[music]

Brian: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Later in the show today with all the buzz about how well President Biden did at the State of the Union address, we're going to have a call in for Democrats who have said that Biden shouldn't run for reelection. Do you feel any differently after the State of the Union? There's no right answer. Well, we just want to take your temperature on this. We had a call in a few months ago and a lot of you were pretty divided, Democrats on whether Biden should run for reelection or not. We're going to ask that question again later in the show.

We're also going to do a Black History month segment on the persistence of racial wealth disparities in this country. Even almost 60 years now, after the civil rights laws, the main civil rights laws of the '60s were passed, it's a 10:1 ratio household wealth from whites to Blacks. It's actually gotten worse from the World War II generation to the baby boom generation to the millennials. We'll talk about why with an economist from the Economic Policy Institute, who's got some ideas for policies that could actually make a much bigger difference, and we're going to talk to the mayor of Trenton today, Reed Gusciora coming up later in the show, but we begin in New York.

Now that Governor Hochul has presented her budget, negotiations between the legislature and the governor really get underway. It's about money, yes, but all kinds of policy matters get included. While she might be speaking to a choir of fellow Democrats, there are contentious issues between her and the Democratic majority legislature as we saw, for example, with the defeat of her candidate for Chief Judge in the Senate Judiciary Committee just the other week. We covered that a lot. My first guest this morning also finds himself at odds with the Governor when it comes to accountability for police officers.

Of course, this is newly relevant, it's always relevant, but it's newly headline relevant after the police killing of Tyre Nichols. New York State Senator Robert Jackson is my guest, and he's the sponsor of a bill to end what's called qualified immunity for law enforcement officers who violate the rights of New Yorkers. For example, should the family of Tyre Nichols in Memphis be able to sue those police officers for damages in addition to however they sue the city of Memphis and however those officers may be held criminally responsible?

Governor Hochul has said she's not sold on qualified immunity or on ending qualified immunity really. We'll hear from Senator Jackson about the bill, what it would and wouldn't do, plus other issues in Albany and his district. Senator Jackson represents a redrawn 31st Senate district that shifted North recently and now runs from about 155th Street in Manhattan up to Van Cortland Park in the Bronx, covering Washington Heights, Inwood, Morris Heights, Kingsbridge, Marble Hill. He chairs the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Pensions and is a member of three different education-related committees among others. Senator Jackson, always good to have you. Welcome back to the show.

Senator Jackson: Well, thank you, Brian. How are you doing? I hope your family is doing well.

Brian: Thank you for asking. When we talk about police officers having qualified immunity, I want to start from the beginning on this because some people are very involved in this issue, but a lot of people have no idea. What do we mean exactly? They're immune from being sued in civil court over how they do their jobs?

Senator Jackson: That's what the US Supreme Court basically has said, but then there is five states that have passed bills that limit qualified immunity in various ways. The New York bill basically is comprehensive where you can sue in any court about violation of your civil rights.

Brian: Why does this matter? One could say New York City, for example, dishes out a lot of money in settlements over police misconduct. It's over $100 million for 2022, I read, settlements to individuals who sued the city over police misconduct so presumably victims who win in court are getting their money. What does it matter if they can sue the police officers as individuals?

Senator Jackson: It matters because they've been harmed. They've been harmed because many of them are Black and brown people. Basically, discrimination takes place overall so, for example, if I'm fumbling for my keys in front of my house and the police roll up and detain me and force me to the ground and injures me, I have a right to seek redress because police and all law enforcement officers are there to serve and protect and not to injure. That's why training, more training is needed for law enforcement officers, not only police but all law enforcement officers in order to address the issues and concerns of the people of our state.

Brian: I understand, but I'm going to renew the question, which is, if those victims get financial redress by suing the city, why does it matter if they can also sue the officers as individuals?

Senator Jackson: Well, the officers are acting on behalf of the government in which they work, whether it's a county, whether the city or the state. You had a state trooper of state New York in which he was chasing a car and hit the back of it several times and a little girl died as a result of that and supposedly the information based on the media and everything he lied and said that the car tried to hit his car. That never happened. As a result of that, this little girl died, 11 years old.

Does her family have a right to sue? I say yes because, one, what the state trooper said did not happen and also his superiors from the papers and everything basically said he did not follow the type of procedures that he was supposed to follow and so as a result of that, a little girl 11 years old that was in the car died. I would say yes, the family has a right to sue that state trooper or the state of New York for damages.

