The Voteless Parents in NYC Get To "Choose" Their CEC Representatives

I am sure that the citizens of New York City understand the inequity of New York's Department of Education. The folk who work at the DOE will do anything to protect their "own", which means those who are willing to separate themselves from following the law, rules against nepotism and theft, and all those things which easy can be called improper or at least unethical and in most cases illegal.

If you are a relative of a politician, an administrator, and/or a favored employee of the DOE or you are a "special friend" of anyone, you are in. Credentials matter.

That's why people who steal remain on the DOE payroll. They may be moved to a high position if a misconduct charge is substantiated against him/her, but they are rarely pushed aside.

I am NOT saying there are not good people who work for the DOE. There are, thankfully, many excellent people still on the books who would rather stop unethical behavior and put their jobs on the line than protect crimes against the health, safety, and welfare of the students.

In 2003 I was lucky enough to receive from Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo a document which spells it out very clearly. His letter to the Department of Justice in Washington DC urged the DOJ to allow Mike Bloomberg to take away the vote for the people who govern the school districts in NYC, and replace with a system whereby PTA Presidents, Treasurers and Secretaries would be the "selectors" who would vote for CEC members, or the powerless Community Education Councils around town. Bloomberg did not believe in fair representation, because this would mean that his control was not absolute. This letter started me thinking about what really was going on. In my opinion, this was the denial of the right to vote, which I take very seriously. I started working on my book.

Bloomberg/Cardozo also dismantled the NYC Board of Education and replaced it with the Panel For Educational Policy. The difference? PEP members are not voted into office, they are all appointed. Their so-called "vote" is tainted by what their boss says. Even if they do vote on something, they vote the way Joel/Cathie/Dennis/Carmen want, or the PEP should look for another position somewhere else. Simple. And unfair.

My youngest daughter was in PS 6 when Carmen Farina was Principal. I worked with her on the Annenberg Challenge for the Arts, and I set up the Arts Together Community Partnership (ATCP). I was on the Executive Board of PS 6, and I thought that everyone worked for the kids. I was new to public school, my other daughters attended private schools in grades 1-5.

I was wrong. The day that I asked where the money given by Annenberg was going, Carmen called me up (May 23, 2000) cursing, screaming, accusing me of theft, hiring/firing the arts people at PS 6, she yelled and screamed for 20 minutes. I almost had a heart attack. I had never heard anyone so abusive, and I had never heard most of the words she used, either. The next day the ATCP brochures and papers were thrown away, I heard, with the assistance of Assistant Corporation Counsel Jane Gordon, a parent at the school. I was told to never be involved in anything at PS 6 ever again.

The next year I ran for PTA President. I was already fighting back, investigating, and documenting everything. Carmen was removed from PS 6 in February.

In the article below, you will see the following:

"After the forums, three officers from each school’s Parent Association (PA) and Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) – the President, Recording Secretary, and Treasurer – will cast ballots online for their preferred district candidates between April 19 and May 8. On May 12, the results will be posted online at NYCParentLeaders.org."

Parents who are not "elected" by the system are without a vote.

I protest.

Betsy Combier

UFT President Mike Mulgrew, NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio, Chancellor Carmen Farina

CHANCELLOR FARIÑA ENCOURAGES PARENTS TO GET INVOLVED BY RUNNING FOR AN EDUCATION COUNCIL SEAT

 

The 36 Community Education Councils include 32 District Councils and Four Citywide Councils, one each for High Schools, English Language Learners, Special Education and District 75

 

CCECs Offer Parents an Opportunity to Shape Educational Policies in their Districts and Make a Direct Impact in their School Communities

 

          NEW YORK –New York City Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña today encouraged parents across the city to make a direct impact on their child’s education by running for an Education Council seat. Parents interested in becoming members of a Community or Citywide Education Council (CCEC) can apply starting today through March 11, and should visit NYCParentLeaders.org for more information.

