Daily News Summary

District 11 June Primary Race: Abigail Martin Endorsed by NYC Kids PAC for City Council

Norwood News
Feb. 24, 2021

City Council candidate in the District 11 Democratic June primary race, Abigail Martin, announced on Tuesday, Feb. 23, that she has received the endorsement of NYC Kids PAC, the only parent-led political action committee focused on NYC public schools.

NYC Kids PAC opposes the privatization of public schools, and advocates for the elimination of high-stakes testing and the reduction of class size and school overcrowding, among other issues. The organization advances its goals by supporting candidates for office who have demonstrated a commitment to improving New York City's public schools.

Martin's campaign said she is a parent of twin girls who are kindergarteners at P.S. 81, her family's local elementary school in north Riverdale, and the same school her husband attended. "As an educator and as a proud public school parent, I understand the challenges facing children throughout New York City, which have been exacerbated by the pandemic," she said.

"Our public schools must be equitable and a place where every child is given the resources and support they need to fulfill their individual potential. I thank NYC Kids PAC for the important work they do in advocating for public schools and for New York City families," she added.

Martin, who was previously profiled by the Norwood News, is a social worker and an adjunct professor at the Columbia University School of Social Work. She previously received the endorsement of the Northwest Bronx Democrats in the District 11 race, along with Dan Padernacht.

As previously reported by the Norwood News, Martin and male district leader of the 80th Assembly District, Marcos Sierra, announced last month that they had both dropped out of the March 23 District 11 special election, citing health-related risks linked to the coronavirus, but said they still plan to participate in the June primary, which takes place on June 22.

Candidates were required to gather a minimum number of signatures from local residents in order to qualify for the ballot in the March special election. As reported by the Norwood News, that minimum had been 450 signatures until Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Jan. 7 that he was reducing it to 315.

Some candidates had raised concerns, during prior weeks, about the impact of the signature collection process on people's health, and had called for for the minimum signature requirement to be waived amid fears of exacerbating the spread of the coronavirus through mass person-to-person contact. Jessica Haller and Mino Lora, the latter having been ranked as a second choice candidate after Martin by NYC Kids PAC, are both running in the March special election, and announced at separate stages in recent months that they had each contracted the virus.

A Board of Elections public hearing was held on Feb. 4 to assess which candidates had collated the minimum number of signatures needed to proceed. According to the New York City Board of Elections and Ballotpedia, there are six candidates finally on the ballot in the District 11 March special election race.

These are retired NYPD detective, Carlton Berkley, Eric Dinowitz, a teacher and Democratic district leader for the 81st Assembly District, Haller, a tech entrepreneur and environmentalist, Lora, founder and executive director of the People's Theatre Project, lawyer and Bronx CB 8 Traffic and Transportation Committee Chair, Dan Padernacht, and freelance filmmaker, Kevin Pazmino, who is the most recent candidate to join the race. Dionel Then dropped out of the race last August, endorsing Padernacht, as he did so.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the June primary election, Martin announced in January that she had raised $39,360 from 445 contributors in the first five months of her campaign. This includes 163 contributions from local District 11 residents, which in turn represents more than double the number of local contributions required by the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB) to qualify for its matching funds program. It also means that 36.6 percent of her total number of contributions came from local residents.

The voluntary, small-dollar, public matching funds program incentivizes candidates to rely on regular New Yorkers, rather than special interest groups and corporates, for contributions to their political campaigns. As a reward, for each dollar (up to a maximum of $250) contributed by a resident to a candidate's campaign, the CFB program allots up to $8 in public funds to that campaign. Additional rules stipulate maximum allotment thresholds per contributor.

Martin has raised $20,403 in matchable donations, just $1,097 short of the $21,500 needed to receive the full match allowed by the CFB. Based on her fundraising totals thus far, she is expected to receive at least $163,224 in matching funds before the June primary.

"The support this campaign has received is a clear sign that the people of the Northwest Bronx want new leadership, and want a true political outsider representing us," she said. "In the City Council, I will fight for every member of our community, and I will work to rebuild a just and equitable New York that is more affordable for working families, and those on fixed incomes."

The average contribution to Martin's campaign to date is $67.45, and 72 percent of her donations have been from people contributing $50 or less. "I would like to thank my fundraising team and campaign staff for their hard work," said Martin. "Most of all, I would like to thank each and every person who has joined this effort, including the hundreds of small donors who are helping to grow this grassroots campaign."

Under the CFB's matching funds program, all donations from New York City residents between $10 and $175 are eligible to be matched with $8 in public funds for every $1 raised, up to a total of $21,500.

Meanwhile, in terms of the latest campaign contribution filings for the March special election race, according to the CFB, Haller leads in campaign contributions with $79,117, followed by Dinowitz with $72,062 Padernacht with $42,446, Lora with $35,810 and Berkley with $10,301. There was no information available for Kevin Pazmino who told the Norwood News he was, in any case, only accepting small contributions to his campaign.

The nonpartisan special election in District 11 was called by the mayor on Jan. 4 to find a replacement for former District 11 City Councilman, Andrew Cohen, who was elected as a judge to the Bronx Supreme Court in November and resigned from his City Council seat on Dec. 31. It is the one of the first two elections in the Bronx which will incorporate the new method of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), the other being District 15.

RCV is a voting method whereby voters can rank up to five candidates in order of preference, instead of choosing just one. If a candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, that candidate is the winner. If no candidate earns more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, then counting will continue in rounds. At the end of each round, the candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated.

If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate first, then the next highest ranked candidate on the voter's ballot will be taken into account in the next round of counting. The process continues as such until there are two candidates left. The candidate with the most votes wins. For official information on ranked choice voting, go to the NYC Campaign Finance Board FAQ page or the New York City Board of Elections website.

The Bronx Democratic Party also recently hosted an informational session on Ranked Choice Voting which can be viewed here in conjunction with the group, Rank the Vote NYC. Norwood News checked with the City's Campaign Finance Board about the expertise of Rank the Vote NYC and were advised that the group is a reputable source on the topic and is a voter education campaign that is run by Common Cause NY.

BronxNet aired the first of a series of debates between the District 11 City Council candidates on Feb. 2, and that debate which was hosted in conjunction with The Riverdale Press can be viewed online here. The Norwood News later provided a brief recap of the debate.

Northwest Bronx Indivisible and Riverdale Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture hosted a further virtual debate among the candidates on Sunday, Feb. 7, at 3 p.m. This debate can be viewed here.

