has been mixed, plenty of groups are getting together to protest the Mayor and Council including a press conference held earlier at noon today. When the Council meets on Tuesday to begin the anti-Democratic process, there will be yet another group protesting the Mayor.

Protect Chinatown and LES will be out to talk about the Mayor's record he doesn't want you to know about. His re-zoning laws have radically changed the city into a high-rise version of the cookie-cutter suburbs. He's currently trying to do the same to Chinatown and the Lower East Side. With another four years of Bloomberg, these two neighborhoods and possibly others might meet a similar rezoning fate for the benefit of wealthy developers. The Mayor likes to talk about his $1 salary to distance himself from the special interests he loves, but we would have to add many zeroes to that number to understand the true cost of four more years under Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg Tries To Cut Ethics Requirements For Public Officials

Just when the climate in Albany and down here in the City couldn't be more corrupt, Mayor Bloomberg is taking a stab at making it easier to hide personal information for public officials. Ethical scandals haven't just been occurring in Albany but down here in New York City as well. Quinn had her slush funds exposed not too long ago, Dennis Gallagher was found to be a scumbag and our last Mayor was Rudy Giuliani, so enough said. If anything these men and women who are elected to represent us should be willing to or made to disclose anything and everything that is pertinent to the way they govern and what things or people might influence them in one way or another. So why is Bloomberg going in exactly the opposite direction?

From The NY Times:

Among the proposed changes, public servants would no longer have to provide dollar amounts or ranges on outside income. In addition, they would need to report only gifts (worth at least $50) they received from people who did business with the city, not all gifts larger than $1,000, as is the current law.

Also slated to come off the disclosure form are investments worth between $1,000 and $10,000 and real estate holdings located more than a quarter-mile outside the city limits.

Among the planned additions to the forms is the disclosure of relatives who hold city jobs, a question intended to discourage nepotism.

Of those generally required to submit disclosure reports, most are elected officials, candidates for public office, policy makers, purchasing agents and other high-level public servants.

The bill was meant to reduce the paperload for volunteers, but this ends up giving politcians cover in so many ways. While there are some good things in there, the bill is still flawed and good government groups were the first to react to this news.

Still, the proposed changes are causing ripples among groups that promote transparency in government and are not convinced that less is more. Several said they were concerned that the changes had not been widely discussed before becoming part of the legislation. “It seems to me whenever there’s a shrinkage of information, the public should be concerned,” said Norman Siegel, a longtime civil rights advocate who is running for public advocate next year.

Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a watchdog group, said: “I wouldn’t want the disclosure forms changed in a way that would limit or diminish information that has been previously required. In fact, there may be good reasons to increase the disclosure requirements as opposed to loosening.”

Less is definitely not more in this case and Bloomberg should be well aware of that. The fact that the bill was partially hidden by an effort to help city volunteers is rather distasteful. Actually, it almost tastes as sour as the Mayor's subtle influence in the term limits battle that is now being discussed across the city. Like in that debate, this seems like another attempt by the Mayor and his minions in order to hold on to more power at the public's expense.

Group Forms To Fight Council's Effort To Rescind Term Limits

With all the activity surrounding the primary elections coming up tomorrow, the battle over term limits can easily be lost in the fray. That is why concerned citizens and good government groups are coming together to fight back against the Mayor and City Council's effort to rescind what the people put in place in the 90s. The people voted for our elected officials to serve two terms and two terms only and People Have Spoken Coalition is determined to keep it that way.

From The NY Sun:

"We call upon our fellow New Yorkers — anyone and everyone — to join us in this important citywide effort in maintaining the existing law," a former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Norman Siegel, who helped organize the event, said. "The City Council should not undo the people's will."

Mr. Siegel was joined by several local leaders, including City Council Member Bill de Blasio and state Senator Eric Adams.

New Yorkers voted to support term limits in two referendums during the 1990s. Now, with about two-thirds of the City Council set to be forced from office next year, along with the popular Mayor Bloomberg, legislators have discussed changing the law anyway.

No such bill has yet been submitted, but those in favor of term limits are trying to beat it to the punch. A billionaire businessman, Ronald Lauder, financed a television ad campaign this weekend comparing politicians to diapers that need to be changed regularly. Mr. Siegel said the coalition announced yesterday will coordinate with Mr. Lauder's group, New Yorkers for Term Limits.

