A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by these actions and programs. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, people who have been re-assigned from their life and career. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.
School law examines the contracts, rules, regulations, and laws that control public education. Subject areas may include union collective bargaining agreements, student codes of conduct, boards/departments of education policies, department of education regulations, state and federal statutes and constitutions, attorney general opinions and court opinions.
Issues addressed in court may include student speech, student privacy, discipline, searches of students, the separation of church and state, the education of children with disabilities, employment matters, discrimination, harassment, and bullying.
A national issue right now is the question of what rights a school has to reopen or not, respectful of the health, safety, and welfare of the constituents involved (students, parents + families, teachers and staff).
Education Week posted an article on September 10, 2020 which examines the cases brought to court in several states in the U.S.
The outcomes are not good for those who want to stay closed, or on-line only, depending on the Executive Orders of the Governors.
Legal clashes over reopening schools amid the coronavirus pandemic are continuing, but challengers of state executive orders—whether to open schools or keep them closed—are having trouble getting any practical relief from the courts so far.
The California Supreme Court late Wednesday denied relief to a Fresno-area private Christian school that had asked the court to overturn California Gov. Gavin Newsom's orders that limit public and private school reopenings in the counties that have been on the state's monitoring list for the previous 14 days. The state high court also denied relief to one county education agency and a charter school.
In Iowa, meanwhile, two state judges this week issued separate rulings favorable to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds's order requiring school districts to hold at least 50 percent of classes in person.
In Florida, meanwhile, challengers to a state executive order requiring all schools to offer in-person instruction five days a week won a hard-fought injunction blocking the policy from a state trial judge in August. But a state appellate court soon stayed the effect of that decision and issued an opinion last week indicating that the policy of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis's administration had a strong likelihood of being upheld.
In the California case, Immanuel Schools in Reedley, Calif., and a handful of other private schools filed their challenge directly in the state supreme court, arguing that Newsom exceeded his authority under the state constitution and that his closure orders violated the state constitutional right to education and the right of private schools to contract. A similar challenge was filed by the Orange County Board of Education and the Palm Lane Charter School in Anaheim.
The school took it as a good sign when the state high court required the state to file a brief defending the orders.
On Sept. 9, after receiving briefs from both sides, the California Supreme Court issued a short order denying the request of Immanuel Schools and the Orange County board that it take up the constitutionality of Newsom's orders.
"The petition for immediate stay and peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance is denied," the state high court said in Immanuel Schools v. Newsom.
Robert Tyler, a lawyer for the schools, told The Fresno Bee that the schools' would proceed with challenging the governor's orders in lower state courts.
In the meantime, the 600-student school opened Aug. 13 in defiance of the orders and has remained open since then. The school even defeated a separate effort by Fresno County authorities for a temporary restraining order to shut down the school. But proceedings in that separate lawsuit will continue with a Sept. 15 hearing on a preliminary injunction sought by the county to close the school.
In Iowa, state trial judges issued preliminary rulings this week that rejected efforts by the 33,000-student Des Moines and 14,000-student Iowa City school districts, along with the Iowa State Education Association, to block Reynolds's school reopening orders.
In Des Moines Independent Community School District v. Reynolds, Judge Jeffrey Farrell of Polk County District Court said the Des Moines district was using "a more robust collection" of risk factors than "the simplistic model used by state education officials."
But school districts cannot reverse orders by the state Department of Education "because it disregarded the facts," the judge said.
"School districts are a creation of state law and have no rights beyond those given by the legislature," Farrell said.
The Des Moines district's request to move to remote learning "is well-supported by the facts," the judge said. "I am sympathetic to its arguments of local control, as its board and management staff are in a better condition to understand the conditions and obstacles in the district than officials at the state level. However, [the education department's] decision is not really one of fact, but one of policy as directed by the legislature and the governor."
In Iowa State Education Association v. Reynolds, Judge Mary E. Chiccelly of Johnson County District Court held that the state constitution gives the governor broad emergency powers. She noted that state officials have given the Iowa City district temporary approval for all-remote learning because Johnson County has a COVID-19 positivity rate that exceeds the 15 percent threshold in the governor's order, which cut against its need for emergency injunctive relief.