Another debate was hosted by the Northwest Bronx Community & Clergy Coalition in conjunction with LAAL, a nonprofit supporting Bengali women in the Norwood section of the Bronx on Wednesday, Feb. 10. That debate can be viewed here. A further debate hosted by City Limits was held on Sunday, Feb. 14. That debate can be viewed here.

A Women of Woodlawn Candidate's Forum will be held on Monday, Feb. 15, at 6 p.m. More details can be found here.

A City Council Town Hall, presented by the SAR High School EPG Club, based in Riverdale in the Northwest Bronx, will be held on Wednesday, Feb. 17 and can be viewed here.

A further District 11 City Council candidates' forum was held on Monday, Feb. 22, hosted by the Fort Independence Park Neighborhood Association. A copy of the forum will be shared, once available.

Riverdale Nature Preservancy will also be hosting a virtual conversation with the District 11 special election candidates on Thursday, March 4 at 8 p.m. The Zoom link to join the conversation is as follows: https://tinyurl.com/RNPForum, and the Meeting ID is 852 4927 7543.

The Bronx Board of Elections confirmed that it is now accepting applications for absentee ballots from voters in District 11 (and in District 15) who wish to vote by mail in the special election. Further information can be found here or by calling the Bronx Board of Elections at (718) 299-9017 and selecting Ext. 1875. Polls are open on election day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Early Voting Period is from March 13, 2021 to March 21, 2021. Voters must vote at their assigned early voting site.


Carlina Rivera, likely speaker candidate, endorses 13 women for City Council

City & State
Feb. 25, 2021

New York City Council Member Carlina Rivera, a leading contender to be the next Council speaker, is endorsing a slate of 13 women running for City Council this year. It's the latest sign that Rivera is working to win support from colleagues to succeed current City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who is term-limited out at the end of 2021.

Most of the endorsed candidates are women of color, and Rivera, who is Latina and from Manhattan, said the list "represents the diversity of representation we need in the Council – especially with the diminishing number of women over the last few terms, which is alarming."

There are 13 women on the 51-seat Council right now, down from a high of 18 in 2009.

Rivera's slate, shared exclusively with City & State, includes Jenny Low in District 1, Julie Menin in District 5 and Carmen De La Rosa in District 10, all in Manhattan. In the Bronx, Rivera is backing Marjorie Velázquez in District 13, Pierina Sanchez in District 14, Althea Stevens in District 16 and Amanda Farías in District 18. In Queens, Rivera is endorsing Sandra Ung in District 20, Lynn Schulman in District 29 and Jennifer Gutiérrez in District 34, which covers parts of both Queens and Brooklyn. Elsewhere in Brooklyn, Rivera is supporting Crystal Hudson in District 35, Sandy Nurse in District 37 and Alexa Avilés in District 38.

None of Rivera's endorsed candidates are incumbents, and in one race, Rivera is actually supporting a candidate who is challenging an incumbent. Nurse is running against Council Member Darma Diaz, who has served alongside Rivera in the Council since winning a November 2020 special election. Velázquez was expected to challenge Council Member Mark Gjonaj, but City & State reported last week that the one-term lawmaker will not be seeking reelection after all.

Nurse is challenging Diaz from the left, as an anti-establishment candidate running against the incumbent, who is backed by the county Democratic Party. Many of Rivera's endorsed candidates are the consensus progressive choices in their district, which reflects Rivera's own possible path to the speakership. She voted against the city budget in 2020, in large part because the cuts to the New York City Police Department were not deep enough. She was the only likely speaker candidate to do so.

But Rivera didn't always back the furthest-left candidates. Rivera is endorsing two candidates, Sanchez and Hudson, who are running against candidates backed by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. And other candidates Rivera is endorsing, like Low and Menin, face opponents to their left.

Many sitting Council members endorse candidates across the city, but announcing them all at once is rare. Rivera appears to be the first potential speaker candidate to do so. But it reflects a strategy that many recent speaker contenders have adopted: help other candidates get elected, and hope that they'll remember your support once the speaker race really picks up in the last few months of the year. Nobody embodied that more in 2017 than Johnson, who was seen in every corner of the city, and whose name could be found in the donor rolls of more than 20 candidates.

Speaker candidates this year are making the same moves. "Who's on the ground helping candidates right now is the best indication of who's building support from the bottom on up," said one Council member, who asked for anonymity to discuss a race that is rarely discussed publicly.

And a number of current members have been helping candidates, most recently lining up behind Selvena Brooks-Powers, who is expected to win the District 31 special election that finished earlier this week. A source close to Brooks-Powers campaign said that Rivera came to southeast Queens and brought her own volunteers to help. Council Member Keith Powers also campaigned for "the other Powers," and Council Member Adrienne Adams, who represents a neighboring district, went all out, endorsing Brooks-Powers, recording a robo-call and bringing out volunteers. Council Member Justin Brannan, who has been sick with COVID-19, couldn't come in person but sent his own supporters to help Brooks-Powers in his stead, and Council Member Alicka Ampry-Samuel has also been publicly supporting Brooks-Powers for months.

Those five Democrats – Rivera, Powers, Adams, Brannan and Ampry-Samuel – are considered by most to be the serious contenders to be the next speaker, who would take on the role in January of 2022. Other current members who may throw their hats in the ring include Rafael Salamanca, who recently decided to run for reelection, rather than Bronx borough president, and Francisco Moya, who may himself have an easier path to reelection now that his potential primary opponent, Hiram Monserrate, is barred from running for office because he pled guilty in 2012 to felony charges involving public corruption. Brannan was the lead sponsor of the bill that blocked Monserrate, which some political observers saw as yet another way to win over potential supporters for his speaker candidacy.

When looking at Rivera's Council endorsements through the lens of the speaker race, it's also notable who she didn't endorse. Rivera declined to back Gale Brewer, the current Manhattan borough president who's running in District 6, or Tiffany Cabán, the former candidate for Queens district attorney, who is now running for City Council in District 22. Both Brewer and Cabán's names have been raised in political circles as potential speaker candidates. Brewer already served 12 years in the City Council, from 2002 to 2013, and is seen as an honest broker who really understands government. And Cabán is a Democratic Socialist who almost upset then-Borough President Melinda Katz in the 2019 Queens district attorney race. While Cabán may draw support from the Council's left wing, her being chosen as speaker seems highly unlikely, since many of her political views, such as defunding the police, are not likely to be aligned with the majority of the Council. Brewer too would face an uphill battle convincing colleagues who don't like the idea of an eight-year speaker. If elected, Brewer would be eligible to serve through the end of 2029, while the current members who are interested in running for speaker could only serve through the end of 2025.

