Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Hosts Press Conference on Criminal Justice Announcement

March 29, 2017

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Well, Leviticus, I want to tell you, that was really a wonderful presentation. 

Leviticus Mitchell: Thank you.

Mayor: And you have learned to dominate – I’m impressed.

[Laughter]

In a good way. And Leviticus said something very powerful, which I think every one of us as human beings can relate to – we should not be defined by our mistakes. Remember that famous saying, to err is human, to forgive – divine? And Leviticus, you went through a lot, but you did not let it define you. I admire that. That takes strength and that takes persistence. And obviously I can hear your intelligence, your poise – you’re in front of a bank of cameras and all, and you made it look easy. So, I want to let you know how proud of you we are. Let’s give him another round of applause.

[Applause]

This is what today is all about – talking about how we help good people who made a mistake to not make a mistake again. That those who have gone on the wrong path – we have a chance to catch them, we have a chance to rehabilitate them – that’s why we call it the Department of Correction. It’s all about getting people back on a positive track. 

We have a chance to do that if we learn the lessons that have been taught for a long time here at the fortune society. So, I want to just take a moment to thank everyone at the fortune society. David, thank you for what you put in motion years and years ago. And all the wonderful people sitting behind me – Stan, thank you for your leadership and your powerful story as well, and the fact that you not only turned your life around but then became a leader in turning other people’s lives around. 

This is a powerful and magical place, but it did not come easy, I know. And I know the Fortune Society has struggled against all of the stereotypes and misunderstanding in this world about folks who end up in jail, but we’re talking about human beings. Leviticus’ story makes it so clear – and I can hear in your story, Leviticus, your goodness, your humor, your wit, your warmth. That mistake you made obviously didn’t show the world all those other features. But now, you’ve got a chance through the fortune society to show your whole self, and that’s what we want to do for other people. 

So, we want to talk today about some new things we’re going to be doing to afford these kind of opportunities to many, many more folks, and we think it’s going to have a huge impact not only on their lives and our communities, but on continuing our efforts to reduce the number of people in our jail system.

I want to thank at the outset our Commissioner for Correction, Joe Ponte, who has done an outstanding job reforming our correction system and setting the stage for even bigger reductions in the number of folks in jail and a more humane and better approach the rehabilitating people. Joe, I just want to thank you for all you have achieved.

Liz Glazer, Director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, who has been leading the way in creating a whole series of reforms that we’ve played out over these three years in Correction and other areas; Mindy Tarlow, our Director for the Office of Operations, who’s been deeply involved in all the policy changes we made, but also spent decades managing programs that helped folks who have come out of jail and come out of prison get back on their feet – so, she also has tremendous expertise. 

Look, the name of the game is to constantly reduce mass incarceration. This has been a burning issue not just in this city, but in this country in recent years. An issue that was, bluntly, not talked about for decades, until finally the dam burst just in the last few years. And, really, on a bipartisan level, this conversation engaged all over the country – a recognition that we as a nation had gone astray. We as a city had gone astray – we were incarcerating huge numbers of people and it wasn’t making us better, it was really fundamentally destroying lives. Folks who were incarcerated who didn’t have to be, or didn’t have to be for so long, or could have been rehabilitated, or didn’t have to become recidivists – families left behind. A cycle of violence and incarceration repeated over and over for decades, and it wasn’t disrupted. We knew in this city that we had to disrupt that. And I want to say, go over the course of years, and we have a lot to be proud of in New York City on the plus-side, because just like we have for over 20 years driven down crime in this city, for over 20 years, this city has been slowly but surely been reducing the number of people in our jail system. It used to be upwards of 20,000 people just 20 years ago. And now, under half that – a 55 percent reduction in the number of people in jail in a typical year over the course of the last 20 years – that’s a good start, but it’s not enough. 

We now are more committed than ever to reducing the number of people in jail. We have more work to do to figure out what the future of our jail system looks like, but one thing that cannot be debated is we have to keep driving down mass incarceration. Now, I want to put the horse before the cart – I would argue the number-one thing we can do is to continue our efforts to reduce crime so there aren’t people being arrested and being put into the system to begin with. And those efforts continue to be successful, and that makes me very hopeful about the future of ever decreasing the jail population. And there’s a lot of things that folks who worked in this area have talked about for years and years, and they’ve been right all along. They said this is directly connected to poverty, it’s directly connected to lack of educational opportunities. Well, that’s all true. 

Obviously, we have for these last three years focused intently on addressing income inequality, addressing poverty, creating economic opportunity, improving our schools, improving the kinds of things that would particularly change the life path of a young person – like Pre-k. There’s much more to do. But as you think about a long-term plan here that we are building, one part of it is driving down crime, one part of it is fixing the root causes as much as we humanely can, and another part of it is reducing recidivism, because, even if people like Leviticus have one moment where they stumble, if they never stumble again, then they’ll never experience our jail system. 

Leviticus, you obviously are on a good path and we want to support you and any other person who is on that path, turning their life around, so they never see the inside of a jail cell again. And, let’s face it, that has not been the history. The history had been too many people got in trouble once – as you described it, Stan – once, lead to another time, lead to another time. We know it doesn’t have to be that way. We know that that first time can be made the last time if we provide the support the people need from the beginning. 

So, what we’re announcing today is a series of actions that will change how we approach anyone who is incarcerated in our jail system, and particularly change our approach to those who have been sentenced and served time because they were convicted and sentenced of a crime. 

Let me describe the approach we’re going to take, but, as I do, I do want to note, even in the last three years – just three years – we’re proud to have built upon previous success and make it go even faster now. The jail population in this city has declined 18 percent in the last three years since we’ve been here. My congratulations to Liz, and Joe, and Mindy, and so many other people on this team who have been working intensely on this – the jail population down 18 percent since I came into office. The population on Rikers Island is down 23 percent in the last three years – because, remember, we have a jail system beyond Rikers Island. So, in fact, we’ve done even better at reducing the number of people on Rikers. This, again, is the most profound way to address mass incarceration and make sure people don’t get there to begin with.

I mentioned how much of an impact crime reduction has played in this, and I guarantee you that neighborhood policing is going to allow us to do a lot more to drive down crime, and, therefore, to drive down our jail population. But I also want to note that initiatives like alternative sentencing programs that keep people out of jail, like Leviticus described, and bail reform that is causing fewer people to end up in jail simply because they couldn’t afford bail – these initiatives are having an impact already and are part of this important decline.

We have the lowest incarceration rate, in fact, of any city in the United States – any major city. I want to be clear – the lowest incarceration rate of any major city in America. And I’ll break for Liz to give the comparison we talked about earlier – our incarceration for 100,000 versus the city that unfortunately is at the high-end of this, Philadelphia. Why don’t you give them that comparison?

Director Elizabeth Glazer, Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice: So, in New York City, we’re at about 164 people per 100,000 that are incarcerated. In Philadelphia, sadly, that number is at about 810 people per 100,000. And in other big cities, like Los Angeles, and Chicago, and a few others – they hover around 290 to 300. So, we are, as the Mayor says, at one of the lowest rates of any big city in the U.S.

Mayor: That is a great foundation to build on. Today, we’re announcing a series of new initiatives. First of all, by the end of this August, for every inmate in our jail system, we will now be providing five hours per day – every weekday – five hours per day of education and training programs.

Now, if you don’t have a frame of reference, you might not be able to see what that impact is. Five hours every day – people who previously were getting less than one hour every day. Four years ago, the average was less than one hour of education and training per inmate, per weekday. Five hours of education and training means a serious commitment to getting people back on track, whether it’s getting a GED, or getting skills in a trade that can then be the basis for employment after getting out of jail. It’s intensive, it’s focused, it’s practical. By the way, it’s one of the reasons that we’ve been able to drive down violence. When people have something positive and productive to do anywhere, including behind bars, it changes behavior. When you have nothing to do and you feel like you’re in a dead end, it has a negative impact on behavior. But we know that education and training reduces violence, improves inmate behavior, and obviously sets the stage for success once they’re out of jail. That will be in place by the end of August.

A study was done in 2013 by the U.S. Department of Justice. The study looked at these kind of education and training programs in prison and jail settings and found that they resulted in an over 40 percent reduction in recidivism. So, not only does it make the situation safer while someone’s in jail, no only does it increase the chance of a productive life outside of jail and after jail, it also sharply reduces recidivism, again, getting us back to the point that then we can bring down the jail population further.

Further, I want to announce that by the end of this year, every individual in Department of Correction custody will receive re-entry services throughout their experience in jail. They will literally see a counselor on the very first day in jail who will begin the process of determining how they will re-enter society as soon as their time in jail is over. So, it will be a continuous process from the first day in the door, and the message will be – literally, on the first day – this is a temporary reality, this does not need to be your future, we’re going to help you turn it around. 

We have in addition to all the people who go through Rikers every year – because you know people go into Rikers who are charged, go to trial, many are found innocent, many end up in other situation that does not lead them to serve additional time after a sentence, but about 8,500 New Yorkers who are sentenced do serve time based on a conviction and end up leaving Rikers after sentencing, after serving time every year – about 8,500. That group of individuals unfortunately have a substantial recidivism rate. If you’re in Rikers, I want to remind everyone upfront – and Joe, and Liz, and Mindy can explain this in more detail – but if you’re in Rikers on a sentence, in the scheme of things, you have done a less major crime – if you’ve done more major, more violent crimes, you end up, of course, in the State prison system. If you’re in Rikers for a sentence, it means it’s a year or less. But still, we’ve seen a very intensive and troubling recidivism rate because so many of those individuals didn’t get any kind of follow-up services historically. They didn’t get any kind of connection to a better future. 

So, the third initiative I’m announcing today is called Jails to Jobs. This will also be in place by the end of this year. Every one of the 8,500 inmates who is sentenced and then leaves Rikers at the end of their sentence each year – every one of the 8,500 will be offered transitional employment directly. They will be given a direct and immediate offer of transitional employment through organizations like the Fortune Society. These will be short-term, aid jobs that the city will fund and will allow these individuals to get back on their feet. It’ll be a universal opportunity

We have found, again, through studies by the nonprofits that have done this work, that when you provide a shot-term job opportunity immediately out of jail, it reduces recidivism by 22 percent. So, these are two different concepts and they come together. Provide a job opportunity immediately out of jail – recidivism goes down 22 percent. Provide education training during the time in jail, recidivism goes down 40 percent. Combine those two concepts, recidivism goes down even more. Keep driving down recidivism and you keep driving down jail populations. 

For these individuals, the transitional employment often leads to longer-term employment, and, again, an opportunity to have counseling, peer mentoring along the way. And, if for some reason they don’t get immediate opportunities for employment, they stay connected to the Fortune Society and other organization that can keep coming back until they do get that employment. 

So, look, we believe this is part of what will make us all safer. And for a lot of New Yorkers – they don’t think a lot about our jail system, but they do think about safety. So, I want people to understand, this is about reducing recidivism, and therefore reducing crime. It is about asking the taxpayers to pay a lot less, because the more we shrink our jail system, the less we have to put into it financially. But, first and foremost, it’s about making people’s lives better. It’s about helping people who went on the wrong path to get on the right path and stay on the right path. It is both the humane thing to do and the practical thing to do. And we know it’ll make neighborhoods safer. And we know it’ll make families whole. 

