Government Justice Center Inc

“The form 990 is distributed to board members who review prior to filing.”

“New business relationships are evaluated for any potential conflict of interest, and if identified, any interested parties recuse themselves from deliberation of such relationships.”

“Governing documents are available upon request.”

“The government justice center determines which cases to accept based on the issues involved and the impact for the litigant and the public interest, and not based on any expectation of financial award or benefit for the government justice center. In addition to lawsuits filed against public bodies, government justice center submits public records requests to uncover government misappropriation, fraud, and abuse. It also provides information to taxpayers regarding transparency relating to public records and open meetings under state laws. Katherine c. Sullivan et al v. New york state joint commission on public ethics et al government justice center sued to stop the state's abuse of political power through its joint commission on public ethics (jcope), which is tasked with regulating lobbying in new york. Jcope investigated kat sullivan, a rape survivor who was pushing for the passage of the child victims act, for what jcope deemed "unregistered lobbying" in support of the legislation. Given this clear attempt to chill sullivan's right to free speech, government justice center stepped in and filed a case on her behalf. Jcope eventually dropped its investigation into sullivan thanks to gjc's backing. Government justice center is continuing to pursue ms. Sullivan's first amendment challenge to new york's lobbying act on appeal. The lobbying act is overbroad and vague on its face and it is not narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. The state deemed ms. Sullivan's activities grassroots lobbying, but there was no quid pro quo involved for the state to have any interest. The case represents an abuse of power by the state that the government justice center is working to stop. Elizabeth cella et al v. Suffolk county for several years, long island's suffolk county avoided raising general fund taxes by imposing new or increased fees on certain residents. T he government justice center filed a lawsuit in the state supreme court to put an end to the illegal practice of raising general revenue through such fees. Suffolk county skirted the law by increasing fees far beyond their legal limit. Under state law, fees charged must not exceed the cost of service. Excess fees used for general revenue purposes are unauthorized taxes. Worse, these fees unfairly target a subset of the populationnew homebuyers, for exampleto raise revenue for everyone. The most egregious category is fees for filing real estate documents. The tax map verification fees in question were projected to bring in $65 million in 2017from an agency that costs just over $1 million per year to run. The government justice center exists to stand up for taxpayers and ensure that government plays by the rules. Queensrail corporation v. Metropolitan transportation authority government justice center sued on behalf of queensrail corporation, which advocates for reactivating the former long island railroad rockaway beach branch that has been idle in new york city since 1962. It has developed and proposed a plan for "queenslink" a dual rail and park project to provide a new north-south transit link in queens for both rail and trail use. The queenslink corridor can play a critical role in improving movement, accessibility, and efficiency of travel within queens, by providing much needed integration of queens communities, by connecting the existing east-west subway and commuter rail lines to provide access across the city. In 2018, a metropolitan transportation authority (mta) consultant provided an assessment, at a sketch planning level, of the physical engineering and operational feasibility and order-of-magnitude costs of reactivating the rockaway beach branch for subway or commuter rail use between queens and midtown manhattan. The consultant estimated the cost to reactivate the rockaway beach branch as a subway line to be $8.1 billion. Queensrail contends that the cost should be closer to $3.4 to $3.7 billion. Queensrail submitted a freedom of information law request”

“Wong, et al., v. New york city employees' retirement system, et al. Government justice center filed an amicus brief in litigation brough by plaintiffs with an interest in ensuring pension funds are managed to maximize their returns and minimize the burdens on municipal and state budgets and, ultimately, the taxpayers who live and work in new york. The brief furthered gjc's work because our society works best when everyone is expected to live and work under the rule of law, including the defendants who are alleged to have chosen policy preferences over maximizing the returns of the funds they oversee. Plaintiffs suffered injuries-in-fact from the pension trustees failing to perform their mandatory duties of loyalty and care and to act with a singular purpose to maximize returns for the plans they administer. Gjc argued against new york state courts injecting federal standing rules that are inconsistent with new york's standing principles. Any doubt about plaintiffs' standing, the policy considerations of new york standing law, based upon historical and existing precedent, weigh in favor of plaintiffs and against dismissing the action to insulate the government from scrutiny. Glen oaks village owners, inc., et al., v. City of new york, et al. Government justice center represented amicus who filed a brief in litigation challenging a new york city local law placing emissions restrictions on certain large buildings in the city. Amici presented information at the heart of the irreconcilability of the state's climate leadership and community protection act (climate act) and new york city's climate mobilization act (local law 97). The irreconcilability demonstrates that the state climate act preempts the field. Simultaneous mandates in local law 97 and the climate act created the conflict because local law 97 mandates that large residential buildings in new york city convert to electric heat by 2030. But the climate act requires 70 percent of the state's electricity come from "renewables," also by 2030. The state's mandate requires replacing always-available fossil fuel electrical generation capacity with intermittent wind and solar electricity generation. And the climate act, and a "scoping plan" developed under it, contain no credible plan to provide sufficient reliable electricity needed to heat all large new york city buildings, as local law 97 mandates. Empire center for public policy v. New york state department of health government justice center filed two lawsuits against the state's department of health, which was unnecessarily delaying disclosing records empire center requested under the state freedom of information law. The lawsuits were consistent with gjc's mission to promote government transparency and accountability. The cases addressed a common issue in new york where state agencies will delay to the point where public records are no longer useful or timely for foil requesters. Agencies can do so knowing that recourse for foil requesters is only through the courts, which is expensive for average new yorkers. Gjc exists in part to stop bad acts by governments and to provide access to the courts for those who may choose not to pursue their remedies based on expense. Non-litigation results government justice center gets results for members of the public without filing lawsuits. For example, gjc advocated for a district taxpayer who noted that her school board was not providing records to be discussed at meetings prior to the meetings consistent with new york's open meetings law. After gjc intervened with a written letter, the school district changed its policy. Statements made by the taxpayer in public comments did not have the same effect as a letter from gjc. This case shows the value of having a pro bono public interest law center dedicated to promoting government transparency and accountability in the public's corner when just a credible threat of future litigation can obtain results.”