"I'm open to anyone's pitch and ideas for leading," Rivera said, but added that "the Council is an incredibly nuanced body and experience is going to be key," when looking for the next speaker. Rivera also noted that this is just her first round of endorsements, and that more may be coming. For example Rivera – and four other likely speaker candidates – all helped elect Council Member Kevin Riley in his December special election to replace Andy King in District 12 in the Bronx, and Riley is up for election again this year.

That just shows the complexities of the speaker's race. An endorsement cannot guarantee an eventual vote for speaker if all the speaker candidates are endorsing the same people. But Rivera said she welcomed any of her colleagues to publicize their support of other candidates.

"I think it's incredibly important that potential second term Council members are using their position and experience to make endorsements in races that matter," she said. "I hope my colleagues running for reelection follow my lead in making this kind of step and being very public about who we think can and should win."


A New Coronavirus Variant Is Spreading in New York, Researchers Report

NY Times
Feb. 25, 2021

A new form of the coronavirus is spreading rapidly in New York City, and it carries a worrisome mutation that may weaken the effectiveness of vaccines, two teams of researchers have found.

The new variant, called B.1.526, first appeared in samples collected in the city in November. By the middle of this month, it accounted for about one in four viral sequences appearing in a database shared by scientists.

One study of the new variant, led by a group at Caltech, was posted online on Tuesday. The other, by researchers at Columbia University, was published on Thursday morning.

Neither study has been vetted by peer review nor published in a scientific journal. But the consistent results suggest that the variant's spread is real, experts said.

"It's not particularly happy news," said Michel Nussenzweig, an immunologist at Rockefeller University who was not involved in the new research. "But just knowing about it is good because then we can perhaps do something about it."

Dr. Nussenzweig said he was more worried about the variant in New York than the one quickly spreading in California. Yet another contagious new variant, discovered in Britain, now accounts for about 2,000 cases in 45 states. It is expected to become the most prevalent form of the coronavirus in the United States by the end of March.

Researchers have been scrutinizing the genetic material of the virus to see how it might be changing. They examine genetic sequences of virus taken from a small proportion of infected people to chart the emergence of new versions.

The Caltech researchers discovered the rise in B.1.526 by scanning for mutations in hundreds of thousands of viral genetic sequences in a database called GISAID. "There was a pattern that was recurring, and a group of isolates concentrated in the New York region that I hadn't seen," said Anthony West, a computational biologist at Caltech.

He and his colleagues found two versions of the coronavirus increasing in frequency: one with the E484K mutation seen in South Africa and Brazil, which is thought to help the virus partially dodge the vaccines; and another with a mutation called S477N, which may affect how tightly the virus binds to human cells.

By mid-February, the two together accounted for about 27 percent of New York City viral sequences deposited into the database, Dr. West said. (For the moment, both are grouped together as B.1.526.)

The Columbia University researchers took a different approach. They analyzed 1,142 samples from patients at their medical center. They found that 12 percent of people with the coronavirus had been infected with the variant that contains the mutation E484K.


The Eviction Moratorium Pause Ends Feb. 26. Here's What You Need to Do

The City
Feb. 24, 2021

When the state Legislature passed the Emergency Eviction Act at the end of last year, nearly all eviction proceedings were paused for 60 days. That pause ends on Friday, Feb. 26.

After Feb. 26, pending eviction cases can start moving forward again in court — and new cases can be filed — unless a tenant submits a hardship declaration form to either the court or the landlord.

That means any tenants facing eviction who haven't filled out this hardship declaration could start hearing from the courts — and landlords can start new cases against tenants behind on rent who haven't filed a declaration.

Here's what tenants need to know as Friday's deadline approaches:

Hold up — I thought the eviction moratorium was until May 1?
The moratorium is extended until May 1 only for tenants who fill out the hardship declaration form.

From the end of December until now, almost all tenants were protected from eviction because cases were paused. But after Feb. 26, the moratorium protections only cover tenants who submit the hardship declaration.

Justin La Mort, a tenant attorney at Mobilization for Justice, said: "The true moratorium ends the 26th. Then it's only those who have done the declaration who are protected… You're not protected until you take action."

Important: You can fill out the form at any point before May 1 — up until when the marshal shows up at your door — to pause your eviction case.

Do I have to have an eviction filed against me already to fill out this form?
No.

Anyone who can say that they've experienced some type of financial hardship because of the pandemic or that needing to move would pose a health risk can fill out the form. The moratorium covers a wide variety of situations people are facing.

When the moratorium was passed, housing advocates noted that a person can fill out the hardship form before a case is filed to prevent having to appear in court at all until at least May.

How many people have filled out this form already?
According to the Office of Court Administration, 6,817 people in New York State have filed hardship declarations with the courts. From that, more than 5,000 were for pending eviction cases, and about 1,000 were to prevent cases that haven't been filed yet.

Those numbers are just for the people who sent the hardship declaration to the courts, and don't reflect the number of people who sent the form directly to their landlords to prevent a future case.

Housing advocates worry that not enough tenants know about the form or how to submit it. They are concerned that the number of forms submitted is much lower than the number of New Yorkers who have struggled to pay rent and need protection from eviction during the pandemic.

La Mort said: "Any time where you create a system where tenants have to jump through hoops you're gonna lose people."

Kim Statuto, a tenant leader with Community Action for Safe Apartments in The Bronx, said: "That's a very small number compared to what we're going through and what people are going through.… People need to know that this is an option for them, and it may help a family rest a little easier."

How do I fill out the hardship declaration form?
To make the process easier, three housing organizations — the Right to Counsel Coalition, JustFix.nyc and Housing Justice for All — worked together to make a tool called Eviction Free NY where tenants can fill out and submit the declaration online.

It's available in English and Spanish, and you can use the dropdown menu to find the form in more languages through an online form Housing Justice for All made.

Malika Conner, director of organizing for the Right to Counsel Coalition, said: "We thought it would be even more important to have an easy, accessible, legally sound way to submit your forms."

Sam Rabiyah, data lead and engineer at JustFix.nyc, said: "We wanted to make it a lot less daunting to go through the process of sending this form."