We are the safest big city in the country. As I’ve said many times when I talk about the NYPD, we don’t rest on that laurel, we have to keep innovating. I feel the same way about the Department of Correction. The Department of Correction over the last three years has innovated constantly and is continuing to do so with these new initiatives. This is the path to an even safer future. 

A few words in Spanish – 

[Mayor de Blasio speaks in Spanish]

With that, we’d like to take questions on these new initiatives, and then we will take questions on any and all other topics. 

Rich?

Question: Mr. Mayor, are these programs mandatory for the inmates or prisoners, or are they optional?

Mayor: I'll start and pass to Joe Ponte.  Look, we believe in terms of the time in jail, that there's a tremendous desire amongst inmates to have these opportunities. When they come out, by definition, we're offering an opportunity. Maybe not everyone's going to take us up, maybe some have another kind of good option they can turn to. That's the optimal situation. 

Maybe they've worked before and they get a chance to go back to that work. Or their family has prepared a positive re-entry for them. So ones that come out of course, they have the right to make their own choices, but we think it's going to be a very appealing option. 

But in jail, I think, a lot of what I've heard certainly, including from visiting Rikers and talking to inmates, this is the kind of thing that they really want because that idle time makes them very, very frustrated.  Joe?

Commissioner Ponte: So, it will be voluntary. It will be voluntary, but inmates have participated at very high rates in these types of programs. Everybody wants hope coming out of jail or prison. And I think these programs give people hope in the fact they can return to the community in a safe and productive manner.

Question: During this press conference, the Manhattan D.A. put out a press release about investing 15-million dollars in re-entry programs for folks coming out of state facilities, I guess and back to New York City. And I'm wondering, he's quoted in your press release, but he's not here today. How does this, what you're announcing here interact with what he's talking about and how much is this going to cost that you're talking about?

Mayor: I'll start with that last piece. This is the, for the, initiative on transitional employment is a ten-million dollar initiative, which will part of our executive budget proposal.  And Liz Glazer can speak to the D.A.'s situation. 

Liz Glazer: So the D.A.'s essentially doing two things. One is to create a resource hub and the second is some of the actual services themselves. We've been working closely with them on both of those things.  We think the resource hubs could be a terrific piece of life after Rikers or jail or for anyone in the community who's looking for services on a whole array of things. And with respect to the services themselves that they're now putting out an RFP on, we've been working with them on sort of what that might look like and how that could fit into the array of services that we have. 

Question: Was the Manhattan D.A. invited to this event? Why isn't he here to talk about all this?
Liz Glazer: Sometimes things are a coincidence. 

Mayor: So we're fully supportive of what he's doing. 

Liz Glazer: Absolutely. Completely. And in fact, just wanted to sort of add to that, and we have some members here today. We have a re-entry and diversion council that has really sort of pushed and created many of the ideas, some of which were the mayor is announcing today. And we have, I see, a whole range of our members here today and the Manhattan D.A. is a member of that as well. And in fact, one of his staff co-chairs one of the subcommittees that created a number of these programs. 

Question: When you talk about the short-term jobs, what is considered short-term and what kind of jobs?

Mayor: So I'll start with the, the short-term is up to two months. The experts here will tell you why the evidence is that that works and that it proves to have a very big difference in terms of people getting to longer-term jobs.  But the fact is, I want to sort of put a little bit of the emotional quality to this, but I think my colleagues can speak to this as well.  From what I've understood about incarceration, you feel at the end of it, totally disconnected.  You know, you knew one life and that's gone and suddenly you're in this entirely controlled environment, and then suddenly you're back out in the world again. Leviticus just talked about, you know, not knowing what to do next.  And the notion here is give people an immediate place to go. Not only will you have the whole year of your re-entry being worked on with you and the education and training on top of that, but then imagine you're finally going through those doors back out to freedom and the message is, here's where we want you to go. And you're going to have a job when you get there. It's a whole new reality in terms of getting people on a positive track. Would either of you like to comment about that?

Commissioner Ponte: Sure. That's absolutely right. I mean, it's twofold. One, it exposes employers to people who were formerly incarcerated and it really diminishes and breaks down all the stereotypes employers have about whether or not formerly-incarcerated people can be trustworthy and et cetera and et cetera. So it provides and opportunity for employers to learn about how well and how good formerly-incarcerated people can be as employees.            And two, it provides a platform for formerly-incarcerated people who don't have work experience to get the kind of work experience that allows them to be competitive in the market.  We have a transition to work employment program. 80 percent of our people who go through that program end up with permanent jobs. We also find that employers are, all their stereotypes sort of are washed away when they say, wow this guy, this girl is really good. Thank you for allowing them to come into my workplace. And then we become a sort of recruiter for that employer. So it really works in a number of ways. 

Question: And what kind of jobs are you talking about? What types of jobs?

Commissioner Ponte: It ranges. We have social service, we have hotel industry, we have food industry. We try to make as many pathways in to as many markets as possible.  We do try to look at what are some of the emerging markets and make sure people are being competitive in access into those markets, but it's really about getting people exposed. 

Mayor: Let me ask between all of my colleagues. I think describing actual jobs would be helpful. You know, what kind of work do you do very specifically. And again, that point about the difference between what are the outcomes for those who go through transitional employment versus those who just walk out the door and have to find their way. Who can speak to those?

Liz Glazer:     Well, I'll speak to just the last piece and I think Mindy is, speak together. So you know, the research shows over and over again that those 30, 60 days when you first walk out the door is when you're most vulnerable. And so the most important thing is to have immediacy and I think many of the organizations in this room, Fortune society,  that's what they recognize, that we need to have a way to wrap services around people, and to sort of meet them where they live. So I think that's that most important thing. And the transitional jobs really is transitional, but it's immediate. And Mindy, maybe you want to talk about them, what the handoff –

Director Tarlow: I first want to really compliment what Stan said and his description of both Fortune, which is a wonderful program and also the employment programs that they offer. But I also think that transitional employment can take a number of forms. Some of it can just be literally learning how to work. Learning the basic skills that you need to show up on time, to be supervised, work with colleagues, etcetera. And those kinds of transitional employment opportunities can sometimes be provided by the nonprofit provider themselves, as a paid internship, if you will. And sometimes it can be in more of a work crew environment. I'm sure you're all familiar with summer youth employment. It's a similar style work crew kind of model, which also helps with peer support and that sort of thing.

Mayor: So one of you talk about specific jobs. Again, I want to give them the examples. 

Commissioner Ponte: Sure. The food industry is one industry that we have great relationships with. 

Mayor: What kind of jobs?

Commissioner Ponte: Cooks. Busing. 

Mayor: All right. We're getting somewhere. 

Commissioner Ponte: Busing. We have construction jobs. People who are out there flagging. There's a number of positions we have. We have internships in transition to work, and our residential aids which are sort of frontline counselors, security. So it depends. We try to get in as many markets as we can. 

Director Tarlow: And try to market the individual. But to your point about construction work and connected it to the on-island training, the OSHA certification that is provided and part of the on-island training, you can't walk on a construction site without that.  So this is one of the ways the two things link together 

Mayor: Okay, I'm going to put a point on that and then I just want you to finish the point about how much it increases the chances of getting long-term employment. That's a really key example, that OSHA certification. A lot of people would like that. Here's a chance for someone to get a real pathway. You get a piece of training that gets you on a track. Now, let's face it, a lot of these are younger folks who, something went wrong along the way. They didn't' complete their education, maybe even a little bit older folks who didn't complete their education, didn't get skills, something got disconnected.  If we can give them that education and that training while they're in jail and they're ready to go back into society, we're making up for lost time.  And something like an OSHA certification, that's a hard skill, that's a hard fact that you can bring to the equation.  Talk about the increased chance of longer-term employment. 

Director Tarlow: The study that the mayor referred to earlier that had the 22-percent reduction in recidivism, in that study, which was a short-term transitional employment study, the link to full-time employment was about 70-percent, whereas the control group, if you will, was about 30-percent in  that first year, post-study. 

Mayor: I'm going to say that in a little less academic knowledge. So if you were in one of these up to eight week transitional job programs, your chance of getting a long term job was 70-percent.  If you were not in one of these programs, your chance was about 30-percent.  We believe, fundamentally, if you get a job and you stick with a job your chance of ending up in jail again goes down substantially.  Andrew. 

Question: Yes. My question was, comparing what's happening to what you're doing right now. Right now, sentenced inmates at Rikers are just not cast out into New York City, have a nice life. You already have job counseling and you're linking folks with the Fortune Society and other organizations. [Inaudible]

Mayor: Yes –

Question: And when do those inmates start getting told, you're guaranteed a job? When does that communication take place?

Mayor: There are three guarantees. That's what's the news here.  Again, just four short years ago, people got less than hour of programming a day. We are now guaranteeing consistent programming for every single inmate. The five hours per inmate and that will be in place this year.  We are guaranteeing that the re-entry services will begin soon as you get there and continue throughout your time there. That again, was not consistent across all people, all inmates.  And we are guaranteeing a transitional employment opportunity if you choose to take it. That has not been a guarantee previously. We're talking about 85-hundred people, a substantial number of people ever year. We're guaranteeing each and every one of them a transitional employment opportunity.  My colleagues can talk about it, but I think the simplest way to say it is, those three things were not guaranteed previously. 

Question: But what I mean though, is when will the inmates be told that you're guaranteed a job?

Mayor: Joe, Liz?

Director Glazer: So, I think, you know what everyone in re-entry says is re-entry must begin on day one. So day one when people come into Rikers and they go through a whole screening to figure out what kind of programming is appropriate for them, they'll know what the program is. 

Mayor: And they will be fully in place by the end of this year, so we'll start telling people when we are in a position to guarantee the outcome.  Way in the back. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, could you just explain a little bit more, specifically, how you were able to get those numbers down over the last three years in jails, and also just as a follow-up, what would you say to New Yorkers who might see that and think, I'm concerned that maybe people are out jail who should be in jail, specifically quality of life?

