Think Outside The Box When It Comes To The Fair Chance Act

A few weeks ago, the 69th Precinct Community Council in Canarsie held its first job fair. Other than State Senator John Sampson's enormous career fair that takes place every year, Canarsiens – especially young ones - don't have many opportunities where recruiters come to their community and present employment opportunities.

As President of the Community Council Gardy Brazela repeatedly told the community before the fair, young people are less likely to get involved in gun violence and gangs if they have a job and professional responsibilities. Making money and building a financial foundation would certainly seem like a deterrent from picking up a weapon or stealing someone's iPhone after you've attacked them in broad daylight...

But let's say you're an employer and you've just hired this amazing young man who seems motivated and inspired to get his foot in the door. What you didn't know, thanks to the passing of the Fair Chance Act, is that this fellow did a few years in jail for a crime he didn't commit – he was simply an accomplice during a gang shooting during which the weapon was found in his possession while the real criminals got away... You won't be provoked to inquire about his criminal history because the “box” that asks applicants about prior convictions will no longer be located on a job application.

I have to admit that I'm on the fence when it comes to “Banning The Box.”

On one hand, we can't discriminate against those who have committed a crime and want to redeem themselves and make their way back into society. On the other hand, if you're an employer who manages, say, a bank or prestigious financial business, do you want to hire someone who has already consciously decided to break the law? And what if this person has returned to the system several times in the course of only a few years?

I do believe that there are a melange of careers that ex-cons could take on where they won't be ashamed to expose their past. Becoming a social worker and helping families rebuild themselves or becoming a motivational speaker for at-risk youths are professional paths that an ex-felons may find gratifying.

Even though the Fair Chance Act doesn't require employers to hire applicants with criminal records, and it doesn't prevent employers from running background checks, don't employers have a right to know if their business can be compromised by someone who's had an extensive rap sheet that spans over a decade?

Everyone makes mistakes...once...maybe twice...

Consider this – the State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision figures show an interesting recidivism rate. Among inmates – from 1985-2010 in Kings County, records show that 2,663 criminals were released and the return rate was 37.9 percent – that's 1,009 criminals. It would certainly be discriminating to judge someone – and assume they have potential to return to the prison system – just because of an extensive record - no matter what the offense may be.

I think employers should have the right to know what type of crime their potential employee has committed, if any. Trusting someone with your company's money and property – knowing they've been convicted of grand larceny, possession of a weapon and even assault – could make you think twice about their character, morals and values.

We already live in a society where upper class billionaires are involved in money laundering schemes and wind up doing serious time for embezzlement. If they want to work when they get out of the slammer, they might not have to check off the box when they get out of prison because of how highfalutin they are – but they should be required to provide this information too!

I'm not saying that all criminals will repeatedly practice bad behavior.

According to a recent press release from the Legislative Gazette, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Raise the Age New York Campaign aims to reduce recidivism, crime and costs to the state by increasing the age of criminal responsibility from 16 to 18. Right now, the state automatically “condemns a 16-year-old to a life without redemption,” Cuomo said.

“Without this reform, hundreds of young people each year will continue to be placed in adult prisons, where they face limited opportunities to rebuild their lives,” he added.

Brooklyn Congresswoman Yvette Clark believes that a 16-year-old does not have the culpability of an adult since research from the Raise the Age New York Campaign suggests that cognitive development is important – and that the human brain is not fully formed until the age of 25.

Twenty-five???? So – does that mean an employer should overlook multiple convictions that an applicant committed before their mid 20s? Did they commit a non-violent offense at an age where they just “didn't know any better” and were influenced by being put through an unfair legal system?

Another question is, should employers require older applicants, who have numerous convictions, provide information about their criminal history because they're NOT young and they're NOT being swayed by their peers to make poor decisions?

Surely, an adult knows better than to walk into a bodega and terrorize the employees at gunpoint so they can steal a few hundred dollars from the register. What excuse are we making for THIS individual, who would like to turn their life around after doing time in prison? If an adult's “cognitive development” convinced him that brandishing a gun and threatening a business is a moral idea – INSTEAD OF GETTING A JOB - what will their “cognitive development” process be when it comes time to working in the real world?

Any information on a job application could be considered too invasive and discriminatory- “Gender? What the hell do I LOOK like I am...and why does it matter!” We can also forgive and look beyond mistakes that happened years ago, knowing the applicants paid their debt to society and want to make things right in their life. 

Obviously, every job requires the applicant be trustworthy, honest, committed and dedicated to their task. Only the job applicant knows if they will be able to commit – without committing another felony.

Unpublished as of June 17, 2015

They Might Be “All Out” But Violence In The City Is The “In” Thing!

Every time a call comes in over the police scanner for “shots fired,” the Canarsie Courier crew goes into a frenzy. Did anyone get shot – and if so, are they alive? What house were they shot in front of? What are all those helicopters doing in the sky and what does the armed suspect – or suspects - look like? What kind of car did they get away in? Are the cops going to tell us ANYTHING this time when we get to the crime scene?

