Time To Tax Columbia University & Other NYC "Non-Profit" Institutions?

New York City’s Plutocratic Mayor Bloomberg may claim his government doesn’t have money to provide: 1. high-wage jobs for the unemployed; 2. subsidies for workers’ co-ops; 3. tax relief for alternative businesspeople and small homeowners; 4. apartments for the homeless; 5. rent roll-backs for tenants; 6. fare reductions for subway and bus passengers; 7. a restoration of free tuition at CUNY for students; and 8. steady work for musicians, writers, artists and community activists. Yet the “non-profit” sector of New York City’s economy that includes Columbia University has been loaded with money for many years. As an early 1990s book by Robert Finch, The Assassination Of New York, observed long ago:

“The total budget of the city’s non-profit sector in 1989--$32 billion—well-exceeded the city budget. The non-profits, chiefly foundations, universities, voluntary hospitals, churches own about six percent of the city’s $400 billion property roll—yet they pay no taxes…Why have laws regulating political contributions at all, if by means of foundations, they can be easily evaded—just by calling them `philanthropy’? Why, for example, should the Rockefellers, through the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund be able to give unlimited amounts of money to city government and community organizations to promote their real estate interests?...What does `non-profit’ mean when the average non-profit executive director’s salary in New York is upwards of $175,000 [in 1989] …At a minimum, there should be a stiff wage tax on non-profit executives who make more than the mayor.” [unless the mayor happens to be a billionaire plutocrat from Massachusetts].
(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 1/8/97)

Besides making big money in the 1990s from its Manhattan real estate investments, Columbia University pocketed over $29 million in foundation welfare grants per year during the 1990s. Other top recipients of foundation grants in New York State in the mid-1990s were the following tax-exempt institutions: NYU ($18 million); Rockefeller University [$6.5 million); Ms. Foundation for Women ($5.8 million); WNET/Channel 13 ($5.8 million); Council on Foreign Relations ($5.4 million); Yeshiva University ($5.2 million); CUNY Research ($4.9 million); and Barnard College ($4.4 million).
(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 2/12/97)

The MacArthur Foundation also gave a grant of $175,000 to Columbia University’s Anthropology Department in 1992 to subsidize Columbia University’s Indonesian project when Indonesia was still under the control of the U.S.-backed Suharto dictatorship. Coincidentally, a Columbia University trustee at that time named Margaret Ellerbe Mahoney also sat on the board of directors of the MacArthur Foundation which approved the $175,000 philanthropic grant that was given to Columbia’s “needy” Anthropology Department.
(Downtown/Aquarian Weekly 1/8/97)

Next: “Non-Profit” Columbia University Teachers College’s Assets Increased By $12 Million In 2005

Columbia University Uses Israeli-Connected Law Firm To Lobby

One reason Columbia University President Lee Bollinger may have been so eager to issue a statement in June 2007 opposing the Palestinian solidarity academic boycott of Israeli institutions that most anti-war activists in the U.S. and other countries support, is that the law firm that lobbies for Columbia has an “Israel Practice” division. According to the Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel website (www.kramer-levin.com/israel) , for instance, the practice of a firm partner named Richard Gilden “encompasses representation of a number of publicly traded companies based in Israel, as well as representation of major investment banks that have led public offerings of companies based in Israel.” And another Kramer Levin partner, Ernest Wechsler “works extensively with foreign corporations, including a number of companies based in Israel, whose shares are traded in the United States.”

According to the Kramer Levin website, the law firm that lobbies for Columbia serves “a client base that includes some of Israel’s largest and most established companies” and offers “unmatched services and commitment to assist our Israel-based clients in achieving their worldwide objectives.” But Columbia’s legal and lobbying representatives don’t mention that Palestinian territory in the West Bank and elsewhere is still being illegally occupied by the Israeli Establishment’s war machine in 2007. Or that, according to the Jerusalem-based Alternative Information Center website (www.alternativenews.org) :

“Israel’s academic institutions discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel by restricting their enrollment; persecuting them for political involvement; gagging their freedom of expression and actively working to keep international students away from their towns and villages.”

Next: Time To Tax Columbia University & Other NYC “Non-Profit” Institutions?

Columbia University Paid Law Firm $2.6 Million To Lobby In 2005

Columbia University also spent over $37.3 million in “legal fees” between July 2004 and June 2005, according to its Form 990 for 2004 financial filing. The corporate law and lobbying firm of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (www.kramer-levin.com), with Midtown Manhattan offices at 1177 Ave. of the Americas, was paid over $2.6 million by Columbia University between July 2004 and June 2005.