Mayor: Very, very fair questions indeed.  I would say my fellow New Yorkers, look at the way crime is going down. I'll make a parallel here. You know for a long time, particularly during 2013, 2014, there was a big back and forth would the reduction of stop-and-frisk make us safer or less safe? Many of us kept saying, it will make us safer. We have now proven that over three years running very, very consistently.  We believe, fundamentally, that there are a lot of things that can be done to keep people out of the jail system while keeping us safe to begin with. Meaning, a lot of folks who committed very low-level offenses and we believe if they're not in jail, can be managed properly, can be helped to a positive outcome.  But second, we also know that going to jail, unfortunately, historically, has, for many people been a trigger to becoming a part of criminal life. It's not a news flash, we know this.  We want to keep as many people away from the jail experience as is appropriate. Now look, if someone did a very serious, if someone committed a crime and they're sentenced, they're going to end up at minimum in Rikers. If it's something more serious, they're going upstate.  But there a lot of people that never needed to get to Rikers to begin with. So every time we can get there, intervene, we believe they're actually reducing the longtime likelihood of that person being involved in the criminal justice system and any violence that might come out of that.  We also know that for those who it was the first time, there's a much greater chance of turning their life around and again, not having that recidivism, if you intervene. So these numbers like Mindy just pointed out about the difference about the folks that get the transitional employment versus the folks who don't, these are very striking numbers and these recidivism numbers I mentioned.  The fact is, the problem was we weren't doing it consistently. And we came to the conclusion that this needs to be universal because it's working and we could reach a lot more people.  And I think Mindy's, excuse me, the point Liz made was very powerful. If you come in the door on day one and you're told, we want this to be the last time we'll ever see you, you know, you made a mistake, but we want this to be the last time we'll ever see you. We're going to do all this things, including when you come out, you go right into a job.  I have really, fundamentally believed that will make us safer in the longer run. 

Director Glazer: [Inaudible] So I just wanted to add to that because this was really a very intentional effort of, not just our offices but of many, many folks around the city's, D.A.s, defenders, courts, and others, to intentionally drive the population down.  And the work continues. And essentially, as the mayor has pointed out, there are two ways to do that. You stop people from going in who shouldn't be in because they could be out. They're low risk.  And you reduce the amount of time that people stay at Rikers. And so you can see on our website what all those numbers are, but basically, what has happened to the jail population, to your point, is that the number of low-risk people has dropped dramatically.  And just to give you an example, we're down 25-percent as far as misdemeanors. We're down something like 36-percent of people who otherwise would have been held on bails of under two-thousand dollars.  So one is stopping the number of people who go in, and the second, much more complicated, but we're also making some strides, is reducing the amount of time that people stay. 

Leviticus: And I would say investing in people in jails is investing in community safety. When I look at my own situation, as I said, I got my GED when I was in prison, went to college when I was in prison.  That investment, that opportunity, allowed me to come home, get a job, take my son out of foster care, cuz my son was in foster care, marry the woman I loved, been married now for 25 years, raised four kids, purchased a house in the Bronx.  I'm giving back in ways I hope, I'm making amends to the community I hurt for so many years. So investing in people in prison and coming home from jails, is an investment in community safety. 

Mayor: Amen. 
           
Question: So 85-percent of people or about are pre-trial on Rikers, right? And they're spending months waiting for their court date. Are they losing jobs while they're doing that? How many people are coming in that had jobs as compared to who's unemployed?

Mayor: Excellent question. 

Commissioner Ponte: We don't have those numbers. But obviously the disruption in the normal life of an individual could cost them their job, so it's part of the system and part of Liz's work on speeding up the core processing.  It's all part of diverting people who don't need to be in jail so we don't disrupt their lives. 

Director Glazer: We do have one number, which is that, with respect to the city sentence folks who are those 85, which is the population that we're focusing on, about 73-percent of them had no full-time activity at the time that they were arrested. 

Question: So the guarantee only applied to people who have been sentenced?

Commissioner Ponte: Sentenced. Correct 

Question: Not to the people who are pre –

Director Glazer: Not pre-trial. No. 

Mayor: I'm restating –

Director Glazer: I'm sorry. 

Mayor: No, no. You're fine. I'm saying, I'm going to just summarize, I want you to know, correct me if I miss anything. The transitional employment is only for those sentenced, but the broader efforts to prepare people for re-entry and to provide education and training are across the board. Whether you’re –

Question: [inaudible] program?

Mayor: Correct. That's for anyone who comes in the door. 
           
Question: Mayor, on the five hours of programming can you explain a little bit more about what's new there because I had written back in 2015 about the DOC saying they were going to fund this to the tune you know, tens of millions of dollars over a couple of years and that they were hoping to be providing five hours of programming a day to adult inmates by 2016, which of course, was a year ago. 

Mayor: They will talk to you about the final playout of this. What we're saying is we're guaranteeing a very specific... You said hope to, key word. A lot of us hope to do things in government.  We're now locking down timelines. We're saying exactly all these things will be in place this year and they will be universal guarantees. You want to speak to-

Commissioner Ponte: No, just the overall scheme of trying to do all those things in these facilities. Some of it was creating program space, hiring staff, so the contracting, the vendors, all those things took more time. But as the mayor said, by August of this year, there'll be five hours for every inmate in our system. 

Mayor: And just one thing, Jillian, before you go on. I mean, this is our, this is us putting ourselves on the hook, you know. This is something we do with some consistency. We are saying, we are giving you a standard you can hold us accountable to, that this is going to be for everyone 

Question: Is it either new money associated with this or is it those old allocations that have come in?

Mayor: On the, for sentenced folks, the transitional employment is the ten million and that is new and that will be an exec. On the programming and education and the re-entry, go ahead-

Commissioner Ponte: Not new money. It's money that's in our budget now. 

Mayor: Okay. 

Question: It’s good that you're talking about these three things and also the fact that Rikers population's been reduced 22-percent. 

Mayor: 23, Dave. 

Question: 23. I don't know if they're connected or not, but it jogged my memory, a couple of weeks ago, was the governor talking about the conditions are so bad at Rikers, he thinks that it should close down.  So I guess does this fly in the face of that, is this in reaction to what he has said?

Mayor: It's certainly not in reaction to what he said. These are things as you've heard, that have been worked on now for three years. My simple point would be, our obligation is to every day, improve the situation at Rikers. And by the way, in the other jails as well. I want to keep emphasizing everything we're talking about today is system-wide. It's not just Rikers, because we have other jails too. And I think sometimes there's a bit of a simplification in the public discourse about, you know, Rikers, there's a host of problem. We don't deny there's a host of problems at Rikers, but somehow everything else gets missed. Those other jails need work too. The jail system needs work. The whole history of our jail system is not a good one. And when we came here, bluntly, I've said this publicly before. Out of all the subject matter I work on as mayor, this is the one where I was most surprised at how bad things were. And how many mistakes had been made in the past and how many lost opportunities existed.  And even with that, there was decline of population. That's a very good thing. But, no, situation at Rikers, the status quo at Rikers is not acceptable to us and we've been continuing to change it. And we have to do that for people who are there right now.  We're also going to make some decisions in the near term about what to do with the future of Rikers and the future of our jail system overall.  And I've said to you guys repeatedly, we will do that by the time of the executive budget in the next weeks.  So clearly, we're going to be giving you a bigger vision. But one thing that will be true even with that bigger vision, we have to do stuff immediately.  For those 85-hundred people I mentioned who are sentenced every year, they need help now. We need to break that cycle now. So these are things we can do on top of all of the things that have been done to reduce violence on Rikers in the jail system, all of the things that have been done to decrease the amount of weapons and contraband coming in.  There's a whole host of reforms underway. Those all have to continue however we sort out the future. 

Leviticus: Can I say this, mayor? This really is about investing in people. For me, this is a moment to celebrate. This isn't about the conditions of confinement. This is about how do we invest in people, how do we build people? Fortune's tagline is build people, not prisons. This is an opportunity that this mayor's saying, we are going to invest in building people, giving people a second chance. Building a pathway out of incarceration. And I just to want us to take this moment and pause it for a moment. Because it is an opportunity to build people. 

Mayor: Amen. 

Question: With the federal budget cuts, as they're being discussed in Washington, impact any of this? And also, you talked about everyone deserves a second chance. Will there be third chance, a fourth chance? In other words, someone who goes through the system, goes back out, makes a mistake, comes back in. Will they be offered the same opportunity?

Mayor: Let me start on the first point and then I'll offer my layman's view on the second point and pass to my colleagues. Most important thing I want to say about the proposed federal budget cuts is that they are proposed. And I also want to say that that first iteration of the next federal budget member, the quote, unquote, skinny budget, did not cover a whole host of things and didn't give us a lot of detail. I'm not expert, I don't know if my colleagues are, on if there was anything that specifically might affect the initiative we're talking today. I don't know of anything that would, but I also know we're going to be fighting with colleagues all over the country whole host of the cuts that were proposed in the budget. And I think everyone agrees since last week, the playing field has shifted with the defeat of the ACA repeal.  And that has an immediate domino effect on the budget and on tax reform because of the whole master plan on the Republican side was to get the ACA repealed first and theoretically open up a bunch of money for other things they want to do. That's not there now. So that's going to affect a lot of what's going to happen, I think, on the budget cuts too.  On the question of rehabilitation and recidivism, look, I think we have a particular focus on folks who're going through the system the first time, where we think there's an extraordinary opportunity for turnaround and Leviticus is a great example of that. There are circumstances in terms of repeat offenders that are more positive or possible, and others that are less so. Let me have the experts tell you how we would draw those lines.

Commissioner Ponte: So I don't think we should quit on people, as Stan says, we're dealing with people. People make mistakes. Obviously, in the criminal justice world, if you commit a more serious crime, then the likelihood that you're going to be involved in this program, or on Rikers would be limited because you're probably then going to go to the state prison system. But people do make mistakes and I think we need to have the programs available at the time people are stepping up,  to develop into improve their situation, we ought to be ready to help them in that situation 

Question: So Mayor, a lot of the issues that you're talking about today actually have very direct connection to the quality of the schools in a variety of neighborhoods where most people that wind up on Rikers come from and have lived in. The real-life skills that you're talking about here in the jobs program are often things that are missing from those school experiences prior.  Have you looked at those school districts and these types of life skills that are not necessarily for the folks where I know you're trying to encourage a college-going education system, but these types of skill programs.

Mayor: Sure. Look. I have a huge critique of what's happened historically on education. I think it directly relates to mass incarceration. Period.  There hasn't been an honest and sincere effort to, over decades, over generations, to truly educate all of our children. What we're attempting to do and we started it with universal pre-K for all, is change the very nature of our school system.  The biggest thing we will do, I believe, is getting all our kids reading on third-grade level by third grade. That is the ultimate difference-maker in education. And I believe, lot of evidence just like kids who get pre-K, less chance of them getting involved in criminal justice, kids reading on grade level by third grade, less chance of being involved with criminal justice system.  In terms of what you pointed to up ahead, even though we're trying to create a college-going culture, it's with a very clear message that not every child wants to choose college and that there's going to be lots of career opportunities too. The career in technical education is going to be you know, pretty richly available throughout our school system, and more and more with a focus on modern opportunities. In this city that would be tech, that would be life sciences, that would be film and TV, that would healthcare, et cetera.  So I think that's going to be more appealing to a lot of young people and pull them toward it.  But the other thing that's very specific to your question is the Single Shepherd program. Remember, District 7 and District 23 in our school system, meaning the South Bronx and not central Brooklyn in general, but the part of central Brooklyn that's been the toughest to address in terms of crime issues, which is Brownsville and some of the surrounding areas. That's where we're giving every child and their family a direct counselor throughout their time in school from sixth grade to twelfth grade to try to get ahead of anything that might suggest a drift towards trouble.  And we specifically designed that that every family would have that guaranteed they would have a counselor, and not just the child but the whole family would be brought in.  So I think these are some of the things that could disrupt that historic cycle, but we need to achieve all those things if we want to stop having our school system be a part of the problem. Yeah?