Backed by a few prominent politicians and big money in the way of Ronald Lauder, this is no small operation. It really is a shame that we have to fight back against council members that resist the public's wishes. If they really wanted to do this in a just manner, it would have been put to a vote across the city, not just for the 51 members of the Council. Congrats to Bill de Blasio for bucking the trend and for everyone that stands up to this anti-democratic maneuver.

Siegel Sues The City Over Council Speaker's Slush Fund

The Slush Fund scandal came to light concerning fake charities and payouts from the Council Speaker's office, Quinn "got tough" and proposed reforms to smooth things over with the public (and possibly the District Attorney). However, community hero and potentially future Public Advocate Norman Siegel is not buying the aftermath of what happened. He has taken the step to sue the city under an old Boss Tweed-era law and demand answers to questions that every citizen in New York deserves to hear.

From The Daily Politics:

The suit seeks to have key City Hall officials subpoenaed to testify, including Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Mayor Bloomberg.

A hearing date of a show cause order was set for May 29.

Among other issues that would be explored if the inquiry is approved would be whether actions by Quinn and others in the Council’s creation of phantom budget accounts constitutes violations of neglect of duty in relation to the proper conduct of the government affairs of New York City.

Also to be explored is if anyone knowingly made false or deceptive reports “in the course of their duty.”

Other questions posed by the suit include:

- Why were the secret budget accounts created?

- Who was involved in the decision to create them?

- Where did the money involved eventually end up?

- Who chose the groups that got the money?

- Who was aware of the behind-the-scene use of the secret accounts and how they were used?

- What did the mayor and his Office of Management and Budget know, and if they knew what did they do about it?

Quinn never offered this information up in her press conferences, possibly to save her mayoral chances next year (and to hold on to the Speakership for that matter). Of course Siegel isn't seeking any penalties for those he names to testify but more importantly to have the truth heard so we do not have to repeat these mistakes again and again.

Norman is holding a press conference tomorrow morning at 10:30 in his office at 260 Madison (18th Fl), for all those that care to hear his remark in person and before brunch. Be sure to see what else Norman is up to at his website.

The Militancy Of The Police And Our Children

New York City is getting safer, much, much safer. Murders were at their lowest last year since we've been recording them in the 1960s. Crime in general is much better and the city is more hospitable and has lost the fear-inspiring quality that so enveloped it in the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, there is a cost to this safety, and I know there must be a better way. The fear is still there, but it is being directed at us from the police, and you know something is wrong when the police think it is a good thing to handcuff five and ten year-old children.

From The Gothamist:

Imecca Burton, her mother, and civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel held a press conference in front of Police Headquarters yesterday to decry the handcuffing of 10-year-old Imecca, who was handcuffed by police in front of PS 25 where she attends elementary school. Police officers witnessed a fight on her school bus and in the ensuing events Imecca was handcuffed. Witnesses said that Imecca was swearing, kicking, and screaming, which is why the cops cuffed her. They were removed once she composed herself. The 10-year-old said she was afraid that she was going to jail and would never get out. "I never thought I'd see my brothers and sisters again," the New York Post reports. The Post labels Imecca Burton as "disabled" when describing her handcuffing and later elaborates that she has attention deficit disorder and dyslexia. Norman Siegel plans to sue the city on her behalf.

The incident happened just two days before the restraining of five-year-old Dennis Rivera, who had his hands cuffed behind a chair after punching his teacher and slapping an assistant principal in the face (the kindergarten kid weighs 68 pounds). School safety agents eventually had to restrain him until EMS arrived and took Rivera to Elmhurst Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. His mother plans on suing the school because her son was traumatized by the incident.

State Senator Eric Adams representing Brooklyn offered that perhaps police should be issued Velcro handcuffs for the physical restraint of children.

Velcro may be better than cold steel, but you are still psychologically damaging these children. Whatever happened to the days (like in the 70s and 80s) when kids were treated like.....well, kids. Children are the most innocent members of our society and when an adult feels the need to physically detain them, the problem is with the society created by the adults, not the other way around. It is time to start nurturing our youth, not wasting money on beefing up police and militarizing our schools with those ridiculous narcs and "School Safety" patrols.