 

“The Community and Citywide Education Councils help shape education policies and maintain strong relationships with families and the community,” said Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña. “Education Councils make important contributions to their communities and I want to encourage parents across the city to apply for a seat. We need strong CECs in every district and citywide.”

 

Elections take place every two years, and this year, the DOE is engaging in a citywide effort to reach parents and raise awareness of these leadership roles, reflecting the Chancellor’s ongoing commitment to collaborating with families in the imperative work of preparing our city’s students for college and the workforce.

 

“Education Councils provide parents a voice in public education and an opportunity to make grass-roots level impact in their school districts,” said Jesse Mojica, Executive Director of the Division of Family and Community Engagement. “All New York City public school parents should consider participating in this unique opportunity to become transformative leaders in their communities.” 

 

Parents serve two-year terms on 36 Councils throughout the City, which include 32 district councils and four citywide councils, one each for High Schools, English Language Learners, Special Education and District 75. The 32 district CECs are responsible for approving school zoning lines, holding hearings on the Capital Plan, and providing additional input on important policy issues. Citywide Councils evaluate and advise on school policy concerning their areas of focus.

 

After applications are submitted, candidates will engage parents and parent leaders at forums planned between March 18 and April 18.

 

After the forums, three officers from each school’s Parent Association (PA) and Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) – the President, Recording Secretary, and Treasurer – will cast ballots online for their preferred district candidates between April 19 and May 8. On May 12, the results will be posted online at NYCParentLeaders.org.

 

Elected parents will receive trainings and leadership development sessions, ensuring they are able to use their positions effectively to make their voices heard, advocate for students, and form functional Councils.

 

Candidates for district CEC positions must be parents of a student enrolled in a district elementary or middle school, while candidates for the Citywide Council on High Schools must have a student in high school. Candidates for the other three Citywide Councils must have a student receiving the relevant services.

 

There is no experience or language requirement for candidates to run. Translation services are available at meetings for CEC members who may not speak English. Immigration status is never a consideration for an Education Council position. 

 

“Serving on an Education Council is rewarding because you have a direct influence on shaping education policies in your child’s school district,” said Arlenis Morel, a member of CEC 24. “We are our kids’ fiercest advocates and Education Councils allow us to ensure that their academic needs are met.”

 

As part of the broader Community and Citywide Education Council selection process, elected officials urged parents to apply.

 

“I encourage public school parents citywide to join Community and Citywide Education Councils, which present the best opportunity to be involved in the future of our schools, and directly connect parents to the resources in local communities,” said Public Advocate Letitia James. “Our children deserve the best, and no one understands that better than parents. Their voice is integral to our education system.”

 

“CECs are meant to ensure parental input in our school system,” Queens Borough President Melinda Katz said. “It is critical to have parents be an integral part of the decision-making process to shape and set education policies. As a mom of two young boys, I can attest firsthand to the impact that parental involvement has on our education system. Queens parents are some of the most active, vocal and effective in the city, and the difference is clear. The nexus of collaboration between families, educators and surrounding community is the key to the success of our schools.”

 

“Through Community Education Councils, parents can shape and support their neighborhood schools and influence decisions that affect the entire school system,” said Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer. “I strongly encourage parents to apply for seats on their district CECs. Their insight, experience, and energy are crucial to improving our schools.”

“We need a variety of voices, viewpoints, and opinions serving in our CECs,” said Staten Island Borough President James Oddo. “For those parents who have ever thought about getting more involved in the school system, now is the time to do so by running for a spot on the CEC.  Share your talents and your experiences with us, and help us improve our schools.”

“Parental participation in the educational process is an important component that needs to be emphasized as much as hitting the books, which is why the Community Education Council elections are very important,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.  “As a parent, I understand how important it was for my children to feel they had me as an advocate on their behalf. As the Bronx Borough President, I understand how important it is to be an advocate for not only my children, but all of the Bronx’s children. We urge parents to become a part of this process to make sure the voices at the table are diverse and representative of our communities and the needs of our children.”