Question: The FDC opened in the 60s with pretty much these promises. Counseling when you come in, training, et cetera. It went by the wayside as crime spiked and the economy went in the toilet.  What guarantee do we have that this not going to suffer the same consequence?

Mayor: I’ll start and my more learned colleagues will jump in. Look, I think we should be very pleased that we're living in a different time. The 60s and 70s were a time of decline in New York City. Writ Large, you know, a lot of neighborhoods were suffering from disinvestment. A lot of people were leaving. We had profound crime problems that were not being addressed. We had drug problems that were not being addressed. Later, even after that, the murder rate continued to go up, shootings continued to go up. The crack epidemic, I could go on and on.  I think we're in a profoundly better place today. And I want to give credit to everyone, right? I mean all my predecessors and folks in the private sector who invested, and everyone. And all the people at the community level who stood and fought and helped to turn things around.  We have a much better platform for success. I'm very comfortable saying I'm blessed and we're all blessed to have a better playing field to play on.  Now I think we can make these things stick better. We got over four-point-three million jobs in our economy right now and growing. So when we do transitional employment programs, we have some place that there's a chance that people could actually transition to, because jobs continue to be created.  We see declining crime, so the atmosphere that people are going back to is different. We're disrupting gangs more and more, so making that less of an option for people to choose. Obviously, with the Cure Violence movement, which we've invested a lot in, is also very important and complementary here, working on people. Cure Violence is doing a parallel reality that when folks come back to the neighborhood, they're connecting with them immediately and trying to keep them away from bad influences and problems.  So there's a lot that's different from those times. 

Anyone want to speak to why that didn't work and we think this will?

Commissioner Ponte: I think we're looking at prison systems today much differently than before. I mean, I start 40-plus years ago and the thought was, when people came into the system, tried not to do any harm. I mean, tried not to make them any worse than when they came in. Now, we feel much better about the efforts, is that we can actually help them do better and most systems around the country, including here in New York, have just changed their model. And we can help people. And it's not the punishment or incarceration that's going to change them, it's what we do while they're here that's going to change them. 

Question: What happens if someone doesn't want to hire one of the 85-hundred people? What do you do with them?

Mayor: What if, you're saying if no one wants to hire them. 

Question: Either because they're not qualified or because there's just not a job for them.

Mayor: But let me make sure, I want to just get the question right. There are jobs in New York City. We can all agree on that. If you're saying, what if you have someone who, despite every effort, no one will hire?

Unknown: Yeah. 

Mayor: Okay. I'm not sure we would accept the, I'm not saying it's an unfair premise, I'm saying I'm not sure we would accept the premise. I don't know, maybe there are some individuals with some challenge they're facing that makes it very hard for them to hire.  But I think we would say, there's lots of jobs, there's a constant need. We don't think it's ever been tried universally. So we don't think that's the problem, I would argue, I mean these are the experts. I'd argue we don't think that's the problem we're going to face by and large. 

Leviticus: I absolutely agree. But I wanted to go back to why now this might work when it didn't work when EMTC first opened up. Plain and simple, I think if the leadership of this city, the Mayor, believes in investing in people, this city's going to invest in people. If we can have an honest conversation with the communities most impacted by incarceration, if we can have a conversation with the people most impacted by Rikers Island and begin to lean in and begin to support people, it will be sustained. It really is about leadership, it's about commitment, and it's about vision. And what we're hearing today and what I know of my years of cycling in and out of jail, it's if you have a vision about what things could be, people will to that vision and support it. And I think we're at that moment in time, right now, as a city, where we could really lean in. 

Mayor: I'll add one other very important, sort of civic and political point.  The mass incarceration movement, which you know, you've watched this thing. I mean, you know, you've got, you've  some of the most [inaudible] voices in the country involved and you've got the Koch brothers involved, for God's sake. I mean it's extraordinarily bipartisan. And that discussion got a little derailed by November 8th and the very colorful events that have happened since November 8th. But it didn't go away, it's going to be back to the fore. Because I think what happened on mass incarceration is the country looked itself in the eye and said, what a minute. This is not right. I mean, I think people of all backgrounds and ideologies got very troubled by the fact that we sent a whole generation of people away and in so many cases, wrongly. And then, I think, there was another impulse including, I think from the Libertarian, you know, not the party but the philosophical piece of the equation. A lot of people are like, why are we spending this much money on jails and prisons when we have people back in society and support them in better and more cost-effective ways? So I would say that's a huge difference. I think you would agree that in the 60s, 70s, 80s, unfortunately, a consensus developed like let's build as many prisons as possible. A horrible, backwards mistake. Whereas today, more and more of the answer is, let's get to as small a jail and prison system as possible. 

Question: Would consider opening smaller borough jails? Particularly on Staten Island? You know, there's been lot of history with opposition to that. 

Mayor: Yeah, there has been a lot of history with opposition. And what I'd say is we're going to, as I said over these next few weeks leading up to the executive budget, we're going to come up with a vision for the future. But we're mindful of that opposition. And you know, I've tried to be blunt in this whole process that the choices we face come with real challenges. Real expense, real issues about what communities we'll feel. And I want to remind everyone. Because this is pertinent to the conversation on homelessness too. I always want to pay attention to what communities feel while balancing the greater good, trying to figure out what's a fair balance. But when it comes to something like the citing of a jail, that is a Euler question. That means that's going to go through a whole elaborate process and city council members. And we all know this, everyone knows it, the individual city council member will have a disproportionate impact. To date, I have not heard of a lot of city council members who have said, hey, you know, that's what I'd like in my community. So, and I don't think that necessarily right. I mean, I think this is another thing we have to accommodate as part of changing people’s lives and making our city better. But I also am not surprised by that reality.  So what I would say is no, I do not have a specific vision at this hour. I'm going to come forward with a bigger plan. But I don't start with any assumption about what additional facilities would like and where they would be. That's not something I have resolved.

Question: As a follow-up to that, on Staten Island in particular, a couple of decades ago, there was a political deal where Staten Island wouldn't get a new jail but they'd get more homeless shelters. And neither of those happened. Do you think you'd ever consider a political swap like that?

Mayor: Well, I don't like the notion of a quote, unquote "political swap" to begin with. What I have said very clearly is, and we have the ability to do this, the city has the ability to cite homeless shelters, is we will put homeless shelters in place in Staten Island to address the need on Staten Island. The population on Staten Island. That is a given, that is  now the policy of New York City.  But again, I do not have a vision yet on where, if, how, we're going to look at the way we handle other jail facilities. 

Question: Mayor, I'm just wondering what you might say to someone who's unemployed and might hear about this program and wonder how it's fair that someone who's committed a crime is guaranteed a job, but they're not. 

Mayor: First of all, we've said very bluntly, they're guaranteed a job for up to 8 weeks. Thereafter, they have to get a job. We'll do everything we can to help them get a job, but the guarantee is up to 8 weeks.  And I would say, it's a smart investment for everyone. Getting someone out of the cycle of crime and incarceration is in everyone's interest.  And look, it's not something I've experienced in my life, but I know people who have, you know, and I can tell you that we all know people who have, probably. And it's part of life and we have to do better and better of breaking that cycle. And that is in the taxpayer's interest, that's in the community's interest, that's humane, that fits our faith traditions, you go down the whole list. But to folks who are unemployed and have not been incarcerated, I would say go to one of our Workforce One centers, which are available to all New Yorkers, and can connect people to jobs. And that's available right now, for free, every single day, all over the city. Yes, Henry. 

Question: Given the compelling nature of the argument you just made-

Mayor: Thank you, Henry. It was the nicest thing you've ever said to me. 

Question: Have you made any attempt to get the private sector involved in funding some of this? And if so –

Mayor: I have not. I don't think this has been part of the discussion so far. I think we would obviously welcome their involvement, but what I would editorialize and then the experts can follow up, I am not as concerned about them funding the 8-week transitional jobs. I am much more concerned about them providing the long-term jobs. By the way, we in Government should be held accountable for that too. So just to finish the point, my instruction to my team is, what can we do in the public sector? And with all of our non-profit partners, who we fund, to increasingly find employment opportunities for those returning from incarceration. Let's show that we are walking the walk. But we also need to find more and more partners in the private sector. And I do know, and I have met folks in the private sector who understand that this is one of the most important things that they can do, is give those opportunities, so we want to build up a group of people who will do that. 

Question: But if you [inaudible] at this stage, and have them buy in at this stage, wouldn't that have made it easier for them to buy in totally at the next stage?

Mayor: I understand it theoretically, I do, but I would say my composite experience with the private sector, is they're kind of show me the money people. And we put up our money, we start doing something, I think it's a lot easier to convince them to play their role as well. So I understand the point. It might have been a good thing to do. Here we are, we think we have a lot of opportunity to convince them to get involved. Want to see if there's anything else on this before we open up to others? Yes. 

Question: Can you tell us what crimes you were convicted of and what your first brushes with the criminal justice system were?

Mayor: Why don't we keep that generalized?

Unknown: Yeah, that's confidential. 

Question: Was it for like, a minor offense?

Leviticus: Yes. Yeah. You can talk about when you first went into the system, but you don't need to talk about the details. 

Unknown: I don't like to disclose that information. 

Question: Can you tell us –

Leviticus: Sure, I can tell you. I first went into the system, when I think I was 16 or 17. I was in for drug sales and a number of other crimes. I can tell you this. What I did was hurt my community, plain and simple. Right? I wasn't innocent. I hurt my community. We have a saying here at Fortune, hurt people hurt people. I was hurting. I dropped out of high school, never made it past the ninth grade, never really made it past the eighth grade. I think I was at time, socially promoted. So I was really hurting. I didn't believe in the future, I didn't think I had a future. So I went doing the things that I thought would help me. And that was hurt my community. So I've hurt my community. I've had a chance to benefit from incarceration. Going to school, they no longer have the college program. We're encouraging the governor to bring back the college program. It really makes a difference. And now, at Fortune, I have an opportunity to give back to the city by helping others transform their life. 

Question: Couple of quick questions. The ten-million dollars, how many years is that for? And for the –

Mayor: For a year, right?

Liz Glazer: Right. 

Mayor: Ten million per year, yup. 

Question: And are there any disqualifying criteria, the 85-hundred that get out of prison. If they have more serious –

Mayor: Jail. Jail. Important point. No, I know you're, I know you're not trying to use a different word, I just want, for everyone's benefit, you're in jail if it's Rikers or one of our other jails. Short-term sentence of up to a year, therefore a more minor crime, so if you're sentenced to that more minor crime, you come out.  Go on.