A Shield for Employers: State COVID-19 Indemnity Laws
National Law Review, Monday, June 22, 2020
As states begin to reopen, employers and employees alike may be worried about exposure –both to the virus itself and to liability. States have begun to act by introducing certain legislation to protect employers, who are opening in good faith and complying with the law. Most of the legislation remains pending, but the movement that states are making to provide employers with protection may provide peace of mind to many employers who may be worried about liability exposure.
North Carolina, Louisiana (Act No. 305 and Act No. 366), Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming have all passed legislation that protects employers from these types of tort claims. Most have introduced legislation that specifically protect an employer as long as they are acting in good faith and not recklessly, willfully, or intentionally exposing customers, clients, or their employees to COVID-19. The reckless, willful, and intentional requirement will protect employers from possible negligence claims whereas the employer acted in good faith to protect customers and employees alike. Other states like Arizona and Ohio (House Bill 606 and Senate Bill 308) have yet to pass this legislation, but it has been introduced. It should also be noted, however, that some of these indemnity laws only protect certain types of employers – for example, Louisiana’s Act No. 305 only protects restaurants who provide to-go food during the pandemic while Oklahoma and Wyoming’s laws provide a more expansive protection to employers who are safely reopening. Therefore, employers should carefully review their state laws as they are passed to ensure the liability protection has been afforded to them.
Other states have chosen to provide protection to employers by expanding their workers’ compensation laws to allow for coverage of COVID-19 related claims. Each state has taken a different path towards expanding coverage for workers’ compensation claims related to COVID-19. Some states, like Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming create a presumption of such coverage when an employee’s job directly exposes them to COVID-19, such as an emergency responder, health care employee, or critical worker. Under most laws, employers are afforded the opportunity to rebut the presumption of coverage. Other states, like New York and California’s AB 196, have simply amended the state’s workers’ compensation laws to include COVID-19 related illnesses as an injury eligible for coverage.
New York, however, has also proposed legislation that remains strict and imposes an affirmative duty on employers to notify employees of any health hazards and to take steps to mitigate risks.
As the employees of large employers, like Amazon and at least one fast food chain, begin filing lawsuits against their employers for the alleged lack of protection from COVID-19 in the workplace, the importance of these indemnity laws becomes heightened for employers. The indemnity laws will likely protect employers from such lawsuits as they require something more than mere negligence. As employers and employees alike begin to wade through the uncertain waters of re-opening, state indemnity laws can provide peace of mind to employers who are following Executive Orders and related laws as they begin to re-open their businesses.
NYC Chancellor Richard Carranza, Mayor Bill de Blasio, UFT President Michael Mulgrew
In New York City distrust reigns. No one believes anyone anymore.
The Mayor, Bill de Blasio, says his wife should get $millions of dollars for her organization ThriveNYC which is supposedly established to keep people happy and sane. Evidently this was, and is, untrue, at least according to multiple stories on the internet. ...Which is what this entire post is about.
Who do you believe?
Parents do not believe the Department of Education; educators at all levels do not believe their unions (UFT and CSA).
But the one thing everyone is in agreement with is that every person must look out for their own safety and that of their loved ones, 'cause no one else can be trusted to do it for you.
Teachers at Grace Dodge Educational Campus in the Bronx rallied on Tuesday to call attention to safety concerns about reopening school buildings. Teachers are worried ventilation is not adequate in the cafeteria, where they say the windows don’t open and the air conditioners don’t work.Courtesy photo/Cristobal Vivar
New York City’s education department on Tuesday released room-level inspection reports for the ventilation systems at every single public school and found most classrooms are safe to reopen, but most school bathrooms are not.
Mayor Bill de Blasio promised the records would help school communities understand all the precautions put into place for Sept. 21, when students are slated to return to in-person learning for the first time since the pandemic forced the country’s largest school system to close its doors last spring.
“The ventilation issue was: Was there proper air circulation, in combination with all the other health and safety measures? And what this inspection regimen was trying to determine is which classrooms had that,” de Blasio said at a press conference. “I don’t think it’s a lot more complex than that.”
Since school buildings were shuttered in March, a growing body of evidence has shown that the coronavirus can linger in the air. That has made proper ventilation a key line of defense, in addition to mask-wearing and social distancing. Experts say that classrooms need to have fresh air coming in, and stale air being pulled out — which can usually be accomplished with fans, powerful air filters, open windows, and, in spaces where all that is not enough, portable air purifiers.
