Transcript: Mayor de Blasio and Speaker Silver Announce New Steps to Help Families of Students With Disabilities

June 24, 2014

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Well, welcome, everyone. I want to welcome our colleagues from the Assembly and the Senate who have joined us here today. I just to say this before we get into this issue – that I really want to offer my appreciation on behalf of the people of this city to all of my colleagues here. This year in Albany – I’ve experienced it from a different perspective than ever before, Mr. Speaker – the fact is that our delegation in Albany fought for us in the budget process, fought for us in the flurry of activity as the legislative session came to an end. And the record of achievement is outstanding. What was achieved in the budget process, overall for the city, was extraordinary, particularly the progress we made on pre-k. What was achieved in the legislative session on speed limits, on speed cameras, what was achieved earlier on homelessness prevention and on the rent-cap for people with HIV and AIDS – it is an extraordinary record of achievement and it is the individuals standing around me who deserve the credit. Sometimes having to fight against a lot of pressure, they found a way to get a lot done for this city. So I just want to start with that appreciation for a very very productive and impressive performance.

I’m going to talk about Speaker Silver in just a moment and offer my particular appreciation to him, but let me just mention all of the members of the Assembly who are present. If I miss anyone, Mr. Speaker, please correct me. I believe my staff has gone to the effort of even semi-alphabetizing. Okay. Here we go – I’ve got an update. So, it would’ve been Jeff Aubrey as the first one with an A, Mike Benedetto, Jim Brennan, Steve Cymbrowitz, Maritza Davila – Maritza, do you like Davila or Davila? Davila. Sometimes I get it wrong – Davila, my apology. Phil Goldfeder, Dov Hikind, Rhoda Jacobs, Joe Lentol, Walter Mosley, Felix Ortiz, Robert Rodriguez, Michael Simanowitz, Jose Rivera, and let’s see if I got – Francisco Moya, I got Robert Rodriguez – Michael Dendekker, and Nily Rozic. I think I got everybody there. Tell me if I missed anyone.

So, so much progress was made in the budget and in terms of the legislative actions that were taken. But there are also important moments where legislation was considered and the question was how could the city of New York best work with the legislature for an outcome that really helped our people? And this brings us to the issue of special education. As many of you may know, for the years as public advocate, even before that as a councilmember, I worked on this issue. And I felt very strongly as a public school parent myself that parents were often not treated fairly. I met with parents from all over the city who felt that their needs were not met, that their concerns were not answered, that they were put through a very difficult and often litigious process – and that for those who didn’t have resources, the process was even worse – all for families who were dealing with the challenge of having a child with special needs, in some cases multiple children with special needs. So for years I felt that there was an injustice that had to be addressed. And as public advocate, we did a series of reports and took action to try and support parents of children with special needs. We worked closely with advocacy groups all over the city. And what was increasingly clear was we needed a streamlined, parent-friendly, family-friendly, respectful approach that didn’t matter how good your lawyers were or how much money you had to spend on lawyers, but actually tried to address the family’s needs.

I also had a particular experience as a parent myself, because Chiara and Dante went to a school that was an inclusion school. The inclusion model means 50 percent, in this instance, 50 percent special education kids and 50 percent general education kids. Chancellor Fariña knows this school well – PS 372 in Brooklyn. And so, in every single class that my kids were in over the whole time they were there – pre-k to fifth grade – there were lots of kids with special needs of every kind from all over our community.

And so I got to know parents and got to hear from them what their challenges were, and really came to admire parents who struggled their way through. It’s hard to be a parent in New York City. It’s doubly hard when your child has special needs, particularly if there are severe special needs. And I got to know parents first-hand and heard from them how they needed a better approach. And so, in these last days, as the opportunity arose to do something foundational and take matters into our hands here in New York City and right some wrongs, we were excited to do it and we found tremendous partners in that effort in Albany. And again, I’m going to speak about them in one minute, but I want to frame this.