You can also find links to the hardship declaration form in 20 languages directly from the courts here.

What is this tool and what does it do?
The online tool allows you to fill out the hardship declaration form, sign it and send it to your landlord and the courts via email and in the U.S. mail — all from your computer or smartphone.

The tool can look up the address and contact information for almost any New York City landlord using records from the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and it will send the info, via certified mail, for you as well — for free.

"We're taking away the process of needing to print and mail it," Rabiyah said.

The online tool creates a record of the hardship declaration that tenants can keep. You can download a PDF of the submitted form for your records, and you'll get a tracking number from the U.S. Postal Service texted and emailed to you showing the form was sent.

Rabiyah said: "We can't always rely on our government or judicial system to create tools that are accessible or user friendly, and we wanted to make a product that works really well, that's a breeze for people to use."

So far, 1,177 tenants have completed hardship declaration forms using the Eviction Free NY tool.

So when do I need to fill out the form by?
If you submit a hardship declaration form by Feb. 26, you can prevent having to appear in court until the moratorium expires in May. But you can still submit the form after Feb. 26 any time until May 1.

If you want a lawyer's advice, you can call 311 and ask for the tenant helpline, or you can call a provider from this list.

Statuto said: "It's important for people to know that that's an avenue and tool that they can use, and then we have to figure out what comes next with all these rent arrears."


Community Groups Help Seniors Navigate COVID-19 Vaccine Process

NY1
Feb. 26, 2021

Mary Castro is getting a crash-course on how to use a computer and the internet.

The 78-year-old says she is having trouble using the city's web portal to make COVID-19 vaccine appointments. It can be a challenge for anyone, but it is especially daunting for New Yorkers like Castro, who never go online.

"I don't use computers or anything else like that," said Castro.

Castro says she tried to make the appointment on the phone, but none were available.  

"It's not easy because so many people want to make the appointment," she said.

That's why she was glad when the senior center on Tremont Avenue in the Bronx reached out and helped her get an appointment for the vaccine.

The group Bronx Works operates several senior centers and offers support to New Yorkers ages 60 and up, the demographic that is more vulnerable to the coronavirus.

"For a lot of them, it's like the wild, wild west, honestly, kind of fending for their own. If they don't know how to do it or have someone to help them, it's really been difficult," said Program Director Solomon Smart.

It's the result of the New York City Department for the Aging enlisting senior centers, houses of worship and other community-based organizations to help in outreach and education efforts. The city has received criticism for the lack of available appointments and the online registration process.

"We've had major challenges for a variety of reasons," said NYC Department for the Aging Commissioner Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez.

Cortes-Vazquez says she's exploring every possibility, including sending more people door to door in the communities hardest hit by the coronavirus.

"The pandemic revealed for us what we have always known: the inequity of health care. This pandemic was not an equal opportunity invader. It may have invaded all of us, but it invaded certain communities at a much higher proportion and with much higher consequences," she said.

Supply has been one of the biggest challenges. The city doesn't have enough doses of the vaccine for all those showing up at its sites.

"Yeah, there was no playbook for the pandemic. There has been no playbook for vaccinating 8.9 million people and trying to do it with equity in mind," Cortes-Vazquezsaid.

She's encouraged that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine could soon be added to the arsenal, and is encouraging all seniors who need an appointment to call the hotline at 877-829-4692.


Students with Disabilities Turned Away From NYC's Free Pandemic Child Care Program

The City
Feb. 25, 2021

As New York City was on the brink of shutting down all school buildings in November amid rising coronavirus cases, Janet Marte frantically tried to find child care for her 6-year-old son.

The Brooklyn mom, an X-ray tech who works in-person, turned to Learning Bridges, a city program designed to offer parents free child care on days that children in grades pre-K through eight are learning remotely.

But when she asked if they could accommodate her son — who has autism, a nut allergy, and requires the support of a one-on-one paraprofessional at school — she was surprised at the response.

"Unfortunately we do not provide paras. You would need to contact DOE about getting a para," wrote a staff member at the Park Slope Armory YMCA, one of the organizations contracted with the city to provide child care seats. "Constant one-to-one supervision is not possible in our programs. I wish we could be more helpful."

The response left Marte and her husband, a city employee also working in-person, scrambling for alternatives. They took days off, paid out-of-pocket for child care, and sometimes left their son with older relatives, who weren't able to help him log on for remote learning.

It also left them frustrated, given the city's promises to prioritize students with disabilities for the child care program.

"Basically they said if you don't have a typical child they won't be able to help you. It's horrible that that's even allowed," Marte said. "We have to make sure we don't get fired and stay employed because what is an education if we're hungry?"

A 'Very Big Deal'
Again and again, families of students with special needs have been turned away from the city's child care program or simply gave up trying to secure slots after it became clear they wouldn't have access to special services, according to interviews with parents and advocates.

The program has been hobbled by other problems, including delays in assigning seats to families, and offerings with hours and locations that in some cases proved infeasible for working families.

After pressure from advocates and questions from reporters, the education department circulated more detailed guidance last week about how to determine whether a student needs extra support, and it created clearer procedures for obtaining services at Learning Bridges sites.

If a student needs a paraprofessional, for example, the education department is supposed to work with the site on making those arrangements.

The guidance underscored that students with special needs shouldn't be denied access.

"We have also reminded Learning Bridges/Learning Labs programs that we are committed to working with them and families to provide appropriate support based on each child's needs, and no child should be turned away because they have a disability," according to the guidance document, which was obtained by Chalkbeat and THE CITY.

Those changes are a "very big deal," said Maggie Moroff, a special education policy expert at Advocates for Children, which has handled at least a dozen cases of students being denied access to the program. "It was very unclear what the process was in the beginning."

The changes, six months into the school year, may not make much difference to families who were already discouraged from attending. But the city recently expanded eligibility for the program to include students who are learning fully remotely and it can also be a backup for parents when school buildings are shuttered due to multiple coronavirus cases.

Training Gaps
The root of the problem, according to some advocates and providers, is the system was not designed to accommodate all students. City officials leaned on community-based nonprofit organizations to quickly create tens of thousands of seats for Learning Bridges, an enormous task that will cost at least $93 million from the education department's budget, city officials said.

But unlike traditional schools, those community providers may have limited experience working with students with special needs. The centers are often staffed by people without any specialized training, making some of them nervous about enrolling students with more complicated needs.