Question: So my question is, someone might have been sentenced for something minor, but in the past, they might have had something more serious, perhaps they have gang ties, or something that might concern employers. Is there any disqualifying criteria for those 85-

Mayor: I'm going to start with what I think is a common sense answer and let the experts go after.  Look, I think we could all agree that if we could rehabilitate someone completely, then what the specific offense was is less important. I think it's a very fair question to say, if someone committed a more negative, more heinous offense, you know, doesn't it suggest they're not going to be rehabilitatable. Very fair question. But I think we would all agree, if you could make someone whole, if you could make them a positive productive member of society, and if they're going to be out on the streets anyway, because we're talking about people who have been released, who have paid their debt to society, we want that to happen. Now, I could, friendly amendment to your question, is say, do we believe there's some circumstance where it's not viable, right? Or it's just too hard. And that's a good question and I'll let the experts answer, but I start from the assumption that if someone can be rehabilitated completely, that is in society's interest in a very big way.  Who wants to speak to anything else on that?

Unknown: I would say at Fortune, we don't pay attention to what people did, we pay attention to who they are when they walk through our doors, right? So David Rothenberg, Leviticus said, the crime is what people did. It's not who they are. So for us, the starting point is you want to change your life, you want to look for something brighter, then let's start at that particular point. What you did does not matter. What matters is who are you today? Who are you at this particular moment in time? And we hope to build on that foundation. 

Mayor: And generally speaking, if you've done more serious crime, again, you're going to come out of our prison system, so this isn't even applicable.  And second, you're probably going to be away for a long time. So you know, we are implicitly talking about folks, if they're on the street, even if they had a prior offense. If they're on the street, it means they've paid their debt to society. So is there anything else on this? Way in the back? Yep. 

Question: Understanding that the job guarantee is only for those who have been sentenced. 

Mayor: Sentenced. The 8,500.

Question: And that 8,500, okay, so that's 8,500 –

Mayor: For a year. Per year, according to current numbers. 85-hundred. Obviously we want to see that number go down because there will be fewer and fewer going in to begin with. But 85-hundred per year sentenced. Jillian?

Question: Who is sentenced to serve their time on Rikers? Is it some people with a sentence of a year or less? And can you give us a sense of what kind of [inaudible]

Mayor: Joe or Liz? Yeah. Give them real lives, specific crimes. Don't commit the crime, just tell them about it. 

Liz Glazer: It's things like larceny, things like that. 

Mayor: What does that mean in English?

Liz Glazer: Larceny is theft. Somebody's stolen something. So that's the largest number of folks who are in on sentenced crimes in Rikers, have committed those kinds of crimes. 

Mayor: And Jillian, I asked this question earlier as a non-lawyer. And so, if for example, if you commit a crime involving a firearm, that's prison, not jail in almost every circumstance, correct? Joe, you want to add on?

Commissioner Ponte: That’s correct. 

Question: Do you have any special procedures for sex offenders?

Mayor: I, for one, we have not discussed this previously. And we obviously want to be sensitive on this matter, but again, we're talking about people in through Rikers, and correct me, I think, generally, that's not the venue where sex offenders would be, is that correct?

Commissioner Ponte: It’s a one-year sentence. That would be generally, generally would not be in the Rikers' one-year sentence.

Question: So if sex offender commits a larceny, they're going be put in Rikers. [inaudible] as well?

Commissioner Ponte: They go through the same system. So there's no pre-disqualifiers. Yes. 

Mayor: Okay. Last call on this one.  Yes, Rosie. 

Question: Okay. I think you said that homeless shelters, borough jails are another thing you can accommodate as part of changing people's lives and making our city better. That sounds-

Mayor: Let's clarify. I appreciate your – legalistically I did say that sentence. But I also said very clearly we do not have a plan, we will have a plan by the time of executive budget. 

Question: Personal to it. 

Mayor: No, don't sound personal. You can posit that, but I'm glad you're asking me so I can say, nope, that's wrong.  We have, okay, let's run, let's call the roll. Where do we have jails, right now in New York City? Joe, where do we have jails?

Commissioner Ponte: Brooklyn, Manhattan and Bronx.

Mayor: Name the exact jails, please, and tell them where they are. 

Commissioner Ponte: PCBC in Bronx. Manhattan, which is Manhattan Jail in Manhattan, and the Brooklyn Center in Brooklyn. 

Mayor: Okay. Plus Rikers.

Commissioner Ponte: Plus the jails on Rikers, correct. 

Mayor: So we have four different locations now. Rikers is a special circumstance because it's so isolated. The other three are in communities. And obviously, we haven't needed those other three by definition, to date. And they are in communities. 

Question: Are there sentenced people at those borough jails or are those just holding?

Commissioner Ponte: Generally, no. There may be a few sentenced, depending on why, but generally no. They're pre-trial, generally. 

Mayor: So to get it back to your point, I'm talking about the history of New York City. We have had to have jails in communities. That is a true historical statement. That is not a commentary on where we are going. When we tell you where we're going, we're going to tell you where we're going and it's going to be very open and you're going to ask a whole lot of questions about it. But we have not made an assumption yet about the future. I'm just responding to Anna's point that in the past, yeah, there have had to be some places where there were jails. It is night and day compared to the homelessness dynamic, where as you know, I've put forward a plan for 90 new shelters. 90 new facilities, even though we're going be closing a lot of other types of things. So I think there's an apples and oranges dynamic here. Yes, Rich. 

Question: Mr. Mayor, what would your sales pitch be to people who philosophically say that they oppose being kind to people who committed a crime?

Mayor: I would say first of all, let's remember again that folks coming out  of our jails, overwhelmingly have committed lesser offenses. Second, I would say, morally, if we can redeem someone, that's what we're all here to do. Right? That's true in our faith traditions, that's true in our sense of public service in government. If we can turn someone's life around, that is the right moral thing to do. Third, I would say it's going to help us be safer. So you could have a theoretical discussion, but if I could show you that we could help people leave a life of crime and never go back, I think we'd all agree that's going make us safer. And finally, I'd say it's in the taxpayer's interest. Costs a lot of money to incarcerate someone. We could make sure they never go back because we made a short-term investment to avoid a much bigger long-term investment. I think in the end, that's the fair thing to do for our city. Way back there. 

Question: Mayor De Blasio, just to clarify, when you said that you had stopped people from going in over the last few years, does that include quality of life crimes or are you still committed to [inaudible]?

Mayor: Well, let me start, and Liz is going to help me out. You know, I think the whole quality of life crime discussion, and it is somewhat complex but I also think it's gotten a little off the rails. Most quality of life crime, which is most crime, right? It’s really low-level stuff. It is you know, open container. It's littering. It's walking in the park after hours. You know, it's turnstile jumping. It's all sorts of things, that under normal circumstances, unless you have other outstanding, more serious warrants--and you'll catch me if I miss anything here--unless you have other outstanding serious warrants or you're a intensive repeat offender, you're talking about something that increasingly is a summons. It is not an arrest and therefore, it has no reference point to our jail system. Am I so far right?

Liz Glazer: Yeah. These are not jail offenses. Summonsable offenses you do not go to jail for. 

Mayor: Okay. Let’s go to other topics. Mara?

Question: Mr. Mayor, you’ve been tweeting some about the White House’s refusal to call the killing of Timothy Caughman by a white supremacist who came to New York City to kill black men a hate crime.

Mayor: Yep.

Question: Has the crime gotten enough attention? And you have given it enough attention?

Mayor: Look, I’m astounded – let’s just stay on the first part, and then I’ll speak to the second part. The White House spokesman, Sean Spicer – I don’t know what’s going on here. We know this one – this was a racist killing. The NYPD has confirmed this guy came to New York City to kill black people. He’s exactly like Dylan Roof, who killed nine people in the church in Charleston. Exactly. And I said then and I say now – this was an act of domestic, racist terrorism. Plan and simple. How on Earth can the White House spokesman not agree with that? So what is Sean Spicer’s problem and what is Donald Trump’s problem that they can’t come out and say when something is an act of domestic terrorism that that’s what it is. And when it’s overtly racist. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the NYPD. The guy has said out loud to them – he came here to kill black people. I don’t know what else there is to know. So it reminds me very vividly of when Donald Trump refused to disavow the KKK and David Duke and acted like maybe they’re not as bad as people make them out to be. If a guy kills someone for a racist reason, call him a racist, call him a terrorist. Period.

Look, Mara. This was obviously horrible incident and exceedingly rare. We, we – I can’t remember another situation exactly like this in recent history in New York City. I think the NYPD has made abundantly clear we do not accept any acts of bias and there’s going to be very serious consequences. But this guy – let’s be clear – came here on a sick sense of mission and then turned himself in. The NYPD was clearly on his trail, but turned himself in and admitted what he did. He thought – he was somehow proud of it, which I think is even additionally more sick. But at least the leader of this country should be able to call it what it is.

Question: Sorry [inaudible]. Have you given it enough attention, other than your tweets?

Mayor: I don’t know what kind of additional attention. The NYPD got the guy. As I said, they were pursuing him immediately, and he turned himself in. But I have no doubt they would have gotten him anyway. And we already have a huge amount of effort in place to stop bias crime. So, and we’re also driving down crime overall and murder overall. So I think we’re paying a lot of attention to things we have to. I’m asking why the White House can’t even acknowledge what it is.

Marcia?

Question: Last week, the Department of Education took pizza and chicken tenders off the menu because there were things like pizza that looked like this, chicken tenders with pieces of metal or bones that people choked and then needed the Heimlich maneuver. I have two questions – number one, would you want your kids eating food like this?

Mayor: No.

Question: And secondly, why were the parents not informed? Where’s the transparency?

Mayor: Marcia, first of all, it’s disgusting. I was a public school parent for many years, as you know. Of course, I wouldn’t want my kids eating that kind of food. It looks dangerous. DOE immediately pulled all of those shipments of food out of the system. They’ve stopped that supplier from providing anything to us. I don’t know enough about what they’ve told parents in that school or not. I want to make sure there has been.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: Again, Marcia – I’m going to say about what I know. I don’t know that. But I would agree – if they haven’t informed parents enough, we want them to right away. So I’ll certainly direct DOE to be very, very clear with the parents in the school affected. What I can tell you is that supplier has been suspended. And we’re going to make sure that nothing unsafe reaches our kids.

Question: See, I have a follow-up question. Because they had the problem with the bones last September. What they did was they took it off for a little period of time, they decided to X-ray the chicken before it went to the kids. They put it back on the menu in January. And within six pieces of bones at schools in four of the five boroughs. How is that acceptable?

Mayor: Marcia, again. I don’t know the facts. I need to get the facts from DOE. And then I’ll happily comment. Jillian?

Question: Mr. Mayor, the Conflicts of Interest Board issued an advisory opinion today saying that an elected official should treat contributions to a legal defense fund as a gift, meaning that a person would not be able to accept more than $50 unless it was from a close friend or a family member. I was wondering if you could tell us how this would impact your decision to start a legal defense fund and whether you sought this advisory opinion from the Board?

Mayor: I personally did not. But, I think – again, a lot of people have been involved in trying to determine what’s the right way to go forward for a legal defense fund, whether it’s for me or anyone else. They are, as you know – legal defense funds have been around for decades and decades. And I think very, very clearly are an appropriate tool. Conflict of Interest Board has raised a set of concerns. We’ll certainly engage them on that and determine what’s the right way to proceed. But I haven’t gotten a chance to obviously see or digest what they’re saying. But we need to have an ongoing conversation to determine what’s the right way to go from here.