Brian: Talk to me about how you see the political climate right now. You may remember or you may not remember, you were on the show in 2021 in the wake of George Floyd's death, which of course, was in 2020, to talk about your qualified immunity bill. It did not get through the legislature at that time and now this has renewed salience with the death of Tyre Nichols. Why do you think the law did not pass a Democratic state legislature in '21 and do you think the politics of it right now with the veto-proof democratic majority are any different?

Senator Jackson: Well, every year we get stronger and stronger knowing that, for example, we do have a super majority right now, but what we are doing is communicating loud and clear to other members of the state Senate and obviously Pamela Hunter who is the sponsor of the Assembly bill. We are communicating with our colleagues in order to sign on to the bill and so we have approximately 23 in the New York State Senate and we are gathering more steam in order to move the process. As you know, you need at least a majority of at least 32 members in order to pass a bill.

We want to make sure that when this bill passes, that we have the type of membership signed onto it that if in fact both the assembly and Senate have passed a bill, consideration for overriding a veto is there. Obviously, you want to make sure that you have enough votes. That's what we are working on. In fact, the governor said, when she was at the police program up in Albany, in the interview and I read in the papers that every officer should be held accountable for their actions. If you have, in my opinion, several bad apples, you have to get rid of those bad apples. That's just part of the process to ensure accountability of officers based on the trust that they're supposed to have with the people that they're sworn to represent.

Brian: In fact, here's a clip of Governor Hochul who has indicated her opposition to your bill to ending qualified immunity. Here's just seven seconds of what she had to say,

Governor Hochul: What I do support is stopping the denigration of people who take an oath to protect society.

Brian: She talked about stopping the denigration of people who take an oath to protect society. Are you surprised to hear that from a Democratic governor talking against people who criticize the police?

Senator Jackson: Listen, everyone has a position, and our position is that when police officers or law enforcement officers violate individuals' rights, individuals must have a right in order to seek redress. That's the democratic process, and so that's why we say that everyone has a right to continue their lives without being hurt by any law enforcement officers. Qualified immunity is a doctrine that was created by the courts. We need to make sure that we have a right to redress, and that's what we're working on.

Brian: The governor also pointed to the current difficulty that there apparently is in hiring police officers at a time when public safety is a big concern. Would this bill make becoming a police officer less attractive because people could feel that their personal finances would be put at risk if a jury decided that they did something wrong?

Senator Jackson: I don't think so. I think one of the issues, one, is pay and benefits is extremely important. I think that the government has to go out and recruit more police officers in Black and brown communities and diversity, and to make sure that they are trained appropriately to understand what their role is and not to do harm to the people that they are sworn to serve and protect.

Brian: How much difference do you [crosstalk]

Senator Jackson: We say no public officials should be above the law or protect when they violate their rights. If doctors and other professionals are held accountable, why shouldn't public officials, meaning law enforcement officials be held to the same standards as the rest of us? That's why training is so important in dealing with law enforcement officials.

Brian: Some calls are starting to come in, so let me give everybody the number as we talk for the first part of our conversation with State Senator Robert Jackson of Manhattan and the Bronx about his end qualified immunity bill pertaining to police officers in the New York State legislature right now. We'll get into some other things as it's budget season with so many items on the table in Albany right now.

Police officers, we welcome your call or former police officers as well or anybody who's been a victim of police misconduct, who has wanted to sue a police officer. 212-433-WNYC or anyone else 212-433-9692, as we really dig into this issue of qualified immunity here. 212-433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer. This is kind of a tangent, but you just mentioned the importance of diversifying police forces. We saw in the case of Tyre Nichols in Memphis that those five police officers who've been charged with murder were all Black, and many people are obviously discussing how much diversity really affects the behavior of police departments. What's your take?

Senator Jackson: Police officers are police officers, whether they're Black, they're white, Hispanic, Asian, it doesn't really matter, and that's why I've said to you training is so important. People need to understand that because you're a police officer or a law enforcement officer that you don't have the right in order to basically victimize people that you're sworn to serve, and that you and your actions should be these are residents, citizens of our area. You need to communicate effectively with them and also to understand that if in fact you violate them, and you abuse them, and you hurt them, and you kill them, that their families and the victims themselves have a right to sue because you're not then serving and protecting, you're injuring and killing.

Brian: Right, I understand about qualified immunity, but does it matter to public safety from police misconduct if the NYPD is overwhelmingly white or more diverse?