According to data posted on the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying’s web site, Columbia University paid Kramer Levin over $900,000 in 2004 to lobby on behalf of Columbia’s special interests before government agency lobbying “targets” such as New York City Planning Commission members. In 2005, Columbia University then paid Kramer Levin an additional $258,906 to lobby for Columbia; and, in 2006, $518,000 more was paid by Columbia to Kramer Levin to lobby local and state government agencies for Columbia. Yet another $226,443 lobbying contract was given to Kramer Levin by Columbia University during the first six months of 2007, according to the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying’s data.

One of the partners involved in the Land Use practice division in the Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel law firm that lobbies for Columbia University is Gary Tarnoff. According to the Kramer Levin website, Tarnoff apparently once worked in the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office as a former Deputy Chief of the Administrative Law Division who advised the New York City Mayor’s Office on “land use, zone and regulatory matters.”

Columbia University’s Kramer Levin attorneys appear regularly before City and State agencies that have land use jurisdiction like the City Council, the City Planning Commission and the Manhattan Borough President; and the law firm’s website notes that it is “advising a prominent university with numerous real estate holdings on zoning and development issues and obtaining land use approvals for all of its new development projects.” Columbia’s legal and lobbying representatives are also “representing a major media corporation in the development of an enlarged headquarters facility by securing…zoning approvals for a 120,500 square foot floor area bonus” and “securing tax exemptions…for developers of office buildings, hotels, retail buildings and other commercial projects.”

Next: Columbia University Uses Israeli-Connected Law Firm To Lobby

`Non-Profit' Columbia University Paid Professor $3.6 Million Annual Salary In 2005

Although Columbia University claims to be a “public charity” in its Form 990 financial statement for 2004, between July 2004 and June 2005, the Columbia Administration apparently spent a lot of money on budget items that most New Yorkers would not regard as morally legitimate charity expenditures. It spent over $37.7 million on “travel” expenses and $21.5 million on “fund-raising,” for instance; and the Columbia Administration paid annual salaries exceeding $1 million to at least five Columbia University professors.

Columbia University Clinical Professor of Dermatology David Silvers was paid an annual salary of over $3.6 million by the Columbia Administration, while Columbia University Professor of Medicine Jeffrey Moses was paid an annual salary of over $2.1 million. An annual salary of over $1.9 million was also paid to Columbia University Professor of Surgery Eric Rose, a salary of over $1.6 million was paid to Columbia University Professor of Surgery Mehmet Oz and a salary of over $1.5 million was paid to Columbia University Professor of Surgery Craig Smith by Columbia University between July 2004 and June 2005.

Although Columbia University claims to be a “non-profit” institution, its top administrators in 2005 were also being paid annual salaries that were higher than the salaries received by many executives at for-profit business corporations that are not exempt from corporate taxation like Columbia University.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, for instance, was paid a salary of $664,180 between July 2004 and June 2005, while Columbia University Senior Executive Vice-President Robert Kasdin took home a salary of $431,120. During this same period, Columbia University Executive Vice-President for Finance John Masten was paid an annual salary of $432,110, while another Columbia University Executive Vice-President for Finance, Al Horvath, was paid $335,516. In addition, Columbia University Provost Alan Brinkley was paid an annual salary of $396,250 between July 2004 and June 2005, while Columbia University’s General Counsel, Elizabeth Keefer, was paid $391,380.

Next: Columbia University Paid Law Firm $2.6 Million To Lobby In 2005

`Non-Profit' Columbia University's Assets Increased By $800 Million In 2005

According to the Form 990 filed by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York for the year beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005, Columbia University claims to be a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) “public charity.” Yet between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005, Columbia University’s total earnings of $3.1 billion exceeded its total expenses of nearly $2.6 billion by over $500 million.

From its corporate stock and bonds portfolio of over $2.3 billion, for instance, Columbia University earned over $94.7 million in dividends and interest during this period; and, between July 2004 and June 2005, Columbia’s net rental income exceeded $20 million. An additional $495 million was gained from Columbia’s sale of assets during this period. But despite selling some of its assets for cash, between July 2004 and June 2005 the value of “non-profit” Columbia University’s remaining net assets jumped from $6.1 billion to $6.9 billion.

Between June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2006, Columbia earned another $154 million in dividends and interest from its portfolio, which now included $2.7 billion in hedge funds, $763 million in foreign stocks and bonds and $541 million in U.S. equities, according to a September 13, 2006 audit by PriceWaterhouse Cooper. The value of “non-profit” Columbia University’s net assets also jumped another $900 million to $7.8 billion between June 2005 and June 2006, according to the September 13, 2006 report of PriceWaterhouseCooper.