“Parent leaders who are part of Community Education Councils advocate for those most deserving of your time and attention – our students,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. “Even with all the challenges, there is no greater honor than representing your community and making Brooklyn a better place to live, work, and raise a family.”

 

For more information, parents can visit NYCParentLeaders.org, a key resource for understanding the structure and roles of the Education Councils. Information available on this website includes eligibility guidelines, key dates, and frequently asked questions.

 

The Councils

 

Community Education Councils (CEC)
The CECs work closely with the district superintendents, approve school zoning lines, hold hearings on the Capital Plan, and provide input on instructional and policy issues. There are 32 CECs. Each CEC has nine elected members who are parents of students currently in grades K-8 in district schools, and two Borough President appointees.

 

 

 

 

 

Citywide Council on High Schools (CCHS)
The CCHS advises on education policy and issues involving high school students. The CCHS has 10 elected members, two from each borough, who must be the parents of students currently attending a public high school.

 

Citywide Council on English Language Learners (CCELL)
The CCELL advises on education policy and issues involving students in bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. The CCELL has nine elected members, who must be parents of students currently or recently classified by the DOE as English Language Learners.

 

Citywide Council on Special Education (CCSE)
The CCSE advises on education policy and services for students with disabilities. The CCSE has nine elected members, who must be parents of students receiving special education services provided by the DOE.

 

Citywide Council for District 75 (CCD75)
The CCD75 advises on education policy and services for students with disabilities who attend D75 programs. The CCD75 has nine elected members, who must be parents of students in a D75 program.

 

Important dates

 

February 11 - March 11 Parents interested in running for a seat on an Education Council submit an application online (computers will be available at schools and libraries).  

 

March 18 - April 18 – District and borough parent leaders, along with the DOE, host forums for parents to meet and ask questions of Education Council candidates.

 

April 19 - May 8 – Presidents, Treasurers, and Recording Secretaries of Parent Associations and Parent-Teacher Associations vote for the new Community and Citywide Education Council Members for the 2015-2017 term.

May 12 – Election results are published on NYCParentLeaders.org.

 

July 1 – Elected and appointed Community and Citywide Education Council Members for the 2015-2017 term take office.

 

 

 

There will be five borough-based information sessions for prospective candidates. Each will be held from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm on their respective dates:

 

Brooklyn:            February 17

Brooklyn Borough Hall

209 Joralemon St.

Brooklyn, NY 11201

 

Queens:               February 24

Queens Borough Hall

120-55 Queens Blvd, Room 200

Kew Gardens, NY 11424

 

Staten Island:      February 24

Staten Island Borough Hall

10 Richmond Terrace

Staten Island, NY 10301

 

Bronx:                 February 26

Bronx Borough Hall

851 Grand Concourse

Bronx, NY 10451

 

Manhattan:         March 2

Municipal Building

1 Centre Street, 19th floor South

New York, NY 10007

 

###

 

Contact:  Chancellor’s Press Office (212) 374-5141

 

Babies At The Bar: Violations of Law by NYSUT and NYC DOE Attorneys

Michael Bloomberg and Michael Cardozo

 From Betsy Combier:

Posted April 11, 2013:

From Betsy Combier:

First, I am not an attorney, just a writer/journalist. I, like most people, have opinions. Below are a few of them.

The New York City Department of Education as set up by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his sidekick New York City Law Department Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo, (see below for a 2009 rebuke from the NY Appellate Court Judges) are breaking the law. Specifically, New York State Education Law Section 3020-a. Lawyers who work for The Gotcha Squad and prosecute tenured teachers brought up on bogus charges of misconduct and/or incompetency know this, so do NYSUT Attorneys, and attack anyone who notices their lawless procedures in bringing "Just Cause for Termination" to all cases of 3020-a arbitration. 