Senator Jackson: I think that research has shown the more diversity in anything brings about the type of democracy in America that we want. That's proven over the years with racism and discrimination all over the place.

Brian: Let's take a phone call from one of your constituents. It looks like René in upper Manhattan. You're on WNYC with State Senator Robert Jackson. Hi, René.

René: Hi, Brian. Hi, Bob. I'm very concerned if this bill will be passed. I think a lot of cops are in denial. They think that they will not be caught or if they are caught, their precinct, the city or state will take the fall and pay it off, and they won't have to worry about anything but going to jail or maybe losing their job, which they don't believe will happen to them. They really need to know that they are personally going to lose big time if they do this. I really think that's the only thing that's going to stop it. It's a preventive measure, I would think.

The other thing, I had a dear friend who was a cop, passed away a couple of years ago. He told me that a lot of cops bulk themselves up with steroids, which would explain a lot of this. I've never heard anyone mention this at all.

Brian: You're not talking about big muscles from steroids, you're talking about anger issues, right?

René: I'm talking about road rage, which is a very real thing. I really hope that going forward, when they check out cops after the fact to see if they've been drinking or whatever, that they'll also check for steroid use, seriously.

Brian: René, thank you very much. Megan Rockville Center, you're on WNYC. Hi, Meg. Thanks for calling in.

Meg: Good morning. I'm the mother of a police officer who's been a police officer for 20 years, not in our state. I ache. My heart breaks for Tyre's family, for Tyre, and I'm angry. I'm angry because I don't think it's a color issue. Those five cops were people of color, and still they beat to death a man of color. I think it's a cop culture. It's them against everyone, and the training means really screening more. I think because they're given the wrong information. They're not the law, they're supposed to enforce the law. For all the cops who do their job the best they can under every circumstance, every time there's a case like this, it's do something to the cops.

Don't do something to the cops, screen who you hire, have constant supervision, maybe make them go through retraining. Look at the supervisors. On the issue of should we make them responsible for paying, part of me says yes. Should the city pay, should they pay? I can imagine if all of a sudden they say no, you can sue the cop, then the city's going to say, "Oh, they didn't follow procedure, so it's not the city's responsibility," and it leaves the cop who was doing his job the best he could at the mercy of anyone who wants to sue him. We know we live in a sewing country where it's good to sue anyone. I believe the people should sue, but I don't think they should be able to sue both city and the cop. It should be one or the other.

Brian: Meg, thank you very much for chiming in. We appreciate it.

Senator Jackson: In the bill that I am the sponsor of, the municipality is responsible for the officers that work for the people. That's why we say training is so important, and also that police officers when they're out there as a team where one member of the team sees abuse of their power that they have, let's say, one team member sees a police officer punching and punching someone in the face or in their head, or putting their knee in their back, that they need to say, "Stop it. This does not work that way. We're not trained that way." In fact, that's what happened to a woman police official in Buffalo. She stopped a police officer from injuring someone they were detaining and she was fired.

She happens to be a Black woman police official. She was fired and after I think 18 years or she got vindication in the court system, so you are there protecting and serving and not to injure to the extent possible.

Brian: Do we have a duty to intervene law in New York? This came up in the George Floyd case, with officers who weren't Derek Chauvin, but stood by while he did what he did. It also seems to be an issue in the killing of Tyre Nichols. Do we have a duty to intervene law in New York?

Senator Jackson: I would say that the answer is I don't know if that's in the law but I would say that that's part of the training that I think if you asked that question of the commissioner, she would say, yes, they have a duty to intervene where people are not carrying out the law like they're supposed to.

Brian: There's a difference between saying you should, like I consider this your duty spoken by the commissioner, and a law which would hold a police officer even criminally accountable if one of their colleagues was committing criminal misconduct and they stood by, right?

Senator Jackson: That's correct. You asked me is there a law right now, I don't know if there's a law but I am absolutely sure that's in their training. If in fact if it's not, then in my opinion it needs to be in their training and if necessary to pass a law that you have to intervene when you know that they're violating someone's rights.

Brian: Let's take a call from, I think, a lawyer who's worked in the field. Ryan in Hoboken. You're on WNYC. Hi, Ryan.

Ryan: Good morning, Brian. Thank you for taking my call.

Brian: Sure. What you got for us?

