closerosies - Tumblr blog

closerosies · 2 years ago

Text

Close Rosie’s Testimony: NYC Criminal Justice Committee Department of Correction Budget and Oversight hearing; March 23, 2023

Dear Speaker Adams, Council Member Caban and members of the Committee:

Speaker Adams; it is always an honor to speak before you. I laud the council for this hearing today and I am in awe at the level of decorum and grace the Speaker has ensured at every moment of these proceedings regardless of the difficult questions being discussed. Please come to more criminal justice committee hearings Speaker Adams: your presence is a blessing. There is a notable difference in the level of questioning and information being extracted during the proceedings that is undoubtedly tied to your stewardship of this committee. Not once did we hear the DOC respond to the Council with “we’ll get back to you” when asked a question. A benchmark worth noting and celebrating!!!!!

Close Rosies welcomes the chance to offer written testimony about our specific asks although we support other advocates and council members in a general call to freeze DOC CO hiring and to parse out spending “grifts” in the DOC budget. First, I remind the council that Close Rosie’s works without payment and; we have never come to a single budget hearing with the goal of attaining assets and funding to buoy or support our advocacy. Please remember this: our advocacy is not bought and paid for. Often we are distracted by trying to fix the ill-conceived advocacy proffered by schill organizations. In 2021 Mayor de Blasio started shipping women, girls and the gender expansive community housed on Rosie’s up to Bedford. In 2018 other groups advocated for a single women’s jail to be built in the boonies in Queens when men will be housed in their home-borough according to the borough based jail plan. These advocacy-asks were lifted by Mayor de Blasio during the time he was planning a presidential run. What was a political boon in CJR policy for de Blasio was/is not great for the mothers, daughters, aunties, grannies, sisters and cousins caged on Rikers. We have not swayed in our advocacy against the singular jail in Queens or against moving people to a maximum state prison as a shortcut to Closing Rosies. Because of our track record of our unpaid advocacy we hope the Speaker and the Council will consider and act on our policy requests in relation to approving the DOC budget for FY24.

I Board of Correction Budget Parity with Department of Correction’s and; while exploring a Charter revision to meet these means also considering changing the DOC Commissioner to be an elected position;

II Budget lines for Cameras, access to viewing databases and amortizing these costs across multiple City agencies: the video belongs to the City of NY: not the agency. NYPD and DOC have consistently flouted oversight by creating obstacles to video access.

III Parsing out spending in the DOC Budget for services at Rosie’s

IV Revenue lines in the DOC Budget

V Lawsuit Settlements vs the DOC: truth v reality

VI Borough DA Revenue Streams from Property Seized/Confiscated/Turned-over

I—----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I

I. Board of Correction Budget Parity with Department of Correction’s and; while exploring a Charter revision to meet these means also considering changing the DOC Commissioner to be an elected position;

BOC Headcount Budget: I am thankful that newly-appointed Interim Director of the Board Of Correction Jasmine Georges-Yilla appeared and shared testimony on Thursday March 23, 2023. I support her budget requests and urge the council to expand on them. We still haven’t enough BOC employees to do the work of rule audits and technology oversight etc that we started years ago but were abandoned due to staff attrition. Often the long-term obligations of the agency are shelved in lieu of a need to respond to an urgent crisis. Reports are left un-analyzed, audits are shelved, oversight is left blown to the wind like leaves in the fall as a result. I ask the Council to consider adding funding to the BOC to add an additional unit or squad to board staff that would solely respond to emergencies and special projects. Additionally: the board staff is overburdened: for years the Policy Director was also the Comms Director and the Tech Director at the BOC and I see this is still the case! We have seen several technology issues with BOC hearings over the past year. I think we need to separate Policy from Ops in the BOC budget. I’m not pointing fingers but the optics are pretty terrible. Among several other technical “glitches” during meetings:

During the September, 2020 BOC hearing comptroller’s Brad Lander's shared-screen powerpoint presentation is displayed throughout the pendency of the hearing from the point he speaks until about 01:48:00. It's not useful for the public to not be able to see who is speaking. I don't know what the BOC pays for its video service for monthly meeting video production but this is just not professional. There were several very controversial things said and interruptions at this hearing in particular and because of the shared screen the public has nary any idea who is speaking; who is interrupting whom or; if a member of the DOC is speaking vs the BOC. The problems continued during the February 2023 hearing when audio curiously could not be heard by remote-access meeting attendees and the hearing had to be canceled: a first in the over 70 year history of the BOC.

Exploring re-writing the DOC and BOC Charter. The DOC Commissioner's statements made on the record during the March 23, 2023 City Council Criminal Justice Committee Budget hearing that he had nary any evidence that the BOC had leaked video illegally to members of the press need to be highlighted. Stubbornly, he maintained his stance that he will be continuing to curb the BOC’s Charter-mandated access to remote video access of DOC video. While the statement may seem ludicrous it must be grounded in some kind of reality. What kind of data does he have that he will not shar that would cause him to take such rash measures? The only answer could possibly be (aside from the commissioner having some kind of breakdown of rationale himself) is that he has been spying on the BOC and on journalists. There can be no other explanation. I'm not sure I know what is worse: his spying on people or his irrational belief that journalists don't know how to write specific FOIL requests. I think his further attempt to gaslight us on the FOIL case law is evidence that something is not right with this commissioner.

Over the past ten years the advocacy community has been forced to lodge sometimes meaningless advocacy at tyrannical DOC commissioners who believe they have been given ultimate authority that trumps the charter and decades old rules, practices and laws that have been hard-fought. One possible solution is that we make the DOC Commissioner an elected position. We have the opportunity to vote out the borough DAs--why not the commissioner? Please take the time to consider changing the DOC Charter to require the Commissioner to be an elected position as the council also explores changes in the BOC Charter for budget parity to the DOC.

Close Rosie’s urges the Council to provide in the BOC budget funds for the BOC to have its own direct access to DOC video and evidence databases. I heard CCRB Chair Arva Rice advocate for direct access to NYPD media and evidence during the Public Safety Budget Committee Hearing on March 20, 2023 [minute 03:30:00] and was saddened to not hear the BOC advocate for the same. Video in possession of the DOC does not only belong to the DOC: it belongs to the people of the City of New York. Take the keys away from the BOC and provide funding for the BOC to be able to “own” and access the video without DOC intercession.

On Monday March 20, 2020 during the same Public Safety Committee budget hearing I heard my friend Tina Luongo of the Legal Aide Society say something that I have been saying for years and was delighted to hear. We need to consider building our own video storage, sharing, and retrieval system for the NYPD and DOC and other City Agencies which use cameras and video surveillance as part of their workflow to give oversight agencies DIRECT ACCESS to evidence, documents, video and audio. The licenses needed per head to access the databases currently used are exorbitant and burdensome on public defenders and other advocacy groups. Further, the contracts issued with these third party providers allow the DOC and NYPD to play games with granting video access. We heard the CCRB echo the same thing the BOC did during the budget hearings: even when the time-consuming requests are made for video they are not responded to and sometimes the response times take up the entire investigative time frames allotted statutorily for investigations. We need to cure this issue by building a city wide video archive and distribution system not managed by the agencies seeking to curb oversight. Before my own malicious prosecution by Cy Vance I worked for this guy Bill Gates building media archiving and distribution systems for the professional photo industry and I have some expertise in this area that I am happy to offer. The budget lines for various video equipment/access/maintenance/training costs according to Checkbook NYC are in the hundreds of millions of dollars already and this is unsustainable.