Remember that the vast vast majority of children who have disabilities are well served by our public school system. I do want to make clear that we’ve got immense capacity to serve kids with special needs and we do it well, but clearly there are some families whose needs cannot be met – and that’s where the conflicts have come in and that’s where we want to act decisively to end the conflict and find an appropriate way forward. We do everything we can to met every child’s individual educational program in our public schools. And when parents determine that their public school can’t – their local schools cannot meet their needs – and they find a private school that can better meet the needs, that’s where we should be working with them to a productive solution. Parents have the right, under federal law, to seek tuition reimbursement. And the DOE often agrees with parents that their chosen school is appropriate. But even in some cases where the DOE and parents have agreed, the process, historically, of settling the cases dragged out for too long. So parents – even those with legitimate, clear claims – found themselves caught in needless bureaucratic delays and forced to pay thousands and thousands of dollars they just didn’t have. When they prevailed, then parents often found themselves waiting months and months for reimbursement checks. So let’s face it – the system penalized parents – struggling parents – in many many ways, even when it was clear the parents’ claim was appropriate. Well that might’ve been a good litigation strategy, if all you cared about was litigation and all you cared about was the bottom line – that might’ve been the good litigation strategy, but it was not a humane way to run a school system. It was not fair to parents. It was not fair to families. It was not fair to the children who had the needs.

So, today we’re turning the page. We’re starting on a new approach. And I have to say at the outset that Chancellor Fariña, who has a long history of addressing the needs of parents and children, of stopping some of the bureaucratic madness and finding ways to serve people better, and that everyone understands her history is first as a renowned teacher, then as a renowned principal, long before she became Chancellor, she has been so pivotally important to coming to a plan that can allow us all to treat parents and students better. And I want to thank Chancellor Fariña for all that she does.

[Applause]

Our colleagues in Albany who worked with us to find a solution – far-reaching, an immediate solution – I have to say, starting with Speaker Silver, in all my conversations with Speaker Silver, first of all, I start every conversation with immense respect for what the speaker’s done for this city. And we all know the phrase what have you done for me lately? Well, even if you like that way of thinking, I harken back to April and I know that we have full-day pre-k for every child in this city, largely because of the efforts of Speaker Silver. And that is doing a lot for us lately.

[Applause]

So in many ways he was one of the great heroes of the effort to bring early childhood education to this city in a truly universal manner. It’s something he’s been working on for almost 20 years. So I have a lot of appreciation, a lot of respect. When Speaker Silver talks to me about education, he has my full and immediate attention. And he said we have to find a solution that will affect people starting now. There was no question about that. And I want to thank you for all the support you’ve given. I want to thank you for working with us creatively and productively so we could find the solution that met your standards.

This whole discussion emanated from a legislative process – a good legislative process – that raised the concerns of people in need and demanded action. And, by the way, I always say to our colleagues in the legislature, if we can provide the answer, if we can show you the progress, give us that chance to do it. If we don’t provide the progress, the legislature, of course, has every right to act.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for recognizing that we meant business here in New York City and we were ready to make these changes and make them now. To the assembly lead sponsor of the legislation in this area – Assembly Member Helene Weinstein – I want to thank you.

[Applause]

I’ve had the honor of working with you for many years and you’re known for your integrity and your deep concern for families. And thank you for what you’ve done to bring us to this day. And then, a long-standing friend and colleague, going back we were rookies together – we literally ran for city council and became city council members the same day in neighboring districts – and Simcha Felder and I – now elevated to the state senate – but as councilmembers we worked together constantly on the needs of children and families. It was a constant theme in what we did. Remember the sanitation trucks? Making sure the sanitation truck routes weren’t at the same time as the school bus routes. We’ve done a lot together and I want to thank him for everything he’s done. He’s been a real friend in the senate for the city of New York in many ways and gotten a lot done. Thank you, Senator Felder.

[Applause]

And there’s a lot of people here today who have been advocates on this issue. Again, I have a rich history of talking to advocates from all over the city for years. This was often a fairly lonely struggle. Advocates for families who had children with special needs often felt they weren’t being heard. It was often very hard to get an audience at City Hall or at the Tweed building. We know that the world turns because people at the grassroots demand it, people organize and make their voices heard. So to all of the advocates and all the people who spoke up in this room, this is your victory too, and congratulations to all of you.

Now, the issue here is – this is a very human, tangible, real issue we’re talking about. This is not abstract public policy. This is not something that affects people in a small way. The issue we’re talking about here is fundamental. Families who are struggling to address the needs of a child who, again, are often stressed and stretched in every way, economically and otherwise – it’s time-consuming and difficult to help a child with special needs. You often feel as a parent that you don’t have the answers you wish you had, you feel sometimes powerless.

