How much authority will the court-appointed Rikers boss actually have? Applicants want to know

Friday is the deadline for the city and the Legal Aid Society to submit up to four suggestions each for a manager to temporarily take control over much of Rikers Island’s operations. But several people who considered applying for the position told City & State they were turned off after reading the job description, saying it appears that the remediation manager would lack the authority needed to fully change the jail complex. 

Nearly a decade after the city’s violence-scarred jails fell under federal oversight through the settlement of the Nunez class-action lawsuit, this independent “remediation manager” would report to the court and work with the Department of Correction commissioner to enact long-stalled reforms, according to the historic ruling issued by federal judge Laura Taylor Swain in May. It’s a huge deal for the advocates and plaintiffs fighting to improve conditions for incarcerated people, but the job won’t be easy. Issues like violence and excessive force are deeply entrenched. Ten people have died behind bars or shortly after being released this year so far. And while the role is similar to a typical receiver put in place at other troubled jails across the country, the version of the position Swain detailed – having the appointee work collaboratively with the commissioner – has created some confusion over who will have ultimate authority. 

“There is just a fundamental lack of understanding among all the parties of how city government works” one would-be applicant who asked to remain anonymous told City & State. For example, Swain’s order said that the remediation manager would have the authority to determine the correction department’s “needs and positions with respect to contract provisions.” In reality, the commissioner has never participated in collective organizing negotiations in the city’s history. Describing the job “as a receiver lite position,” the would-be applicant said the lack of clarity was enough to discourage them from applying.

“I understand that the judge may have intentionally created a role that may be the least intrusive way of doing oversight, but …  it is structurally insufficient to actually do the job,” they said. “When you do some torturous thing to try to split the baby, my sense is the baby just dies.” 

Who will be the remediation manager? 

It’s difficult to predict who Swain will select. People have applied independently, though no names have been released to the public. Parties in the long running case, the city – which has resisted any version of receivership – and the Legal Aid Society, declined to share any names, though a spokesperson for the city confirmed they submitted their “version of things.” Whether Department of Correction Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie was the only person on that list is unclear.

Judges have found a receiver warranted in a handful of cases, only deeming it necessary for jails and prisons with the most egregious and intractable challenges. While Alabama became the first state to undergo this in the late 1970s, there’ve been a little more than a dozen receivers in the U.S. since then. Currently, there are three active correctional receiverships across the country – one over the Hinds County Raymond Detention Center in Mississippi and two over California’s prison mental health and medical systems. 

Lawyers for the city and the plaintiffs – the Legal Aid Society and a private law firm representing incarcerated people – turned in two very different proposals earlier this spring on how to fix city jails. While the latter called for an independent receiver with broad powers, the city argued that 

Maginley-Liddie could turn things around on her own. Instead of a third-party being brought in, they said that she should serve in a twofold role as a “compliance director:” answering to the court on force and safety measures while also answering to the mayor on everything else. Despite Swain’s order largely aligning with the plaintiffs’ proposal, the city has filed a motion requesting that she reverse course. Lawyers for the city could ultimately ask the federal appeals court to review her decision to appoint a remediation manager, thus delaying the process. 

Broadly, we know some things Swain is looking for. Recommended candidates at minimum must have "substantial management and correctional expertise” developed outside of the city’s correctional department, demonstrated collaborative skills, excellent communication abilities, and be capable of building trust with a broad spectrum of people, according to Swain’s May order. They shouldn’t be political either – one of the chief arguments in favor of receivership is that they are protected from political pressure, making them more adept at implementing swift changes free of ramifications.

The names of a number of potential candidates have circulated in recent months – three of whom told The City in December that they were interested in being the court-appointed receiver. Of that list, Dean Williams, a well-known incarceration reformer who oversaw corrections departments in Colorado and Alaska, confirmed to City & State that he’s still a candidate, but declined to comment further. Another, Norman Siegel, the former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, declined to comment on the record. Mark Cranston, a previous acting commissioner of the Department of Correction under the de Blasio administration, did not respond to inquiries prior to publication. 

Will the appointee have enough power to get results?

Advocates and the plaintiffs applauded Swain’s ruling as a big win, framing the “remediation manager” as essentially the same thing as a federal receiver. However, she notably didn’t use the term, repeatedly emphasizing that this individual should work in conjunction with Maginley-Liddie. That’s different from receivers that were ordered in other jurisdictions. While the appointee will have “broad powers,” they will only be tasked with forcing the Department of Correction to comply with the 18 court-ordered steps the city failed to take in the 2015 landmark consent decree. That includes things like investigating and disciplining staff who violate policies and recruiting, hiring, training and firing employees and contractors – all of which are currently overseen by multiple city entities. Swain’s ruling does say that the remediation manager will have the authority to direct the Department of Correction commissioner, but the lack of clarity on what specific decisions apply to whom could lead to repeated disagreements. Still, the structure isn’t set in stone either at this point. Swain has said she is open to slight modifications or objections.

Elizabeth Glazer, the founder of the urbanism journal Vital City and former director of the New York City Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, recently wrote that while the term “remediation manager” sounds more like a “third-rank bureaucrat” than a “revolutionary figure,” the position’s independence and arsenal of powers still offer “the last, best option” for change.

One former member of DOC leadership, who asked not to be named as they hope to be part of the future remediation manager’s team, told City & State that they are not that concerned about the power of the post. “From what I've seen, as long as you come to the court with data and facts and ask for the order to be tweaked, I think (Swain) would be willing to make smart changes to the position's limitations,” they said. 

The Mamdani matter 

Following the Aug. 29 deadline, the court will interview recommended candidates and any other individuals it wishes to consider to be the remediation manager. The exact date of the appointment is unknown and if the city files for an appeal, it could be a while.

Many unanswered questions remain, chiefly being what sort of impact the appointment of a likely new mayor will have on the process. As the Democratic nominee, Zohran Mamdani is the front-runner in the general mayoral election race. Mayor Eric Adams, the incumbent, has struggled to gain a footing in wake of a slew of scandals. That could have a big impact on what the future dynamic looks like between the city and the remediation manager. As mayor, Mamdani would be tasked with appointing a new commissioner to lead the Department of Correction. That individual would work closely with whomever Swain appoints. And while Adams has fought against the city losing control over its jails, Mamdani has indicated he would be less resistant. 

“Zohran will ensure the city cooperates fully with the federal monitor and make sure the monitor knows the City is at long last operating as a partner committed to transparency and safety,” Dora Pekec, a spokesperson for Mamdani’s campaign, said in a statement. 

If lawyers for the city appeal Swain’s decision to appoint a remediation manager while Adams is still in office, Mamdani would have the power to withdraw that appeal, thus clearing the way for Swain’s manager to get to work.

All this comes as the city makes little progress to build four borough-based jails to replace Rikers Island by the legally-mandated August 2027 deadline. Despite the appointment of the federal manager, the city would remain in charge of this plan.