At the same time, the education department did not immediately create a clear process to provide extra services that might have allowed more students to participate, leaving providers to make decisions about which children they would be able to accommodate.

They "never said, 'we can train your staff' or 'here are the guidelines to work with students with various disabilities,'" said Vito Interrante, who oversees four Learning Bridges sites operated by Children's Aid, a nonprofit group.

Interrante said his sites have been able to accommodate students with disabilities who receive services like speech and occupational therapy, and they help students log in for digital versions of those therapies.

But the program isn't able to serve those who have behavior problems, are at risk of wandering off, or are typically served in classes much smaller than the 15-student classrooms in place at his sites. So far, he said, he has only turned away one student on those grounds.

"We're employing people who are making $15-18 an hour — they're not trained to work with students who have specialized issues," Interrante said. "Our hearts go out to these parents because we realize they're in a tough spot."

New Procedures On Tap
Last week, the education department notified providers of more concrete procedures for accommodating students with disabilities. Officials said they consider students' existing learning plans, which spell out what services they're entitled to in regular school settings, to determine what accommodations they might need at a Learning Bridges site.

If a provider believes a student may need additional services to be accommodated, they are instructed to contact the education department or the Department of Youth and Community Development, which also oversees the program.

Crucially, the new guidance says the city will provide paraprofessionals who often work individually with students with behavior or health problems. Not having such paraprofessionals proved a significant barrier to access Learning Bridges for many students.

City officials did not say how many students with disabilities are currently being served in the Learning Bridges program or why there weren't clearer procedures for serving students with disabilities from the beginning.

"We are committed to working with families and sites to provide additional support and appropriate services based on each student's needs, and no child should be turned away because they have an IEP or 504 plan," Sarah Casasnovas, an education department spokesperson, wrote in an email.

The new guidance also comes after some parents have exerted pressure on their own.

Parents Take Action
Heather Dailey was so frustrated with her Learning Bridges experience that she began a survey with a few other parents in the hope that quantifiable data would highlight the failures of the program and spark change.

Dailey, who lives in Jackson Heights, sought out a Learning Bridges seat because her third grade son was distracted at home and required constant redirection, something she couldn't manage on top of her job as a social worker. After weeks of delay, she was matched with a site in Flushing that suggested they didn't have the necessary staff to meet her son's needs.

"They didn't flat out say we couldn't work with him, but they said this doesn't really seem like the right place," Dailey said, noting that the situation was so challenging at home that she got a prescription for her son for ADHD medication to help him focus.

After launching her survey, Dailey discovered she wasn't the only parent going through the experience: Of the roughly 60 parents of students with disabilities who responded, 22 had not heard back from a Learning Bridges site and 28 had been unable to attend for a reason directly related to their child's disability.

The survey ultimately drew the attention of New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office reached out to Dailey to learn more. (Representatives for James and the city's education department declined to comment on the status of any possible investigation.)

To some parents, their initial experience with Learning Bridges soured them on the program, which may complicate efforts to assure parents that the centers can handle students with disabilities.


Op-Ed: Why You Shouldn't Just Vote In the Presidential Election

Norwood News
Feb. 25, 2021

Presidential elections are important. But your vote also matters, probably even MORE so, in local elections. In New York City elections, we choose the people who will be in charge of many of the things that affect our daily lives. If you care about the quality of local schools, the way NYPD polices your community, the state of the parks, how safe it is to walk, drive or bike on our streets, those are all issues that are dealt with by the mayor and the City Council. 

So, why did five times as many people vote in the presidential election in 2020, as vote for mayor in 2019? Turnout was certainly up in 2020 all across the country, and I'm proud that the Bronx was part of that trend. More than 420,000 Bronxites voted in the 2020 presidential election,  27,000 more than in 2016.  

Yet, only one in five of those Bronxites – a little more than 78,000 – participated in the 2019 elections for mayor and City Council. Part of the reason for this was that 2019 wasn't a particularly exciting New York City election. Mayor Bill de Blasio was running for re-election, and many City Council members were also running for re-election with little opposition.

In fact, turnout in our local elections is always low, despite the big impact of City government on our lives. Some people think that local elections are not as important as national elections, but I disagree. Local elections have an impact on many everyday issues that we care about, and if anything, your vote matters MORE in local elections, where fewer votes are cast. Elected officials know which neighborhoods vote, and as a result, they are more likely to pay more attention to those neighborhood's needs.

This year, 2021 promises to be an especially meaningful New York City election year. Because many City officials are limited to two terms, de Blasio can't run for office again, so we'll be electing a new mayor. So far, 40+ people have thrown their hats in the ring in the mayoral race. Many of our Bronx City Council members are also term-limited and cannot run again or they have taken up other positions, so the elections will be competitive ones in which we, the voters, have a better than usual opportunity to choose a new council member, with new ideas, to represent us.

That's why I'm proud to be part of the Voter Power Committee of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition (NWBCCC). The NWBCCC engages in community organizing to work for racial and economic justice in the Bronx. The Voter Power Committee focuses on how we can use elections toward the same goals – making sure Bronxites can cast a vote – and knowing where the candidates stand, so that elected officials know they have to pay attention to our concerns.

This year's City elections will be our opportunity to choose the people who will lead New York City for the next four years.  So this year, I challenge all of you who voted in the presidential election to make your voice heard in this year's NYC elections. 

Like the presidential race, there will be three ways to cast your vote: (1) by absentee ballot, (2) by voting early, two weeks before Election Day, and (3) by voting in person on Election Day itself.

First up for the Bronx are the Special Elections scheduled for March 23rd in both District 11 and District 15, to fill two Bronx City Council seats that became vacant when Congressman Ritchie Torres was elected to represent the 15th congressional district in the Bronx in November 2020, and former Councilman Andrew Cohen was elected to become a judge on the Bronx Supreme Court in November 2020.

Most readers of the Norwood News live in one of these two districts. If you want to know which district you live in, go to https://www.mygovnyc.org/. Later this year, on June 23rd, the primary elections will be held for these seats, and also for the positions of mayor and all citywide races. The general elections for these races will take place later, on November 2nd.

Remember, your vote is your chance to say who you want to represent your interests in City government. It's also your chance to say that your neighborhood can't be ignored. There are many ways to learn about the candidates. This newspaper, and many other media outlets, have been writing about them and continue to do so. There have also been a number of debates held  – on TV, on the radio and on Zoom, with more to come. The Voter Power Committee, as part of a broader, Bronx-wide coalition, is sponsoring debates. If you want to be invited, email info@northwestbronx.org.

