Gay community activist Ada Conde criticized his confession that he doesn't known how to investigate a hate crime. “That shows the lack of education and training,” she said. “They are used to first finding out that there was a death and how it was caused. That is how you establish that there was a hate crime and establishes the elements of the crime,” said Conde, who criticized that the hate crime concept had been discarded.Homosexual activist José Julio Serrano demanded Sunday that the police investigate the killings as hate crimes.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
House Speaker says police need to learn about hurt - Puerto Rico Daily Sun - Timely news about Puerto Rico
House Speaker says police need to learn about hurt - Puerto Rico Daily Sun - Timely news about Puerto Rico, the Caribbean and the world
La Procuradora de Envejecientes, Rosanna López, ganó el pleito contra Gov. Fortuno
La Procuradora de Envejecientes, Rosanna López, ganó el pleito en el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Boston contra el Gobierno de Puerto Rico para frenar los despidos bajo la Ley 7 en su dependencia.Escuche la entrevista en Radio Isla 1320…Audio As Live Karleen Caso Procuradora
P.R. Supreme Court declares Law 7 constitutional
The commonwealth Supreme Court has declared that Law 7, the Fiscal Emergency Law, is constitutional, in a 4-3 ruling in which the justices took jabs at each other.
Justice Erick Kolthoff wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Rafael Martínez Torres, Efraín Rivera Pérez and Mildred Pabón Charneco. Chief Justice Federico Hernández Denton and Justices Anabelle Rodríguez and Lianna Fiol Matta each wrote dissenting opinions.
“We ruled that Law 7 … is constitutional in all of the aspects contained in this opinion,” the majority opinion reads.
The top court consolidated four cases involving 20 employees who were laid off from their jobs at the Justice, Family and Sports and Recreation departments, the Corrections Administration, the Child Support Services Administration and the Human Resources Office. The plaintiffs, who received pink slips in November and January, included employees in career positions and unionized workers.
Law 7 enabled the layoffs of more than 17,000 government workers who were informed of their right to appeal before the Appeals Commission of the Administration System of Human Resources in the case of career workers, or to the Labor Relations Commission in the case of unionized workers. The law created the Economic and Fiscal Restructuring Board, known as JREF in Spanish, to enforce the layoffs, transfer workers and subcontract help.
The first stage of the law gave workers a specific time period to decide if they wanted to quit or cut their working hours. The subsequent stages of the law called for the freezing of new benefits in all collective bargaining agreements and negotiations.
The plaintiffs argued that Law 7 was unconstitutional because it violated their acquired rights, impaired contractual obligations, violated their due process, violated their equal protection rights under the law and improperly delegated powers to the JREF. They requested an injunction to halt the implementation of the law, which was rejected by the top court.
In its majority opinion, the court ruled that while in the case of the career workers they had a property right over their jobs since they have the expectation of continuous employment, they noted that the right is not absolute and is superseded by the state’s police power to ensure general welfare, especially in times of economic crisis.
The top court cited most of Law 7’s exposition of goals to sustain the government’s contention of a severe fiscal crisis and a $3.2 billion deficit, but did not provide other evidence to sustain the claim. The majority dismissed the plaintiffs contentions that the government had other options such as reducing the working week and eliminating benefits before resorting to the layoffs.
After accepting the argument of a fiscal crisis, the majority ruled that in determining if a public worker’s property rights over their jobs were being violated, the justices must side with the Legislature that there is a rational link between the actions established in the law and the desired goal.
“The layoffs of the plaintiffs along with those of thousands of workers will create real savings to the government. Such a situation justifies the state of emergency declared by the Legislature and their actions,” the ruling states.
No violation of workers’ due process
The top court also ruled that Law 7 did not violate the workers’ right to due process because the displaced employees were given the rights to be heard by an impartial forum and to appeal. “The workers have a right to be heard before the layoff goes into effect if they request it,” the majority said.
Regarding arguments that Law 7 impairs contractual obligations obtained in collective bargaining agreements in violation of the Constitution, the court stated that not all acquired rights are protected when a law repeals them. “There is no right to not be laid off,” the court says.
The top court noted that the state’s police power allows states to legislate freely on social and economic powers, modifying the law to meet changing needs and conditions. While the justices noted that arguments against impairment measures are only valid if they affect substantial obligations and frustrate expectations, such as in the case of the workers, they said that impairment measures are valid if there is a compelling interest from the state in the wake of a fiscal emergency.