III Parsing out spending in the DOC Budget for services at Rosie’s

SInce 2014 I have come to DOC budget hearings every year and asked that the DOC budget break down what resources are devoted to women, girls and gender expansive people housed on Rosies and in our borough lockups. We never get this data. It's shameful. The DOC needs to acknowledge us in its budget. Please can you try to extract a modicum of data before the final budget is made that reflects programming, staffing, security et al budget lines for Rosies? Here is the latest data we have been able to obtain by FOIL as the current budget does not present transparency ref spending on women/girls/trans/intersex/gender non-conforming persons vs. men/boys. Each year I have asked for gender parity and transparency in the DOC’s annual budget and each year promises are made and broken. Women/Girls currently represent approximately 4% of the Rikers population: is the 1.196 billion DOC budget reflective of spending on the needs of women/girls/trans/intersex and gender non-conforming/non-binary people accordingly?

Are we really getting our money’s worth for women & girls on Rosie’s? It has cost the city of New York City and us, the taxpayers, $331,332,950 dollars to jail women and girls over the past five years. THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY ONE MILLION DOLLARS to detain and incarcerate accused and sentenced women, girls, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces and grandmothers.

I suggest we require DOC budgeting line items be broken down by gender and that the Council add a line into Local Law 122 of 2021 that requires the DOC to aggregate reporting on programming by Jail facility and/or gender. It does seem like women and girls are being short-changed per capita dollars spent.

Even at Rosie’s: where people aren’t faced with movement from jail-to-jail that is prohibitive of program completion in the other Rikers jails the rate of graduations/certificate completions is abysmally low.

According to the DOC’s own data from June 30, 2014 to July 1, 2019 (PRE-COVID) there were only 449 Certificate completions by the women, girls, trans, intersex and gender non-conforming detained/incarcerated on Rosie’s:

It is unclear if there were ANY certifications completed in Food handling: data is provided about the number of SESSIONS and PARTICIPANTS but not ref COMPLETIONS.

Programming appears to be very male-centric.

Physical fitness and Arts Programming is not included in the list of programs and certificates—why is this?

Access-to-Justice, Religious, DV, anti-trafficking education and trauma-healing related programming are not offered? There are programs and curriculums offered by the Crime Victims Treatment Center Directed by Christopher Bromson, co-Chair of the Downstate Coalition vs. Sexual Violence and their curriculum could be a model.

There doesn’t appear to be any sort of programming for mothers of newborns or toddlers or prenatal/Doula programming offered by the DOC—why?

There doesn’t appear to be coping, mental health, physical health-related or support-group/PEER programming offered—why?

Educational Services are under-utilized: according to the DOC’s own 12/2018 data the following were the only vocational program completions on Rosies from 2014-2018:

IV. Revenue Lines in the DOC Budget: NYC Correction revenues still need to be explained and addressed.

Breaking-down the DOC Revenue Streams: The last time I can find DOC misc revenue streams were publicly broken- down was in ‘18 fiscal year NYC Council budget report:

In 2017 several of us undertook an effort to remove a 20 million dollar profit line from the DOC budget for telephone services. We persevered and managed to get the Council to pass legislation preventing the DOC from charging people for phone calls with their loved ones while chef on Rikers. We asked for accounting of all DOC revenue streams and the NYC Comptroller embarked on an audit.

The audit revealed that the DOC commissary system had had a few questionable workflows and practices. Instead of heeding the Comptroller’s recommendations DoC outsourced the commissary function. The result is a flat 13 million in revenue reported by DOC annually from this outsourced contract. We don’t know how much the vendor is actually profiting off of the commissary now. I will FOIL but maybe this committee can get a more accurate breakdown of all current DOC revenue lines included in this year’s budget?

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/audit-report-on-the-department-of-corrections-controls-over-commissary-operations/ A similar audit was undertaken in 2004: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/audit-report-on-the-internal-controls-over-commissary-operations-by-the-department-of-correction/

Both audits reveal a startling pattern of grift in the DOC commissary operations budget that instead of being accounted for has been swept under the rug into an outsourced contract as families of loved ones caged on Rikers continue to pay outrageous fees to commissary accounts so those inside can be overcharged for necessities like soap which can mean life or death on Rikers during the pandemic.

B. DOC Grants: Additionally what are the “grants” in the revenue lines? Are these actually vendor payments disguised as grants? If they are grants from NGOs this seems like a very small amount. What are the DOC’s current development efforts? Can we get a breakdown of current and past DOC grants please? Also is it possible to get a list of grants DOC has applied for and been denied?

V. Lawsuit Settlements vs the DOC If Molina is serious about making sure his department is held accountable for wrongdoing overlooked are the lawsuit settlements coming out of the courts. Often the courts are the only way to learn information about what is really going on behind the cloistered walls of the DOC. The data the Law Department has posted for lawsuit settlements versus the DOC and /or individuals employed by the DOC under local law 137 of 2017 is very misleading. the Law Department has only reported $137,341,045.48 of $209,331,997.00 paid out by NYC taxpayers to settle civil lawsuits against the Department of Correction between 2013 and Jan of 2023; leaving-off $109,297,626.8 or 52% of the litigation dispositions off of the reporting required by Local Law 137 of 2017.

Regarding Deaths on Rikers in DOC custody: the numbers are much much higher than have been publicly reported. Ever hear of Juan Flores or Daniel Torres? Of course not. Both of them died in Rikers in 2016-2017 but their deaths were never announced in any press releases, investigated by the BOC or SCOC. We only know about them because of court filings of their families trying to get answers about the deaths of their loved ones in custody. Mr. Flores died after a botched heart surgery while in custody. He was returned to Rikers after the surgery and complained about chest pain but was written off as just having indegestion. He died a week later. The reason? The surgeon had accidentally nicked his aorta during heart surgery but no one noticed. The family received 35k in a settlement in 2022 that the family was forced to take because of an administrative deficiency in their notice of claim filed with the comptroller. I believe Council Member Caban has introduced a measure to require the DOC to report on all deaths in DOC custody, after compassionate release, on work release or in transit between DOC/Court/medical facilities. I urge the council to give this legislative bud attention and to water it quickly in committee with a look back window that is not muddled like that of local law 137 of 2017.

In 2017 the NYC Council passed local laws 166 and 137 mandating the NYC Law Department post information regarding NYPD and DOC litigation filings and settlements on its website. The bills went into effect on January 1, 2018 with: a five year look back window for new litigation filed; reporting on all settlements made and; requires bi-annual updates to the reports. However, the City Law department has not been posting case dispositions and settlements that occur outside of a five year window from the litigation’s commencement. Nor have settlements been shared stemming from court actions filed prior to January 1, 2013 even if they were settled just last year. A strictly textual reading of Local law 166 of 2017 only includes a five year look back for section 1) of the law (new litigation filed) and not for section 3) (settlements made for all cases filed). The City Law department’s interpretation of the law has produced inaccurate reporting since the law first went into effect in 2018. Section 3) of Local laws 166 and 137 of 2017 is/are not a subset(s) of section 1): it/they is/are its/their own independent datapoint(s) that mandate(s) all settlements be reported as they occur. Instead what has been produced is information on settlements for cases commenced within the past five years of the report’s date.