Both NYSUT and the DOE Attorneys are contracted to "prosecute" teachers under the presumption that all individuals brought to 3020-a are guilty of the charges. Other presumptions that effect all cases are: the case must look at ONLY the specifications, and nothing else (i.e., the principal is breaking the law with special needs children, stole money, has skeletons in his/her closet, the person making the charge is not in the school, didnt see what happened, wasnt there...). Obviously, anyone who says that ALL facts must be brought in to the hearing to give motive and prove innocence is someone who must be tarred and feathered. That's me and the lawyers I work with, but  we do not care about this fluff and stuff, and all of that leads to a stronger case in court for any kind of appeal against the arbitrator.

For instance, on April 19, 2013, I walked by a hearing room with the door open, at 49-51 Chambers Street, and I heard NYSUT Attorney Maria Elena Gonzalez Lichten telling Arbitrator Stephen O'Beirne how "she" put my email on her blog, and...". You dont think that the Attorneys speak to arbitrators only about the cases they are doing before them, do you? Anyway, I am posting the stuff I have already placed on this blog about Maria Elena Gonzolez Lichten, wife of Stuart Lichten, to update Mr. O'Beirne on what I have written, see here, here, and here. Mr. O'Beirne is an excellent Arbitrator, in my opinion, and can see through this infantile approach to squashing opposition to the Plan ("terminate any DOE employee who has tenure and is brought to 3020-a") . By the way, Mrs. Lichten, when you said in your email that I lied, I am still waiting to hear about what, so that I may address whatever it is that I lied about? My email address is betsy.combier@gmail.com, as you know.

Now to the charging process and determination of probable cause. If you are handed your specifications with a cover letter that says "...Principal __________ has found probable cause on the charges preferred against you" tell your attorney to ask, on the record and to the arbitrator, how the principal can find probable cause against you, considering the fact that Education Law 3020-a states that the school board must go into Executive Session and vote on whether there is probable cause, bring in Appendix A, usually served with the specifications - if you dont get this document, print out Education Law 3020-a and bring in those pages. (New York State Education Law 3020-a(2)(a)). New York City is part of New York State, and as far as I know, no agreement which conflicts with the law is valid.

The April 15, 2010 so-called 'agreement' signed by Joel Klein and Mike Mulgrew cannot be legally binding because Joel Klein signed the 'agreement' as chancellor, and he was never legally chancellor because he never had a contract, required by Education Law Section 2590-h. I wrote the "Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein" in 2007, but Mike Bloomberg never gave out any contracts to Klein, Black or Walcott. On January 7, 2013, Arbitrator Roy Watanabe asked DOE Attorney Lisa McFadden if Walcott had a contract. She said yes, and brought into the 3020-a hearing the waiver given to Walcott by New York State Commissioner David Steiner, giving Walcott permission to be chancellor:

Waiver from Steiner To Dennis Walcott

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that as Mr. Walcott did not sign this document, there is no term of office, and for many other reasons, this is not a contract, howevermuch the Gotcha Squad says it is. Compare with the contracts of Harold Levy and Rudy Crew in my 2007 article "The Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein"

I noticed what they were doing eight years ago. For 5 years I remained a silent observer, writing notes on everyone from a corner by the wall as a member of the public. Then someone at the DOE made up that I taped during a hearing, and this was completely false, but I became the omen of doom when the Attorneys realized that I knew what the fraud was. NYSUT Attorney Shawn T. Kelly, for example, on May 25, 2011 while everyone at 49-51 Chambers Street was on the sidewalk due to a firedrill, screamed "Dont talk with Betsy Combier, you will be terminated..." and other nonsense.

Then there are the screamers and naysayers from the DOE, Ian Nikol, Nancy Ryan, Dennis Da Costa, and Mallory Sullivan, all Department Attorneys who would rather scream  at me and try to get me run over by a bus than address the fact that they are harming innocent people without just or probable cause.

EDUCATION LAW §3020-A MANDATES A VOTE ON SPECIFICITY BY A SCHOOL BOARD

Education Law requires a vote by the school board precede a determination of “probable cause” upon which to bring charges against teachers removed from their schools. (Education Law §3020-a, Article 61) This provides all pedagogues protection from vindictive Principals who may want to remove senior teachers from their positions because they make salaries that could pay for two teachers instead of one.