So don't just use your voter power in the presidential election – vote in the 2021 NYC elections, starting with the March 23rd City Council elections.

Margaret Groarke is a resident of Kingsbridge Heights, a member of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition Voter Power Committee, and a professor of political science at Manhattan College. If you want to get involved in the Voter Power Committee, email margaret@northwestbronx.org.


Mayoral Candidate Scott Stringer Proposes Massive Affordable Housing Plan

NY1
Feb. 25, 2021

Much of the mayoral campaign trail still lives on Zoom. But more and more, these candidates are heading out into the real world. Some have some big ideas.

"What we lack is a mayor with the vision and the drive to upend the status quo and get this job done," said City Comptroller Scott Stringer on Thursday.

In Harlem on Thursday, Stringer released his adorable housing plan. Stringer wants to require all new buildings with ten or more units to set aside 25% of their apartments for affordable housing. The plan called Mayor Bill de Blasio's affordable housing program "developer driven."

Stringer's plan would be a massive expansion of what Mayor de Blasio promised seven years ago.

Meanwhile, this week, two mayoral candidates actually appeared together — perhaps a nod to the new era of ranked-choice voting, where being a voter's second choice can be beneficial in the final tally.

"You also have a responsibility to look at similar issues that would impact no matter who is the head of the city of New York," said Borough President Eric Adams.

Councilman Carlos Menchaca and Adams appeared outside of a boarded up hotel in Brooklyn together on Wednesday. They want to convert non-union hotels in the boroughs outside of Manhattan into affordable housing.

"We have joined the hotel council on this entire outer borough over-saturation of hotels, non-union, low paid, bad conditions for employees," Adams said. "We always felt it was always important to have a better hotel structure."

The proposal could be seen as a nod to the powerful hotel workers union, which has yet to make an endorsement in the race. Union sources tell NY1 that endorsement could happen sometime next month.

But clearly Adams is trying to snag it, even directly tweeting at those workers on Wednesday afternoon.

Meanwhile, Andrew Yang has been touring the five boroughs yet again this week.

On Thursday, he was touring Flushing, talking to small business owners. He wants to forgive sales tax for some small businesses, too.

"I am also for forgiving sales tax for restaurants and small businesses right now because it would be more money in their pocket in a time they really need it," Yang said.

With the city facing billions of dollars in deficits, it's unclear how exactly it can afford it.


Op-Ed: Affordable housing preservation needs funding support from City Hall

Crain's
Feb. 25, 2021

Today's historically low interest rates create an extraordinary opportunity to repair and stabilize vulnerable affordable housing.

A new program—let's call it Rehab Plus—patterned after successful preservation efforts of a generation ago could shore up low- and moderate-income housing, create thousands of jobs and provide a needed stimulus to restore New York City's economy. For residents, it could mean safe, secure housing for years to come.

Rehab Plus would target apartment buildings where rents are affordable for lower-income families such as those earning 60% to 80% of the city's area medium income—AMI. Funds would be used to repair or replace plumbing, wiring, heating, elevators, windows and roofs.

Lenders, partnering with the city, would provide financing in the mid-3% range with a modest amount of 1% city subordinate loans—up to $10,000 per unit. Eligible buildings would receive expanded real estate tax reductions through the city's J-51 program. City or state mortgage insurance would be available for eligible loans. Elderly and very-low-income tenants might need rental assistance.

The program's potential to improve the quality of urban living would be enormous. More than 1.5 million New Yorkers whose families earn below the city's AMI reside in private- and nonprofit-owned rental buildings. This is where retirees and service and essential workers live with their families.

Much affordable housing is more than 60 years old and has a plethora of physical deficiencies. The buildings are incubators for health problems—which might have contributed to high levels of Covid-19 infections in low-income neighborhoods.

As for building owners, many lack the finances to make things right. They might have the wherewithal to fix a leak but not enough to pay $7,000 per apartment to replace errant plumbing. The mismatch between costly building upgrades and owner resources becomes increasingly clear as one goes down the continuum of affordable housing. An ironic, if unintended, consequence of the tight strictures of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 is that it's now harder for properties to secure financing for major repairs.

Rehab Plus would provide a safety net for vulnerable housing—preventing its further deterioration during what perhaps will be a lengthy period for the city's recovery. The program could be a bridge to that recovery.

To help as many New Yorkers as possible, the program could be streamlined. Much of the process could be delegated to approved lenders, which could structure transactions to preapproved standards for loan underwriting, construction work, costs, borrower qualifications and documentation. The city would have a "final review" to confirm that each loan conforms to the standards. Ideally, within 150 days of receipt of a completed application, repairs would commence.

The $20,000 or $30,000 per apartment of additional funds that Rehab Plus should generate for repairs would preserve many buildings in the 60% to 80% AMI rent range. Here, about 1,250 apartments could be preserved for every $10 million of 1% public funds. Buildings that are too deteriorated or have too much debt might need additional subsidies and discounts, however.

Rehab Plus is both a new idea and an old one. Versions of the program were routinely offered by the Community Preservation Corp. and the city a generation ago, resulting in the renovation of tens of thousands of apartments.

Preserving affordable housing should be a permanent component of the city's agenda. The Rehab Plus idea provides a blueprint for a sustained effort. It is hoped that government, business and tenant leaders will come together and recognize the opportunities afforded by today's low interest rates to restore our city.

Michael Lappin, former CEO of the Community Preservation Corp., is head of M. Lappin & Associates, a provider of advisory services for affordable housing.


New Report Details How NYC Arts Sector Has Been Devastated By The Pandemic

Gothamist
Feb. 25, 2021

When Broadway went dark in March of 2020, there was still hope that the shutdown would be short-term. Now, nearly one year later, the pandemic rages on worldwide, and the Great White Way hasn't turned a single light back on.

The last update came in October of last year, when The Broadway League, the trade group representing theater owners and producers, made the announcement that Broadway's shutdown would last through at least May 2021, with shows possibly returning in the fall of this year. There have been no updates on a reopening timeline since, though Governor Andrew Cuomo has signaled that restarting that sector of the economy is a priority. Ahead of a recent launch of pop-up events around the state, he noted, "There are venues that we want to start to reopening with testing and capacity limitations," including theaters, arenas and Broadway.