Borough DA Revenue Streams from Property Seized/Confiscated/Turned-over

It's time we talk about this and hold a hearing for Council Member Caban’s Intro 0657 requiring reporting on basic property seized/retained as well as money seized/retained by DAs and money obtained from selling/auctioning seized and forfeited property in criminal proceedings. Where does this revenue go? How much of it is there? What is happening to the property that has sat in property rooms, un-returned for decades? DATA forensically scraped from seized devices is flowing into law enforcement databases, unchecked and without oversight. I would appreciate this legislation being taken up in the coming session with a priority.

Thank you for considering my testimony and our asks carefully.

Kelly Grace Price

Ft. George, Manhattan

March 27, 2023

1 note · View note

closerosies · 2 years ago

Link

by Kelly Grace Price March 13, 2023 for CIty & State

0 notes

closerosies · 2 years ago

Link

by Kelly Grace Price for City & State

0 notes

closerosies · 3 years ago

Text

youtube

#Youtube

0 notes

closerosies · 4 years ago

Link

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 9, 2022, at 4:20 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Unites States District Court for the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield, Plaintiffs Sue Brown, Ann Johnson, and Mary Davis will and hereby move this Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction: (1) stopping the transfer of all pretrial detainees from Rikers Island's Rose M. Singer Center to facilities for convicted persons in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, including at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility; and (2) returning all transferred pretrial detainees to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction at the Rose M. Singer Center.

0 notes

closerosies · 4 years ago

Link

0 notes

closerosies · 4 years ago

Link

0 notes

closerosies · 4 years ago

Text

February 22, 2022

To: NYC Council, Committee on Women & Gender Equity

Committee: Tiffany Cabán (Chair); the Public Advocate (Mr. Williams); Council Members: Brewer; Rivera; Ampry-Sameuls; Kristin Richardson Jordan; Kevin Riley; Althea Stevens; James F. Gennaro; Jennifer Gutiérrez and; Council Speaker Adams

cc: Committee Staff; Madhuri Shukla; Chloe Rivera, Mayor's Office; Dana Kaplan, MOCJ.

Via email

RE: Access to Survivor Services in NYC

Good Afternoon: I am Kelly Grace Price of Close Rosie’s. Thank you NYC Council Chair Caban; Council members and; staffers for being here to listen to this amazing group of survivor advocates; thank you Council Members Guiterrez and Riley for staying on this zoom. I'm sad to hear about Council Member Caban's beloved Coltrane--my prayers are with them. To the Commissioner of the Mayor’s office to End Gender Based Violence, Ms. Noel and to other council members of this committee that did not stay to listen to us: you know this is a pretty poor showing for the first hearing of this women-led council. I'm not going to brow-beat you but please do better.

Today I would like to discuss the following seven points all relating to the same theme: What are some of the most important issues facing women who encounter the criminal legal system and how can the City Council seize this moment to improve services and responses to us in the wake of the #Metoo movement?

I. Many survivors are denied access to Family Justice Centers

II. City Council must develop a robust data reporting mechanism for sexual violence data

III. NYPD SVU must receive autonomy in budget and report directly to the Council & to the Mayor.

IV. Services for incarcerated and formerly caged women, girls & LGTBQ+ community.

V. NYPD Vice Squad:

VI. Law enforcement databases label survivors as ‘fabricators’

VII. Mandatory Arrests

I. Family Justice Center services are denied to many--we are literally banned from centers: we need better data to evaluate the FJC’s real efficacy. There is a cherry-picked class of survivors in this town and the borough DAs and NYPD are still the gatekeepers to this privileged status. It's the dirty secret that law enforcement horse-trades survivors' rights to squeeze abusers for intel on other unrelated investigations. Confidential Informants and the Law Enforcement community literally are not held accountable for IPV crimes and their victims are more often than not turned away from the fancy FJCs. Look at the accounts of Tatanya Gudin, Valentina Valeva, myself and others that have been documented in the press already.

Personally I was denied services by Safe Horizon, Harlem Hospital and eventually found my way to CVTC--but they only offer counseling services for up to two years max and it took that long to get my charges dropped. They tried to transition me to the 9/11 survivor's program because I am a survivor but Zadroga decided they could not take me because my trauma associated with my abuse and trafficking extended beyond their scope [to address my 9/11 trauma(s)].

When the FJCs were created c 2013-2014 I tried to get services there but was told that bc I have a civil rights lawsuit aimed at the DANY that I was not allowed to even step foot in the Manhattan FJC or I would be arrested for trespassing. I was even blocked on twitter by the NYPD and the Mayor's office against Gender Based Violence for complaining about my treatment: I had to sue in federal court to be unblocked and I prevailed in that particular Section 1983 action.

There is nary any shred of reporting about case closure rates of sex crimes vs arrests--anywhere. NYC has a chance to be a national leader here. Philly and Chicago DA’s offices purport to share this data--there are place holders on their respective data websites but there is nary any data. No other metropolitan Police department or DA’s office publishes detailed stats such as is requested by the Council’s proposed Intro 1488. We don't even have accurate reporting currently between city agencies.

A. We need real data ref SVU case complaints results--We don't have data on case closures and results from NYPD and Borough DAs--so we have no idea how many of us are being denied justice because our abusers are informants or law enforcement nor do we have a base-line to gauge the number of complaints actually being made to the NYPD.

Council Member Caban: please may I urge you to look at Intro 1488 and revise it to mandata data from borough DA’s on case -closure rates; NYC could be the first in the country to provide this data. I’ve turned in a separate analysis of nationwide reporting of SVU case-closures that was included in the October 18, 2021 bi-committee hearing held by this committee and the Public Safety Committee. I recommend the Council mandate reporting from borough DAs to include the number of SVU complaints dropped against confidential informants and/or law enforcement perpetrators and also how many survivors were arrested on cross complaints/mandatory arrests.

B. n.b. I heard Council Member Caban ask if anyone tracked SVU crimes allegedly committed by NYPD officers themselves: there was data tracked up until c 2014--its on NYC open data and it is a report that elucidates SVU crimes reported BY CITY AGENCY-- This data point begins in 2006 and then disappears from the Open Data c 2014 but someone, at some point, was keeping track of svu crimes allegedly committed by NYPD personnel themselves. In that time period only 110 SVU crimes were reported as committed by NYPD:

NYC AGENCY

Total Reported to NYPD

N.Y. Police Dept./Public

77647

NY Housing Police

8856

NYC Transit Police

6384

Port Authority

299

Other

186

DEPT of Correction

153

Police Dept. NYC

110

Health & Hosp Corps

NY State Police

N.Y. State Parks

NYC Parks Dept.

US Park Police

Long Island RR

Metro North

Amtrak

Tri Boro Bridge Tunnel

Staten Island Rapid Transit

NYC Sheriff's Dept.

NYC Dept. of Environment

TOTAL

93816

***This issue of NYC Agencies NOT doing a great job at investigating inter-agency complaints of sexual assault needs to be flagged for this new committee: There are a total of 71 NYC Agencies and according to NYC Open Data of those only 20 reported complaints of criminal sex abuse/sexual harassment to the NYPD from 2006 to 2018. As per each Agency’s independent Charter code each is responsible for investigating inter-agency crimes. The Charter requires all criminal conduct to be reported to the NYPD but there appears to be nary any oversight structure established in any capacity within NYC government to enforce this reporting. We know from news report that there have been harrowing cases of sexual assault within the FDNY for example, but they are among the agencies that has reported ZERO instances of sex abuse, assault et al to the NYPD.