Next: “Non-Profit” Columbia University Paid Professor $3.6 Million Annual Salary in 2005

"Prisoner In Clinton" (for David Gilbert)

(chorus)
Oh, people locked in jobs
Or locked in middle-class minds
Oh, people locked in sects
Since when is love a crime?

(verses)
There’s a prisoner in Clinton in Upstate New York
The Murdoch press, it tried him
The judge wouldn’t let him talk
Like John Brown at Harper’s Ferry
He put his life on the line
To fight to free the slaves, since when is that a crime? (chorus)

There’s a prisoner in Clinton who resisted their brutal war
Who was with you on their campus
Who never forgot the poor
Like John Brown at Harper’s Ferry
He emerged from the Underground
To fight to free the slaves and bring the System down. (chorus)

There’s a prisoner in Clinton, his sentence is our shame
Betrayed by those who realize
That the guilty smeared his name
The ones who sat out the Sixties
Alone came to his aid
His case got lost in dogma, though he fought to free the slaves. (chorus)

There’s a prisoner in Clinton separated from the woman he loves
While she’s tried before the judge
That sentenced her husband
What kind of law is this
That deals with us all this way?
And convenes an all-white jury to put Black rebels away. [chorus)

There’s a prisoner in Clinton whom the brutes labeled “terrorist”
But no civilians were killed
By the prisoner now locked up
A prisoner of war
Obvious to you and me
And like Lolita Lebron and the rest, people now wish him free. (chorus)

The Prisoner In Clinton protest folk song was originally titled Prisoner In Auburn and was written in the early 1980s when David Gilbert www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/davidgilbert/ was imprisoned in Auburn State Prison. Since this protest folk song was written, Columbia SDS founder Gilbert has continued to serve time at Attica State Prison, at Comstock State Prison and at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, where he is still imprisoned in 2007.

To listen to the Prisoner In Clinton, you can click on the following music site links:

http://www.last.fm/music/Bob+A.+Feldman/Biographical+Folk+Songs/Prisoner+in+Auburn+%28for+David+Gilbert%29

http://www.mp3.com/artist/bobafeldman/songs/

Next: “Non-Profit” Columbia University’s Assets Increased By $800 Million in 2005

1968 Columbia Student Strike Leader Dave Gilbert: A 1985 Interview--Part 3

The following interview was put together by an exchange of letters from December of 1984 through February of 1985 and through six hours of face-to-face discussion with 1968 Columbia Student Strike Leader David Gilbert in Auburn Prison in New York State on January 27, 1985. Gilbert www.prisonactivist.org/pps+pows/davidgilbert/ is still a U.S. political prisoner in 2007 and is currently imprisoned at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York. This 1985 interview first appeared in the “Broadway” section of the Columbia Daily Spectator on April 2, 1985.

What about the demand for land and independence for a Black nation? A lot of people find that hard to imagine.
David Gilbert: Well, they may be at this point, but it’s certainly not harder to imagine than European settlers coming here and taking over a whole continent from the Native Americans, importing millions of Africans as slaves, conquering half of Mexico. There have been sweeping changes before in history. There can and will be sweeping changes on the side of justice.

I am a supporter of the national liberation position. That position holds that Blacks or New Afrikans have been so systematically oppressed as a people and that white supremacy is so deeply embedded in America that the only route to complete freedom is through independence, through a national liberation struggle.

Did October 20th show that armed struggle can’t work in the U.S.?
Gilbert: Not at all. You have to understand that revolution is not like an instant pancake mix—you know, three easy steps, just follow the instructions on the back of the package. Revolution is a very complex and difficult process. Setbacks will occur. That’s not to excuse mistakes; they must be analyzed and overturned. But, if the general direction is righteous, the movement collectively can learn and advance from setbacks.

There is a very important history and continuity of armed struggle for Black liberation and for Puerto Rican independence. In the past two years [1983-1985] there has also been a very positive development of anti-imperialist actions here in relationship to Central America and South Africa. Armed struggle isn’t a substitute for mass activism, but it can play a leading role in showing the nature and the vulnerability of the enemy. It is essential to forging the ability for waging the protracted struggle ahead of us.