City leaders have offered little explanation for how they are determining that ventilation is up to par and whether buildings are safe to reopen. The reports released Tuesday include a breakdown of whether each space in a building has at least one functioning window, and whether the mechanical components of the ventilation system are working in that room. There is no determination included in the reports of whether a particular classroom is usable.
That information is a good starting point, said William P. Bahnfleth, a professor and the chair of the Epidemic Task Force at The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, which has issued ventilation guidance for schools that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has adopted. He wishes the reports also showed the amount of outdoor air circulating in each space has been measured, and compared against the size of the room and the number of teachers and students expected to be inside.
“They don’t go to the extent of verifying that the outdoor air supply and filtration are what you would hope they would be,” Bahnfleth said of the reports. “You would hope that a building that is going to be occupied would be checked more thoroughly.”
Lorraine Grillo, the head of the School Construction Authority, or SCA, suggested the city is working with unions to conduct “engineering-type” inspections along the lines that Bahnfleth recommends. But she did not provide specifics.
Grillo said those returning to school “can feel very confident that the union, as well as SCA and school facilities, have been working very hard to make every classroom safe.”
Not everyone is convinced.
When Principal Rashid Davis saw the education department’s list of schools with ventilation issues so serious that they cannot immediately open, he was surprised that his school, P-Tech, the Pathways in Technology Early College High School in Brooklyn, was not on it.
He thought about P-Techs ongoing effort to overhaul the century-old school’s ventilation system. He recalled the construction noise and dust that would float inside classrooms when the building’s windows are open, and the scaffolding that blocks fresh air from coming in.
“We should be on this list,” Davis emailed his school community late Monday and attached P-Tech’s own ventilation inspection report. It spans three pages and shows not a single space has a working supply or exhaust fan to promote air circulation.
Davis raised the alarm in an email to senior city officials, and said a raft of union and education department leaders came to his building Tuesday morning to hear his concerns. They promised the building’s fans would work by the time students arrive. He’s worried not only about classrooms, but also hallways and bathrooms, and wants to know what criteria are being used to keep the building open while shuttering others.
“We don’t know that,” he said. “And without knowing that, it’s not as transparent as they are saying.”
Without such details, some educators said they are taking the matter into their own hands. Melissa Williams, for one, ordered a simple wind speed meter. Since Williams, an occupational therapist in Washington Heights, has an accommodation that allows her to work from home this school year, she handed off the $30-device to a colleague who planned to use it to check the airflow in her own classroom.
“I do not feel safe with my coworkers going into my workplace,” Williams said.
At the Grace Dodge Campus in the Bronx, which houses three schools, teachers were told they could use the cafeteria for their own lunch breaks. That’s worrisome for Israel Soto, a union representative and social studies teacher at the campus, who said the space has neither functioning air conditioning nor windows that open.
Soto and his colleagues at Crotona International High School rallied outside the building on Tuesday morning to highlight their safety concerns and demand that the school year begin with remote instruction only.
“There’s no ventilation,” Soto said of the lunchroom, adding that the campus has faced maintenance issues for years. “We’ve been saying it, that’s the sad part. It’s not that it has not been known.”
August 19 and August 20 the United Federation of Teachers leadership began work towards a school reopening job action. NYC and the NYC Department of Education had been mostly uncooperative all summer. Disagreements about safety were not close to being resolved. The Department wanted minimal testing requirements, the union wanted stringent testing requirements.
So August 19 and 20 the UFT holds a press conference, announces safety non-negotiables, and begins organizing meetings. First chapter leaders were invited to borough-wide meetings. Then members were invited to meetings in smaller groups.
My union is run top-down. Central gives instructions to the boroughs, and often directly to District Reps. District Reps give directions to Chapter Leaders – some of whom follow them – and that’s all that’s really expected. In a few chapters there is actual discussion, but in many, the CL doesn’t even communicate information from the Central, and in most the CL just communicates from Central. There is not much two-way flow of information. The idea of Officers and Reps “serving” members is paternalistic, at best. (with very notable exceptions – if you almost jumped out of your chair when you read those words – you are probably in that minority. And we are incredibly thankful to the handful of you)
So Chapter Leaders, then members got invited to meetings. And the stakes, possible job action, questions about personal safety and safety of our students, were high. Very high. Higher than at any other union meeting most of us have been to. Ever. And the reaction was not what the leaders expected. In the UFT, instructions are given, chapter leaders follow them, or ignore them. But here there were questions. Lots of questions.