Within the last week, there were several calls of “shots fired” – a couple resulting in serious injuries and another resulting in a Breukelen Houses resident's death after he was shot execution style. I ran to the scene of one shooting where shell casings scattered the southern end of East 82nd Street – where two cars had their windows blown out in broad daylight. I know that the NYPD is putting more police officers in high crime areas – but their “Summer All Out Initiative” doesn't seem to be helping us YET and it's not even officially summertime!

Line 'em up and send 'em out!

Hours and days after a shooting, police officers sometimes station themselves on the block or near a home where the violence took place – thinking they'll see someone who fits the description of the gunman. I can't help but think – too late now!

There will never be enough police officers on the force to thwart shootings – especially those which take place in a building or home where officers aren't patrolling – and many which are in decent neighborhoods where you wouldn’t suspect shootings will take place.

 When I heard that someone accidentally opened gunfire in the Waldorf Astoria in the city Saturday night – just as a wedding was about to begin – I couldn't help but wonder if this would have happened if cops were present. Cops at a wedding? This area is NOT part of the NYPD’s initiative, but why would we need to go to those extremes? The Waldorf Astoria – a prestigious location for the most elegant of events – the scene of a shooting where a woman was grazed by a bullet? The NYPD might be “All Out” but the maniac, who felt the need to bring a gun to a wedding,  was INSIDE!

When the media reported that a rival gang member opened fire at a Flatbush funeral home – yes, a FUNERAL, where you pay respects to the deceased – in April, killing three people due to an “unsettled dispute,” was the NYPD prepared for more incidents like these? They could be stationed all over those streets and we'd still have the same front-page story, which read “Funeral Massacre.”

“Summer All Out” has all the right components – it places over 300 extra police officers in areas such as East New York, East Flatbush, Brownsville and Williamsburg – where the most murders and shootings occur. While the detectives in each precinct are 'on the case' trying to solve all of the shootings and find the 'perps,' police officers are on routine patrol – whether it's on foot or in their cruiser.

However, you can put as many officers on the streets as you want – no one will be prepared for the sporadic hail of bullets that fly across the street or inside of what's supposed to be a “safe” building when cops aren't around.

It’s also obvious the city’s club scenes aren’t patrolled all that well. Cops were unable to prevent the shooting that took place at an establishment called D Avenue early Monday morning in the Flatbush community.

Let’s get real – it seems like there’s been even MORE shootings since the “Summer All Out” initiative began! We’re not just talking about a spike in crime – we’re talking a non-stop shooting marathon. At the very same time police officers with the 69th Precinct were investigating the shots fired at East 82nd Street last week, a man in the neighboring 63rd Precinct was shot near Avenue I and East 56th Street.

When will deploying more officers finally pay off?

Everyone says they're sick of the violence – but obviously, the gun-wielding thugs aren't! What does Police Commissioner Bratton have to do to make us feel safer? Maybe he should work with the U.S. Army and place guards and military personnel all over the city...Maybe we should have combat vehicles patrolling, helicopters flying overhead once an hour…

The cost of keeping our city safe is beyond imaginable, but I strongly believe that no measures will curtail the violence that we’re now facing.

How can the NYPD step up its efforts and how can residents feel safer in their communities? With each passing day, it seems these are rhetorical questions that won’t be answered by the end of the summer.

The Health Department’s Gross Images Will Quench Your Thirst!

Looking at a photo of yellow, fatty deposits inside of your body, surrounding your organs, might give you a weak stomach. What doesn’t give you a weak stomach is constantly consuming sweet drinks like Hawaiian Punch, Pepsi, Kool-Aid and other sugary drinks that you THINK are refreshing – but are actually weighing you down and slowly killing you.

Some adults are more health conscious than others and they can try to encourage their children to practice healthy habits…The key word here – TRY! The Health Department is sticking their 2 cents in, yet again, by “grossing our children out” with a photo of what their insides will look like if they consume sugary drinks on a daily basis. I contend that these advertisements, showing blubbery growths around internal organs, won’t do anything in the long run. The Health Department already launched several campaigns within the past year that attempt to “gross people out” by convincing them water is the way to go!  

Water? Water is bland…boring…and at its foundation, tasteless and not very exciting. Do you think your kids REALLY care that their daily dose of fruit punch could be, years from now, contributing to diabetes, heart disease and even a fatty liver.

It is a parents’ responsibility to make sure their kids consume healthy drinks – and I agree – getting them used to a “healthy lifestyle” can lead to better decisions…but with whom are these kids spending most of their time? Let’s get real – they’re spending out of school time with OTHER kids who also practice unhealthy habits!

From what I’ve seen, kids are gathering in groups outside of schools consuming soda and other cheap, artificially flavored drinks from the nearest bodega. They’re also digging their fingers into bags of chips and cookies. Others are walking around eating slices of pizza and some love to share a large order of French fries from the nearest Chinese takeout place. If we’re worried about their liquid diets, we should also worry about the snacks they’re buying that contributes to the deterioration of their health.

According to the Health Department’s data, 40 percent of public high school students reported consuming an average of one or more sugary drinks per day. If the Department of Education has already placed posters or other advertisements in schools promoting healthy consumption – and it’s not working – what makes other agencies think they’re going to be able to make a difference?

