Author's Posts

The Last True Broadsheet In New York

John Davisson — Sun, 04 May 2008 23:01:33 -0500

Ahmadinejad to Speak on Campus

John Davisson — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:51:11 -0500

SENIOR PROFILE: Mariel Frank

John Davisson — Tue, 15 May 2007 23:00:00 -0500

Mariel Frank's decision to matriculate at Barnard was an improbable one. After having balled up and tossed out every piece of literature that the admissions department sent her, she was lured-in part-by a program that didn't actually exist. "I thought, 'What the hell? It's on the Common App, and it's in New York City,'" Frank recalled. One visit to Morningside Heights changed everything. "As soon as I walked on the campus, it felt right to me," she said. When Frank, a resident of Albany, N.Y., arrived in the fall, she was surprised to find that the linguistics major she'd read about in a brochure was only a clerical error: the program had been discontinued years earlier. That didn't stifle her interest in the study of language, though. After taking Prof. Paul Kockelman's Introduction to Language and Culture, Frank was inspired to cobble together her own program. She approached professors with linguistics experience from across the University, planned a course of study, and filled out form after form. Finally, she was on her way to a rarity: a Barnard degree in linguistics. Frank, who knows French, Spanish, Latin, and a touch of German, said that she preferred the arrangement to a school with a linguistics department because it allowed for greater ideological flexibility. "At other schools, it [the program] is usually swayed towards one school or the other in terms of linguistics." She credited her interest in phonology, morphology, dialectology, and other -ologies to a fascination with "communication in general and the fact that someone can communicate in a non-gestural way." Frank, whose mother and father are from Detroit and Germany, respectively, said: "Part of it is also the fact that my father didn't speak German to me when I was little, and I sort of regret that." With a newly-formed linguistics concentration at Columbia and a seemingly revived interest in the field on both sides of Broadway, Frank sees the creation of an official major ahead. In the meantime, "I've basically been handing out my proposal to everyone." After school, Frank will teach English in Japan through the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program. In the future, she hopes to address disparities between theory and practice of teaching English as a second language in American schools.