Ryan: I wanted to say I'm an attorney and I've litigated civil rights actions and I think people don't understand how much of a barrier qualified immunity has become. The doctrine has expanded over time to represent a real hurdle to litigants, even when they can establish that their civil rights have been violated. A municipal liability isn't an excellent path forward for everyone because while the City of New York has elaborate policies that can be looked at, smaller jurisdictions tend to have unwritten police policies.

So it can be very difficult or impossible to establish that an officer violated a policy and therefore the municipality escapes liability and the officer escapes liability and there's no availability for individuals whose civil rights have been violated to seek redress in the courts because qualified immunity has expanded so much and also invites an attitude of impunity rather than approaching people's civil rights as they should be approached which is with respect during policing.

Brian: What about what came up before about being able to sue the municipality that runs the police department, is that not adequate for redress as opposed to suing the individual officers?

Ryan: Well, it depends on the circumstance. There's a Supreme Court case Canton that limits municipal liability to the violation of established police principle or police procedures, which invite the violation of civil rights. If the officer clearly violates civil rights but there is no direct policy breach that or practice and pattern of policing in that municipality or jurisdiction, then there can be a complete bar on recovery for a litigant.

Brian: Interesting. Ryan, I wonder if the answer to another question that I have because I've read that it does work the other way. In other words, if a police officer is injured on the job because of an act of a civilian, the police officer can sue that civilian as an individual who they're trying to arrest or have whatever encounter with. As a lawyer is that your understanding, do one way or another?

Ryan: That is my understanding, qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine. It's not in a statute anywhere. The courts created it in an effort to protect against a broad base of litigation about civil rights violations but it's grown over time. It doesn't work in reverse. Citizens aren't entitled to qualified immunity. Only officers are.

Brian: Is it any agent of the government? I don't know if an IRS agent rips you off, it's probably a bad example, rips you off and makes you pay more taxes than you do that there would be better examples about that, real heinous behavior by people other than police officers who represent a branch of government. Can you sue them as individuals?

Ryan: Qualified immunity applies to any government officers who violate civil rights under the color of their authority.

Brian: This only applies to civil rights claims, not to other kinds of damages?

Ryan: It applies largely to civil rights claims. The doctor was created under section 1983, which basically is a federal law that says when your rights have been violated by someone under the color of their authority as an officer or representative of the government, that you can sue them to recover damages for the violation of your civil rights. The courts have then created qualified immunity to shield officers from damages in those circumstances and that doctrine's gotten larger and larger over time.

Brian: [crosstalk] We appreciate your insights. Senator, go ahead.

Senator Jackson: That's why states have passed certain versions of bills that give protection to individuals. With Eric Garner the choke hold, putting the knee in the back all of that was dealt with in New York as far as the laws in New York City. You cannot now use a choke hold on someone because he obviously what happened to Eric Gardner? If you look at George Floyd when the knee in his back for nine minutes that's absolutely crazy.

What we basically said, we cannot have true public safety without trust and we can't have trust without accountability and this means that if we want to ensure the safety in our communities, we must end qualified immunity at the state level. That's what we are trying to do in order that people should have a right where not only police officers but all public officials are acting on behalf of their authority, violates our rights. That's all we saying needs to be an avenue for that. If in fact criminality occurs, then that's in the criminal court process. Civil rights is having the right to sue for damages where you have been injured or killed by law enforcement officials.

Brian: We're getting so many interesting calls on this from different kinds of perspectives. Here is Christopher in Astoria, a nurse. Christopher, you're on WNYC with State Senator Robert Jackson. Hi, Christopher.

Christopher: Hey, Brian. Good to speak with you this morning. I just had a point that I know as nurses, similar to police officers, we take an oath to protect people, to protect our patients, to do well by them by giving them the right medications, giving them the right doses and throughout nursing school, we're bombarded with stories of nurses that went to jail or were sued personally for malpractice. I just feel like many times you hear nurses say, "Oh, I don't want to do that, that's not safe my license is on the line or I don't want to float to this unsafe unit, my license" You hear nurses talk about that all the time and it gives you a sense of, okay-- Oh, you want to say something?

Brian: It deters bad behavior is your point, right?

Christopher: Deters bad behavior and it makes you want to be as safe as you can. It keeps nurses thinking like, "I don't want to be reckless"

Brian: We do hear this discussed from the other side, which is to say, "Oh, all these doctors who are overtreating me or over-testing me they're practicing defensive medicine because they don't want to get sued".

