Good government group calls for Rikers receivership
/
Good government group Citizens Union called for a federal judge to institute a federal receivership on Rikers Island last week. AP file photo by Seth Wenig
By Jacob Kaye
The list of those calling for the city to be stripped of its control over Rikers Island is growing.
Last week, good government group Citizens Union joined the a number of elected officials, advocates and others in calling for federal Judge Laura Swain to put the city’s notorious jail complex into a federal receivership, or a judicial order that could see the power to manage Rikers handed over to a court-appointed authority.
It’s an unusual position for the nonprofit, which has been in operation for over 100 years, to take – on most issues, Citizens Union advocates for local control. The atypical position for the organization only speaks to the urgent and troubling conditions on Rikers Island, the group said.
In the letter to Swain, who is the presiding judge in an ongoing civil rights case involving Rikers Island and who recently told attorneys with the Legal Aid Society that they can soon begin receivership proceedings on behalf of their clients in the case, Citizens Union says that their request to the judge was done so “reluctantly.”
“We generally support local governments having the power to manage their jurisdictions,” the letter from Citizens Union’s Executive Director Betsy Gotbaum and Co-Chair of its Policy Committee Alan Rothstein reads. “An ardent supporter of strengthening municipal home rule, Citizens Union has a lengthy record of advocating for New York City to receive more, not less, power to run the city’s business, and is an ardent supporter of strengthening municipal home rule. Many of the members of our board and our policy committee are former city officials, including high-level officers such as deputy mayors, commissioners, and senior advisors and counsels to the mayor.”
“However, it seems clear that the situation in Rikers Island has now reached a full-blown humanitarian crisis that uniquely justifies federal intervention,” the letter continues. “For decades, New York City has failed to overcome the structural, political, and administrative obstacles that underlie this crisis and significantly mitigate the ‘culture of violence’ at Rikers Island. To protect inmates from extraordinary harm, the city’s jail system needs reforms that can only be implemented by an independent, properly empowered outside body– namely, a federal receiver.”
The letter comes about a week before the city, it’s Department of Correction, federal prosecutors, the federal monitor appointed to oversee conditions in the jail in 2015 and attorneys with the Legal Aid Society are set to appear before Swain in what could be a pivotal conference in the case, known as Nunez v the City of New York.
The case created the position of the federal monitor – who recently said in a report that he believes the city should be held in contempt of court for not turning violent conditions on Rikers Island around – and could be the case that creates the position of the federal receiver.
The extreme possibility has only appeared to be more and more likely in recent months.
Following the deadliest year on Rikers Island in the past decade, the DOC has seen seven people in its custody die this year. The federal monitor, Steve J. Martin, has accused DOC Commissioner Louis Molina of failing to properly report several of the deaths on the island in an effort to stave off potential criticism of what Molina says is a jail in the process of reform.
In a June conference in the case, Swain said she was particularly concerned about Molina’s alleged lack of communication with Martin and cited it as a reason that she was allowing for the first steps toward receivership to be taken.
Citizens Union, a good government group, said in a letter to federal Judge Laura Swain that they believe a federal receivership is required to improve conditions on Rikers Island. Eagle file photo by Jacob Kaye
“My confidence in the commitment of the city leadership to be all in on recognizing the need and in working with the monitoring structure that the court has imposed in good faith and candor has been shaken by the incidents of the past few weeks,” Swain said during the June 13 conference.
“While I am not ready to authorize or structure receivership motion practice…I am willing to let the parties explore further and seek to concretize the nature of any receivership motion practice proposal and the set of issues that it would implicate,” she added.
Almost immediately following the conference, the Legal Aid Society confirmed that it would be seeking receivership.
Not long after, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, who serves as a party in the case, jumped on board with the receivership call, and said that he too would be requesting Swain begin receivership proceedings.
“After eight years of trying every tool in the toolkit, we cannot wait any longer for substantial progress to materialize,” Williams said in June. “That is why my office will seek a court-appointed receiver to address the conditions on Rikers Island.”
Prior to the June conference and since, a number of elected officials, including City Comptroller Brad Lander and Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, have also voiced their support for a federal receivership on Rikers Island.
Both Mayor Eric Adams and Molina have resisted the calls for receivership and have said that they believe they are best suited to improve conditions on the island where over two dozen people have died since Adams took office.
In their letter to the judge, Citizens Union argues that regardless of the mayor’s intentions, receivership would open up doors to reform the agency and the jail in disarray that cannot be opened with the power of the city alone – they also questioned Adams’ commitment to reform.
A federal receiver would have the power to bypass procurement rules, which have previously caused delays in making improvements to the facilities and practices on Rikers Island. Additionally, a receiver, unlike the DOC, would be able to hire outside correctional professionals, bypassing the state and city’s civil service rules. A receiver also wouldn’t be bound to the city’s agreement with the corrections officers’ union.
Citizens Union also argued that a receiver would provide “independence from political pressure” and would provide stability by not being appointed or replaced at the will of the mayor.
Ben Weinberg, the director of policy at Citizens Union, said the good government group first began considering taking the stance last year, when talks of receivership first began – Swain rejected a receivership motion last fall.
“It took us time and we didn't take this decision lightly,” Weinberg told the Eagle. “We studied the issue, we looked at the data, we spoke to experts, we thought about the pros and cons and we debated this at length.”
“But because now this is indeed a possibility, we've decided to weigh in because we think this is the right time to do so,” he added.