Cronyism Rampant in TWU, Workers Allege

John Davisson — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

According to several workers, the union that represents Columbia University Facilities employees is rife with cronyism, improper overtime assignments, and double standards set by senior members of the union. Six employees who were interviewed for this article-all of whom requested anonymity, citing a fear of retaliation-said that Enzo Rodriguez, president-elect and current vice president of the Transport Workers Union Local 241, has set up a two-tiered system among facilities employees. His friends and associates, they said, are given overtime, favorable assignments, and forceful advocacy by the union, while those outside the network do not-a charge that those closest to Rodriguez deny. Their resentment was exacerbated when Columbia chose not to terminate Rodriguez and 11 other employees suspended for overtime and attendance violations in October. University officials declined to release the names of the suspended workers, citing respect for their privacy, but said their identities had no influence on their treatment. Many of the employees interviewed rejected this claim. 'LIKE A GODFATHER' According to several facilities employees, Rodriguez, though junior to outgoing TWU-241 president Kelvin McAllister, has long been the most powerful member of the union, using his influence to direct opportunities to friends and associates in the department. "This guy Enzo, he's like a Godfather," one employee said. A second said that Rodriguez was able to exercise power because a majority of the executive board consistently sided with him and voted McAllister down. "Kelvin is pretty much fighting against six of the nine of those people" on the executive board, he said. "It's like two groups-group A and group B," a third employee said. "Only his friends and family get fair treatment," a fourth added. But Terry Klug, a refrigeration engineer and the union's recording secretary, said that these criticisms were unfounded, describing Rodriguez as an upstanding leader. "In my relationship with Enzo ... I have never seen those to be true," he said of the allegations, adding, "A person's power is often viewed by those who don't like him as being too much." Rodriguez declined to comment for this article. Executive Vice President for Facilities Joe Ienuso said he had heard some allegations of improprieties. "Have there been accusations? Yes," he said, "If there have been any accusations made that can be supported by data, we act on them." "Rumor is hard. Anonymous is hard," he added. The six employees said that the alleged bias was particularly obvious in overtime assignments. Under the union's collective bargaining agreement with Columbia, overtime offers are rotated based on seniority, but the workers said that such assignments have gone disproportionately to members of Rodriguez's network during his tenure. "People like me, I don't get no overtime," the third employee said. "These people who should be next on the list get passed over," the second employee said. "The managers and the supervisors go right to Enzo and he hands it out to whoever he wants." Klug denied that overtime had been improperly assigned. He said that this misunderstanding may have come from the nature of the rotation, which is based only on the amount of offers made to a particular employee, not how many he or she actually accepts. If a senior worker is given an overtime opportunity but turns it down, he or she may have to wait until the offers cycle through the rest of the department before receiving another. That, Klug said, may produce the false appearance of unfair assignments. The union contract also states that staff members should receive priority for overtime assignments in their own department, but several workers said that these opportunities have often gone to employees from other departments. Others cited disparities in the quality of overtime that has typically fallen to Rodriguez's allies. "The good overtime goes to Enzo's friends-they got easy overtime," the third employee said, citing the annual preparations for commencement ceremonies. "People he don't like ... we shoveling the snow. It's below zero, nobody wants it-I get called in for that every time." "It [overtime] always goes to people in the department," Klug countered, except for cases where extra personnel are needed, such as clearing a major snowfall. Ienuso said that while selecting people to perform overtime is the prerogative of the union, "We expect that that selection ... is fair and transparent." "This issue has been the subject of several conversations between my members and the executive board," he added. Several employees reported that the same two-tiered system exists when it comes to discipline, conflict resolution, and promotions in the department. "When people's cases go to arbitration, they will always vote against cases that don't involve them too much," the second employee said, "If it's someone that they're friends with, then they'll vote it through. If it's someone they're not friends with or they have a grudge against, they'll vote it down and that person will never get a fair shake." "Enzo's people get all the promotions," the fourth employee added. "He build an empire. That's what he say one day-'Nobody is going to destroy what I built.'" The first employee, an 18-year veteran of the department, said that members of Rodriguez's network have often been granted promotions over workers who have been at the University for longer. When he wanted to move to a job in the custodial department, he explained, "I always tried to put in applications, they never called me. Some other guy was working in facilities and he knew Enzo, and they hired him. He was only a temp." Ienuso said that while supervisors sometimes accept recommendations from current employees, the union has no role in hiring and promoting employees. "Management hires. Only management hires," he said. MANAGEMENT RESPONDS Though the employees said that the unequal treatment persists, they noted that the situation had improved in recent years, largely due to Ienuso's efforts. "Before you could cover but now the new management, Joe Ienuso and people like that, they're looking out for things like that," the third employee said. "Enzo don't respect nobody ... Ienuso say, I'm the boss, not