Do we have to strike? (Quite a bit of nervousness)
Why aren’t we demanding full remote (Quite a few challenges to Central’s “We want to go in, but safely” strategy)
What’s the timeline? (Central had not prepared a timeline. These were designed a bit like pep rallies)
When’s the vote? There was no answer.
What steps should chapter leaders take? The answers were absent or nebulous, came from a variety of sources, but not central. I was asked to organize a chapter meeting, but not yet. And there was no follow-up to say “now” (passive voice there, intentionally so) (Central had not prepared the next steps. These were designed a bit like pep rallies)
The process gets repeated in the member meetings, but attendance is gooooood… but not excellent. And members might ask fewer difficult questions, but there is a clear “enthusiasm gap” (larger when considering the significant numbers who did not come).
What happened?
That’s easy. You should not run a union top-down. You cannot organize a strike top-down.
By August 27 and 28 it was clear to many that this was not going right. Instead of vagueness about a schedule for voting, the discussion was filtering to the members that it would be Exec Board 8/31 and Delegate Assembly 9/1, and there was no time for a membership vote. After the DA, the move would be to court for an injunction against an unsafe opening.
I was worried about what was going on. I wrote to Mulgrew and the officers, urging them NOT to skip a membership vote:
I understand that there is consideration of strike authorization votes at the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly.
I also understand that there may not be a membership vote. I hope I am mistaken. That would be a serious error. There is the issue of democracy. but I think that is relatively minor. But the issues of member engagement loom large. Organizing a vote increases member engagement, and member buy-in. It also provides real-time feedback from the field.Are chapter leaders organizing? Is there resistance? What are the issues? The activity around organizing a vote makes a strike more effective. For members who are already on board, it makes a smaller difference; the vote increases enthusiasm. But for members on the fence, skipping the vote sends the message that the leaders don’t trust the members, or don’t care what they think. It will harden the pockets of resistance. I don’t know if support in the field is at 95%, 85%, 75%, 65% or 55%… but even at 85% we need to win more people over. A membership vote makes us – and any potential job action – stronger. I hope that I was indeed mistaken – that a membership vote is planned. But if that is not the case, I would thank you to consider the matter carefully,
And then on Monday August 31 the vote at the Executive Board was for both strike authorization, but also for 24 hours more to negotiate. And Tuesday morning de Blasio and Mulgrew and Carranza announced a deal.
Why the deal?
From the mayor’s side, there really are serious problems with the plans. September 10 (which had been scheduled to be the first day with kids) was looking like a disaster. He bought time, and he bought labor “peace” without much cost.
From the UFT leadership’s standpoint, the strike threat was not nearly as effective as they had presumed it would be, and they did not have confidence they could pull off a job action. Under those circumstances, a deal might not have been such a bad move.
It was the very threat of a job action and litigation by our union that forced this mayor to come to the negotiating table to address the issue of keeping our children and educators safe. Before that point he wouldn’t budge.
I agree with most of Mike’s reasoning and appreciate his willingness to speak openly about it. But I don’t agree with his assessment that the threat was effective (and I dismiss the UFT leadership’s similar assessment as self-serving)
What would have happened if the UFT had moved forward towards a job action?
Given the very tight tolerances for scheduling (unworkable, actually) a school might not be able to function, even if everyone shows up. But 30% staying out (beyond those with accommodations) might have shut a school. And the real number would have been higher. But how much higher? Some schools, maybe not all, but probably most, would have been unable to function. A strike, even with the preparations looking half-assed, would probably have shut the system.
A strike might have shut the system, would probably have shut the system, but without any guarantee. And a few entire schools might have kept working – a few at first. With time a weak strike (and there would have been time) could have easily become weaker.
But even if a strike had been effective in shutting the system, a weak strike would have done incalculable damage to the union in the long run. It would have divided us. It would have made members bitter at members and further diminished trust in the leadership. A short term win was possible. But a long term, expensive loss was in the cards.
Couldn’t there have been a better threat?
Yes. But that would have required a different approach.
Open discussion. Organizing for a job action requires that members talk to each other. Members need to convince themselves and convince each other. Most of our chapters do not engage in open discussion of union issues. That should change. But that’s hard. The UFT has developed a culture where asking hard questions or disagreeing is treated as disloyal. It will take a conscious effort to end that. I mean, in fact, it is disloyal to the membership when one of us knows there is a potential problem, but says nothing. But how do we get to the place where showing loyalty to the union and the membership comes before showing loyalty to an officer?