The justices in the majority dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments that Law 7 hinders workers’ constitutional right to equal protection since it affects only agency workers and not employees from the legislative and judicial branches. The justices noted that equal protection applies only in certain situations and to certain classes of people and ruled that the law “respects the separation of powers of the three government branches.”
Regarding the plaintiffs’ contention that powers to enforce Law 7 were improperly delegated to the JREF, the top court ruled that it is permissible to delegate powers to an entity so long as guidelines are provided. The justices noted that Law 7 allowed the JREF to lay off workers using seniority as a criteria and also allows it to transfer workers and subcontract help. The justices also dismissed claims that the law unduly delegated to the governor powers that belong to the legislative branch.
Dissenters counterattack
Rivera Pérez chastised Fiol Matta, Hernández Denton and Rodríguez for criticizing the fact that the justices in the majority ruling cut the amount of time they had to write their dissenting opinions. Rivera Pérez reminded the three that in the 2004 case Suarez v. CEE (State Elections Commission), the justices in the majority gave three hours for the dissenting justices to write their opinions even though the case involved the voting rights of thousands of citizens.
Meanwhile, Hernández Denton criticized the majority vote for issuing a ruling in a supposedly hasty fashion using a file “that did not have the needed evidence for an adequate ruling” and using as evidence only the exposition of the stated goals of Law 7. He also objected to the majority arguments to justify the impairment of contractual obligations protected by the Constitution, and said that in times of fiscal crisis constitutional protection serves as a limit to the state’s power.
Rodríguez blasted the majority for certifying the case without having all of the evidence at hand and said the justices “struggled” to justify what was unjustifiable. She said the decision that workers do not have an acquired right over their jobs goes against what the top court decided in the case of the police escorts, which upheld the rights of former Govs. Rafael Hernández Colón and Carlos Romero Barceló to have police bodyguards.
Fiol Matta, on the other hand, lamented that law students will be taught the law “prior and after Law 7.” She disputed claims that the workers’ right to due process was not affected since they were not given a chance to be heard.
Fortuño, PDP reactions
“[The law] is valid. That is what we have always said, that the law is valid,” was Gov. Fortuño’s response to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Popular Democratic Party Rep. Jaime Perelló decried the decision, saying the justices ruled along ideological lines and upheld the violation of the constitutional rights of workers. “They had to go beyond the ideological thoughts,” he said.
Labor Secretary Miguel Romero said the decision shows the Fortuño administration was careful in making sure Law 7 was drawn up “within a legal framework.”
Romero declined to say categorically whether he thought the decision was a blow to the labor movement, noting it was “part of a process in which unions have the right to challenge.”
Romero said reissuing seniority and layoff notifications that were successfully challenged in the courts would not be affected because this was a matter of “complying with the law.” This process is being carried out in 33 agencies and has yet to conclude, he said.
He said that as a result of the court decision, Seniors Advocate Rossana López León would have to implement the layoffs she was ordered to do, despite the fact that much of her budget is made up of federal funding, noting that Law 7 applies to agencies that hire employees with federal funds.
Daily Sun staff writers José Alvarado and Xavira Neggers Crescioni contributed to this report.
Poverty overwhelming elderly population
Seniors Advocate Rossana López León said Saturday that “poverty is overwhelming that population,” mainly women, who at present assume the responsibility of a grandmother or great grandmother.
The official said that, according to census a decade ago, in Puerto Rico, there are 70,000 grandparents who are responsible for their grandchildren under 18 years of age, a variable that will be updated now with new standards.
“That creates other demands for women, who aside from being mothers, are grandmothers with responsibilities that often affect their quality of life,” López said in a radio interview (Boricua 740-AM).
She said this situation is exacerbated because many times, for various reasons, parents will go to the U.S. and leave the children in the care of grandparents, without providing financial assistance, so that their meager incomes of less than $600 per month barely enable a life of subsistence.
“The elderly have a monthly deficit of nearly $1,500, as evidenced in many studies,” added Lopez.
She said there are also grandmothers who are assuming the responsibility for their grandchildren because the parents have died in the overwhelming wave of violence that is affecting the island.