NYS Education Law §2590-g does not address the issue of review and scrutiny of whether there is probable cause to proceed with the prosecution of disciplinary charges against tenured educational personnel. The requirements of NYS Education Law §3020-a and §3020-a (2)(a) , under which tenured personnel may be disciplined for “Just Cause”, are absolute and require that before charges can be brought against a tenured educator, the School Board must:

a. Determine that there is “probable cause” for the proceeding with charges by a majority vote by the Board.
b. Make this determination within 5 days of the charges being filed with the Board.
c. Ensure that the decision to proceed with the charges is not frivolous, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.

Without a school board to perform these functions – and, the New York City Panel For Educational Policy (“PEP”) never has taken on this function – there is no oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate the disciplinary process and Local Superintendent to endorse the Principal’s request to prefer file charges against any educator a Principal chooses to remove from the school the Principal administers.

The lack of independent review and lack of oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate discipline is not consistent with Education Law §3020-a. This constitutes a de facto denial of equal protection of the §3020-a law, as all arbitrators who sit on the panel to hear 3020-a charges are not permitted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or any other contractual arrangement to make a decision on charges unless they have been voted on by the New York City Board of Education before a tenured teacher is given these charges, pursuant to Education Law §§ 2590-j, 3020, and 3020-a.

The relevant parts are as follows:
“Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section one thousand one hundred two, and sections two thousand five hundred nine, two thousand five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required.”

Section 3020a(2)(a) of The NY Education Law states:

“Disposition of charges. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof. Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section. If such determination is affirmative, a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee’s rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee.”

Furthermore, Section 2590(j)(7)(b) of The NY Education Law specifically states:

“Charges may be initiated by the community superintendent against any such employee.” There is no mention of a principal finding probable cause. Certainly it is unreasonable to believe that due process exists when a principal charges a teacher without any accountability to anyone for that decision, and then finds probable cause for charging the teacher. Therefore the Just Cause Standard is not reached, and no hearing can proceed.

Before a tenured teacher can be brought up on disciplinary charges, the Education Law lays out a number of procedural hurdles that a Board of Education must comply with. These procedural hurdles are in place to protect the rights of the tenured teacher to fair process, and constitute jurisdictional pre-requisites to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Chief among these procedural hurdles is the requirement that probable cause to prefer charges must be voted on by the Board of Education (see, e.g., Education Law §3020-a(2)(a)).

Compliance with this provision is a jurisdictional condition precedent to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Without it, the hearing cannot go forward. Prohibition is the appropriate procedural remedy for the assertion of a claim where prohibition is available “to prevent a body or officer from proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of its jurisdiction.” See: Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y. 2d 46, 51; Garzilli v Mills, 250 A.D.2d 131 (3d Dep’t 1998); Community School Board No. 29, SED No. 3562 (Howard Edelman, a member of the UFT-DOE arbitration panel in New York City -Dec. 14, 1998).

In New York City, §3020-a teacher disciplinary proceedings have become penal in nature and not arbitral in the same manner labor grievances are resolved. Matter of Clayton v Bd. of Educ., 49 A.D.2d 343 (3rd Dept 1975). Submission to these disciplinary hearings are compulsory and the jurisdiction of the hearing officer is derived from statute. Teachers are charged, similar to an indictment in the criminal world, upon determination of probable cause.

When I started examining the procedures used by the newly instituted Department of Education, I saw that my knowledge of education law and arbitration, which I got by reading my own books (I am not an attorney) did not give me any clue as to the random and arbitrary nature of the 3020-a hearings I was asked to attend in NYC. So, I studied the lawyers and the arbitrators to try to find out how the law could be ignored. Then the Gotcha Squad realized that I was on to something, and took it upon themselves to attack me.

So now I can write about the lawyers who decided to attack, and will provide my website with the names of the Attorneys who threw aside the lives, careers, health benefits and tenured positions of teachers in order to make a profit.