Time. Any kind of organizing takes time, but especially when we need to get 100% or close to 100% on board. Starting August 19? Come on. And it is not just now. Union decisions have to allow members time to figure things out. To talk. To schedule. But three weeks to go from zero to strike was not adequate.
Sharing information. Real discussions require real information. And holding information back from the membership should be considered incompatible with leadership. It’s not just now. This organization speaks to the Mayor, to the Chancellor, to the Press before it speaks to members. That’s bad. At the Chapter Leader meetings two weeks ago CLs asked “what’s next?” and DRs said they didn’t know – because UFT Central was not sharing information. At the DA Peter Lamphere asked where we could read the agreement. You know what? The UFT leadership has asked members and delegates to vote on agreements in the past when we did not have them to read. (Here’s an example) That’s wrong.
Knowledge of strike organization. No one in the leadership of the UFT has led a teacher strike. Almost none of the school-based membership have been involved in a strike. We went into this without experience. But other AFT locals have had those experiences. All layers of our leadership, in better days in the future, should learn from locals with strike experience. For officers and reps arranging trips and seminars should not be too hard. Workshops in NYC for chapter leaders and chapter activists would be useful. And they, in turn, could bring the knowledge back to chapters.
Goals. This gets really specific. But the UFT leadership’s goals were wrong. Early on, maybe late May or mid-June, they decided that NYC schools could open in September. I have written about the fixation on blended learning, and on compromising all sorts of stuff to make it happen. The UFT leadership, before this talk of job action, had already given up on the one clear issue that had a chance of uniting the membership: keeping our schools remote. Look, members agreed with Mulgrew that the “schools should be safe” and that we needed “better testing” – but those were not enough.
So they cut a deal. We cut a deal.
What’s in the Deal?
Random testing, of a pretty big chunk of staff and students (UFT had wanted 100% before school began)
Delayed opening, teachers 9/8, remote for sign-in purposed 9/16, full instruction 9/21
(Vagueness warning) – some ability for a chapter to have safety issues addressed before going into a school
Is this a sellout?
This deal? No. Each one of those points is something we should want. Better testing. More time to prepare for the year. And some ability for chapters to walk out.
We can be disappointed that it is not nearly enough. It is not.
But we also know that we averted a risky strike that could have weakened us in the long run.
Of course, there is more. We still have plans that won’t work. We have unnecessarily risky maskless instructional lunch. We have 1800 plans devised by 1800 principals, some of whom I wouldn’t trust to tie their own shoes.
We also have to address the individual school safety issues. This has been dumped onto individual chapters – potentially dividing the strength of the union. We need to see how aggressively UFT Central and the Borough Offices pursue violations, and how actively they encourage and support chapters standing up.
Are we done?
This is not the last deal for this year. If schools open September 21 there will be huge problems and issues all over the City. But we have a few more days. We want to teach. We want the teaching to work, as best as it can under these circumstances. And we want to keep all of us, ourselves, our families, our schools, our colleagues and our students, safe. We will ultimately need to be remote.
Ms. Hirsh, called a "radical leftist" by some media publications, wanted her former boss Mayor de Blasio to condemn the New York City Police Department for their "attacks" on City protesters and left her job after he would not do what she wanted. Chancellor Carranza quickly swooped her up, along with her $230,000 salary + benefits.
However, it seems that no one has actually seen her in person at Tweed the NYC DOE headquarters, and Ms. Hirsh has no experience working with schools, according to the NY POST.
New York City schools Chancellor Richard Carranza’s chief point person on reopening schools has yet to set foot in one, a source told The Post.
Alison Hirsh, who cut bait with Mayor de Blasio just nine months after joining City Hall as a senior adviser for strategic planning, has been working remotely “the entire time” since getting the city Department of Education gig in June — and won’t even report to agency headquarters, the insider revealed.
“He [Carranza] brought her on to be the senior adviser on school reopening even though she has no history of working with schools,” the source said. “The most senior person, the point person, refuses to come into Tweed [Courthouse, DOE HQ].”
It is unclear whether Hirsh has gone on any of the school walk-throughs to check whether they are fit for children and staff, or if she has any underlying health problems that would prevent her from being on-site.