This is especially worrisome when data reveals that agencies reporting data are under-cutting the sex abuse crimes that they are reporting! The NYC Department of Correction is a good example of this:

II. City Council must develop a robust data reporting mechanism for sexual violence data.

The number of unique FJC encounters reported was 42k from last year according to Commissioner Noel---but not 42k individual people. The number represents 42k service encounters. However, we have no idea of how many individuals were served. An individual may have dozens or hundreds of yearly service encounters with the FJCs. It would be great to get a clearer picture of who is being served and what services are being offered other than just 'referrals for public assistance!”

The NYPD reports only SVU cases OPENED now– not complaints MADE so it is impossible to assess the efficacy of the various Borough FJC's reach without knowing how many individual 61 reports et al were actually filed at the borough precincts.

ref: the mandated reporting available by the NYPD SVU: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/reports-analysis/svd.page

Complaint and Staffing Statistics for the Special Victims Division: Complaints only consist of “CASES OPENED” ref: “NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT - SPECIAL VICTIMS DIVISION CASES OPENED BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2020 AND DECEMBER 31, 2020”

Is this a new distinction?

What about the number of complaints received?

Is there a difference between these two categories (received and opened complaints?

In other words is SVU refusing to take reports from people trying to file complaints of sexual violence We heard at the October 18, 2021 hearing from dozens of survivors that this is absolutely true.

Special Victims Case Management System

Under Administrative Code section 14-178, the department conducts quarterly audits of the case management system to ensure the security of such a system.

These audits reveal almost a 50 % viewing of SVU case files by non-SVU NYPD units.

What do you think accounts for this??? Why are non SVU cops all over the very sensitive case files of sexual abuse and assault survivors? Isn’t this just an open invitation to predator cops?

B. Compare what is available on NYC Open Data about sex crime statistics and nothing published is consistent with data provided by NYC Office to end GBV, the SVU data or the FBI’s available data. None of this data correlates. The keystone to addressing services must be built on a clear picture based on real, reliable data. This should be a Council priority. The last council failed to respond legislatively to the METOO movement--don't let me be able to stand here and say this to you, again, in four years, please. Who is responsible of reporting sex crime data annually to the Bureau of Justice Statistics? Can we see these reports? Who keeps this data here in NYC? NYPDSVU and Borough DAs have traditionally criminalized behavior that is symptomatic of trauma and re-victimize survivors, by filing cross-complaints against us and entangling us with the criminal legal system. Borough DA SCU’s, MOCJ and the NYPD’s SVU don’t accurately track or report data on sexual violence resulting in an ebbing of trust in Law Enforcement Agencies and authority. We need a robust and transparent data accountability mechanism developed in the City Council as NYPD, Mayor’s Office vs. Gender Based Violence and FBI reporting that is grossly flawed and insufficient. If we cannot see the problem we cannot fix it. Here is a brief snapshot of these three data channels regarding sexual violence in NYC:

NYPD RAPE DATA: NYPD Open Data Portal by Complaint Type

No data on founded/unfounded/substantiated: data is only for “valid felony” complaints.

Scant Data is available. What is available is inconsistent and obfuscated. No data provided by the community board by NYPD.

NYPD quarterly Data shows 52 complaints of RAPE 1 in Q1 for Manhattan only in 2019: no indication of breakdown DV, Family-related, or Stranger rape.

This data seems to indicate a potential 100% increase in rapes in 2018 in Manhattan/citywide in view of MOEGBV data (see below “Table 6” that reveals only~99 complaints of Domestic Violence Rape for the ENTIRE year of 2018 in Manhattan. This represents a potential 100 % increase in Rape complaints in Manhattan.

Citywide increase of rapes from 679 city-wide DV Rapes 2018 according to MOEGBV v NYPD Q1 total (including stranger rapes) in 2019 of 287.

NYPD rape data only provides data on NY Penal Code § 130.35: Rape in the First Degree-

Data is not tracked year-to-year for comparison

Historical NYPD Rape and Sex-based Crime Data: 2006-2016

2. FBI DATA:

FBI DATA reveals NYPD determines that ~20% of all rape complaints are “Unfounded” or evidence proved that the rape did not happen as opposed to the next largest US Metropolitan area, Los Angeles, that reported a 1.3-3% rate of “unfounded” rape complaints.

Graph 1 FBI Data 2014-2016 Reported & Unfounded Rapes In 10 Most Populated US Cities

FBI Data 2017 Reported & Unfounded Rapes NYPD

FBI Data 2018 Reported

3. MAYOR’S OFFICE TO END GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE DATA:

§ The Mayor’s office to combat Gender Based Violence under-reported DV rapes by Manhattan Community Board in the Open Data Portal by ~24.999% for the year 2018 (still waiting on 2019 data).

§ Stranger-rapes are not accounted for in any NYC Mayor’s Office to Combat Gender-Based Violence Snapshots, Annual Reporting or on the 2017 MOEGBV NYC Open Data Portal.

§ The 2018 Intimate Partner Violence Related Snapshot published by the Mayor’s Office to End Gender Based Violence reveals, “In 2018, there were 2 family-related rapes, comprising 20% of the neighborhood’s domestic violence rapes.” This would represent a total of TEN domestic-violence rapes in Community Board four in 2018. However, the data posted on NYC’s Open Data Portal lists only NINE domestic-violence rapes in Community Board four in 2018. Following, ONE DV rape in CB4 has “disappeared.” These inconsistencies are ubiquitous throughout the Mayor’s Office to end Gender Based Violence DV Rape by Community Board reporting.

§ The biggest discrepancy seems to be in Community Board Twelve / CB12 as the MOEGBV 2018 Community Board Snapshot reported: “In 2018 there were 9 family-related rapes comprising 39% of the neighborhood’s domestic-violence related rapes.” This would represent a total of 23 (n=23) Domestic-Violence related rapes in CB12 in calendar year 2018. However, the NYC Open Data Portal (below Table 1) details ONLY SEVEN domestic-violence related rapes in CB12 in 2018. So a total of 14 rapes have been wiped clean from the MOEGBV Snapshot reporting for 2018 for CB12/Manhattan.

We haven’t accurate sexual violence data in NYC and no way to fairly disseminate it to advocates and policy makers.

Source: Mayor’s Office to End Gender-based Violence—purportedly two presentations of the SAME 2018 data for DV and IPV rapes by Community Board Districts reveals discrepancies in numbers for reported DV rapes per Community Board District:

NYC Open Data Portal 2017 Intimate Partner Violence Related Snapshots: New York City Community Board Districts (n.b. report is NAMED 2017 data but the 2018 data below) lives at this link on the NYC Open Data Portal as well):

(Table 1):

2018 Family-Related Violence Snapshots by NYC Community-Board Districts

(Table 2)

For example, the 2017 Intimate Partner Violence Related Snapshot (Table 2 excerpted above from page 40,) published by the Mayor’s Office to End Gender Based Violence lists reveals “In 2018, there were 2 family-related rapes, comprising 20% of the neighborhood’s domestic violence rapes.” This would represent a total of TEN domestic-violence rapes in Community Board four in 2018. However, the data posted on NYC’s Open Data Portal lists only NINE domestic-violence rapes in Community Board four in 2018. Following, ONE DV rape in CB4 has “disappeared.” These inconsistencies are ubiquitous throughout the Mayor’s Office to end Gender Based Violence DV Rape by Community Board reporting.

(Table 3)

Community Board One / CB1: snapshot from MOPGBV Snapshot (Table 3 above excepted from page 37) reports ZERO Domestic-Violence related rapes in this neighborhood in 2018. The NYC Open Data portal reports ONE DV rape and ONE IPV rape.