Christopher: That is interesting. You do hear that. I think there is obviously nuance to the issue people make mistakes, cops make mistakes, nurses make mistakes, doctors make mistakes but there's also people who have malicious intent. I think when there's malicious intent and it's obvious I think you should be able to be held personally accountable because if you feel like throughout nursing school I heard stories about nurses who did wrong by patients maliciously and nothing happens to them personally, it gives you in a different idea going into the field.

Brian: No, that's a good way to draw the line. Christopher, thank you. Kevin in Fort Lee, you're on WNYC. Hi, Kevin.

Kevin: Hi, Brian. I have two points. One is that this really strikes me as being a trial lawyer's response to the issue that is not going to end up changing any behavior. If the liability is too low for a police officer, then he or she's not going to change their behavior. If it's too high, police officers will leave the force. My second point is that if I'm a police officer's union official, the first thing I will do after this law was passed is I'll put in place for my membership as part of their dues, a liability insurance program that will cover the cost of being sued in the course of an officer doing their job.

Brian: Yes, like doctors have malpractice insurance.

Kevin: Exactly.

Brian: Kevin, thank you very much. What about that point? Have you thought about that, Senator Jackson? That a liability insurance industry would spring up for police officers, and they would be personally immune anyway, except for the cost of the insurance policy. It wouldn't deter bad behavior, it would just be money in the pockets of trial lawyers, and insurance companies with the new premiums.

Senator Jackson: No, no, I don't think so. I think that the police officers, and correction officers and all those that are officers of the law need to follow what the law says, need to follow they're training and don't be worried about whether, or not that you may be sued. People are sued all the time, but when you violate people's rights, or in a police situation where you injure me inappropriately, then I have a right to seek redress, and that's all it is. That's why I said to you, training, and teamwork is important.

As I've said before, if you are a team member, and you see your team member violating someone rights, and the way that they're handling them, you have to speak up, because you don't speak up, then you are accountable as a team member for not speaking up. I think that those are the type of issues that need to be dealt with from the highest level of, let's say, PD, or corrections, or other law enforcement officials. They need to ensure that everyone is following what they need to do as far as the law, and protecting, and serving the people of our state. That's the bottom line.

Brian: If you're just joining us, folks, we have a few more minutes with New York State Senator Robert Jackson, Democrat from Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx. He has introduced, again, this session a bill to end qualified immunity for police officers. Meaning, if police officers committed misconduct against individuals, those individuals could sue the officers, not just the city. I want to segue from this in our remaining time to some other related criminal justice issues. One, it was noted that Governor Hochul came out against your bill just after the State Senate Judiciary Committee rejected her nomination of Hector LaSalle as Chief Judge. Do you think this was political payback?

Senator Jackson: I don't think so. I think that she was maybe caught by surprise when she asked a question. She basically said she doesn't support the bill, but as I said to you earlier she said that everyone should be held responsible for their actions basically, and that if you violate a policy, or you violate someone's rights, everyone has a right for redress. That's just what normally happens.

Brian: You think if the legislature passes your bill, she might sign it?

Senator Jackson: We hope so. If the Senate and Assembly passes it, and then she will either sign it at the law, or she will veto it. Then we have to decide whether, or not we are going to override the veto. If you have a supermajority in the Senate, and a supermajority in the assembly, that's enough to override a veto. That has not happened.

Brian: Do you see a new Chief Judge?

Senator Jackson: That has not happened, but we--

Brian: Go ahead.

Senator Jackson: I'm sorry, Brian. That has not happened thus far. We hope it never gets to that.

Brian: Do you see a new Chief Judge Dominique coming down the pike that's more acceptable to progressive legislators, or is she going to fight this in court?

Senator Jackson: You're asking me, Brian?

Brian: Yes.

Senator Jackson: I think that she will look at her options, and she will decide that understanding that that's our job. As I said, to another reporter, she makes the recommendation. We are not a rubber stamp just because she makes a recommendation. That's why hearings were held. I was there listening to it, even though I'm not on a judiciary committee. The decision was made not to go forward with the nomination. That's it. It's over. She needs to either come with another judge that she believes will fit the bill as Chief Judge of the highest court in the state of New York, and then we will decide as state senate by the Judiciary Committee whether or not that's acceptable. This is the democratic process that normally takes place. That's what it is.