Inspections of the city’s 1,600 schools began Aug. 25 and were supposed to be wrapped up Sept. 1.
“We will make sure that every school is fully inspected, every classroom is fully inspected,” de Blasio told reporters after unveiling an 11th-hour plan to inspect ventilation systems at schools to guard against coronavirus exposure.
Nearly 100 DOE staffers — including administrators and teachers — have died from COVID-19, according to the department.
Hirsh jumped ship at City Hall because she was ticked the mayor sided with the NYPD during a week of rioting, looting and often-raucous protests late May into June. But she kept her hefty $230,000 salary at the DOE.
Hirsh on Friday night referred any questions on her role in reopening to the DOE press office. The DOE would not answer whether Hirsh had visited or inspected any schools over the summer.
NEW YORK — A senior official in the de Blasio administration has left the mayor's office over his handling of recent protests across the city — the first departure of a high-ranking aide since the start of the demonstrations demanding police reform.
Senior adviser Alison Hirsh was so troubled by de Blasio’s near-unconditional defense of the NYPD amid incidents of violence against protesters, she decided to step down from the job she was hired for last fall, three sources familiar with her departure confirmed to POLITICO.
Hirsh will begin this week as a senior adviser to Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza, focused on the complicated task of reopening public schools after the coronavirus forced a system-wide closure in March.
“I could not be prouder to join the amazing team at the Department of Education, particularly at this moment in history,” Hirsh, who will maintain her $230,000-a-year salary, said in a prepared statement. “As a working mother I feel this personally. Nothing is more important than the safe reopening of schools so kids can keep learning and parents can get back to work.”
Hirsh did not address de Blasio’s management of the protests in her statement, but those familiar with her decision said she had repeatedly challenged the NYPD’s tactics during staff meetings and calls with the mayor and Police Commissioner Dermot Shea. She witnessed what she considered unnecessary force while monitoring a march in Brooklyn on May 30, when police shoved demonstrators and used pepper spray to subdue them, the sources said.
The mayor was unmoved by the account — and many others caught on video, which which he often says he has not seen. Later that same night he defended the NYPD, including officers who drove a police car into a crowd of protesters who were tossing water bottles and traffic cones at the vehicle.
“Anyone who is a peaceful protester, it’s time to go home. The point’s been made,” he said during an impromptu interview on NY1 late that evening. He also said those particular officers “were trying to deal with an absolutely impossible situation” and blamed demonstrators for surrounding their car.
Hirsh — and many other past and present de Blasio staffers — were outraged by such a strong defense of police from a mayor who ran on a platform of reforming the NYPD and ending aggressive tactics toward black and Latino New Yorkers. In her Twitter bio, Hirsh describes herself as “anti-racist” and prior to joining the administration she was political director at the building service workers union that represents many low-income, black and Latino workers.
The mayor has sought to quell the uprising in recent days: Two officers were suspended on Saturday and in a staff call Sunday afternoon, he promised more discipline would be meted out. He also said he believed officers’ lives were in danger from factions of demonstrators looting stores and looking to use the marches as an opportunity to create chaos.
Hundreds of former employees have signed an open letter to de Blasio and marched from City Hall to Downtown Brooklyn on Monday in protest of his handling of the NYPD. They are calling for immediate reforms — some of which he has said he supports — and a cut to the department’s budget, which will be negotiated with the City Council in the coming weeks.
In a TV interview Tuesday morning, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams accused de Blasio of capitalizing on his biracial family for political gains. “He uses his proximity to blackness very often, but we don’t see a commensurate type of reform,” said Williams, who was once aligned with de Blasio.
In a statement, de Blasio called Hirsh “an invaluable adviser during one of the toughest times our city has ever faced.”
The Department of Education is making two other staffing changes: Chief of Staff Edie Sharp will become chief strategy officer, and Mary Wall will replace her, City Hall spokesperson Freddi Goldstein said.
As public opinion coalesces around the view that at least some police reforms are needed, radical leftists and their allies in the press are capitalizing on the surge in public resentment toward the police to push a radical agenda Meanwhile, President Trump effectively plays right into their hands by doubling down on his attacks on demonstrators (demonstrators who even Trump has at times defended).