NY Appellate Bench Rips Cardozo in Law Journal Letter

LINK
In a stunning rebuke to NYC’s top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, 18 of the 20 justices that sit in the Appellate Division, First Department have taken him to the woodshed with a letter in the New York Law Journal coming out tomorrow (12/17/09). The response comes due to Cardozo’s attack on the state’s judiciary last week. Cardozo is now starting his third term as the city’s Corporation Counsel.
The appellate court judges are responding to Cardozo’s December 7th column on improving efficiency in the courts, a subject I wrote about a few days ago when both bench and bar came down on him hard in NYC’s Top Lawyer Gets Reamed For Inefficiency (By Both Bench and Bar).
But now it is not simply one panel of judges ripping the city for its own inefficiency, or lawyers writing letters to the paper. Now the vast majority of the appellate bench that hears NYC cases has called Carozo’s “imperious outpouring of advice” “insulting.” They went on to write, led by Presiding Justice Luis Gonzalez (pictured), that:

“We feel compelled to respond to his misguided assertions, his misplaced blame and his attacks on the state trial judges…”

The First Department hears cases from the Manhattan and Bronx courts. And the Second Department, which sanctioned the city just last week in Byam v. City of New York for a decade of delay in providing discovery, handles Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island (as well as other downstate counties).
You could almost see the smoke pouring off the keyboards of the judges as they wrote of Cardozo regarding changes in the use of 60-day reports that judges make to track cases:

In large measure, his facile proposals amount to an echo of reforms that are under way or have already been adopted by our former and current chief judges… Every one of these items has already been implemented by the Office of Court Administration, which on a constant basis compiles and circulates large amounts of information regarding judges’ job performance.

The idea that current reports are being inaccurate implied, to the court, that some dishonesty was going on. The letter stated:

The idea that complaints must be filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission in order to ensure accuracy in 60-day reporting requirements baselessly implies that there is actually a problem with inaccuracy, an implication for which Mr. Cardozo provides no support.

After defending the trial judges against Cardozo’s charges, the appellate judges lowered the hammer on him, placing the blame for much delay and inefficiency squarely at his feet (just as this letter Helene Blank and Marc Dittenhoefer did the other day):

In fact, it is ironic that the Corporation Counsel blames the courts for a failure to deal appropriately with litigation delays, since it is the office of Corporation Counsel of the City of New York that plays a significant role in causing those undue delays. For one thing, there is always a backlog of ready city cases in the dedicated city parts, and, with each part being assigned only two city attorneys, neither plaintiffs’ attorneys nor the trial judges have the means to ensure that ready cases can proceed immediately to trial; the city alone wields that authority. A vast amount of inefficiency impeding the resolution of litigation is also created by the city’s oft-demonstrated cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations. The city’s almost routine failure to timely and fully cooperate with its discovery obligations, even in the face of repeated court orders, is regularly confronted by city part judges attempting to solve the city’s intransigence (see e.g., Lewis v. City of New York, 17 Misc. 3d 559 [2007]).

What followed then was a litany of First Department cases in which the sanction of attorneys fees was imposed on the city as a result of its “inexcusably lax” responses to discovery orders.
And then a concession about city cases that all the personal injury attorneys in this town already knew, but had always been simply implied by the courts:

[A]s a rule, our courts give far more leeway to the city than we typically do to other defendants in civil actions.

Cardozo isn’t having a very good holiday season. In fact, having so many judges angry at him, I’m thinking this will be his last holiday season in his office.
It’s worth noting, however, that in an interview with the Law Journal that accompanied the letter (can’t find link), Justice Gonzalez said the First Department’s “track record of evenhandedness in our treatment of Mr. Cardozo’s client, New York City,” would continue despite the judges’ criticism. He went on to say, “The bottom line is our judges are always mindful of our ethical responsibilities and our members have always dealt with Mr. Cardozo’s client in a fair and even-handed manner and we will continue to do so.”
The Corporation Counsel has 650 attorneys working for it, and handles a wide range of legal issues on behalf of the city. Background here on Cardozo as he prepared to start his third term.