López said the island’s economic situation worsens the problem for the elderly, because many children return to live with parents due to loss of jobs and transform their lives.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Activista, defensor de las personas con VIH/SIDA invitado a La Casa Blanca - Anuncio del Plan Estratégico Nacional sobre el VIH/SIDA
http://www.aids.gov/
Comunicado de prensa:
A todos los medios
Para publicación inmediata
Washington, DC
13 de julio 2010
Tema: Anuncio del Plan Estratégico Nacional sobre el VIH/SIDA, Persona Contacto :
Anselmo Fonseca 787-948-8890 / José Fernando Colón 787-525-5988
Donde: Casa Blanca
Hora: 2:00pm – 3:00pm
Quienes:
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius,
Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Howard Koh,
White House Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes and
White House Director of the Office of National HIV/AIDS Policy Jeffrey Crowley
“Esperamos muchas cosas buenas ya que este “plan” fue creado con la verdadera participación activa de la comunidad infectada y afectada de 14 ciudades con mayor impacto en cuanto al contagio a esta condición. La comunidad VIH + ha estado y seguirá envuelta en cada etapa de la implementación y ejecución del mismo.”
Por primera vez hay empleados federales trabajando sin miedo de que su patrono se entere que es VIH+ por temor a rechazo, estigma y discriminación.
La eliminación de estos prejuicios es una de las metas de este plan tambien como acceso a fármacos que salvan y prolonga la vida de aquellos que vivimos con este mal.
“Este plan servirá de modelo para toda jurisdicción que se beneficie de los fondos Medicare, Medicaid y Ryan White.”
El Sr. Fonesca, co-fundador y presidente de Pacientes de SIDA pro Política Sana ha sido honrado con ser invitado al lanzamiento del “National HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan” de los EE.UU en representación de la Comunidad HIV+ de Puerto Rico.
De la misma manera las organizaciones de base comunitarias quienes históricamente han proveído servicios medicos y de apoyo a personas que viven con VIH/SIDA y su familia, son representadas ya que, cumple 11 anos de servicio en educar, apoyar, defender y abogar por los derechos humanos, civiles especialmente relacionado al VIH.
Fonesca también es miembro fundador de UDCAS- Unidos Dándole Cara Al SIDA una coalición de organizaciones locales y nacionales sin fines de lucro, fundaciones y miembros del sector privado unidos para canalizar esfuerzos y recursos a proveedores en necesidad de cumplimento al prójimo.
Anselmo a sus vez es miembro del “National Quality Center” sobre VIH/SIDA entidad que le responde a HRSA y su división de VIH/SIDA, educando y asesorando sobre como captar la participación y la data de servicios para garantizar mejorar de manera eficiente la máxima calidad de tratamiento y cuidado.
El Sr. Fonseca es miembro del “National Latinos AIDS Action Network- Leadership Committee” abogando por mejor y mayor acceso a servicios sobre el VIH/SIDA a todas las comunidades de Latinos y Hispana de manera equitativa en los EE.UU y su territorios.
Federal funds are endangered
http://www.prdailysun.com/news/Federal-funds-are-endangered
July 24, 2010 by Juan A. Hernandez jhernandez@prdailysun.net
If the bill to reorganize the several government advocate offices goes through, there would be “terrible consequences” to people over 60, Puerto Rico Advocate for the Elderly said Friday.
Rossana López León reiterated her opposition to the reorganization plan, calling it “an indisputable laceration to the rights of the elderly.”
According to López León, should the House Substitute bill to the 2010 Reorganization Plan No. 1 become law, there would be “terrible consequences” and “an indisputable laceration to the rights of the elderly.”
“Current state law delegates our office the authority to act as administrator and recipient of whatever federal funds and appropriations are allowed by this [Older American Act of 1965] and other federal laws and programs for the elderly,” said López León during the hearings of the Senate Government Committee
López León explained that the mandate is also contained in a contract between the Commonwealth and the federal government known as the “State Plan on Aging.”
“Any changes to this plan have to be submitted to the federal government for its approval before going into effect,” López León told the Committee.
The Advocate said she has consistently requested from the chairman of the Modernization Council –State Secretary Kenneth McClintock – any evidence of meetings with federal officials to discuss the proposed changes to this plan. Because no such evidence has been provided, the Advocate said she assumed the meetings have not taken place.