I want to tell you one story that really puts a point on this and explains why, for so many of us, it was important to act and act now. It’s a story of a family that had twin boys, a family living in Washington Heights. Twin boys diagnosed with severe learning disabilities. I’m not going to mention their names for privacy reasons, but just picture a family in Washington Heights, and not one child, but two children, twin boys, with severe disabilities. Both boys had central auditory processing disorders and anxiety disorders.  One of the boys additionally had selective mutism, which led him to often not speak. Both were below grade level in reading and math. The public school they attended simply couldn’t provide the help they needed. The mother—a single parent, a working mom, struggling every day—she tried everything she could to get her boys into the right program. But there simply wasn’t anything available in the public system that fit.

She tried everything she knew how to do. Finally she found a private school setting that worked. She enrolled her boys despite knowing she couldn’t pay the tuition for long. She did what any parent would do and tried to find a path forward. And the school provided the boys one-on-one therapy in small group setting and very quickly—because of the help they were getting—these boys made progress. The one with the most severe disabilities is now able to write in clear paragraphs and do multiplication and division because he got the help he needed. And by definition the mother is thrilled that she could help her children.

So it would be lovely to end the story there, but it gets a little worse after that. This mother is still fighting, still tied up, in red tape. Her case from September 2013 is still not resolved. She’s paying out of pocket—still—even though she’s in the right, she’s paying out of pocket still and struggling every day financially. That’s not acceptable. That is not what any of us came here to allow to happen and it sends the wrong message to parents and children. It tells them not to get help instead of to do what is the instinct of any parent and seek the help they need. And it certainly flies in the face of the progressive values that I have set for this administration.

So starting this fall, when parents of children with disabilities seek tuition reimbursement, things will be different, and it will start this September. DOE will do the following things. One: work to settle as many cases as possible within a 15-day timeframe – one five – a 15-day timeframe; and refrain from re-litigating cases once they are settled. When there is no change in the DOE’s recommended placement for a child, there is no reason to litigate again and again each year. If there is a change, that has to be looked at, but when there is no change there is no reason for additional litigation. In addition, the Department of Education will expedite payments to families and will streamline paperwork. We will knock down barriers for children with developmental disabilities and ease burdens on families.

That is the mandate – to make this easier and better for families to get money back in their hands.

[Applause]

I’m going to say this, because I think it’s important to be straightforward and clear. We do know that sometimes, parents pursue something that doesn’t make sense. That’s part of what we have to grapple with too. Again, vast majority of parents, vast majority of our children, are served well in our existing public schools. A number of parents seek a private placement – they have every right to – and we’re going to help them get it faster, better, with clearer reimbursement etcetera.

When we know that a particular claim doesn’t make sense, when the DOE has offered already an appropriate placement, when parents don’t choose a private school that actually meets the needs of the children educationally, or when parents do not attempt to cooperate with DOE to serve the child – in those cases, we reserve the right to take legal action if that’s the only measure. But that will be the exception, not the norm.  We believe in a parent-friendly, family-friendly approach, that we’re going to be able to come to a resolution quickly in the vast majority of cases, and help parents get what they need.

This announcement today is an important reform, and, like everything else we’re doing in the area of education, we intend to do it immediately. You’ve seen what we’re doing with pre-K. You’ve seen what we’re doing with summer enrichment programs and after-school programs for middle school students. We don’t wait to implement these changes – you certainly see some striking changes and reforms in the new teachers’ contract. The game plan here is to change our approach to education, change our approach to children and families, right now, starting this year, in a big way. Chancellor Fariña has provided extraordinary leadership, and we keep setting the bar high, she keeps setting the bar high for her team, but these changes have to happen now and they will.

A quick moment en español:

[Speaks Spanish]

With that, I want to thank again the man who did so much to help this city move forward on education in so many ways – and this year has been a banner year for his efforts. I’d like to welcome to the podium the Speaker of the State Assembly, Shelly Silver.

State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver: This podium is set for the Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor de Blasio, for taking time on this very sensitive challenge, and for taking actions that will assure our special needs children receive the education that they need, and will give their parents the emotional and financial relief that they deserve. We know that you have dealt with this issue in the past – as a councilman, as Public Advocate – and it is experience that makes you the exceptional leader that you are. Certainly you’ve chosen wisely in naming Carmen Fariña as our schools chancellor. Chancellor Fariña, we appreciate your efforts, and your responsiveness to the issues that have been brought to your attention. I and my colleagues, in the New York state assembly, are proud and delighted to be joining you, Mr. mayor, and you, chancellor, in making this announcement.