A new report from the New York State Comptroller's office reflects the urgency, showing how devastating a toll the shutdown has taken on Broadway and the entire New York City creative sector.

Overall, the arts, entertainment, and recreation sector had the biggest decline out of all sectors in NYC, according to Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. (This includes performing arts, spectator sports, museums, amusement parks, casinos, and fitness centers.) Between 2009 and 2019, the report says that jobs in arts, entertainment, and recreation grew by 42%, outpacing the 30% growth in total private sector employment—but, in 2020, employment fell by 66%.

About 93,500 people in arts, entertainment, and recreation were employed by 6,250 establishments in NYC in 2019, according to the report, which estimates that the total wages were around $7.4 billion for an average salary of $79,300.

"There isn't a city in this world that offers a more dynamic or deeper array of venues and museums for arts and entertainment than New York," DiNapoli said in a statement. "The COVID-19 outbreak has had a profound and negative impact on the industry. It has forced facilities to close, thrust thousands into unemployment and pushed businesses to the brink of collapse."

DiNapoli recommends:

• Extending unemployment relief commensurate with need, including extended relief for freelancers and self-employed workers;
• Providing establishments with defined and achievable milestones for reopening that are aligned at the city and state levels;
• Enabling the use of outdoor space with flexible guidelines and simple permitting processes as the weather warms;
• Facilitating the flow of federal funding to firms and not-for-profit organizations through outreach and technical assistance; and
• Delivering healthcare supplies, including rapid tests and personal protective equipment, so that venues can reopen safely.

Aimee Todoroff, the League of Independent Theater's Managing Director, called the economic study "vital," and said it "could not have come at a more critical time—"We know our indie theater sector is in peril, yet we are hopeful the data in this study will generate real policies to ensure the survival of the artists who make New York the cultural capital of the world."


Why are cops rarely charged or convicted when they kill in the line of duty?

City & State
Feb. 25, 2021

A grand jury convened to investigate the death of Daniel Prude – a Black man who was experiencing a mental health crisis during a fatal encounter with Rochester police last spring – declined to charge any of the officers involved in Prude's arrest, during which a mesh hood was placed over his head.The results of the grand jury's vote set off protests in Rochester and New York City this week, and prompted questions about why officers would not be held legally accountable for Prude's death.

But the grand jury's choice not to indict the officers involved follows a pattern; juries rarely charge or convict police officers for the deadly use of force.That pattern is especially pronounced when considering instances of Black people who are killed by police – officers weren't charged with homicide in the death of Breonna Taylor last year, nor was ex-NYPD Officer Daniel Panteleo indicted in the death of Eric Garner in 2014.

To find out more about the process of holding officers accountable for the use of deadly force and what policy changes might alter that process, City & State reached out to experts on criminal justice and policing, including Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute; Nicole Smith Futrell, an associate professor and supervising attorney in the Criminal Defense Clinic at CUNY Law School; Deborah Ramirez, professor at the Northeastern University School of Law; and Nick Turner, president and director of the nonprofit Vera Institute of Justice in New York.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

What factors explain why police officers who kill in the line of duty are so rarely charged or convicted of murder or manslaughter?

Nick Turner: I want to take a moment to reflect that Daniel Prude, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Eric Garner, and so many others should be alive today. Systemic policing reform and developing anti-racist systems to support public safety is long overdue. Attorney General Letitia James' actions reflect that she has vigorously pursued justice and transparency in this case and shares my disappointment in the Prude outcome. There are several factors that contribute to police officers who kill in the line of duty rarely being charged or convicted of murder or manslaughter. In this case, the legal protections afforded to officers make it harder to bring charges against them. Though protections vary by jurisdiction, officers generally have a defense to criminal conduct if their actions were "reasonable" under the circumstance. This "reasonableness" standard gives officers wide latitude to avoid culpability – especially if they can argue that their actions were consistent with training norms in their department. For example, in Daniel Prude's case, as abhorrent as the officer's actions were, the Office of the Attorney General's investigation (see page 23) found their actions consistent with Rochester police training.

Clark Neily: I think there are two basic reasons why police who kill in the line of duty are rarely charged. First, the standard articulated by the Supreme Court, which is sometimes referred to as the "reasonably scared cop rule," allows police to use lethal force when they reasonably fear for their own safety. Given the realities of the job, however, that test is extraordinarily easy to satisfy and can include anything from a furtive gesture to the failure to obey an officer's commands. Jurors applying such a lenient standard will generally credit an officer's testimony that he or she was afraid in the moment, even if it turns out after that there was no reason to be, which means that prosecutors will be correspondingly reluctant to bring charges. The second reason police who kill are rarely charged is even more straightforward: Prosecutors have a massive conflict of interest in making decisions about whether to pursue criminal charges against the very same police officers whom they depend on to bring them cases and testify in those cases in order to help win convictions.

Nicole Smith Futrell: There are many legal, social, and cultural factors that explain why police officers are so rarely charged when they kill in the line of duty. There is a traditional narrative that regards police officers as heroes on the front line who are trusted to protect, serve, and hold the threads of our social order together. The mainstream public is just now beginning to acknowledge what many in marginalized communities have long known: a legacy of racism, violence, and unequal treatment pervades this country's legal and social order. As the tragic killing of Daniel Prude and the subsequent police cover up demonstrates, police officers often make social challenges worse, and institutional practices allow them to do so with impunity. Police culture does not value transparency. It relies on self-protection, concealment, and evasion. Additionally, the legal standards that govern the use of force generally center on the perspective of the officer and their decision making in the heat of the moment. The law gives police officers the benefit of the doubt, and the juries and judges who use discretion when hearing these cases in the grand jury, or in the rare instance at trial, also tend to defer to police officers.

Deborah Ramirez: It would be better if we established a system of police accountability that did not try to resolve accountability issues only through the lens of deadly force incidents. We need to prevent, detect and deter police misconduct before it escalates into deadly force. To do so, I advocate a system of professional liability insurance.

What is the role of grand juries specifically in this process, and why do they rarely indict in cases of police killings – particularly in the deaths of Black people?

