It is unusual for a judge to lavish praise on a law firm in
his ruling from the bench. But then, the recent case in which New York State’s
system of financing public education was found to be illegal was hardly a usual
case. Not only was the decision a
stirring victory for New York City, but it also highlighted the uncommon dedication
of the lawyers of the Manhattan firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which
devoted over five years, 20 lawyers and $14 million of pro bono work for the
sake of New York City’s one-million-plus public school students. Simpson
Thacher’s chairman, Dick Beattie, and his legal team accomplished what New
York’s politicians have not had the courage, compassion and common sense to do,
namely to point out that the state has been ripping off the city for years when
it comes to education funding, and then to do something about it. In his
ruling, Justice Leland DeGrasse of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan wrote:
“The court commends the law firm of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett …. The firm expended enormous resources and its
lawyers brought to bear great talent and perseverance in support of plaintiff’s
cause. The firm’s commitment is an exemplar of the Bar’s highest traditions.”
To quote the essence of the judge’s decision, “New York
State has over the course of many years consistently violated the State
Constitution by failing to provide the
opportunity for a sound basic education to New York City public school students.”
That’s because state officials haven’t thought twice about playing politics
with school money, giving a disproportionate share to suburban and rural
districts. The New York Times reports
that the state currently gives the city about $2,000 less per pupil than it
gives to Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester and Yonkers. The court also ruled that
the state has been running afoul of federal civil-rights laws, since its
policies fall hardest on the city’s minority students. Justice DeGrasse gave
the State Legislature until September to come up with a new school-financing
plan, which would include the hiring of more qualified teachers and principals,
smaller class sizes, renovation of school buildings, and investment in
computers and books. Governor George Pataki is considering an appeal but will
likely think twice, having already wasted $11 million of taxpayer money
fighting this case (money which went, outrageously, to an out-of-state law
firm).
It bears repeating that
none of this would have happened without the work of Simpson Thacher. Among the
20 lawyers who did the pro bono work, eight worked on the case full-time over
the past two years. “The schools have broken a covenant with students, and with
society,” wrote Justice DeGrasse in his decision. Simpson Thacher’s attorneys have done great work toward repairing
that covenant.
A Desperate City
Council
New York voters, in
their wisdom, approved a ballot referendum several years ago limiting citywide
elected officials and City Council members to two four-year terms.
They did this twice: once in 1993, and again in 1996. The
second vote was made necessary when veteran Council members, faced with
unemployment, tried to undo term limits via a rather sneaky referendum. They
failed, thanks in part to the vigilance of Ronald Lauder, whose money and
activism inspired the term-limits campaign in the first place. Now, with term
limits about to put an end to the careers
of 36 of the Council’s 51 members, they’re at it again. This time, Council
members hope to pass a law to exclude themselves from the term-limits
provision. If they succeed, they’d be able to run for their current seats later
this year, although the three citywide elected officials-Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, Public Advocate Mark Green and Comptroller Alan Hevesi-could not.
This desperate act ought
to outrage all New Yorkers. Council members regularly give speeches
attesting to the wisdom of the people. In the matter of term limits, the people
have made their opinions known, twice. In the eyes of some Council members, the
people are wise only to the extent that they agree with the Council’s
positions, particularly on matters of political employment.
Council Speaker Peter Vallone, who will see his own long
Council career brought to an end because of
term limits, wisely has counseled against this spiteful and profoundly
undemocratic course. But Council members are ignoring Mr. Vallone’s advice and
proceeding apace with the legislation.
The Mayor probably will veto the bill, but the Council may
have enough votes to override the veto. The question is this: They may have the
votes, but do they not have any shame?
Men and Nannygate
When Linda Chavez
withdrew her name from consideration as a Bush Cabinet nominee because
she once employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, she joined a
lengthening list of women who have seen their political fortunes founder on
this issue. But as Linda Stasi recently pointed out in the New York Post , where are the men in all of this? The fact is that,
for all the talk of a modern marriage of equals, it is still the wife who tends
to hire the nanny or housekeeper-and who will then get punished, even publicly
humiliated, if she happens to be a contender for public office.
Surely many of the men
who sit securely in Washington, D.C. have hired illegal aliens as
gardeners or mechanics or caretakers. But because men do not usually get
involved in hiring nannies or baby-sitters, they are curiously exempt from
condemnation. Men do not run the household, so they cannot understand how hard
it is to find and keep a good nanny for your kids or to keep a home in order.
Thus, Ms. Chavez, Zoë Baird, Kimba Wood and other talented and ambitious women
pay the price for the simple fact that they are doing the hard work of running
a house.
The short-term answer is easy: make the husband hire the
nanny. But don’t go overboard: Make sure the wife still does the interviewing.