If I might allow, I just want to reintroduce Helene Weinstein, who is the advocate for our most vulnerable citizens, who for years has been leading the way in advocating for the appropriate placement of special needs students. And you’ve seen her cosponsors, who are here, who the mayor has already introduced, and I’m not going to reintroduce them, but they’ve all worked with distressed parents in their districts and helped them overcome the barriers through appropriate placement of their special needs children. I also want to acknowledge – as the mayor did, the presence of senator Simcha Felder, who has sponsored legislation on this matter in the state senate since he became a senator and left the city of New York.

As you know, the founders of our state, deemed education to be so important, so valuable, they made it a constitutional requirement – that each and every child receive a sound basic education. And they built a system of public schools to carry out that obligation. The reality is that in some cases our public school system is unable to accommodate children with special education needs – children who require consistency in their daily routines in order to learn. If a nonpublic school can provide for those needs, then a special needs child should be there. In such cases, a federal law requires school districts to reimburse families for the cost of individually tailored education programs, even if those programs are provided in private school settings.

For too long, parents of special needs children have had to engage in protracted legal battles in order to get their children appropriately placed. What’s more, once their children have been placed, these parents have had to sue the city for reimbursement of tuition, which, as you can imagine, has put a heavy financial burden on these families. Worst yet, parents have had to fight this battle year, after year, after year, regardless of the outcome of a particular case from the year before.

What are the consequences? Children are being denied their fundamental right to a sound, basic education and families are being bankrupted. The assembly majority passed legislation in 2012 to remedy this situation but it didn’t gain the status of becoming a law in the state of New York.  We would not however, give up that fight. And so, this year, once again, we introduced the legislation and Senator Felder introduced it in the senate, and the advocates and I, and the families came to Mayor de Blasio. We stated the case and this afternoon you really see the outcome – administrative actions that will bring fairness and justice to children and families.
While I am delighted, I am not surprised. Mayor de Blasio has sent a clear message since taking office that people come first. Mayor, your commitment to universal pre-k demonstrates your strong dedication to the children of the city and shows that you have a clear vision of what really matters. We are proud to work with you, particularly on this agreement, which is a great victory for our special needs children and their hardworking families. So, I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor, and turn the proceedings back to you. Thank you very much.
[Applause]
Mayor: I appreciate very much the speakers kind evaluation of the situation, but I also know every day the changes we are making in our schools – they are difficult, they are challenging, only a great leader could take them on and actually implement them, and we have that great leader in our Chancellor. I started to realize that almost 15 years ago when I first started working with her as a humble school board member, but I can tell you that with each new opportunity – to do well by our children, well by our families, Chancellor Fariña takes up the cause and makes it happen and that is something we are all blessed to experience. I’d like to welcome our schools chancellor, Carmen Fariña.
[Applause]
Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña: As I said many times, being a parent gives you a different perspective on all educational issues, but being a grandparent, makes you even more wise. Because should it be your grandchild in the situation that the mayor is talking about and that the advocates fought for, it really makes you wise beyond your years. So, I think parents with children with disability face many challenges. I also believe that many of the specific diagnoses are best served in public schools – particularly as we increase the number of programs for kids with autism and Asperger’s – and even as we hire more people who can serve with OT. But having said that, I also believe that there is a time when parents have to make other decisions.
I think one of the things that I have offered and actually met with many of the leaders from many of the groups in the city, were open to sharing our professional development across to nonpublic schools, particularly when it comes to special programs that we’re working with our special educators. But there comes a time when what we need to do is changed. This agreement will make the settlement process more efficient – efficiency becoming my new key word.
We want to make sure that we do things as quickly and as fairly as possible, but also that we’ll always serve the best needs of kids. We want to reduce the uncertainty in the waiting for payment, and its strain on families. Not everyone lives on the Upper East Side or has access to the money to serve the things that they need, so we need to be able to say that all kids will be treated equally, no matter where in this city they live.
Today, we’re turning the page and we’re making changes that will ease the burden on these parents. My hope is that even if we disagree with parents on the particulars of a case, the parents were able to say they were treated respectfully, fairly, and with dignity – that’s also the byline for any parent who calls us on any issue, but particularly for parents who are under tremendous strains to begin with, because maybe they didn’t sleep the night before or they needed to do 24 hour care for their own children. We are working hard to make this entire school system more responsive, and the changes we’re announcing today are parts of this effort, so thank you.
[Applause]
All of the vocabulary here in Spanish is challenging.
[Speaks Spanish]

[Applause]

Mayor: And now I want to hear from the lead sponsors of the legislation in Albany and the folks whose efforts led us to this day. First the Assembly lead sponsor Helene Weinstein.