Who is in prison and what are the causes of crime?
Gilbert: That’s a big and complex issue. There are a couple of generalizations that I can make. The biggest common denominator on who ends up in prison is people from poor background. Prison is a tool of repression against those rebellious and unruly elements among the colonized peoples “Black, Puerto Rican, Native Americans, Mexicans” and those among the poorest whites. Here, the population seems to be about 40 to 45 percent Black and 35 percent Latino. And it is very, very rare for someone with money to go to jail.

The other main generalization is that the worst you can say about prisoners is that they tend to apply the values that predominate in capitalist society to their own socio-economic situation.

In the months of October and November 1984, there were three different sets of sensationalized arrests of revolutionaries. In a pre-dawn raid, 8 New Afrikan activists were rounded up by hundreds of New York Police and FBI agents. On November 4th five activists with alleged connections to the Melville Jackson unit and the United Freedom Front were arrested in the Cleveland area. Then on November 30th Susan Rosenberg [who was eventually pardoned in 2001] and Tim Blunk [who was released in the 1990s] were arrested in New Jersey. What are your feelings and assessment of the series of arrests?
Gilbert: First, my love and strong solidarity goes out to any under attack by the state in this way. I know it can be intense and also that people of principle will stand strong. I definitely hope that all revolutionaries being sought by the police remain free and that a resistance grows and flourishes.

I don’t know exactly how all the various individuals define themselves politically and I certainly don’t want to speak for them. Actually, it is important that the means are developed for such comrades to have a louder voice and broader dialogue. Beyond the hardships involved, the situation reveals that we are not just dealing with a few “crazy” individuals, as the media would have us believe. We are talking about real movements, committed to fighting imperialism, with real roots in history and, more importantly, a very crucial potential for the future.

How do you define the movement people now in prison? What should be done about their situation?
Gilbert: There are a range of people now in prison in the U.S. for political reasons: the prisoners of war from the national liberation struggles, anti-imperialist resistance fighters, Grand Jury resisters, draft resisters, busted sanctuary workers. Real justice means freeing all those imprisoned for fighting against oppression. Until that is achieved, there should be recognition of our political statuses and commensurate treatment under United Nations guidelines.

I would urge people reading this to build support for and to demand political status and ultimate release for all captive revolutionaries. This is not only to aid the individuals involved but even more importantly to build the consciousness of a need for a fighting movement against this cruel and blood drenched imperialism.

Sometimes when you talk it sounds as though you think revolution is imminent. Many people consider the idea of revolution in the U.S. farfetched to say the least. Some would say that, whatever the validity of your goals, you are on a quixotic quest.
Gilbert: I’m sure to those who lived in ancient Rome, or under the Egyptian Pharaohs, or in the reign of the Ming Dynasty, those empires looked eternal also. The U.S. empire will fall like all empires before it.

You see, U.S. imperialism seems invincibly powerful, but the sources of its great strength are also the basis of its ultimate weakness. The U.S. rakes in fabulous wealth from Third World countries around the world. But in an era of national liberation, the U.S. will increasingly find its military might over-extended and drained around the globe.

Its economic empire is also based on taking over the land and labor of whole peoples: Native Americans, Blacks, Mexicanos. But these internally colonized people, especially in the context of a U.S. military power over-extended abroad, will develop strong national liberation struggles within the borders.

Within the oppressor nation (i.e. among white Americans) there is an important class contradiction, as well as the oppression of women. The rulers have been able to submerge class conflict with the wealth and power extracted from oppressed nations. That basis will be breaking down, and we will be dealing with conditions of severe economic dislocation and unjust wars.

Well, this all is perhaps too schematic. We’re not trying to write an essay here. The point is that this powerful empire has been built on giant social contradictions which are beginning to crack open.

Well, what do you think Columbia and Barnard students should be doing today [in 1985]?
Gilbert: I think the most dynamic feature right now [in 1985] is the government’s mobilization for war in Central America and the need to stop it. To really stop such imperialist wars, we are going to also have to deal with fundamental structures within the U.S.: internal colonialism and racism, class rule, male supremacy.

On a broader level I want to appeal to students to get back in touch with a basic humanism. The Reagan reign is a rallying call to a terrible cynicism and callousness. But, you know, we can’t feel very full of good about our own self-worth and humanity if we’re denying it for everyone else. Our outlook and commitment must relate to the conditions and aspirations of the vast majority of human kind—the oppressed. If you honestly look at the systematic violence of social conditions and analyze the structures and powers enforcing that…Well, I think that the only fully humane conclusion is revolutionary.” (end of interview)

(Columbia Daily Spectator 4/2/85)

Next: Prisoner In Clinton lyrics