you." The fourth employee said that while in the past, "every time there's an opening, the management allowed him to put in whoever he wants," they were now more vigilant. "These new people do nothing wrong," he said. "The bosses we have now, they are very professional and very competent ... Things have changed somewhat for the better." Ienuso said the employees' perception of his leadership demonstrated that "there's a recognition that management is in control." He did not specifically confirm any effort on his part to crack down on questionable practices in the department, but said, "There are things that I have no patience for. I have no patience for folks trying to take advantage of the system." But despite this goodwill, the employees said that the department's handling of a spate of work-related violations last month has shaken their faith in facilities management and left workers "walking on pins and needles," in the words of a fifth employee. In early October, senior members of facilities management were made aware of a number of apparent offenses in which union members had punched each other's time cards-an action barred by departmental policy. The exact details of the case were not made public, but Ienuso said the nature of time card abuses was "unambiguous" and constituted a terminable offense in each instance." On Oct. 11, Ienuso said he contacted the union's executive board and brought the 12 employees suspected of misconduct-many of them 10- and 15-year veterans of the department-in for interviews. They were suspended until further notice. Over the next week, "I looked at the way they approached their conversation when we presented them. ... We looked at what had happened and why it had happened," he explained. "I put all of those things together and I listened to the advice of my senior people who were involved ... and I made a final decision." Klug said that while the violations represented "a lapse in judgment on the part of some of our members ... it was not a coordinated effort. It was not a scam." "He [Ienuso] indicated that he was going to seek termination," Klug said. "I personally was very surprised at that." But Klug said that officials from TWU's international headquarters discouraged the union from taking the case to arbitration, which could have involved a lengthy battle and an uncertain outcome. Ienuso said that in an Oct. 18 meeting with representatives of TWU international and the executive board of TWU-241, he announced that the employees would be given suspensions of more than 30 days-which Ienuso called "the most significant suspensions that we have meted out"-but could return to their jobs afterward. "The offense that took place could certainly have resulted in the termination of everyone involved. No doubt," he said, "We rendered a final decision. It did not involve terminating everybody." Ienuso said his decision was influenced by the fact that none of the employees had active discipline in their files, and that the lengthy suspensions would have the same deterrent effect as firings. "If this behavior existed anywhere else in the organization, whether folks are terminated or dealt with fairly and firmly, I think that result is the same," he said. "I didn't really care what the names of anybody involved were," he added. THE AFTERMATH Though Ienuso said that the suspensions were unrelated to any existing allegations of misconduct, a number of facilities workers-who viewed the time card abuse as one symptom of a broader pattern of corruption-said they had hoped the break would bring an end to Rodriguez's alleged practice of cronyism. That the suspects were ultimately suspended and not terminated came as a disappointment to them. "Columbia's not going to get respect from no workers," a sixth employee said of the decision. They complained that while the University decided not to fire these 12 workers, others had been let go for lesser offenses. "It's a lot of people, they got fired and they don't get their job back ... for little things," the third employee said. The second employee agreed. "What about all these people prior to this gentleman getting fired, and their crimes were less?" he said. He cited the participation of representatives from the TWU international in the hearing as evidence of special treatment. "Any other person who got in trouble or got fired would never be able to get a senior administrator and lawyers from the International to come down here," he said, "It means the union's condoning this behavior." "Why is he getting special treatment from the International, from the Local, and from Columbia University?" he asked. "He pays the same dues as us." But Ienuso said the International was involved at his request because of the scale of the incident. "Anything that involves the extent of what happened here is something that needed to have the attention of the International and we made sure that that was done," he said. "Would we do that if this were one person involved in sort of a routine discipline? Absolutely not. We would not. But this wasn't one person." Several employees said that the violations had given rise to stricter work environment, even for those with no connection to the scandal. Ienuso confirmed that supervisors had emphasized to employees that there would be zero tolerance for attendance violations, and that any such violations would result in termination. In a letter to employees, Annette Lopes, executive director of human resources, said that biometric clocks would replace the card swipe system at work sites. "It should be zero tolerance with the guys who was stealing, not the workers that wasn't," the fifth employee said. "Now everybody's working in fear and that's no way to work. Right now you see my shirt's hanging out-they'll write me up for that." "Right now it's so funny around here I don't even want to touch nothing," added another. Still, despite the criticisms from some employees, Rodriguez still enjoys significant support from the union's membership. In early November, just weeks after the suspensions, Rodriguez was elected president of TWU-241, a position that he will assume on Jan. 1. He defeated McAllister by 29 votes. Klug sounded a note of optimism about the union's future. "We are trying to work together as best we can," he said. "I think we need to rid ourselves of these petty complaints and come together as a union."