Assemblymember Helene Weinstein: Thank you, Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Silver. This is an accomplishment long in the making. Sharing in the frustration of parents worn down after being forced to jump through hoops to ensure their child receives an appropriate education that meets their needs, I have for the past three years led the effort in the Assembly to craft a legislative solution to reverse misguided policies with the support of the Speaker and the colleagues that stand behind us. I have at times been shocked by the opposition. This welcome change in direction announced—embraced by the Mayor—and announced today is, most importantly, good education policy that is in sync with the law. It will, I know, help ensure timely decisions and payments, stability for disabled children, and should save both parents and the city money by eliminating costly annual litigation.

This negotiated agreement, when implemented, will result—as you’ve heard—in removing barriers from one of our city’s most vulnerable and diverse populations. With the Mayor’s and the Chancellor’s assistance these parents—often their child’s best advocate—will be able to be able to spend their time caring for their children and not get bogged down defending their child’s rights. On behalf of the families who struggle every day, the advocates and colleagues who’ve joined us, I’d like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Mayor and the Chancellor for recognizing the need for immediate reform. I look forward to working closely with you to ensure that we give children with special needs an equal opportunity to succeed and I much prefer to be here with this announcement than with the governor signing a bill into law. This way I know that we will have real change.

Mayor: Thank you very much. Thank you.

[Applause]

And now the Senate sponsor of the legislation and someone who lobbied hard and made his voice known throughout this process – I’m thrilled that we’ve been able to heed the call with real action here in New York City – Senator Simcha Felder.

[Applause]

State Senator Simcha Felder: Good morning, good morning. Today is about the families and the children and it is a historic day. Thousands of parents with special needs children throughout the entire city, throughout every neighborhood in this city, have been going through a painful and torturous process for many years. They—and their advocates who just never give up—have not pleaded for pity. They have not pleaded for mercy, but rather for the services they deserve and that are mandated by law. Together, with the Republican Majority Leader Skelos and my colleagues in the Senate, as well as my co-sponsor of this legislation, Assemblymember Helene Weinstein, and her colleagues, and of course Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who’s been an advocate on this issue before I was born. Is that okay?

[Laughter]

Speaker Silver: I’m pretty young, how young are you?

[Laughter]

Senator Felder: We are all united to make sure families and children with special needs get what they are entitled to, and get it immediately. Mayor de Blasio has a long history of expressing concern for the special needs population and their families, going back to the days when we served together as Councilmen and before that.

Mayor: That’s right.

Senator Felder: On the campaign trail the Mayor reiterated that commitment to making this issue a top priority. I’ve had extensive conversations with the Mayor about this and he indicated that more than ever he will ensure that families and special needs children get their services expeditiously and—maybe even more importantly—compassionately. We all must and will continue to do everything humanly possible to help these families. I look forward to working with you. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Mayor: Thank you. So we’re going to—I just want to remind everyone of the ground rules—first of all I know we have a lot of passionate advocates in the room, but all the questions will come just from media at this point. Media questions, first on-topic then we will go to off-topic.  On-topic first. On-topic.

Question: So this is an agreement and not a law. I know it was originally intended to be a law. Why isn’t it a law and what teeth does this agreement have besides your word?

Mayor: Well, I think when you give your word in front of all of you and in agreement with our colleagues in the Legislature who we have to work with all the time, it does have teeth. We are ready, willing and able to take this action immediately. And we said to our colleagues in the Legislature that we wanted to clean our own house, we wanted to fix our own situation. And that that was something that as a local government was very, very important to us, but we would prove it through our actions. I remind you, the legislature doesn’t go away. They are always there and if they ever feel our actions are insufficient they retain their rights, but my appeal was let us fix this situation, we’re ready to. We believe that we need to fix the situation just like you do, let us show you what we can do. And it’s much better for any locality to take matters into their own hand and clean their own house. Yes.

Question: In 2012 the governor vetoed the [inaudible] bill. It would’ve changed the law to take into account homeland and family background. Is that changing—will you be taking into account homeland and family background when adjudicating these special ed cases?