(Table 4)

(Table 4) The biggest discrepancy seems to be in Community Board Twelve / CB12 (above Table 4 excerpted from page 48) as the MOEGBV 2018 Community Board Snapshot reported: “In 2018 there were 9 family-related rapes comprising 39% of the neighborhood’s domestic-violence related rapes.” This would represent a total of 23 (n=23) Domestic-Violence related rapes in CB12 in calendar year 2018. However, the NYC Open Data Portal (above Table 1) details ONLY SEVEN domestic-violence related rapes in CB12 in 2018.

(Table 6) Comparison Table of MOCGBV OPEN DATA Portal 2018 DV Rape Data vs. MOCGBV CB 2018 Snapshot Data:

The Mayor’s office to combat Gender Based Violence under-reported DV rapes by Manhattan Community Board in the Open Data Portal by ~24.999% for the year 2018.

Stranger-rapes are not accounted for in any NYC Mayor’s Office to Combat Gender-Based Violence Snapshots, Annual Reporting or on the 2017 MOEGBV NYC Open Data Portal.

III. NYPD SVU must receive autonomy in Budget and Report directly to the Council & to the Mayor. Since the SECOND DOI report in 2018 on the NYPD SVU we have seen FOUR new SVU Chiefs and not an iota of enhanced data transparency; an ebbing of the flow of survivors clinging to service organizations for justice and; nary a boost confidence that lasting structural change to this NYPD division has gelled. During the pandemic sexual assault, domestic violence and trafficking have dramatically increased yet the OCME has radically slowed the number of Rape Kits being processed:

The number one thing we can do to increase access to victims services is give the NYPD SVU a separate agency status–separate but parallel to the NYPD with its own budget and its own answerability to the Mayor and the City Council to investigate not only complaints of sexual assault, abuse and harassment by the public but also by members of the dozens of City Agencies and Departments where sexual predators have been protected for decades by the City’s Failure to establish a process(es) for these complaints to be properly investigated and reported.

IV. Services for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women, girls & LGTBQ+ community.

NYC cages more women and girls per capita than any other city in the world: we are responsible for caging SEVEN PERCENT of the world’s caged women:

The US cages 30% of the world's total # of women/girls behind bars.

+ New York State cages 43% of the US's total # of women/girls behind bars.

= New York State cages ~13% of the world's total # of women behind bars.

+ NEW YORK CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAGING ~7% OF ALL WOMEN/GIRLS IN CAGES WORLDWIDE ...according to this 2006 NYS DOCCS report that details that NYC is responsible for sending ~55% of all women/girls in NY State to Prison in NYS:

Only 22% of us caged are actually convicted or plea--so 78% of us walk free after our detention but the service providers for criminalized survivors only cater to those in re-entry or those who take a plea and enter a ATI program.

There are zero services that cater to the 78% of us who are released with a subway card and a property slip from our City jails.

BOROUGH BASED JAIL PLAN FOR WOMEN, GIRLS & LGBTQI+: Need to add that the plan to only build one jail for women is unconstitutional, against title IX and also shortsighted. We need hubs in every borough for criminalized survivors anyway--I want to urge the council to re-examine this aspect of the borough based jail plan when mapping out community needs for survivor services. We can't just have all services in one hub in Queens or in Manhattan. We need the jails and the services in ALL FIVE BOROUGHS FOR WOMEN. I have submitted long testimonials in the past regarding the Title IX and XIV Amendment violations of the current plan at numerous City Council and Design Commission hearings over the past few years and am happy to provide these again.

PEOPLE UNLAWFULLY TRANSFERRED TO BEDFORD: Please make note of the Class Action filing by Tananie Aboushi on behalf of women detained on Rikers who were unlawfully transferred to Bedford Hills: please take a minute to read it. There are tens of dozens of descriptions of barriers to access to services documented in this filing that women are experiencing who have been transferred to Bedford.

IV. VICE SQUAD: I wish to uplift what Joyce McMillan said during her 2/22/22 oral testimony to the committee ref MONEY$ reaching survivors and not going to salaries of service providers (although they do deserve to be paid more too!!!)

Also what Dania Darwish said about survivors falling through the cracks of a broken criminal justice system.

Most importantly ref VICE I wish to lift up everything Mr Trujillo said about Vice (although I do personally like Chief Klein a lot and personally the Vice Squad has been responsive to me when I report pimps and pimp-run brothels.) Mr. Trujillo is correct about how many pimps have actually been busted by VICE over the past 18 years--the number is in the low 100s. You will be shocked. Vice does not have the data to back its expenditures--so what are they doing with those cases? They are horse-trading them with the pimps: squeezing intel from them on other, un-related investigations in exchange for leniency in their coercion/pimping/trafficking enterprises. Between 2006 and 2019 there were less than 1000 prostitution-and trafficking related arrests made by vice and fewer than 100 busts of sex traffickers. The lack of pimp busts by VICE speaks for itself:

VI. Law Enforcement Databases label survivors as ‘fabricators’ creating barriers to services and criminal legal system responses:

For a few years NYPD and borough DAs ran a software algorithm that alleged to be able to discern who was a ‘true’ survivor of sexual violence and who was ‘fabricating’ SVU crimes. The offshoot? Survivors have had these unfortunate status classifications written into our NYPD COBALT and Domain Alert Awareness System database records--no one is talking about this and how it affects our ability to have positive criminal legal system interactions.

Since there is /was zero oversight about the intersection of tech and SVU I hope this committee will start to probe the implications for things like how being falsely marked as a "fabricator" of SVU crimes in the law enforcement databases follows us through life and has ramifications for every future NYPD/DA interaction [ask Jane Manning at herJustice about this–she knows of clients demarcated as such as well]. These algorithms inform which cases are taken and who gets services but there is ZERO oversight over who is demarcated as a 'survivor' vs a ‘fabricator’ and gets the golden ticket to the FJCs and who is shut out.

The tech tool/algorithm was created under the stewardship of Linda Fairstein when she worked at K2 Intelligence's "Sexual Misconduct Working Group" as a consultant for the MDAO/NYPD (c 2010-2017) to build-out a "sexual violence" module for Palantir, the tool the NYPD/Borough DA's used to determine who was a 'true' survivor of sexual violence and whom was a 'fabricator." There are literally thousands of survivors of sexual violence like me who were cast aside by the borough DA's offices and the NYPD and erronously labeled as "fabricators" because of this technology tool that was the brain child of Linda Fairstein working under Mr. Kroll. I even managed to get a retired NYPD Lieutenant to write me an affidavit about this practice for my SDNY lawsuit.

You can chart the rise of the #MeToo movement in NYC directly against the implementation of this technology "tool" into the workflow of the NYC Borough DA's offices/NYPD's SVU. Fairstein's involvement with k2 ended when it was discovered that the tool was fed faulty/erronous data of true survivors wrongly labled as fabricators to model what the behavior of a false-complainer of sexual violence looks like but there is yet to be a public reckoning regarding who is labeled a fabricator, how long this lingers in the NYPD Domain Alert Awareness System and other systems.

K2's "Sexual Misconduct Working Group" has since been dis-banded and the tool has allegedly been removed from NYPD workflows with the creation of COBALT and the NYPD’s dropping of Palantir; but there is still a public reckoning awaiting the thousands of survivors denied services and justice because of Mr. Kroll, Ms. Fairstein, K2 & Palantir for their role in demarcating thousands of survivors of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, rape, sexual abuse, assault, harrassment as ‘fabricators.’ Also, the tool was likely used in other jurisdictions outside of NYC who purchased the Palantir "gotham" product it was attached to in part.