Nicole Smith Futrell: The grand jury is a group of local people who consider the evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine whether a person should be charged with a criminal offense. The grand jury does not decide on guilt or innocence, but rather decides whether an indictment, which is the basis for felony prosecution, will be filed. In cases that don't involve police officers, grand juries almost always return an indictment after a prosecutor's presentation. But data shows that when cases involving a police officer as the suspect are presented, grand juries rarely vote to indict. There are many reasons for this. First, the prosecutor holds a very influential role in the grand jury. They select which witnesses and facts to present, tell the jurors what the charge is, what the legal standards are and how to weigh the evidence. Unlike juries at trial, the grand jury process operates with no judge, defense counsel, or spectators. When you combine these factors with the reality that prosecutors depend on police officers to establish all the other cases they prosecute, many rightly question whether prosecutors use their outsized influence with grand juries to protect police officers. Second, it's important to think of grand juries as what they are: a microcosm of larger society, reflecting the prevailing conscious and subconscious views people hold about race, who is deemed credible, and whose humanity matters.

Clark Neily: Grand juries decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the government to pursue particular charges against a particular defendant, in which case they will issue an indictment. We have seen repeated examples of grand juries declining to indict police who killed people under circumstances where it seems virtually certain that any non-law enforcement officer would have been prosecuted. There can be many reasons for this, including a general tendency to credit police and a reluctance to second-guess their decisions in the field. Unfortunately, there is also evidence that prosecutors often present police-related cases to grand juries differently than they do with cases in which the defendant is not a police officer. In particular, prosecutors tend to present both inculpatory evidence and exculpatory evidence in cases involving police shootings so that grand jurors can have a fuller appreciation of the complete factual context. That is a luxury that ordinary defendants typically do not enjoy; instead, prosecutors generally present only the most damning evidence in order to ensure an indictment when the defendant is not a member of law enforcement.

Deborah Ramirez: Why no convictions? Jurors do not believe that police officers who have mistakenly perceived a deadly threat and thus mistakenly used deadly force are criminals. They view these cases as situations where a police officer doing a dangerous job made a mistake in the line of duty. They often empathize with an officer who had to make a split second decision. They understand that the decision may have been made in an instant and in a moment of confusion, misinformation or terror. It may be bad policing, poor judgement or a mistake, but jurors hesitate to label it a criminal act.

Nick Turner: While grand juries are meant to provide communities with power to guard against prosecutorial abuse, there are many other factors at play. In this case, I think the below factors played a role in this unjust outcome as James' office has made clear that their office presented the most comprehensive case possible. (1) Devaluing of Black lives. Deaths of Black people aren't viewed as seriously as deaths of white people, which can impact juror decisions. An example is the disparity in who gets the death penalty. Research shows that killing a white person makes it much more likely that you will receive the death penalty than if you take a Black person's life. (2) Implicit bias. Biases against Black people often appear in the broad "reasonableness" assessment of an officer's actions because jurors are socialized to believe that Black people are more dangerous and therefore greater force by officers may seem acceptable.

What, if any, laws or policies can or should be changed by the state Legislature or other local policymakers to ensure accountability for cops who kill in the line of duty?

Clark Neily: Legislators should raise the standard for the use of lethal force by police from "objectively reasonable" to "necessary," as California did in 2019. They should also create a special unit within the state attorney general's office to handle the investigation and prosecution of killings by police officers in order to address the conflict of interest that local prosecutors necessarily face in handling cases. Finally, legislators should make it easier to sue police officers by eliminating the qualified immunity doctrine, which is a defense that enables rights-violating police to escape liability if it was not "clearly established" that the particular misconduct they engaged in was unlawful at the time they committed it. Of course, civil liability is neither a panacea nor a substitute for a criminal conviction, but it is far better than nothing and can send a powerful signal to other police officers to exercise more care in their use of lethal force.

Deborah Ramirez: In order to prevent, detect and deter police officers from misconduct, including the unlawful use of deadly force, legislators should require all officers to carry professional liability insurance. Doctors, for example, carry professional liability insurance. When they operate on the wrong leg or commit malpractice, insurance companies price them out of medicine long before they kill someone. Similarly, when police officers engage in misconduct or reckless policing, they should be priced out of policing long before their conduct escalates into a deadly encounter. Insurance companies price bad drivers off the roads. They should begin to price reckless police officers out of policing. An insurance system uses early warning indicators to weed out bad officers before they shoot. They could use these indicators: Prior civil judgements against the officer for police misconduct; domestic violence restraining orders; convictions for drunk driving; convictions for assault; a high number of civilian complaints; a number of prior disciplinary proceedings; and prior excessive use of force. There is a bill pending in New York that would require all officers to carry professional liability insurance.

Nicole Smith Futrell: There are some baseline measures that get raised when a grand jury declines to indict: greater transparency of police data and records, as well as grand jury proceedings; improving officer de-escalation training; amending use of force laws; shifting civil suit payouts from taxpayer funding to police insurance policies; and making sure that officers who are fired for misconduct are not rehired by other police departments. While some of these changes would be more useful than others, I am not entirely hopeful about the ultimate impact of reforms that rely on the criminal legal system as it currently exists for accountability. Having the New York Attorney General's office, as opposed to local prosecutors in Rochester, handle the grand jury presentation of Daniel Prude's killing happened because of a reform, and yet we are still searching for accountability. Accountability means responding to the fact that a police killing is only the most extreme manifestation of the routine police violence that happens every day. What if, for example, experienced, community based mental health first responders rather than police officers trained to use physical force and "spit hoods" responded to Daniel Prude's mental health crisis? The proposals that are most interesting to me are the ones that come from organizers who challenge us to reduce the scope and power of policing, invest in community-based social resources and supports, and reconsider what accountability for those who cause harm looks like.

Nick Turner: In this case, James' office did file for release of the grand jury minutes, which is rare, in and of itself. A judge granted that motion, which is incredibly rare in New York, and a great step in the direction of transparency and accountability. This ought to happen automatically in grand jury proceedings involving police killings in the line of duty. In terms of Vera's recommendations, New York has the reasonableness standard. In 2019, California tightened the use of force standard from reasonable to necessary, which requires officers to have a greater justification before using deadly force. We recommend legislation in cases involving police killings, requiring immediate disclosure of evidence to an independent body. Officers should be automatically suspended during the investigation period. Suspensions usually happen in practice in New York, but it's not automatic by any means. Finally, Vera champions community-based approaches that can improve outcomes for people experiencing behavioral health challenges. For example, in 2019, Eugene, Oregon's, health-based CAHOOTS teams resolved almost 20% of the city's total 911 calls. You can learn more about alternatives to police-based approaches here.