Mayor: This – no – the focus here is on the needs of the children, what their IEPs—Individualized Education Programs—say. And whether we can accommodate them effectively with the resources we have in the public schools or whether we need the private placement. We’re talking now—again, the numbers are very important here. We have about 170,000 kids who have special needs in our school system. The vast majority of those kids are served in traditional public school buildings, and served well. There are some—in the thousands—that have particularly complicated issues each year that cannot be resolved with the programs we have. As we indicated, there are some areas we just don’t have the capacity and that is typically when parents request the private placements. We are going to focus on what each child needs in terms of their education needs. If we can’t provide it, we’re going to make sure that they get it some place that can.

Question: Is the city going to challenge initial private placements less often – initial ones – legally?

Mayor: I’ll start, and let the chancellor come in after me if she wants to add. Again, you heard that our goal is to settle cases in the first 15 days. So, say that if we all agree in the first instance, great, we agree. If we have a difference, we’re looking for a resolution of the difference, rather than going through a very complicated, costly, lengthy litigation process. So, only when there’s a profound disagreement that cannot be settled would you proceed to litigation – and again, I believe that will be rare. But, as we said, even if you have gone through litigation, and if the litigation is found in favor of the parents or whatever the outcome of the litigation, if nothing changes year to year, you don’t go back and re-litigate. This is the central point that the Speaker, the assembly member, the senator all raised to me. If nothing has changed year to year, there is no basis for going back to litigate. The previous approach of the DOE was to continue litigation each year, almost as a matter of rote, almost automatically. We don’t think that’s fair to families. So I think what I would say is that you’re going to see many more settlements, and where there is litigation, once it’s resolved, that will be it, and you won’t see it coming back to [inaudible] unless the IEP itself changes. Do you want to add?

Chancellor Fariña: I would say basically that the IEP is a road map, and generally it stays pretty constant, at least for the first two or three years. And if there’s a major shift, maybe at the third year, you might look at it differently. But I would say it makes sense to have, you know – particularly for special needs kids, stability is one of the most important things that they need, and also having a consistent frame for instruction. Having a different teacher, in certain kinds of disabilities, is actually very disruptive. So I would say that that’s part of the process.

Mayor: Let’s see if we got one or two more on topic before we lose the chancellor to her engagement in the Bronx.

Question: Perhaps you might save some money on less litigation, but there might be extra costs, marginal to no special placement, so what’s your estimate of the net cost of this change?

Mayor: We’re still processing the exact figures. Again, we believe if there is, and we’re not certain there is, but if there is an additional cost, it’s appropriate because we’re serving the families more fairly. Where litigation was used as a cost-saving measure, that’s not how we do things, that’s not how we think. We want to get families to the right placement. We reserve the right to litigation in those cases where it’s necessary – again, I hope that to be rare. So this is really about right-sizing the dynamic, and figuring out what families need, and paying that price.

Question: How are you budgeting [inaudible] money for this if you have no idea what these preliminary costs are going to be?

Mayor: We know the numbers of children involved, as I said, out of the almost 170,000, this is something that refers to a few thousand kids a year, and we know that the previous process was not fair and appropriate. I think if you look at everything that we’re doing on education, we’re making a series of fundamental changes. Yes, some of them do cost money, but they’re the right thing to do for the future of our school system, and we know we can afford to do it.

Question: How much more, do you think, more or less, this will cost?

Mayor: Again, we are still sorting out the specifics, but we know since it’s a relatively small number of children, and we know we would not be spending as much on litigation, which is costly unto itself, that we think it’ll end up being an appropriate figure. Anything else on-topic before we move off?

Question: [indistinct]

Speaker Silver: There’s a law now, in place, and the practice has been that the city requires the parents to go to court, under the law, even if they lose. It discourages certain parents. It costs the parents additional money. They don’t get payments on time. If you have an agreement, you avoid all of the interpretation of the law. I would rather the mayor and the Board of Education come in and say, “Yes, this is our policy, and we are moving forward in this fashion.” If you enforce the law, fine. You’ll go to court – that’s the current situation, that’s what we’re trying to avoid, the current situation where every case is litigated, every year, it’s litigated. The parents, even if they recover the cost of tuition, recover it a year later, and they’re required to pay an attorney’s fee in order to be able to recover the tuition costs – they don’t recover the attorney’s fee. So it discourages half the parents right away from challenging an initial decision, number one, and, number two, they’re still out-of-pocket, and the city spends money on litigation. Between the two, I think it is more desirable for us to have an agreement with the mayor that this is the way the city will handle the situation from now on. It’s more desirable than having a law on the books, but we always reserve the right, if it doesn’t work, to come back. Assemblywoman Weinstein will be there, Senator Felder will be in the legislature, and we restart the process of passing legislation if it’s necessary. I’m confident, knowing Bill de Blasio as I do, it will not be necessary.