The Prosecution Flees On Rev. Billy

This story isn't too surprising, but good news is always appreciated when it comes to the first amendment. Reverend Billy (a.k.a. Bill Talen) has been so outspoken in New York that the police here do not like to see such expressions of freedom. They provoked and arrested him for nothing, drawing up false charges and making criminals out of themselves (a crooked cop in New York? Never!). Instead of dropping it there, the city had the D.A. try to prosecute the Reverend, but apparently they could never get their act together.

From The Gothamist:

Hallelujah! Yesterday the judge presiding over the Reverend Billy case dropped the charges that claimed he harassed public officials. The Rev was arrested in June while reciting the First Amendment in Union Square during a Critical Mass ride which coincided with the protest of the proposed MOFTB rules.

Turns out the prosecutors didn't meet their deadline to file papers explaining the arrest and its justification. The Reverend's (whose real name is Bill Talen) lawyer, Earl Ward, said they likely let the deadline pass in order to end the case. The video from that day does a good job of showing that he was just reciting, you know, the amendment stating our rights to free speech and free assembly -- albeit in the vicinity of power-tripping police officers.

The NY Times reports that Civil Rights lawyer Norman Siegel "said the dismissal was not the end of the road for Reverend Billy. He said he would file a federal lawsuit against the city and the Police Department charging false arrest, malicious prosecution and violation of Mr. Talen’s free-speech rights." Did the NYPD really think they could send Reverend Billy to the Tombs and expect him to just roll over?

Time to teach the NYPD a lesson. If anyone can back up Reverend Billy, its Norman Siegel.

NYC Prosecutor Shows The Holes In Case Against Rev. Billy

The case against Reverend Billy has to be one of the dumbest on the dockets of NYC courtrooms. The story starts with the Reverend reciting the First Amendment at a rally for the.....First Amendent, also known as the Critical Mass Bikeride. This apparently angered the NYPD on the scene so they charged him with two phony counts of harassment against the arresting officers. The video of the incident clearly shows he wasn't.

Not only did the NYPD arrest him, the city is trying to convict him of the charges. Prosecutor Mary Weisgerber couldn't even get a good case together for the hearing, so she requested a delay until October 15th. Here's what went down in court on Tuesday.

From The New York Times:

In court yesterday, the prosecutor told Judge Tanya Kennedy that Mr. Talen’s offense had been to shout the familiar lines beginning with “Congress shall make no law” while standing just three feet from the officers, and to ignore their requests to stop. The prosecutor, Mary Weisgerber, said his behavior was “obnoxious” by any standard.

“That’s not true,” Mr. Talen piped up.

Outside of court, Mr. Talen — who says that his lungs are like bullhorns because he has had operatic training — maintained that he was about 15 feet from the officers and that his account was supported by a videotape of the episode that has been preserved on YouTube.

Thankfully when court comes back into session there will be nothing that the city's Attorney will have to offer. The judge has already agreed with Public Advocate Norman Siegel that the case will be dismissed pending the next trial date.

Giuliani And Norm Siegel Agree On Something?

You wouldn't think that New York City's public advocate and the man referred to as the "Mussolini of Manhattan" would agree on anything, but Norm Siegel and Rudy Giuliani found common ground on at least one issue. The victims of September 11th have been remembered every year on the hallowed site where they perished nearly six years ago. Now that construction is kicking into full gear at Ground Zero, the mayor and others are moving it to a park nearby. The change has pissed plenty of people off from very different political persuasions, obviously.

From The Daily News:

The controversy over the plan to move this year’s 9/11 memorial out of Ground Zero for the first time has made for an unlikely alliance: Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel and his onetime arch-nemesis, Rudy Giuliani.

The pair, who tussled frequently when Giuliani was mayor and Siegel was the head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, suddenly find themselves on the same side, backing families who want the memorial held at the World Trade Center site.

"Last night, I said to my wife, 'It’s finally come full circle,'" Siegel said with a smile today outside Zuccotti Park, the plaza across the street and one block South of Ground Zero where the city and state plan to hold this year’s memorial.

Siegel, who plans to run for public advocate for a third time next fall, is representing 11 family groups who filed a permit application with the Port Authority today to have the event at the site – which Giuliani said Tuesday he supports.