The proposed substitute bill, like the original one, calls for the merging of all advocacy offices into one umbrella-type agency under the authority of the Citizens’ Ombudsman.
López León noted that failure to comply with regulations in the past had led to the loss of several million dollars in federal funding that would have benefited Puerto Rico’s elderly.
“The severity in the breach of federal regulations by the Health Department and the Department of the Family led to the government’s classifying Puerto Rico being classified as a ‘high-risk agency’ by the federal government,” López León said.
Government Committee Chairman Sen. Carmelo Ríos admitted to having several doubts regarding the federal funds the agency now receives.
“We cannot lose federal funds. If anything, we should be looking for ways to get more,” Ríos said.
The Advocate also argued that the merging of the advocacy offices into the proposed suprastructure “eliminates the autonomy and independence of the advocates as specialists on different populations.”
“Also, there’s an insurmountable conflict because, while [the plan] states that the advocates will keep their power to protect the populations they serve, it also limits them to whatever the Citizens' Ombudsman decides.” The proposed substitute bill, like the original one, calls for the merging of all advocacy offices into one umbrella-type agency under the authority of the Citizens’ Ombudsman,” López León said.
Ríos said that his committee is in the process of hearing out every advocate to gather as much information as possible and then start a process to reconcile possible differences with the House and the governor, who may have different views on how the merger should take place.
Amador against merging advocates’ offices
by Juan A. Hernandez jhernandez@prdailysun.net
Puerto Rico Patients’ Advocate Luz Teresa Amador lambasted the House substitute bill for the Government Reorganization Plan Num. 1 – Advocates Offices because it represents “a clear setback” in the advances made in favor of the less privileged citizens and patients in general.
“[The proposed plan] represents a clear setback to avant garde laws adopted by previous administrations to protect the rights of the 3.8 million citizen-patients, which are closely related to their rights to life and health,” Amador said Thursday during a public hearing of the Senate’s Government Committee.
According to Amador, the proposed reorganization plan, which substitutes the Senate’s version, is “deficient, ineffective, discriminatory, contradictory and irrational … and extremely dangerous” to the 3.8 million potential patients her agency cares for.
Patients subscribing to the Government’s Health Plan would have to file their complaints before the contracted insurers first and appeal later to the Health Insurance Administration .
“This [reorganization] plan undermines the interests of the less privileged patients subscribed to the Government’s Health Plan because it forces them to file their complaints before the very same agencies that have failed to defend their rights,” Amador said.
Nevertheless, Amador did admit that a positive aspect of the plan is that it would allow the Advocate to monitor the State Insurance Fund Corporation and the Administration for Compensation for Traffic Accidents, something current regulations do not allow.
But, while the Advocate would have authority over these public corporations, for Amador the proposed plan further limits its jurisdiction by preventing it from monitoring and regulating private insurance companies, hospitals and doctors, thus leaving more than two million privately insured patients without any protection.
Amador also expressed her opposition to the possibility of developing single unified procedure to file complaints before all advocate offices.
“The level of efficiency we have reached through technology and an effective complaints filling process would be greatly upset by new regulations that extends the terms for investigating and solving the complaints,” Amador said.
“Imagine a patient that has filed a complaint appealing his discharge from the hospital because he considers he is still very ill. Or a cancer patient whose chemotherapy has been denied,” questioned Amador pointing to the complexity and seriousness of the complaints her office receives.
“It is not possible to create a uniform system for filing complaints due to the nature of the complaints each advocate office receives,” Amador argued.
The Patients Advocate also questioned how much money would be saved by reorganizing all of the advocates’ offices under a single umbrella-type of agency.
Quoting figures directly from the Puerto Rico Budget and Management Office, Amador said only $2.5 million would be saved in rent, should her office be fused together with other advocate offices.
“Should these minimal savings prevail over the devastating effects this plan would have on the lives and health of the people,” Amador questioned.
Amador, also a medical doctor, announced Thursday her decision to retire from the government after 30 years of service. She assured her decision was not based on her differences with the administration over the proposed reorganization plans, but rather the result of a “well planned process.”
“For more than six months I’ve been consulting with my family and friends about this and I’ve decided to retire … It is time to give the new generation the chance to continue with this work in favor of the less privileged,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)