Homeless Face Struggles On the Road to Voting

John Davisson — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

In the past several months, as scores of candidates for state and federal office have courted New York's most influential constituencies and interest groups, Nick Whitehouse has had his sights set on an almost-forgotten minority: the homeless. "Not surprisingly, when someone just became homeless, it's hard to see clearly and think that their vote matters," Whitehouse said. "The only way to get policy-makers to listen to you is to get involved in the process." As a community organizer with the Partnership for the Homeless, an advocacy foundation, Whitehouse has helped conduct dozens of educational sessions and registration drives at the city's shelters and temporary residences during the ramp-up to Tuesday's election. His efforts-and those of the partnership-seek to eliminate the significant hurdles standing between the homeless and the ability to vote, such as the lack of a permanent address and frequent misconceptions about election law. "I think a lot of people don't realize that you can register on a street corner if you want to," Elana Shneyer, a fellow community organizer for the partnership, said. "There's a lot of this misinformation. People do not know they can vote." Shneyer said that the importance of encouraging the homeless to vote was clear from the disproportionate participation of low-income voters nationally. According to the 2000 census, 82 percent of persons earning over $75,000 were registered to vote, compared to just 59 percent of those earning between $10,000 and $14,999. The right to vote for those without a fixed address was guaranteed by Pitts v. Black, a 1984 federal court case. According to Shneyer, most of the 800-plus homeless voters that the organization helped register in 2006 put down a shelter or single room occupancy as their permanent address. Shneyer also said that homeless individuals who have had a previous felony conviction often believe that they are ineligible to vote, but New York state law bars only current inmates and parolees from voting. Those who have already served their sentence regain that right. "I spent two years locked up. They always said I couldn't vote after that," said Charles Simmons, who sells books and trinkets on sidewalks around the Upper West Side. When told that state law would allow him to vote, he responded, "For what? So I can stay homeless while another suit gets into office?" On Thursday night Whitehouse, Shneyer, and other supporters of the partnership gathered at St. Paul and St. Andrew's Church on 86th Street and West End Avenue to discuss their registration efforts and plans for getting voters to the polls on Nov. 7. Before a group of one dozen, Whitehouse recalled one participant of an informational session who had loudly criticized the partnership's efforts-only to have a change of heart. "As much as he talked about how he didn't care and how his vote didn't matter," Whitehouse said, "in the end, he registered." Whitehouse was followed by Regina Eaton, deputy director of the Demos Democracy Program. Eaton said that New York would benefit from Election Day registration, which would remove the burden of having to register in advance-a frequent deterrent for homeless voters. "They're actually running elections in urban areas without having people register 30 days in advance. And you know what? There isn't massive fraud," Eaton said, referring to Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin-all states that have adopted the same-day registration program.

Barnard Super Charged With False Report

John Davisson — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0600

Oscar Sevilla, a Barnard assistant superintendent who said he was attacked at 110th Street on Oct. 22, has been charged with filing a false report and suspended indefinitely from his job, according to an e-mail from Barnard Dean Dorothy Denburg. According to the message, which was addressed to members of the Barnard community, the Police Department alerted administrators that the apparent stabbing took place in northern Manhattan and not in Morningside Heights, as Sevilla had originally reported. "Mr. Sevilla has been suspended from his position at Barnard College pending resolution of the case," Denburg said in the e-mail. On the day of the incident, Sevilla said that he had been attacked by six men on 110th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue shortly before 6 a.m. He was admitted to St. Luke's later that day with an apparent stab wound to the back. In an e-mail sent the same day, Denburg said that the incident appeared to be a robbery and that Barnard would step up security patrols in the area as a precaution.