We've tried to highlight examples of this as the Minneapolis City Council "committed" on Sunday to dismantling the city's police department and building a new "public safety" department in its place, while NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and "mayor in waiting" Comptroller Scott Stringer have called for siphoning more than $1 billion in funding from the NYPD and shifting it to social and youth services. When the protest movement started, it was a backlash against police brutality, a problem that has plagued the public for decades, and has been increasingly spotlighted in the age of cellphone video cameras that have ushered in a new age of accountability.
Police Unions and entrenched interests have continued to reflexively resist reform (after all, that's what public employee unions are designed to do, unless the "reform" somehow lessens their memberships responsibilities or increases their compensation); meanwhile, radical leftists have pushed to move the goalposts, calling for the all-out abolition of police. 10 years ago, this would be unimaginable. Yet, here we are.
Anybody with an ounce of common sense can probably imagine some less-than-desirable consequences to abolishing police departments. But in a sign of just how removed the far-left truly is from the perspective of the ordinary American moderate, consider this: Alison Hirsh,, a senior advisor to NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, just left his office in protest over his treatment of the NYPD.
Hirsch wasn't fired for criticizing her boss; instead, she's being transferred to another city department and will retain her cushy $200k+ salary and generous city benefits (including a taxpayer-funded pension).
According to Politico, Hirsh was "offended" by de Blasio's "defense" of the police when he warned peaceful demonstrators to disperse during one of the early protests, claiming that "your point has been made."
Hirsh did not address de Blasio’s management of the protests in her statement, but those familiar with her decision said she had repeatedly challenged the NYPD’s tactics during staff meetings and calls with the mayor and Police Commissioner Dermot Shea. She witnessed what she considered unnecessary force while monitoring a march in Brooklyn on May 30, when police shoved demonstrators and used pepper spray to subdue them, the sources said.
The mayor was unmoved by the account — and many others caught on video, which he often says he has not seen. Later that same night he defended the NYPD, including officers who drove a police car into a crowd of protesters who were tossing water bottles and traffic cones at the vehicle.
"Anyone who is a peaceful protester, it’s time to go home. The point’s been made,” he said during an impromptu interview on NY1 late that evening. He also said those particular officers “were trying to deal with an absolutely impossible situation” and blamed demonstrators for surrounding their car.
Hirsh — and many other past and present de Blasio staffers — were outraged by such a strong defense of police from a mayor who ran on a platform of reforming the NYPD and ending aggressive tactics toward black and Latino New Yorkers. In her Twitter bio, Hirsh describes herself as “anti-racist” and prior to joining the administration she was political director at the building service workers union that represents many low-income, black and Latino workers.
It's just another example of how the radical left sees reality through a very, very different lens than both moderate Democrats, and conservatives alike.
Hirsh, who led fights to secure paid sick leave and a $15 minimum wage, brings wealth of organizing, planning and communications experience
NEW YORK—Mayor Bill de Blasio today appointed Alison Hirsh Senior Advisor for Strategic Planning. In this role, Hirsh will serve as a member of the Mayor’s Senior Cabinet and provide strategic guidance to the Mayor on a wide range of priorities, as well as develop long-term planning for the Administration. Hirsh will help the Mayor design his vision, policies and agenda. She will begin in mid-October.
“Alison is one of the most respected people in the fight for progressive ideals in this City,” said Mayor de Blasio. “Her hard work and dedication have proven unmatched as she’s helped secure win after win for New Yorkers. I’m thrilled she’ll be joining our team as we continue to build upon our progressive agenda.”
“I am excited to take on this challenging next step for me and my career,” said Alison Hirsh. “This administration has spent the last six years delivering on a wide array of progressive ideals and it’s an honor to get to help shape what’s to come. I am grateful that the Mayor is giving me this opportunity to serve the people of New York City and to get important work done, and I'm looking forward to joining the team at City Hall.”
Hirsh brings nearly two decades of experience fighting for progressive priorities in labor, advocacy and government. She spent the last 12 years at 32BJ SEIU, most recently as Vice President and Political Director. She led and organized on campaigns including the Fight for 15, Fair Workweek legislation and prevailing wage protections. Hirsh formerly served as Policy & Legislative Director for the New York League of Conservation Voters, where she helped lead the first campaign for congestion pricing and the landmark Solid Waste Management Plan that helped confront decades of environmental racism.
She was raised in Baltimore, MD, and has a degree in Religion from Columbia University. She sits on the board of Avodah, an organization which connects young Jewish professionals with opportunities in the social justice field.