The Center for Court Innovation produced a report that describes in detail how the NYPD and Borough DA’s offices do still use facets of the Domain Alert Awareness System and other database to track sex workers and other “Community Crime Drivers:

"Bureau-Based Project teams (BBPs) consist of approximately three to six dedicated prosecutors from the trial division. These ADAs become experts on a select crime concern or hot spot, identify offenders believed to be the crime drivers in a particular geographic location (the location does not have to encompass an entire “area”), and devise a plan to target, prosecute, and eventually incapacitate these individuals through incarceration or supervision (i.e., parole or probation). DANY primarily formed BBPs to address violent crime, but developed additional teams to address other issues, including scammers, prostitution, and larceny-related crimes. BBPs also require prosecutors to work closely with NYPD specialized units (i.e. gangs, narcotics, and/ or grand larceny units). BBPs are not permanent fixtures. DANY may dismantle a team once successful prosecutions substantially decrease the targeted criminal behavior-if the crime issue re-emerges at a later date, DANY creates a new BBP team. In the fall of 2014, DANY had 13 operational BBPs."

As a final n.b. Sex workers are demarcated in the NYPD databases as such and those databases (COBALT, Domain Alert Awareness System et al) are linked to Clearview and cops are given unfettered access to use Clearview for personal purposes enabling predatory cops to have easy access to tech to mark their targets. Also this tech is licensed to Banker Bro and Real Estate bros--and there is zero oversight over this. Whomever has access to Clearview and Cobalt/Palantir/Domain Alert Awareness System can literally take a photo of our faces and find out:

Where we live (many building security cameras post their live feeds on Instagram and other social media platforms which is culled-into Clearview)

Where we work

Any public or secret social media/dating site accounts

Our friends

Our political activities

Where we spend our money

Anything about our background.

As an example, as someone who has been trafficked all of my old sex worker posts have been swept up into Clearview: so every NYPD officer with access to Clearview (and they ALL HAVE ACCESS) at bars and restaurants who scans my face with his cellphone sees immediately that I have been a sex worker and has access to personal, private photos from a decade ago. Same goes for anyone with access to this tech: Real Estate, Banks, Security Firms at shopping malls et al… Cops constantly ridicule me because of my status as a formerly-trafficked person. In 2017 a Sargeant responding to a complaint that my landlord had illegally changed the locks on my building sneered at me: “your super said you took off your clothes and ran down the street yelling but I know you wouldn’t take off your clothes without getting money for it…Kelly.” Why would this NYPD Sargeant say this to me unless there was something in my NYPD database records about my former status as a trafficked sex worker? These arbitrary, un-supervised tech tools already integrated in our law enforcement workflows are a great hindrance to access to services for survivors that I hope this committee will focus on. I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

IV. Mandatory Arrest: I hate to open a can of worms at the end of a 18-page testimonial but often the first time survivors encounter the criminal legal system is when cuffs are slapped on their wrists because of the State’s ridiculous Mandatory Arrest laws. At this point it is almost impossible to receive “survivor services” that are controlled by the borough DA’s and FJC. These Mandatory Arrest laws have to be revised to not sweep-up survivors into police and DOC custody. This is an opportunity for services: not arrests.

Thank you for considering my testimony.

Kelly Grace Price

www.CloseRosies.org

Fort George, Manhattan

February 22, 2022

0 notes

closerosies · 5 years ago

Photo

0 notes

closerosies · 5 years ago

Photo

4604 souls on deathtrap #Rikers today, 4/1/2020, only 37 fewer than yesterday as the slowdown from the epicenter of the #COVIDー19 pandemic, where nearly nary any soap exists, continues:

4364 Men~>40 released/9 caged 229

Women~>6 released/1 caged 12 Intersex,

GNC & Trans People~>0 r'ld/caged

#closerosies

0 notes

closerosies · 6 years ago

Text

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------

KELLY PRICE

Plaintiff(s), Index No:101854/19

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FOR RELIEF: STAVE ALL NYC BOC VOTES & OFFICIAL ACTIONS UNTIL THE COURT CAN OVERSEE THE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUE BOARD OF CORRECTION ACCORDING TO NYC CHARTER MANDATES

- Against -

NYC BOARD OF CORRECTION

Jaqueline Sherman, Acting Chair,

NYC Board of Correction

Stanley Richards, Vice Chair,

NYC Board of Correction

Defendant(s). Hon. __________

--------------------------------------------------------------------

State of New York, County of New York, Kelly Price, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. PARTY: I am the party named as Plaintiff in the above entitled proceeding.

2. REQUEST: I request that the Court Issue an Order for: injunctive & declaratory relief naming the current-seated NYC Board of Corrections (“BOC”) as an invalid entity that was appointed incorrectly and against the grain of the mandates of the NYC Charter; staving any further official action or votes from the currently-seated BOC; and ordering an immediate remedy to the situation by allowing the NYC Council its fair number of selections owed to it, but that have not been afforded to it, under the “rotating appointment authority” mandated by the NYC Charter. This action seeks an injunction and declaratory relief that New York City’s Board of Correction is an invalid body improperly selected under, 24 N.Y. City Charter and is preempted by that same local law from taking any further official action such as votes, engaging in rule-making or any other furtherance of the body’s responsibilities until a true and proper board may be appointed and this matter is satisfied. The next scheduled BOC vote is JANUARY 2, 2020 and I plead with the court to schedule an hearing addressing this action and my claims before this impending hearing where a vote on adding a sixth chapter to the NYC Department of Correction’s charter ref Restrictive Housing is scheduled to be taken up.

3. DEFENSE/CLAIM: I, Kelly Price, (“Plaintiff”) respectfully allege as follows:

A. The selection process for appointing board members as it is described in the NYC Charter has not been followed or enforced allowing the NYC Mayor, Bill de Blasio to manipulate votes and true oversight capabilities of the BOC. Recently, when accused in the media of doing just this (manipulating the BOC) the Mayor’s spokesperson, Avery Cohen appears to admit to gerrymandering the BOC votes openly:

“Mayoral spokesperson Avery Cohen Tuesday described the mayor’s office’s attempts to influence the Board of Correction solitary rules as standard practice:

‘It would be completely naive and irresponsible to believe that we wouldn’t play a role in the rule-making process, as these are policies that directly impact the day to day operations of our facilities,...[1]’”

B. BACKGROUND: New York City Charter (“the Charter,”) requires that: “Members shall be appointed for a term of six years. Vacancies shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term. Three members shall be appointed by the mayor, three by the council, and three by the mayor on the nomination jointly by the presiding justices of the appellate division of the Supreme Court for the first and second judicial departments. Appointments shall be made by the three respective appointing authorities on a rotating basis to fill any vacancy…”[2]

I. But Board members have not been selected by ‘the three respective appointing authorities’ on a ‘rotating basis’: instead the Mayor has chosen to interpret the City Charter to allow him to replace his appointments without rotating the selection power between the three appointing authorities.