Question: Are you skeptical of this $50 limit that they have you know put out? Because in the past, you’ve cited the Conflict of Interest Board –

Mayor: Yes.

Question: – as the arbiter what you’ve done?

Mayor: Yes. Now, my understanding is they have said that the situation might require legislation, which is a perfectly fair alternative if it does. I think there’s more dialogue to be had because I don’t know what they’ve look at as the models. Again, legal defense funds are – I didn’t come up with the concept – they’ve been around for decades and decades. I think they’re a fair and appropriate tool. We’ll have more dialogue with them. But they clearly indicated that there is a way to resolve the issue if needed in a legislative fashion, so that’s an option on the table.

Question: So you’d be open to changing the law in the city, so that you could accept higher contributions?

Mayor: Well, not just me. I think the point is if there’s a gray area that might need a legislative way of addressing it, that’s – we deal with that all the time in government. If there’s something that has not been addressed, it may have to be addressed legislatively. But it may not. This is an initial view from the Board. We’re certainly going to have more dialogue to work through and show other examples of what’s happened in the past. Anna?

Question: [Inaudible] add an aerial gondola. It would go to Staten Island either from Manhattan, Brooklyn, or Bayonne in New Jersey. I’m just curious what you think about this. Is it even a realistic way to reduce commute times? What do you think?

Mayor: I’m not an expert on it. Look, it’s an appealing notion on its face – that it would be another alternative for Staten Islanders. And from I understand, these things are a lot easier to build than they were in the past. But I am not an expert. I don’t know how much we’re talking about in terms of cost or who would pay for it or any of those kinds of things. But look, it’s worth a look for sure. It’s worth consideration. I can’t go farther than that.

Yeah?

Question: Mr. Mayor, is your general approach to the State budget at this point that Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie is your main conduit for negotiation? It seems that you went up to Albany – you didn’t meet with Senator Flanagan, you didn’t meet with Governor Cuomo. So is it pretty much that at this point, that’s your approach is go through Speaker Heastie?

Mayor: I think it’s more complex than that. I would say if, if – if the way you phrase you it is Carl Heastie has been a close partner – absolutely. Speaker Heastie and the Assembly have consistently been supportive of the City’s needs, absolutely – more than the others, absolutely. But my staff is in daily contact with the Governor’s team and the State Senate. As I’ve said, I speak to – from time to time, I speak to Senator Flanagan. Obviously, I’ve spoken to the Governor over months and years many times. I think it’s fair to say that we have a real partnership with the Assembly. And you can see in their one-house budget that they agree with a lot of our key proposals, like the Mansion Tax, which they energetically embrace. Now, I think it’s important on the Mansion Tax that Senator Savino has come on board as the lead sponsor in the Senate.

I know the conventional wisdom is how difficult these things are to get done. I love addressing that conventional wisdom because conventional wisdom – by the way, conventional wisdom was Donald Trump couldn’t become President. I could go through a whole lot of other conventional wisdom for you. Conventional wisdom was we couldn’t get pre-K done. Conventional wisdom was there would never be a $15 minimum wage in New York State. Conventional wisdom was we’d never get paid family leave. Conventional wisdom is so wrong so often it’s amazing it’s conventional.

But, we know it’s an uphill battle for a Mansion Tax. But I did two tele-town halls that between them, had over 40,000 New Yorkers on them – as if anyone wants to think there’s not a constituency for a Mansion Tax. So, there’s going to be support for this. And we’re going to fight over these next days and this is an idea whose time has come. Assembly has been all over it. I think it’s important that a member of the IDC chose to take the sponsorship in the Senate. And you didn’t mention – I’m not saying this negatively – you didn’t mention the IDC, which is another part of the equation, and I’ve been in regular touch with Senator Klein. And my team has been in regular touch with his staff as well.

So, I think a lot if going to play out in Albany, and we’re going to look for opportunities right up to the final minutes, which is – you know too well what happens literally in the final minutes. But we also don’t waste a lot of time on the churn in Albany, which is often not productive. We put our ideas out there, find people who are going to bat for us, keep going on with our work.

Question: Just quickly, the Mansion Tax seems at the top. What else is at the top right now as you sort of how to narrow – 

Mayor: Sure.

Question: [Inaudible] going to talk to Speaker Heastie?

Mayor: Education aid, where I think we’ll make some progress, but we all know that there’s different ways to interpret the education proposals, but some of what was put forward by the Governor we weren’t pleased with, and certainly not in consistency with a Campaign for Fiscal Equity decision. But obviously, we’re going to fight and we think there’s a lot of energy in the Assembly and in the Senate both to increase education aid.

The housing MOU, which was passed almost a year ago, as everyone knows, and still has not come to fruition. We care deeply about getting that resolved favorably, which includes things like more funding for public housing, especially given the initial Trump budget. I have not seen – the Assembly once again put forward a robust proposal. We have not seen progress from the Senate or from the Governor on that front. We also have not seen the money, by and large, that we were promised two years ago in the budget for public housing two years ago from the Governor.

So, and then supportive housing. We do not have even the beginning of an inkling of how the State’s commitment on supportive housing is going to play out. We have no plan, no details, no specifics, no time lines, nothing. I hope the budget process will yield that.

Yes?

Question: To what extent should substantiate the allegations – excuse me, substantiated complaints of police misconduct be public? I know you’re trying to revise 50-a, but do you think 50-a should be entirely scrapped? And if not, why not?

Mayor: I’m not an expert on all the nuances of 50-a. And I think 50-a refers to a lot of other matters beyond disciplines if I understand correctly. But what I’d say is the disciplinary record I think should be public. We’re going to obviously, vigorously support legislation in the legislative session. So you’ll see the exact wording. But I think that’s one thing we have to do, which is the legislative piece – make possible legally viable to be able to disclose disciplinary records.

The other thing has already begun in the NYPD, which is to consistently improve our process, beginning with recruitment, and training, and then re-training, and supervision, and when there are individuals who have problems, address them very forcefully to make sure we don’t have someone with a pattern of problems. And I think – I think, you know, look the case at hand revolves around someone who was very much trained in the old way under Commissioner Kelly. Commissioner Bratton, Commissioner O’Neill fundamentally changed the NYPD. I don’t think the story has been fully told, but I can guarantee you because I’ve watching it for over three years. They have fundamentally changed life inside the NYPD. They’ve fundamentally changed training. They’ve fundamentally changed the expectations. They’ve changed the composition of the force – you name it. So, I think the expectations now, right down to the precinct commander level, are that there needs to be a different relationship between police and community, between officers and the people they encounter. There needs to be de-escalation. I think we’re dealing with a very different reality right now.

Question: When you said – I think you said [inaudible], you’re referring to Pantaleo?

Mayor: Yes, I am. Yes, yes, no – Pantaleo, Pantaleo.

Yes?

Question: I have to ask you two questions, and I’m trying to think of clever way to tie them together.

Mayor: Go ahead.

Question: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

[Laughter]

Mayor: Just A for effort.

Question: We wrote –

Mayor: I think what you could say is in New York City, and then ask the first question. You say also in New York City, and you know – really would work.

Question: Next time. We have a story this morning on the growing presence of ICE officers in courtrooms who are picking people up after court proceedings. I know that you’ve said that the City would stand up to the federal government to protect undocumented residents. Is there anything that your administration can do? Or anything that you’re asking the Office of Court Administration to do in response to this? That’s the first question.

Mayor: Let me stay on that one, and I’ll come to the second. And Liz will certainly be a part of these discussions. Look, let’s be clear – that’s State property. We’re really clear about what we’re going to do on City property, and what we delineated about the Department of Education is going to be true for all of our agencies. And obviously both our Police Commissioner and our Schools Chancellor have been very clear about how their employees will comport themselves. But when talking about State property, we have to be respectful of the State’s prerogative. We certainly will have that dialogue because it does worry me. It worries me that it is going to create fear, and it worries me that it’s going to create a lesser willingness come forward. For example, if a witness is supposed to testify, you’re creating a potential disincentive, which really flies in the face of our approach to public safety. Again, going back as far as Mayor Giuliani – that if folks who witness crimes don’t feel they can come forward, that makes us less safe. So I’m worried about it. I don’t have a solution. We will engage in the Office of Court Administration, and we will, at minimum, try and see if there can be some clear boundaries or guidelines.

Go ahead.

Question: I want to know what do you charge each of your tenants in rent currently in your capacity as a landlord?

Mayor: Couple things. So we have three apartments we are renting, one of which is the house I lived in until I was elected. I cannot quote you two of them. One that was in the papers recently is $1,825. That was based on a $25 rent increase this time. But the previous time, we did a rent freeze. I don’t know – I literally can’t quote you the exact figure on the other two. There’s another member of my couple who is more conversant in the management of those properties. But I can tell you this – we have done our own personal rent freezes many times over the last few years. And then other times, we will raise the rent if there’s a specific thing we had to repair or a specific improvement we had to make. We’re not covered by the rent stabilization law as you know, but our attitude has been – if there isn’t a specific reason to raise the rent, we don’t raise it. And if there is a specific repair we have to make, then we do.

Question: So just to clarify that – the most recently reported rents for the other two [inaudible] $2,750 and $4,975.

Mayor: I don’t know if that’s accurate.

Question: Would you – can the Press Office tell us that? Or can someone –

Mayor: The Press Office can talk to Chirlane McCray and see how she feels about answering that.

[Laughter]

They’ll follow up.

Go ahead, Yoav.

Question: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask you – I guess the Health Department has banned two of the mohels from the circumcision practice, but they are refusing to identify who they are. I’m wondering why that is and also, how do you plan on enforcing the ban, particularly without notifying the community about who to avoid.

Mayor: Yes, let me frame this for a moment. I fundamentally believe – I have a lot of experience with the community. I want to say at the outset – this is a very diverse, complicated community. Sometimes I think things get reduced a little too much in the discussion of the Orthodox Jewish community. It’s hundreds of thousands of people with lots of different communities within it – different people handle things in different ways. But I did feel as someone who had been very involved in representing the community, including going back to being a Councilman who represented Borough Park, that the previous administration’s policy was missing the mark entirely. It was creating a lot of sense in the community of being disrespected – that their religious practices were being denigrated, or looked down, or interfered with. It was not making children safer. And it did not have, in my opinion, an effective mechanism for improving the safety of kids, or for educating the community.

We came together with community leaders who represent pieces of the community. They weren’t – it’s not like anyone can say they speak for the entire Jewish people or any other people. We came together – a group of community leaders who did have major leadership roles. We said let’s find a solution that protects children and respects religious freedom at the same time. But it will require a real group effort – a real team effort. It will require an understanding that if any mohel affects a child that is not in the interest of anyone – the city or the community – for that individual to keep doing that practice. We thought we had common ground, and it would have involved community leaders bringing forward those individuals, identifying them, and getting them out of that work. We tried that for most of two years. It did not work. I want to say this as plainly as I can – we tried a new policy. I’m convinced the old policy wasn’t working. We tried a new policy. It didn’t work either, which I’m very unhappy about because I thought we took a thoughtful approach, and I thought we attempted to be very respectful and communicative, and I’m not happy about the outcome. And I don’t think those community leaders did all they could have done. So now we’re going to go in a different direction.