Well how about that, even polar political opposites can agree on some things....or at least one item that is very emotional for New Yorkers and Americans in general. Proponents of the move say they had to make the decision because of construction. I call bullshit, the Port Authority can take a break on September 11th, 2007 to honor the thousands that lost their lives on that tragic day.

Norman Siegel, Public Advocate Running For The Job He Already Does

In this 24/7, 365 days a year world of campaigning, the candidates are already shaping up for the city's next election in 2009. One of those offices that will be looked at besides the Mayor's race is for Public Advocate. For far too long, no one in that office has really looked out for the citizens of New York City. Norman Siegel has done a fantastic job of it, despite not having the official title. So in addition to mole333 at Daily Gotham, I would like to advocate for Norm's bid to take the seat two years from now. Here's what mole333 had to say.

From The Daily Gotham:

Many people are speculating who is going to be running. Names I have heard kicked around include Chris Owens (now eyeing Brooklyn BP), David Yassky (who really should run for Marty Connor's senate seat, many believe), and Marty Markowitz (who some people say should just give up the facade and go on Bruce Ratner's payroll).

But the name that most who really care about civil liberties are waiting to hear is Norm Siegel. Norm has run twice in the past. I have met him both times and found him to be the ideal man for the job. In fact, he has been our real public advocate for decades. He was Executive Director of the NY Civil Liberties union for 15 years. Since then, according to Democracy for NYC, he has done the following for New Yorkers:

Norman has advocated for and represented myriad groups including:

* the newly created Association of New York City Education Councils
* the Williamsburg community's right to keep its local firehouse open
* Prospect Heights, Brooklyn and Harlem communities working to stop the government from using eminent domain to take their homes for the enrichment of private developers
* firefighters and non-profits seeking the implementation of a skyscraper safety program and provisions for our firefighters to guarantee they have proper working communication equipment
* families who lost a loved one on September 11th, 2001, as they seek the public release of materials from that day, including 911 emergency tapes and transcripts (Norman argued this case in the New York Court of Appeals on February 9th).

Siegel already has a great record protecting citizens from big business, so there is no reason for him not to take the job for real. There are other great candidates that are positioning themselves to run, but Norman takes the cake.

I was able to see him live and in person at Democracy for New York City's Spring Bash last week and I was extremely impressed with his short speech. The crowd there obviously adored him, making for a nice little base to build support on. He placed second to that Betsy Who? character in 2005 and should easily beat should she run again.

Dancing In The Streets

A huge parade went down Broadway yesterday to celebrate the arts and dancing in particular. Some of the participants were there as a symbol of protest against the city's arcane laws against dancing in certain establishments. A law from 1926 prohibits clubs from allowing more than two people dancing without a hard to obtain permit. Only 170 spots across the city have these permits, and that law needs to change. Norman Siegel is fighting to do just that.

From The New York Times:

Norman Siegel, one of the lawyers who filed the suit against the city, boogied in the parade alongside some hip-hoppers and spoke to the crowd afterward. “Dancing is expressive activity, and the government should not be regulating or prohibiting our right to dance,” he said. Two lower courts have already rejected his argument that dancing is a form of free expression, but last month he asked the Court of Appeals to review those decisions.

Though Ms. Tamam said the parade was less about protesting than advocacy and education, many groups took the opportunity to call attention to the law.

“I’ve been screaming, ‘Fight the cabaret laws’ for four hours,” said Luis Vargas, 35, a Manhattan health counselor and a member of the newly formed House Coalition, made up of house music devotees who oppose the cabaret laws. “We refuse to give up the cause. It’s not a crime to dance.”

It isn't a crime to dance, but Bloomberg has been dragging his feet with no rhythm in sight to change the law. He has said in the past he would have it changed, but nothing has been done since. This may seem like a silly little thing, but it is a big deal for many party-goers.

Norman and his supporters have gone to the courts, only to leave in vain. The judges dismissed his argument that dancing is a freedom of expression. That is just ridiculous. The Court of Appeals is going to look into the matter, but Bloomberg can clear it up quickly along with the City Council. So Mr. Mayor, what is the big deal? Get your groove on and update the law already.