Mayor: I just want add on one point to that – and thank you to the Speaker – that every day in localities around the country, you have the question of the laws from above: State level, federal level, states certainly feel it in terms of federal laws. The highest form of action is when a locality decides for itself it’s going to act, and act with all its heart and with all its energies. That, to me, is when things will happen without any friction, without any delays, without any efforts to, you know, obfuscate but actually focus on getting the job done. This is the commitment we’re making today. Last call on topic, on topic. Rich?

Question: Mayor, is there a differential [inaudible] in the cost of serving a special needs kid within the school and one who is placed into a private institution? Is there a significant difference in the cost?

Mayor: Obviously, it depends on the individual situation. I would say this – what we believe where we can solve the problem in a school – and that typically means, for example, as Chancellor Fariña mentioned, when it comes to autism – excuse me – for children with some less challenging dynamics, we’ve done very well in terms of our public schools providing programming that really, really works. But with more challenging dynamics on the autism spectrum, sometimes that just isn’t possible in a public school setting. So I think it really depends on the individual need. The several thousand cases we’re discussing are historically children with very severe needs that just can’t be accommodated with the programs we have now. Last call – Sally, on topic? Still on?

Question: A little bit half on, half off.

Mayor: Okay, let’s see if we’ve got anyone whose got a real on, then we’ll go to you as the bridge to the off. Okay. Yes, Henry?

Question: Can you tell us what percentage of these students would be [inaudible]?

Mayor: I can’t tell you that, but we will get that for you from the department of education. Hold on, people coming around for their second question – anyone who has not gotten a question? Where? Okay, there we go.

Question: In terms of the reimbursement side, I understand the idea is to expedite the [inaudible] here, but are you concerned about potential abuse, corruption, and will the city be able to direct [inaudible] with parents who have [inaudible]?

Mayor: No, and that’s the beauty of the – I do not work for the department of education, but I know enough from all my work in support of parents that everything begins with the IEP. So remember, there’s a very formal process to determine what the child’s needs are and what’s necessary to meet those needs. Parent can’t just free agent and say, ‘Oh, I’ve decided my child needs X, Y, or Z’ before there’s been a determination. That determination, whether you’re looking at federal law, state law, city administrative action, it all begins with the IEP. So that’s a check and balance right there in the process. Again, what I think we’ve learned over the years is once you have that IEP, if you want to get to a positive outcome with parents, I think in the vast majority of cases, you can without the litigation. Without the expense for everyone, particularly the parents, of the litigation. There still may be some exceptional dynamics where litigation ends up happening. But our goal is to get away from litigation, try and work with that common ground the IEP should create, and find the positive outcome. Okay, we’re going to take the bridge of Sally. Sally, you will be our bridge.

Question: Yeah it’s actually the –

Mayor: You’re our bridge to the twenty-first century – no wait, we’re already here. That was a Bill Clinton reference, for any of you who are scoring at home. Okay.

Question: I was wondering if you have any comment on this lawsuit Campbell Brown filed regarding teacher tenure, you know, to challenge teacher tenure laws in New York.

Mayor: I have very little that I agree with Campbell Brown on, so you will not be surprised that I don’t smile on her approach. But that’s something she’s challenging on the state level. I said the other day and I believe it, here in the city – particularly with our new teachers contract – we are striking the right balance. We’re uplifting the teaching profession, which by the way is a national priority, to get the best teacher to teach, to continue to train them and uplift them, and to keep them in the profession. Retention of quality teachers has to be a national priority, it’s a priority for us. The teachers’ contract allows us to do better at that, and at the same time, it’s quite clear: the methodology for helping someone out of the profession who does not belong in the profession is also better than it’s ever been. So I think we’re on the right track, and I don’t think we need a lawsuit muddying the situation.

Question: Despite your vocal support for veterans, your budget did not allow any additional money for funding for NOVA, and it didn’t have money for veterans’ benefits counselors. Advocates, in addition to money, want to see a different office created, a separate office than NOVA, so I’m wondering if you can talk about the budgetary decisions for funding for NOVA – if you support, or do not support the creation of a separate office?