Photos Indicate Identity of Kicker

John Davisson — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

In the 16 days since a speech at Columbia by Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist erupted into a brawl, speculation has lingered over an individual seen on the Roone Arledge Auditorium stage who, according to video, photos, and eyewitness accounts of the event, appears to have kicked a protester walking below him on the auditorium floor. An analysis of images from the scuffle, photos from earlier illegal immigration protests in New York, and an investigation by Spectator strongly indicate that man is Kevin Hahulski, a 26-year-old welder from Queens. In an interview Wednesday night, Hahulski confirmed that he had attended Gilchrist's speech, but he declined to comment on the specifics of the event, citing legal considerations. "I'm not a member of the Minutemen, but I support what they do," Hahulski added. According to a series of photos taken by Spectator less than a minute into the brawl, a Caucasian man wearing a white T-shirt, jeans, glasses, and a plain blue baseball cap appears slightly in front and to the left of the lectern where Gilchrist had been speaking seconds earlier. He has a ponytail, bound twice, and a design on his shirt from United Association Local 1, a New York plumbers' union. In a video taken by Spanish-language channel Univision, that same man appears to boot a person walking below him on the auditorium floor, later revealed to be Martin Lopez, CC '09. Lopez said in a press conference Oct. 9 that he was "kicked in the face" and left bleeding by the incident, though it is not clear from the available video if this is the case. Lopez did not respond to requests for comment regarding this article. The investigation revealed the same man had attended previous protests conducted by New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, a group against illegal immigration that had several members in attendance at Gilchrist's speech. In particular, he appears in photos published by the Village Voice of a June 3 demonstration at the Mexican consulate, sporting the same hat, ponytail, and thin-rimmed glasses. In a CBS article from the same rally, a man identified as Kevin Hahulski was quoted as saying, "[Illegal immigrants] do the jobs we won't do for the money they [employers] pay them. If you pay people a decent wage, they'll do the job. I know that for a fact. I'm a union construction worker." Hahulski, a resident of Woodhaven, a neighborhood in southwestern Queens, agreed to an interview at a Dunkin' Donuts near his home Wednesday evening. Though Hahulski was interviewed for over an hour, he declined comment on his political philosophy on the record beyond saying he supported the Minutemen. Photos taken of Hahulski by Spectator in a public area reveal the same hallmarks as the man from the Oct. 4 brawl, including the same facial features, the blue cap, a tightly-bound ponytail, and metal-rimmed glasses. In a University-wide e-mail sent Oct. 12, University President Lee Bollinger said that the administration was "investigating the actions of particular individuals who are not members of the Columbia community and will inform those whom we find to have committed violent or disruptive acts ... that they will not be allowed on campus again." James McShane, associate vice president for Public Safety, declined to discuss the matter publicly, citing a policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. It is unclear if Hahulski could face criminal or civil penalties as a result of his apparent actions. In New York state, a person intentionally causing physical injury to another can be charged with assault in the third degree, an A misdemeanor that proscribes no minimum jail time.

Barnard Super Stabbed in Back

John Davisson — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

Oscar Sevilla, assistant superintendent of Barnard's Cathedral Gardens, was stabbed in the back early Sunday morning in an attack by multiple assailants. The incident, an apparent robbery, occurred shortly before 6:00 a.m., according to an e-mail sent by Barnard Dean Dorothy Denburg to residents of Cathedral Gardens and 601 West 110th Street. Sevilla was admitted to St. Luke's Hospital, where "he is expected to make a full recovery," from a serious stab wound, Denburg wrote. She added that NYPD and Barnard Security were investigating the incident, and that security measures would be increased in the area as a precaution.