“Sugary drinks contain empty calories that can cause damage to your child’s body, even if your child is a healthy weight,” said Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett in a press release. “Too much sugar can increase the amount of visceral fat, an organ-hugging fat that can lead to a variety of health problems. Choose water or fruit as a healthy alternative to sugary drinks.”

Fruit? If you see a herd of students chomping on apples at the corner – let me know!

Other campaigns sponsored by the Health Department since 2009 included initiatives like “Pouring on the Pounds,” “Sounds Healthy,” and “Drink Yourself Sick.” If any of these refreshing initiatives actually worked, former mayor Michael Bloomberg wouldn’t have tried to bully New Yorkers to practice healthy consumption by banning big sodas.

Obesity will continue to be an epidemic for adults AND children, who consciously decide to pick up the cheapest and most thirst-quenching drinks with the highest sugar content. Bring it on Health Department – show us all of those photos depicting grotesque, heavy and sloppy yellow fat growing hugging our heart…it will keep beating another day so we can consume another dose of deadly ingredients! Drink up!

Unpublished as of June 17, 2015

My Experience With “School Safety” Isn’t All That Safe

Assignments at local schools are among my favorite stories to cover. There are usually a group of eager students waiting to have their pictures taken and it’s not that difficult to get them riled up about appearing in their hometown newspaper. I also enjoy the welcoming feeling I receive from administrators and guards at the front desk of any given public school where I’ll be interviewing students and teachers about their achievements.

Usually, after I sign in at the front desk and a security guard has looked at my identification, they’ll give me a sticker with my name scribbled on it, which I’ll slap on my shirt or jacket. Security  then sends me to the main office – always located in the same place, to the right of the security desk – where I’ll ask someone to track down the teacher or coordinator of an event I’m about to cover. In the main office, there are usually a few ladies – some who have no clue that the Canarsie Courier is scheduled to make a visit – ready to page whoever I need to interview.

Who's protecting our schools?

After getting instructions on which room the festivities are taking place in – if they’re not in the auditorium or cafeteria – I’ll be told where to go and which staircase to take so I can reach my destination.

Seems simple enough.

 

Well…that’s the problem – it’s TOO simple! I may be the one of the safest people you want walking through the halls of a public school, but I don’t understand why our schools don’t provide SOME type of escort to make sure guests make it to the classrooms without an incident.

What is the Department Of Education’s (DOE) real policy on transporting guests from the main office to a classroom? Most of our public schools – not including high schools – don’t have metal detectors. We follow suburban models of schools like Sandy Hook Elementary School – where all of the school doors are locked, but if someone finds a way in and they’re armed…Are our schools ready for the possibility of an irrational mass shooting?

I sometimes ask myself why the public school I’m visiting isn’t concerned if I’m in possession of weapon. What if I did carry a firearm – for my own safety – and one of the students got a hold of it? Could someone else – including an outraged parent or guardian – just walk in, go through the same standard screening process that I did, and be told to go to the second floor without an escort to make sure they arrive at their destination without anything going wrong?

No matter who has business in a public school, there should be two guards on duty at all times during school hours – one at the entrance desk and another to take visitors to whatever room they’re going to. What about irate parents who might be dangerous and take matters into their own hands? Are our schools prepared for any dangerous situation that might arise?

I had an experience a few months ago that disturbed me while covering a school story. As I made my way to the front desk, I saw the security guard on her phone, which was flat on the desk. I had to sign in, so I waited, assuming she was in the midst of messaging someone – or that maybe she had an imperative note she was entering in her Smartphone. When I got closer, I saw that her head was buried (she didn’t even know I was standing there) and that she was playing a game that looked like Bejeweled or something as equally distracting. It took her three minutes, in counting, to look up – away from her mobile game – and notice I was standing there waiting to be signed in.

What if I’d been a crazy ex-student who was armed like Adam Lanza? Could I have just as easily made it past this distracted security guard? Even after she finally noticed me, apologized and signed me in, all I needed was a flimsy paper pass to go to the third floor – where I roamed the halls looking for the classroom I needed to visit.

Is THIS what the DOE wants?   
Even a newspaper reporter, whose bags weren’t checked, whose pockets weren’t inspected, can freely walk the halls of a building where children are learning?

Actor Vince Vaughn recently said he supports guns in schools to prevent mass shootings. But which are the best schools to equip with guns – if it was legal to have them there? And who would be armed with these guns? The security guards who are too busy laughing on their phones instead of examining visitors’ pockets and baggage?

Let’s get real! In addition to lacking a completely safe environment inside the school, kids lack a safe atmosphere outside of school. In New York City, kids get shot while they’re walking home. They get shot or stabbed during gang melees right outside the building where administrators and teachers worked with them all day – trying to educate them, protect them and possibly deter them from a life of criminal activity.

While the DOE and Governor Andrew Cuomo are concerned about state funds that will go towards testing and the Common Core debacle – and paying for dozens of administrative training programs which may or may not be an advantage, our schools remain vulnerable and our children remain seated in a waiting room for the next massacre.

Unpublished as of June 2, 2015