II. The Mayor’s own press officer, Avery Cohen, has affirmed this mis-reading of the BOC’s Charter recently in the press when on October of 2019 former judge and long-time board member Hon. Bryanne Hamill was ousted from her position by the mayor and replaced by an administrator from ACS without any correction knowledge or experience just before several contentious votes ref the curbing of solitary confinement and solitary-like practices employed by the NYC Department of Correction:

“We thank Bryanne Hamill her for her service and for the commitment she has demonstrated to the board throughout her tenure,” said mayoral spokesperson Avery Cohen. “As is common with appointees from previous administrations, a mayor replaces board members whose terms expire.”[3] [Emphasis added]

III. Over the past six years, since Mayor de Blasio has taken office, whenever an important vote has been pending within the BOC the Mayor has plucked board members from the panel and replaced them with people he believes will vote in a manner that dovetails with his current needs or that of the NYC DOC: the entity the BOC is charged with oversight of:

IV. This just happened in October of 2019 with Hon. Judge Bryanne Hamill: her appointment selection should have been rotated to the NYC Council but instead the Mayor took the opportunity to replace her with Felipe Franco and not to allow the appointment opportunity to rotate to one of the other two “appointing agencies.” Honorable Bryanne Hamill was appointed jointly by Mayor Bloomberg and the Appellant Division in October of 2013. Although she was known as one of the most intelligent, able and robust advocates on the BOC her Mayor De Blasio did NOT renew her appointment. This action came just as the BOC prepares to enter rule-making regarding the use of Restrictive Housing (aka solitary confinement and solitary-like practices) which Hon. Judge Hamill was integral in drafting the initial rule versions of and pushing the initiative through to a period of public comment and vote which is scheduled to occur on or about early January of 2020.

V. In fact, the NYC Mayor has so blatantly ignored the “rotating appointment authority mandate” of the NYC BOC’s charter that on October 28, 2014 he APPOINTED THREE BOARD MEMBERS AT THE SAME TIME.[4]

VI. In Fall of 2014, when the BOC was faced with the decision to create new “Enhanced Supervision Housing” (EHS) units to replace solitary-like conditions, suddenly, a new Board Member, Jennifer Jones Austin, appeared as a new member on the BOC appointed by Mayor de Blasio along with two other new mayoral appointees.[5]

VII. Board Member Dr. Gerard Bryant[6]: Appointed January 11, 2016 by Mayor De Blasio disappeared in the summer of 2018 without comment and was replaced by the Mayor—again the appointing authority did not rotate.

VIII. Robert L. Cohen, M.D. appointed by NYC Council on December 19, 2011[7] renewed on October 11, 2017[8] by the NYC Council.

IX. Tino Hernandez: appointed in 2019 by Mayor De Blasio

X. Michael J. Regan[9]: Appointed in April of 2010 by NYC Council: appointment renewed by NYC Council on 3/9/16[10]..

XI. Stanley Richards[11]: Vice-Chair: Appointed on May 27, 2015 by NYC Council.

XII. Steven M. Safyer, M.D.: Appointed in October 2014 by NYC Mayor

XIII. Jacqueline Sherman[12], Interim Chair Appointed by Mayor De Blasio and the appellant division In October of 2018, when the BOC endeavored to take a vote on incorporating ACS into DOC workflow practices Jaqueline Sherman, longtime ACS administrator appeared on the board.

XIV. Derek Cephas: appointed by Mayor de Blasio to the Board in October 2014 and he became Vice Chair of the Board in February 2015 and Chair in the spring of 2017.

XV. Felipe Franco: appointed by NYC Mayor and appellant division October 2019.[13]

XVI. James Perrino: appointed by NYC Mayor on 2/14/2017.[14]

4. EXCUSE/REASON:

A. I have a good excuse/reason because New York City has not complied with the rotating appointment process since at least 2014 when Mayor de Blasio took office. Since early 2014 there have been at least TWELVE appointments to the NYC BOC and TWO appointment renewals. This is FOURTEEN opportunities to appoint that should have rotated between the three appointing entities respectively. However, the NYC Council has only been afforded THREE of these appointment opportunities—less than half of the appointing opportunities mandated by the NYC Charter. The net effect of New York City’s lack of adherence to the rotating appointment mandate of the NYC DOC/BOC Charter is that the mayor has been able to control key votes and stifle real oversight of the DOC virtually guaranteeing torturous conditions and practices remain stalwart within DOC/BOC operating methodologies. Plaintiff, a survivor of abuse who was wrongfully detained on Rikers is a criminal justice reform advocate and founder of the organization Close Rosie’s. Plaintiff is the only formerly incarcerate person who has actively engaged the BOC in its oversight and rulemaking processes since at least 2014. Plaintiff’s attempts at engaging the BOC in any true manner to reach real reforms have been stifled and short-changed by the spectre of the false appointment process which virtually guarantees that BOC members who expose corruption within the NYC Department of Corrections and/or try to meaningfully reign-in the practices of the DOC will be met with contempt, rebuke, and dismissal by the current administration. Plaintiff represents advocates, community members, and present/formerly detained/incarcerated individuals injured by New York City BOC’s unlawful selection process of the “oversight” board meant to bring strict scrutiny and fair, humane practices to the archaic NYC DOC. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent New York City BOC from continuing to act on an unfair basis at least until such time as the NYC BOC is in compliance with the its own Charter standard for the selection of NYC Board of Correction members.

B. FACTS: The Plaintiffs, Kelly Price, is an ardent criminal justice reform advocate representing current and formerly incarcerated and detained people, their family members, community members, lawyers, advocates and community members working towards a just and equitable system and standards for the NYC Board of Correction and NYC Department of Correction to abide by directly affected by New York City’s awkward and unlawful implementation of Board of Correction member appointment selection process. Plaintiff resides and is a member of criminal justice reform associations such as www.CLOSEROSIES.org, which is an organization, located in New York City and County and subject to both the New York City and State law/requirements. The plaintiff sues the City Defendants on behalf of her affected CLOSE ROSIES members and associates and others similarly situated who work tirelessly to change the direction of the oversight of the BOC.

The New York City Department of Correction, the New York City Board of Correction (the “BOC”) has “jurisdiction to regulate all matters affecting the Department of Correction in the city of New York.” See New York City Charter. The New York City Board of Correction (the “BOC”) is a 9-person body responsible for adopting and updating the New York City Department of Correction’s Rules and Charter. See id. § 558. Jacqueline Sherman the Interim Chair of the NYC Board of Correction, and is being sued only in that official capacity and Stanley Richards, the Vice-Chair is being sued only in his official capacity.

5. PRIOR ORDER: I have not had a previous Order to Show Cause regarding this Index Number.

Sworn to before me this 6th day of December, 2019

KELLY PRICE

534 w 187th St. #7

New York, NY 10033

646.932.2625

____________________________________________________________________________________________

(Signature of Court Employee and Title)

CIV-GP-13-i (Revised, 5/04)Telephone Number

Dated: New York, New York

December 6, 2019

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Kelly Price being duly sworn, deposes and says that: I am the petitioner/plaintiff in this action or proceeding, I have read the foregoing papers and I know the contents thereof; the complaints/petition is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters stated to be alleged on information and belief; and as to those matters I believe it to be true.

On the 6th day of December 2019, before me personally came and appeared KELLY PRICE, to me known and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and who duly acknowledged to me that she executed the same.

NOTARY PUBLIC

[1]

Mayor ‘Interfered’ With Jails Overseer on Solitary Confinement, Member Charges

; THE CITY: October 22, 2019; By

Eileen Grench

and

Rosa Goldensohn

[2] Charter of the City of New York; Chapter 25, Section 626; linked November 8, 2019; https://nyccharter.readthedocs.io/c25.

[3] The City; “De Blasio Ousts Key Solitary Confinement Foe as Reform Nears”;

By Reuven Blau and Rosa Goldensohn; Oct. 17, 2019. Linked November 8, 2019.