University May Charge Four With Serious Violations

John Davisson — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

University officials have found "reasonable cause" to believe that four students who mounted the stage during an Oct. 4 speech by Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist were in violation of the Rules of University Conduct, according to an e-mail sent to the protestors. The message is signed by Rules Administrator Stephen Rittenberg, stated that the recipients' conduct "may have violated some or all of the sections" of the Rules cited in the email, which include prohibitions against causing physical injury, inciting violence, and disrupting a University event through a protest or demonstration. "Some of these sections refer to serious violations and could lead to your suspension or dismissal from the University if you are charged and subsequently found guilty," the e-mail reads. [View the full text of the e-mail.] Individual copies were sent to Martin Lopez and Ryan Fukumori, both CC' 09, and Karina Garcia and Cosette Olivio, both CC'07. The e-mails differ only in the time at which each recipient was asked to meet with officials, which sources say the students did on Monday. All four recipients declined to comment on the meetings and the e-mail. A University spokesman also declined to comment on the situation, citing Columbia's ongoing investigation. The meetings came twelve days after Gilchrist's speech, held in Roone Arledge Auditorium at the invitation of the Columbia University College Republicans, came to a sudden halt when about a dozen protestors climbed onto the stage. The demonstrators, who oppose Gilchrist's hard-line stance on immigration policy and the Minutemen's controversial tactics in border enforcement, unfurled a pair of protest banners, sending the audience into an uproar. But the demonstration quickly devolved into a scuffle, during which Minutemen Chaplain Marvin Stewart said he was assaulted by protestors, and during which a Gilchrist supporter appears to have kicked Lopez in the head, based on videos taken of the event. Gilchrist supporters and opponents both deny responsibility for having initiated the violence. The Rules of University Conduct are the highest level of disciplinary proceedings at Columbia, governing the conduct of all University members at protests, picketing, and other types of rallies on Columbia property. "These rules are designed to protect the rights of free expression through peaceful demonstration while at the same time ensuring the proper functioning of the University and the protection of rights of those who may be affected by such demonstrations," the foreword to the Rules reads. Each offense laid down by the Rules is designated as either simple or serious. Individuals found guilty of a simple violation may receive either a disciplinary warning or a censure. Those found guilty of a serious violation or repeated simple violations are met with censure, suspension, or, in rare cases, dismissal from Columbia. In the e-mail, Rittenberg named nine violations that the protesters could be charged with, four of which are simple, five of which are serious. [View the pertinent provisions.] The five serious violations named are: causing or clearly attempting to cause physical injury, using words in a situation of "clear and present danger" to provoke violence, interfering with the use of a University facility for an extended period, rendering impossible the continuation of a University function, and aiding or abetting one or more persons in the commission of a serious violation. The e-mail stated that if any of the students are ultimately charged with one or more of these serious violations, they may choose to have them reviewed under the procedures set down by the Rules. These include an open hearing and presentation of evidence before a hearing officer and, if the officer's decision is appealed, a possible audience before the University Judicial Board. But the four simple violations and-at the student's discretion-all of the serious violations may be processed through Dean's Discipline, a lesser procedure handled by the student's individual school. The simple violations cited in the message are: placing another in danger of bodily harm, briefly interfering with the use of a University facility, briefly interrupting a University function, and aiding or abetting one or more persons in the commission of a simple violation. Rittenberg also noted in the e-mail that each student may "discuss an informal resolution of the complaint. Such a resolution would involve your [the student's] acknowledging that you violated the Rules of University Conduct." It is not known whether any members of the College Republicans or other Gilchrist supporters are under active investigation by the University. In a statement on Thursday, University President Lee Bollinger said, "We are also investigating the actions of particular individuals who are not members of the Columbia community and will inform those whom we find to have committed violent or disruptive acts last Wednesday that they will not be allowed on the campus again."

Oct. 12 Letter Regarding Alleged Rules Violations

John Davisson — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0500

Office of the Rules Administrator Rules of University Conduct Columbia University 310 Low Library New York, New York 10027 October 12, 2006 Dear [Student]: I have received a complaint from a member of the University that you may have engaged in conduct that violated sections 443(a)(1), 443(a)(2), 443(a)(4), 443(a)(7), 443(a)(8), 443(a)(13), 443(a)(14), 443(a)(21) and 443(a)(22) of the Rules of University Conduct by participating in a demonstration in the Roone Arledge Auditorium that started at approximately 8:30 p.m. and continued until approximately 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 4, 2006. [