Brian: One other criminal justice issue, the governor is also called for renewing the conversation on bail reform again, and possible changes in addition to those that were made last year to the bail reform law that you passed in 2019. Here's how she explained the change that she wants now on Monday.

Governor Hochul: Right now, the law says there's factors a judge should consider when deciding whether someone should receive bounty. These are bail-eligible cases. By nature, they're already serious cases. Otherwise, they wouldn't be before a judge for bail. Our law also says that the judge has to consider the least restrictive means to ensure they come back to court. Do you see the inconsistency of what I just said? Consider all these factors, but you have to use the least restrictive means to get them back here. I just want to fix that.

Brian: Mayor Adams said in a State of the City speech that they've identified 1,700 repeat offenders responsible for an outsized portion of the city's violent crime. The governor is saying there, I think, that judges see that language 'least restrictive means', and don't think that they can require bail for people likely to commit more crimes. What do you think?

Senator Jackson: I think that those are the things that are going to be discussed in this process. Clearly, our majority leader Andrea Stewart Cousins said that she's open to listening to what everyone has to say on the issue. Just because we are listening, and recommendations may be made, I can't say whether or not changes are going to be made. We've said that statistics show that the rising crime is not due to bail situation. We just need to get a handle on that in dealing with the crime. If the mayor said there's 1,700 players that are involved in this that are causing the most crime, then let's focus on those individuals that are out there robbing people, shooting people, killing people.

Everybody wants to live in peace. I've said that the number one issue for me, and I'm sure for everyone else, is the safety and security of the people that we represent. That's what we have to do. Bail, as I said earlier, is only to make sure that people return back to court. The discussions will take place and, hopefully, we will all be better off as far as whatever comes out, or if nothing comes out, and say, we say that bail is basically there for the crimes that are bail-eligible.

Brian: How about the New Jersey model? No bail at all. There's never a financial barrier to justice, but judicial judgment is allowed for who's too dangerous to release while they're awaiting trial.

Senator Jackson: I can't speak on that. I think that the most important thing is in New York State, we have both the Senate, and the Assembly that are addressing issues through the various committees, and that will be considered as far as a judiciary committee, as far as the Codes Committee, and other committees that are dealing with the situation.

Brian: What's your opinion? That's really the biggest thing that Mayor Adams and other people raise. They want judicial discretion.

Senator Jackson: Discretion is there on cases that are at the level for discretion. When it comes to petty crimes, if they're not injuring anyone, then as long as they come back to court, they should be released. There's alternative programs also that people can be monitored. We need to use every tool possible to ensure that people come back to court. It should not be just bail when basically most of the people that have been in jail, cannot afford even $500 or $1,000, and then they linger at Rikers Island for months and months and months. Who is that helping, if anyone? I don't think so.

Brian: Yes. Of course, the question is, what crimes count as serious enough that they should not be bail-eligible in that respect? Let me tack on one education question before you go, because I know and you and I have talked in the past about how involved you are in education issues. One thing that's very current right now that's in the news where you're not in agreement with the governor, is over her plan to increase the number of charter schools in New York City, increase the cap. My one question for you, and then we're out of time, is why would that be a bad move, in your opinion, given how popular they are with parents, including with parents of low income, kids of color?

Senator Jackson: In a nutshell, the cap was put in in order to protect all of the various regions in the state of New York and down to eliminate the cap basically, she's saying she wants all of those to come to New York City. Every charter basically can expand based on laws that were put in by the state legislature going back when Andrew Cuomo and Bloomberg with Eva Moskowitz from the Success Academy. Bottom line is, the hundreds of those coming to New York City could mean possibly 300 charter schools. We asked the chancellor yesterday and he said that that will be a major issue that they would have to address. He's focused right now on the public schools under his jurisdiction and not the charter schools. [crosstalk] As far as we are concerned--

Brian: Why should there be a state capital? Why not just allow as many flowers to bloom, as people want to create charters and as there's parent demand for them?

Senator Jackson: I'd say that people can decide what school they want to go to with respect to schools that are available, but I'm not in favor of, and many other people are not in favor of eliminating the regional cap. All of those are going to flood into New York City. I'm not in favor of that.

Brian: State Senator Robert Jackson, representing the 31st District in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx, and primarily in our conversation today, sponsor of the bill to end qualified immunity that protects police officers from being sued as individuals after they commit misconduct. Thanks a lot for coming on. We always appreciate it, Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson: Thank you. Have a great day.

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Much more to come.

 

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.