Now, to your question, we can’t – as far as we can understand legally at this moment because of confidentiality rules related to someone’s health status – we can’t publish the names overtly. We are looking for some pathway to do that that’s appropriate. We can certainly tell those individuals they should stop participating in this practice. And unfortunately once they have herpes, it doesn’t go away, so they would need to stop permanently. They could participate as sort of a second member of a team undertaking the practice, and someone else does the other element of it. But they can’t, if they’re going to make sure a child is safe, they can’t do it anymore.

We’re also going to go out and do something that did come out of this last couple years, which is we got involved with hospitals that serve the community and health care providers to ask them to become partners in addressing this, which they have been. We’re going to now do a much more intensive effort to educate parents, particularly mothers, as to the dangers of this practice, and we’re going to say to them it’s important to [inaudible]. But I still am going to keep an open door for community leaders to come back to us and participate and help us solve the problem, which I ultimately believe is in everyone’s interest. So, you know, nothing here ends that possibility of cooperation, but we didn’t see it, so we decided to go in another direction.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: I just described it. We evaluated it, we found it didn’t work because it depended on cooperation we didn’t receive. Now, we’re going directly to the parents – we have lots of ways to reach them – not to question their religious rights or freedoms or practices, but to say this is something where there’s a potential challenge for the health of your baby. Ask the mohel if they’re infected with herpes.

Question: Do you think it’s appropriate for any adult individual to suck on the penis of an infant at any time?

Mayor: Look, when you say it that way – but this is a religious tradition. Look, I’m keenly aware of our Constitution. And I’ve said this many times on this and many other topics – I interpret, I think, accurately the U.S. Constitution and say we respect all faith traditions. It’s a very dangerous dynamic to start to say one faith tradition’s practices are a problem and other ones are not. I think the right way as a public servant to look at it is we respect all faith traditions. We set ground rules, obviously, about health and safety. Here, we’re saying – respect the tradition, it can be done safety. We’re going to inform the parents of their rights if we find any individual that has herpes – we’re going right at them. We’re going to find them directly. We’re going to tell them to get out of this work. We think we have real consequences we can create, but we have to be mindful of religious freedom, we also have to be mindful of what will work, which is, again, what I keep coming back to. The previous policy of the Bloomberg administration did not work – the facts bared out. Our policy, I’m sorry to say, did not work – the facts bared out. We’ve got to try another policy. We’ve got to go back to the well and try again. But to say to people, just abandon your religious tradition and call us later, that’s not going to happen. Let’s engage the parents and see if we can fix this situation.
  
Mayor: I’ll do a few more. Way back first.

Question: Mr. Mayor, do you know [inaudible] to discuss raising the criminal responsibility age to 18. By now, New York [inaudible] –

Mayor: Yes

Question: - in jail so the argument is teens 16-17 and younger when they’re released –

Mayor: Yes, yes, I know.

Question: [inaudible] So just your remarks on that [inaudible]

Mayor: We have to raise the age. It’s as simple as that. We have to raise the age. You know, everyone knows there’s only two states in the country that haven’t done it. I’m sick of this, you know, self-congratulatory tone about New York State that we’re so progressive when we don’t have the proper age for dealing with our young people. We have some of the most backwards election laws in the county. I mean, I’m proud of the historic New York progressive tradition; I’ll invoke that, I love Franklin Roosevelt and other things. But let’s stop kidding ourselves, this state needs to get up to date on many levels. And we are – you know – we should be ashamed of that fact that we haven’t raised the age already. We should be ashamed of how long it took to fix the Rockefeller drug laws and how deeply this state went into massive incarceration. We should be ashamed of the fact that we have absolutely backwards electoral laws which are not disconnected to the fact that all these other things took so long to fix. So it has to happen now. I do think – because that whole mass incarceration movement I talked about – you know, I do think the pressure is really mounting and the assembly in particular has been fighting very hard for this.

Let’s go back to front. I see a hand over there.

Question: Sir, you have expressed openness to expanding the sets of crimes that the City cooperates with ICE on, but Speaker Mark-Viverito has said that she’s against doing that. Would you say that that’s not going to happen given her opposition?

Mayor: I have not heard her say she is against doing that. I’m just going to tell you exactly what I understand from both the public domain and my own conversations with her. We’re going to put forward a proposal that we think properly updates the law. We think the law can be improved and very proud of that law because 170 offenses really does get to the heart of the matter. And unlike the extreme of having no offenses for which we would participate with ICE, which I think would be madness. Or, any and all things that anyone does wrong including littering we’re going to hand them over to ICE,  which I also think would be madness, we have a very clear set of rules and 170 offenses is the core of those rules. But I think we can improve the law. I believe the Speaker will give our proposal a fair hearing. I believe that members of the council will too. And the Speaker plays a very important role but we also have a dialogue with all 51 members so we’re not there yet, we have not put the proposal forward but I believe it will ultimately be something the council takes very seriously.

Way back. Bobby.

Question: Back to the legal defense fund real quick, assuming that you cannot foot your own legal bills, you’ve said yourself you’re not a billionaire. Would you leave open the possibility of using city tax payer funds for legal defense?

Mayor: I don’t see that scenario. I believe since legal defense funds are such a well-known tool and I honestly – I’ve been at this a long time – I’ve never heard a critique of the concept of legal defense funds until now. But if we have to figure out the right ground rules that’s perfectly fair and I believe we’ll eventually find a way to do that.

Yes.

Question: Mr. Mayor, regarding the court ruling yesterday impeding the construction of the homeless shelter in Crown Heights, what is your reaction to that and how does this impede your plan to get the shelters up and running?

Mayor: I, you know, I respect the judge but I think we have handled the process properly. We’re not going to wait long; I think the judge said she’s going to come back in two weeks, which is obviously not a long time in the scheme of things. We believe we’ll prevail. We think we’re on very firm legal grounds. And then we’re going to continue. I don’t see anything about this that will untimely stop us from moving forward our plan.

Question: Besides no you can’t have a shelter there, would you want another location?

Mayor: I’m going to be – first of all, I honestly believe we’re going to prevail. I believe, you know, we think the law is squarely on our side and if we have to appeal, we’ll appeal et cetera, et cetera. But it parallels other situations, and I want to be very clear about this. You know, before – and I think we didn’t do a good job of communicating on many ways around Maspeth originally. But the reason we didn’t follow through on Maspeth is the owner of the facility pulled out. We’re going to have another facility there. There’s no question about that. There’s 250 people from that community board who should be in shelter as locally as possible – were going to have a facility there. We’re going to have a facility in the community board that includes Crown Heights because there’s more need for people that come from that community. We’ll find the right place. I believe this is it. I also think considering it’s a facility for people 62 years and older, I’m a little surprised at some of the folks who are opposing it. But this plan will be implemented. Period. Sometimes there’ll be delays, sometimes we may have to find a different location for a very specific reason but we are adamant it will implemented, it will be implemented on time.

Henry.

Question: Four years ago you ran [inaudible] talking about income –

Mayor: We’re having a very good day Henry.

[laughter]

Question: This year your focus is much more on your ability, it’s much more talking about the city is one city, and I’m thinking – I’m wondering what you’re thinking was in changing the emphasis of your message.

Mayor: I appreciate your question. I would argue affordably is in a direct extension of the discussion of tale of two cities. I know – I’ve seen different analyses, we’ve changed our message. I’ve seen analyses saying we’re sticking to our message. I would like to clarify for everyone. We are sticking to our original message. But you got to update some elements of it when you’re in government because we’re responsible for what we’ve done. So I would argue one, the affordability crisis is part in parcel of the income inequality crisis because the cost of living has made it impossible for people to make ends meet so we have to go with that. And as we’ve introduced this year more and more a focus on the jobs piece that is about raising incomes which gets right back to income inequality and fronting the tale of two cities. Because I think happened before was, you know, one side of the equation got all of the advantages and the other side didn’t.

Well, what’s happened since? Pre-K for all, after school for all, rent freeze, vast affordable housing plan, legal counsel for folks who make up to $50,000 which is a supreme act of addressing income inequality. I can go on with many other examples, so we believe we’re fundamentally addressing income inequality. On the one city point, you know, I think it’s a really normal construct to say it’s a tale of two cities we don’t want to remain that way. Now everyone asks me the very fair question does that mean we’re going to get the wealthy to give up all their money so we can get to a single equal income for all – no. Tempting, but no. It’s not going to happen. Don’t have that legal authority.

The idea was never could we make the super-rich not super rich. It was absolutely could we make the super-rich pay their fair share in taxes. We tried that originally with pre-K, we’re doing it again with mansion tax. It’s absolutely pushing the private sector to do more. But really it was about raising the floor first and foremost: higher wages, better benefits like paid sick leave, $15 minimum wage, taking financial burdens off people – that’s pre-K, that’s afterschool, obviously big first and foremost affordable housing, but it’s also raising wages beyond the minimum wage with a bigger vision of more jobs and higher paying jobs. And getting more New Yorkers – I love a new high paying job in New York City. I love it generically but, if it goes to someone who comes in from California that’s not the same thing as if it goes to someone who grew up in Bronx and went to our public schools or came out of CUNY. So, I’m trying to change the equation. More jobs, more high paying jobs, more jobs that go to people who are actually from here.

So long answer to your short question, I think the affordability crisis and the way we’re trying to address affordability is directly related to the original concept of addressing a tale of two cities. I think when we talk about one city, it is the aspirational goal of reducing inequality incessantly which will not only be my mission but I hope many of my successors.

David.

Question: Comment on the Conflict of Interest Board opinion. The advisory opinion didn’t say you couldn’t set up a legal defense fund, it just said that you’d be limited in almost every case to accepting only donations under $50 for that. Now you suggested that you’d go back to them and try to get them to change that ruling. Is that what you’re saying? That you’d sort of – would you work on the assumption that that ruling doesn’t have any legal holding. And then –

Mayor: No I have a lot of respect for the Conflict of Interest Board. So first of all, this now initiates a dialogue. I mean they’re a government body like everyone else; you can go back and say well what about this example or what about this history, and again this is not just applying to me, it applies to other people who may need to use this approach. Second, as they’ve indicated a potential solution is through legislation. That’s a perfectly fair possibility. I’m not committing to anything yet because they literally just put it out and we have think about it, we have to talk to them. That’s another avenue so, I haven’t drawn any conclusions.

Question: The other potential solution is if you had a very – have a close friend who could give you unlimited donations, do you have any close friend that has –

[laughter]

Mayor: I’d like to meet that close friend. I don’t know of that person. But again, I don’t want to speak in terms of theoreticals. I – this is a conversation now we will initiate with the Conflict of Interest Board which I’ve been, you know, very focused throughout my public career in adhering to their decisions.