[4] Mayor de Blasio Appoints Three New Members to the Board of Correction, October 28, 2014; https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/496-14/mayor-de-blasio-appoints-three-new-members-the-board-correction

[5] CITY OF NEW YORK BOARD OF CORRECTION: OPEN MEETING November 18, 2014:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/boc/downloads/pdf/Meetings/bocminutes_11_18_14.pdf

[6] “January 11, 2016—Mayor Bill de Blasio today appointed Gerard Bryant to the Board of Correction, https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-16/mayor-bill-de-blasio-appoints-gerard-bryant-the-board-correction.

[7] December 19, 2011: “RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RE-APPOINTMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF ROBERT COHEN, M.D. AS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION.” https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1020881&GUID=4217C033-F556-4177-957F-484601ED3657&Options=&Search=

[8] “Report of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections approving the re-appointment by the Council of Robert L. Cohen, MD as a member of the New York City Board of Correction. The Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections, to which the annexed Council communication was referred on October 17, 2017and which same Mayor’s Message was coupled with the resolution shown below, respectfully.” https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/cityrecord/stated_meeting_2017_10_17.pdf

[9] April 4, 2016: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RE-APPOINTMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF MICHAEL REGAN AS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2683920&GUID=DA04E41A-2123-4587-89E7-4C1CA13ACC1E&Options=&Search=

[10] “Report of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections approving the re-appointment of Michael Regan as a member of the New York City Board of Correction. The Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections, to which the annexed communication was referred on March 9, 2016 (Minutes, p. 532), and which same communication was coupled with the resolution shown below, respectfully.” https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/cityrecord/stated_meeting_2016_04_07.pdf

[11] RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE COUNCIL OF STANLEY RICHARDS AS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION: https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2324676&GUID=E0944670-7DFD-4EA1-815B-AFA077FD9C1B&Options=&Search=

[12] “July 10, 2018 —Mayor Bill de Blasio today announced the appointment of Jacqueline Sherman to the Board of Correction…” https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/348-18/mayor-de-blasio-appoints-jacqueline-sherman-the-board-correction-names-derrick-cephas-as

[13] “Felipe Franco, the deputy commissioner for the Division of Youth and Family Justice within the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), will serve a six-year term on the city’s Board of Corrections as a de Blasio appointee.” Chronicle of Social Change: October 17, 2019: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news-2/new-york-youth-franco-justice/38403

[14] “February 14, 2017:—Mayor Bill de Blasio today announced the appointment of James Perrino to the Board of Correction.” https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/082-17/mayor-de-blasio-appoints-james-perrino-board-correction

0 notes

closerosies · 6 years ago

Photo

Throughout NYC history where and how we have built our jails to detain our female incarcerate population deserves a look back as Mayor De Blasio has finally unveiled the site of his new jail for Manhattanites: a site virtually on the footprint of the Tombs. This siting choice brings detainees awaiting trial full-circle back to the very place they were originally housed centuries ago.

We are Kathy Morse, and Kelly Grace Price: co-creators of the #CloseRosies campaign. We want to Close Rosie’s: the Rose M. Singer Center aka “Rosie’s;” the all-female jail on Rikers Island where women and girls are currently detained pre-trial and on City-sentence of up to one year post-conviction. We are the women who have been holding the City accountable for the sins committed against ourselves and our mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, aunts, and grandmothers. We have experienced the hell and inhumanity that thrives there first hand and we want to have a say on what happens to us after we #CloseRosies. Throughout NYC History deplorable conditions, brutality, torture and rape of women and girls within facilities of incarceration and detention have caused public uproar leading to the building of new structures and promises to “hail a new era of incarceration.”

The current plan to build a 40-story tower on Centre street will rival in sheer mass the most imposing carceral structures ever built in this country in Alleghany and Alcatraz. It will be a massive structure visually; the overpowering structure rimming Foley sq. casting the famed flame of justice fountain into shadow for many hours during some seasons. The proposed tower will overshadow the Federal Courthouses on Foley Square and be far away from the neighborhoods uptown that feed the jails population. Currently the top 20 zip codes that have contributed to Rosie's population over the last five years are uptown in Washington Heights, Harlem and Inwood. Of the top 25 zip codes that feed Rosie’s’ population not one of them is from CB1, CB2, or CB3.

The mayor’s plan as we understand it is to house women/girls in Queens: which is the borough that contributes the fourth LEAST percentage of female detainees to Rikers. We don’t recall any public discussion on where the women will be housed nor do we recall a meeting held by MOCJ where the siting was discussed; nor was there a poll of survivors and advocates topically about the siting for the new women’s jail. What were the criteria used to select the Queens site? We would be more supportive of this plan if we could be guaranteed that a SEPARATE facility for women and girls, trans, intersex and gender non-conforming would also be built in uptown Manhattan with an adjoining courthouse.

Why are we moving women and girls to Queens? We support closing Rikers Island but moving our female incarcerate population further away from Manhattan is not what we had in mind. How will the moms, daughters and sisters drawn from our uptown neighborhoods stay in touch with loved ones? They will be caged further away from their families and from courts and public defenders in downtown Manhattan at 100 Centre street. Why must the burden be placed on our female detainees to have to be chained, cuffed, shackled and transported across borough boundary-lines to participate in their defense(s)? Women need to be in Manhattan not in the outer area of Queens. Manhattan is more convenient to mass transit, again the women are being treated as an afterthought. Yet we women have the most to lose: ties to our children, ties to our communities, access to medical and mental health services, access to community programs et al. It is important to note that we women/girls will not be housed in a jail in the community in which we reside but the men will have that option.

The new chosen downtown site is virtually on the footprint of the Tombs: currently the third incarnation of the jail exists on the proposed site and has questionable geographic legacy. The Tombs built in 1836 by architect John Haviland was chosen in part because it sat directly on an island in the old Collect Pond where bodies were “gibbetted” after execution- put out on display in hanging cages as a “memento more” for all New Yorkers to take heed of.

Originally dubbed the "Halls of Justice" it was quickly nicknamed “the tombs” because it looked like an old Egyptian sarcophyogus: it was touted as being a “marriage of urban renewal and economic investment.” Railroad Baron Cornelius Vanderbilt's first venture in ground transportation was the Harlem railroad which ferried residents, sometimes pulled by dozens of horses in snow when the tracks were clogged, from Harlem down to the tombs. Some of those original tracks are still part of our modern day MTA's 456 lines that transport countless uptown residents downtown to the current court and jail megaplex on Centre st. to testify at their own trials and/or those of loved ones. We don’t wish for the new jail to be built downtown on top of the horrible legacy that the site invokes. If the new jail must be built on Centre street we would support the plan but not for women and girls.

We would be more supportive of the Mayor’s new borough jail plan if we could be guaranteed that a SEPARATE facility for women and girls, trans, intersex and gender non-conforming would also be built in uptown Manhattan with an adjoining courthouse. Bayview was closed after Hurricane Sandy in 2013 and we lost our only women’s prison in the city. Perhaps a portion of that building can be re-allocated for our community’s needs. If the mayor will agree to working to change the NYS Correction’s Law that requires anyone with a sentence of more than a year to serve upstate bringing back to NYC the 80% of women and girls who are sentenced one to five years, and to split our population of women and girls between an separate Manhattan facility (i.e. either uptown in the Edgecombe facility or in the old Bayview Prison) in addition to the proposed site in Queens we would be more enthusiastic about this plan. We are encouraged by the Mayor’s first proposal and we look forward to the day that we #CloseRosies.

0 notes