I had to read the headline for this story in this morning’s New York Times three times before I was convinced I had read it correctly.
But apparently the lawyers for New York City argued exactly what the headline says they argued: Mayor Bloomberg has no control over class size in NYC public schools.
The article explains:
Even though the mayor has taken control of city schools and Chancellor Joel I. Klein answers to him like any city commissioner, city lawyers argued, the school district remains separate from the city and sets its policy independently.
The city lawyers contended that the mayor did not have the power to make policy decisions and allocate money for the schools on his own.
That’s why there was the infamous Monday Night Massacre, in which several appointees on the Department of Education’s “policy board” were uncermoniously shown the door immediately before they would have cast decisive votes against the Mayor’s and Chancellor’s policy on third grade testing. On that occasion, the Mayor himself said, “This is what mayoral control is all about. In the olden days, we had a board that was answerable to nobody. And the Legislature said it was just not working, and they gave the mayor control. Mayoral control means mayoral control, thank you very much. They are my representatives, and they are going to vote for things that I believe in.”
It says something, doesn’t that, that this is the quality of the arguments City Hall’s lawyers are making against allowing the good people of New York City to vote on a referendum in favor of reducing class size?
4 Comments:
1 Jackie Bennett
· Sep 7, 2006 at 9:13 pm
That’s the first thing that I thought of when I saw the paper this morning, that Monday night massacre, as you so aptly named it.
Thanks for digging up the quote.
2 institutional memory
· Sep 7, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Imagine City Hall’s nerve, claming that they really aren’t in charge because that argument happens to suit their immediate need.
How can Bloomy, Joel, et al say they’re for “children first” and keep a straight face? Disingenuous doesn’t even start to describe this travesty of a sham.
Next thing you know, they’ll blame the CFE ruling on a combination of Diane Ravitch and New York Educator.
3 xkaydet65
· Sep 7, 2006 at 11:43 pm
This argument is not a surprise coming from any municipal government. In the wake of the Crown Heights riots and the infamous murder associated with them, groups of Hasidim filed a class action suit, accusing the NYPD and the City of NY,, and Mayor Dinkins of failing in their duty to protect the citizenry’s life and property. The Corp Counsel response was that the NUPD had no responsibility to protect the individuals in Crown Heights. Its responsibility is to apprehend criminals and protect the body of citizens not a special few. They further argued that to move against the rioters would enflame the situation and tactically allowing the riot to run its course was a good idea.
When Rudy became Mayor, basically as a result of Crown Heights, his Corp Counsel continued the exact same defense against the lawsuit.
Municipal gov’ts feel the need, rightly I think, to be safe from the pressure to act on specific narrow interests that could have precedent making results. So NO, I am not surprised by this leaglistic response nor am I certain that it is incorrect.
4 paulrubin
· Sep 8, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Let’s be honest here. Bloomberg will say whatever suits Bloomberg regardless of the truth. In that respect he’s like most politicians, only richer
Bloomberg will tell you he has control when things are going well or when he needs to imply he has control. When it’s not to his best interests, he’ll feign a lack of control. It’s all quite amusing but hardly surprising.