Mayor: Why don’t I say it just simply, we are evaluating how to proceed on veterans issues. It’s very personal to me, as you know, and this country has not done enough for our veterans, particularly our wounded veterans. And we’re going to be looking at a series of things we can do, we’ll have announcements on that coming up. Not certain we’re going to change the structure of the office, but there’s some areas that we have to do better on, and we’re going to have some announcements on that relatively soon.

Question: This morning on a radio program Congressman Rangel said that you told him in private I guess that you were backing Reverend Walrond in the primary race today. So I wanted to –

Mayor: That’s just plain inaccurate. I have immense respect for Reverend Walrond. He was – he is a good friend, he was an important backer of mine last year. He’s someone I think does a lot of good for New York City. Clearly, I have said repeatedly, I am neutral in that race. So I don’t understand what the congressman was referring to.

Question: [inaudible] Just wondering what your reaction was to the Rent Guidelines Board vote last night, particularly given that you appointed a majority of the members, [inaudible] surprised by the vote. But also wondering if you’re planning to replace any of the members moving forward?

Mayor: Look, I’ll – let me take the first point. I stated my view that I thought it was the right time for a rent freeze because when I saw the numbers, I was convinced that over time the Rent Guidelines Board had provided artificially high increases for landlords and had unfairly treated tenants because those increases far outstripped the actual costs that landlords were incurring. And by the way, against the backdrop of an economic crisis. When those numbers were fully evaluated by the members of the RGB, the Chair of the RGB, the staff working on it, it was abundantly clear that we needed a course correction and we needed a one-time freeze. That being said, the RGB, the way it’s built – members represent different constituencies, landlords and tenants and then there’s independent members and members who are named by me, members who are not named by me. It was not a surprise to me that there would be a difference of opinion, and we knew it would be a close vote either way you slice it. But I was trying to make very clear what I thought was the right way to go. We’ll look at the future when the time comes in terms of the RGB, but I think what’s very clear to us is we want a numbers-driven decision. We did not always have that in the past. Other matters besides the numbers won the day. We want these decisions to be made based on the actual numbers, the actual costs, the actual revenue for landlords, and of course always referencing the affordability crisis that we’re in.

Question: The [inaudible] member – the member who drafted the proposal that won was someone that you appointed and wasn’t [inaudible]. Have you talked to Steve Flax today or do you have anything to say to him?

Mayor: Look, again, he is member who represents a certain constituency, the way that the RGB is structured. I didn’t personally choose the structure of the RGB. It is based on having different constituencies represented, that’s how it was built. He represents a particular constituency. It’s not a surprise he might have a different view from folks on that panel who represent other constituencies. I have not talked to him today. I disagree with his action. From everything I’ve heard of him, he is a person of integrity, but I disagree with his vote. Yeah.

Question: The Daily News released a list of the most dangerous train stations in the city – battery, sexual assault. What’s to come from the city to act on those stations? Is there going to be a response from the city or what’s going to happen?

Mayor: I think you already see a response. Commissioner Bratton, as everyone knows, started out in his time in New York City as the head of the transit bureau at that time. I talk to him constantly about the situation in the subways. He’s particularly passionate about trying to improve safety and the entire experience, the quality of life in our subways. And I would say the same on buses, there’s been a much greater focus about – of having NYPD presence on both in a targeted fashion. So you see a lot of enforcement going on in the subways. Thank God, the overall picture, over the last few years in the subways has been pretty steadily decreasing crime. Thank God. There’s no question there are some problem areas we have to further address. But I can safely say Commissioner Bratton is very focused and has been putting additional resources into that.

Question: Mr. Mayor, regarding today’s election and the Board of Elections – there’s been some irregularities reported in Washington Heights in spots already. And I wonder, can New Yorkers trust the Board of Elections to confidently carry out an election in New York City?

Mayor: We got more work to do, there’s no question about that. We in the last six months have had a series of discussions with the board about improving their procedures, and we’ve tried to provide some of the resources necessary for that. We have clear guidelines about what we have to see. We’re not done yet, by any stretch of the imagination. So I don’t know about these reports that you indicate from today. We’re certainly concerned about that but I don’t know the details. I can safely say I think you’re going to see in this election and even more so in the next few coming up in September and November, some real, tangible improvements at the Board of Elections. Thank you everyone.