Go ahead Jillian.

Question: How long would a change in legislation take in order to –

Mayor: Who knows –

Question: [inaudible]

Mayor: No, no its perfectly fair question I’m jumping in to say so the ruling came out an hour ago. We have to look at it, we have to talk to them, we have to think about what it means. And again, I don’t know. This absolute respect for them – I again have long, positive working relationship with them and have followed their specific guidance throughout my career. I’ve gone to them many times long before I had this office, but I don’t know if they’ve looked at the different models that have been used around the country. I just don’t know. We’d want to have the conversation first, and others who are interested should have the conversation as well and then we’ll see what it means. I can’t surmise what legislation would take. Sometimes legislation moves fast, sometimes it doesn’t. But were not even close to that yet.

Question: [inaudible] that be way to change –

Mayor: I just said it may not be because we have to have a conversation with them to see if they have looked at all the possibilities.

Unknown:  Last question.

Mayor: Go ahead Rich.

Question: So Mr. Mayor, so maybe I missed it and I apologize if I did, but you [inaudible] other city employees to be defended by city money –

Mayor: Sure

Question: Why is it that you don’t feel like you should be defended by city money? I don’t -

Mayor: It’s not a feeling question Rich. It is that I think – look, I maybe could give a parallel to when the pay raise issue came up. I thought it was important because I was a part of process not to take the pay raise for this term. I think, because I’m the leader of the whole operation, it is better not to ask the taxpayers to cover expenses – even if they’re valid expenses. Right? I mean, this is – it’s an investigation involved to some extent things that I was doing as part of my official work. Obviously, we were exonerated. But I just don’t feel comfortable asking the taxpayers to pay for that piece of the equation.

Question: Ramarley Graham’s mother, as you know, was curious that Richard Haste was allowed to quit. Your office explained these are union rules –

Mayor: Yes.

Question: Moving forward, would you like to see those rules changed if something like this happens where an officer is convicted by the NYPD?

Mayor: Look I – that’s obviously a subject in negotiation. I would say it a little – I mean I would respond to it differently. I – a mother’s grief, there’s nothing sadly, tragically it could compare to how much pain she’s in. And mothers who have lost other children. The first thing I want say is my mission is that no other mother in New York City goes through that. And I think it’s hard for us to think beyond tragedy and I understand that were human beings, but meanwhile what we’ve doing consistently having learned such painful lessons from these tragedies is changing the nature of policing. You know, I don’t think anyone sort of fully took in what a radical thing it was the day that Bill Bratton said he was going to retrain the entire the police force and then keep retraining the entire police force. That’s changed everything in terms of how officers approach these situations. Neighborhood policing is changing everything. Implicit bias training which is happening this year, which is an extraordinary development for the NYPD, is going to change things.

So job one is don’t have another tragedy. In terms of this situation the process unlike – you know we had a DA process that ended up in unclear outcome, a DOJ process that ended up with unclear outcome, the one process that actually followed through was the NYPD’s disciplinary process. And it resulted a decision of termination. I think that was a functioning process, I think it got to a clear outcome and the fact that he resigned first, I understand why that’s painful to some but I don’t find it to be the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is there was a disciplinary process, it came to a clear verdict, that verdict has been effectively achieved. He’s off the force. He lost his pension. I think there’s clearly been consequences here and that’s what a process is supposed to engender. I’m going to keep going a little bit more.

Go ahead.

Question: Would you meet with Ms. Malcom after –

Mayor: I just want to say Eric Phillips has been standing a long time, I think you’re all very insensitive. Go ahead.

Question: Would you meet with Mr. Malcom?

Mayor: I would say this, there are two upfront, honest conditions I would put on any potential meeting. I cannot talk about ongoing cases. Everyone knows there are two more officers that will be going through a disciplinary process. The ultimate adjudicator in that process is Commissioner O’Neill who directly reports to me. So I am – would not be comfortable being in a room where anyone attempted to sway my view from either side about specific discipline actions on specific officers and there are two more coming up. If she said I want to talk to you about what happened in the previous case, to understand it better or to critique it anyway like that, that is acceptable. If she wants to talk about our efforts to change the police force and protect against this kind of incident in the future, I would do that. But I’m going to be very straightforward, I’m saying it publicly but we’ll also communicate it directly to her lawyers, I’m very clear that those would be the ground rules. I feel morally those have to be the ground rules because there has to be a guarantee of equal justice to everyone in the equation whether they’re a community resident or a police officer. If she truly can accept those ground rules, I would meet with her. If she cannot, I do not think it would be appropriate.

Question: Just one quick comment on that. You said you would talk to Commissioner O’Neill about the Dan Pantaleo leak in ThinkProgress, have you done that and how did that discussion go? And how did you feel when you read about the – Officer Pantaleo’s history?

Mayor: Look, the history causes concerns there’s no two ways about it. That’s my point, that we – he was trained in a different world. And I want to be fair. I don’t know the details of each case. And we should not rush to conclusions but of course it raises questions. But I also want to say this individual who was trained under an entirely different leadership of the police force with an entirely different approach; today’s officers are being trained and supervised with a very different philosophy. 

Question: [inaudible] shelter issue, we did a story last week on sort of one year since the East New York rezoning deal, and part of that deal was closing down two shelters. Councilmember Espinal said everything is great but that – you know the city’s following through – but that’s one area of concern. He said we got two shelters closed in this deal and now the city’s talking about opening more, so what do you say to residents of East New York who, you know sort of supported that deal based on reducing the number of shelters?

Mayor: I don’t have all the chapter and verse in front of me, but whatever specific commitments we made we’re absolutely going to keep. That being said I don’t think there’s any unfairness in saying we came up with a brand new policy, and we have to apply that policy fairly. Typically when there’s a complaint about shelters, it is specific to the shelter. I’m not saying there isn’t overall concern. I’m saying when council members have come to us – and a lot of council members have multiple shelters in their district – when I was council member for district 39 I had a shelter three blocks from my home, but I was at peace with how it was connected to the community. I had a marine transfer station I could walk to, but I was at peace that it was not having a negative impact on my community. I think there are plenty of shelters where we don’t hear complaints from council members. My understanding was that Councilmember Espinal had complaints and concerns about these specific shelters and specific things about them, and we will fulfill our commitments. But we also have to move to a model that is borough-based and community-based, and we will continue to do that. I think we can do that with him. I don’t know the numbers. I don’t know what the numbers in his district say. Again, in my community board – community board 6 Brooklyn – there’s about a hundred more beds that will have to be put in as part of our homeless plan. In others  there’s actually reductions that will be anticipated eventually. I’d have to look at his to be sure, but either way you slice it, we’ll keep the original commitment.

Question: In terms of ICE staking out the court houses, NYPD’s going to come up with, by June, guidance on when to use the civil versus the criminal summonses for small quality of life offenses, and obviously immigrants would be safe going to OATH on city property not necessarily the courts that are being staked out by ICE.  Is that something that’s going to play into the decision making in terms of criminal versus civil summonses?

Mayor: Liz may jump in if she wants to add – I want to go back to first principles. Job one on anything about criminal justice is keeping the city safe, and, you know again, I understand some who have critiques quality of life policing and then connected that critique to the Trump administration reality and the new immigration policies. I keep coming back to – and it’s just what I believe. People can ask it one hundred times, I’ll keep giving you the same answer. I believe our job is to keep people safe, and we think quality of life policing is a part of that, and it’s being applied in a more and more fair manner – more warnings and summonses, fewer arrests. Obviously fewer – we changed the whole policy on arrest for low level marijuana possession. I think that’s the right way to go for the safety of New York City. I’m not going to make a decision first and foremost because it may have a ramification at some point for some individual who is undocumented. I’m going to make it based on what’s in the interest of the safety of New York City. But I believe our overall approach actually does satisfy that second concern about our undocumented residents that quality of life policing – and Liz can correct the record if there’s any qualifier here – quality of life policing overwhelmingly does not put undocumented folks into contact with ICE because it rarely results in an arrest unless there are other outstanding warrants or again intensive, repeat behavior. Let’s just let Liz speak to it, and then you can follow up.

Director Glazer: No, that’s exactly right. And as far as the summonses moving from criminal to civil – that’s in statute, so that’s going to move forward no matter what. That’s going to start on July 1, and there’s a specified list of summonses that will be enforceable as civil offenses.

Question: [Inaudible] NYPD is going to make a decision about when the officers are instructed to give out civil summonses as opposed to criminal.

Director Glazer: Correct. I think that there’s a broad acceptance that in the default will be civil offenses, and that NYPD will reserve the right to use the criminal option when appropriate.

Mayor: Commissioner Bratton very powerfully – when he was in office – talked about the peace dividend. And I, again, I think the question is very, very pertinent given the environment we’re in.

Question: [Inaudible]

Mayor: But, but just let me finish. I think also I’m asking for a little bit of perspective here. This NYPD has steadily decreased its contact with everyday New Yorkers and looked for the least invasive, if you will, way of addressing a problem. That has been the training. Officer discretion gets to that, so it’s clear there’s been a steady downward movement in terms of arrest in particular, and the things that now are more favored whenever possible – summons and warning etc. – do not put anyone in harm’s way who’s undocumented.

Question: But a criminal summons will send you to court, correct? And you can be issued a bench warrant if you don’t show up, and then be arrested? But even before that –

Mayor: Yeah, but wait – Liz you can speak to the process – if someone has done a quality of life offense. We’re not talking about they did other much worse things in the past, and we’re not talking about someone who jumps a turnstile ten times. Just, let’s do a first time offender – litterer, open container, you name it. Liz, what happens after – if they’re even given summons what happens?

Director Glazer: So, the most important thing is that they’re not fingerprinted, so it is an invisible offense with respect to ICE. So it’s’ like a ticket. You have your ticket and you show up in summons court, and then it’s determined whether the summons will be dismissed or you pay a fine.

Mayor: You pay your summons, right. So there are two outcomes.

Let me see if there’s anything else? Henry?

Question: [Inaudible] torture this audience here. [Inaudible] I’m trying to figure out [inaudible.]

Mayor: Aren’t you up for election as the – no? Okay.

[Laughter]

Question: I’m trying to figure out why you’re using different words this year?

Mayor: What words?

Question: Affordability versus income inequality.

Mayor: Okay, I –

Question: Why do you choose to use –

Mayor: I really think I spoke to it, but I’ll just say it this way. Because we believe that the central problem – and I have experienced this more and more in office – the central problem facing the city is affordability. And that that also allows us to encompass the solutions that are about reducing the cost of housing and improving incomes through better jobs, higher paying jobs. So I don’t think it’s a major evolution. I also think when you’re in office you have to own the overall picture, which is different from when you’re outside trying to critique a reality. And we believe we’re addressing income inequality; we’re addressing the tale of two cities; we’re addressing the affordable housing crisis and the affordability crisis in general. Again, I don’t think it’s a big difference.

I’m going to see if there’s anything else before we go. Going once, twice?

Thank you.