THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF INVESTIGATION To: File Date: January 15, 2020 From: Carolyn Tomsu Re: CMS 18-08768 CLOSING MEMORANDUM The following is a summary only of the information pertaining to this investigation and does not contain each and every fact learned during the course of the investigation. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF ALLEGATION: The New York City Department of InVestigation and the of?ce of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District began a joint investigation of the New York City Department of Education?s inquiry into whether the education provided at certain Hasidic yeshivas was ?substantially equivalent? to that provided in public schools (the ?Inquiry?). Among the allegations that prompted this joint investigation were claims that the progress of the Inquiry, the substance of its conclusions, and the timing of an interim report on the Inquiry were all in?uenced by political pressure from the Mayor or other City or State elected of?cials. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION: During the course of its investigation, D01 and SCI, among other things: (I) interviewed current or former representatives of the Mayor?s Of?ce and (2) reviewed the email communications of representatives of the Mayor?s Of?ce and and (3) conducted other research relating to the events at issue. D01 and joint investigation found that, in June 2017, representatives of the Mayor agreed with representatives of State legislators to delay an interim report on the Inquiry, then scheduled for release in the summer of 201 7, in connection with securing the extension of mayoral control of the City?s schools. Following that agreement, the interim report was in fact delayed by approximately one year. The investigation found that the agreement had little to no substantive effect on the progress of the Inquiry or on the ultimate Conclusions of the interim report. Rather, the delay in the Inquiry was primarily the product of two factors: con?ict with the subject yeshivas and their counsel, and the accommodating approach taken by DOE to that con?ict. A. . The Inquiry In the summer of 2015, based on complaints by alumni and parents of yeshiva students, the DOE began its Inquiry into 39 Hasidic yeshivas pursuant to New York State Education Law Page 1 of 3 3204, which speci?es instruction requirements for nonpublic schools. During the Inquiry, the DOE determined that 11 of the 39 named yeshivas had closed or Were not within the scope of its Inquiry. After visiting 15 yeshivas, the DOE published an interim report in August 2018. As of the date of this memorandum, the DOE has visited all 28 yeshivas and issued a second report in December 2019. D01 and joint investigation found that the progress of Inquiry was delayed by a variety of factors, but most signi?cantly by: (1) prolonged disputes with the yeshivas? attorney in obtaining curricula information and scheduling school Visits at a ?mutually convenient time? as prescribed by New York State Education Department equivalency guidance; and (2) the collaborative approach taken by the DOE to those disputes. In addition, pregress of the Inquiry was further complicated by the New York State Legislature?s 2018 amendments to Education Law 3204, effective April 12, 2018, and subsequent changes to, and court nulli?cation of, NYSED equivalency guidance. D01 and SCI found that while the DOE offered continual support in implementing the new curricula at the yeshiVas, it took approximately two years for DOE of?cials to gain access to all 28 schools. B. Political In?uence D01 and SCI also examined whether there had been improper or inappropriate political interference in the Inquiry by the Mayor or other elected of?cials. In June 2017, a special session of the New York State Legislature was called to vote on extension of mayoral control of New York City schools, among other things. D01 and SCI found that shortly before the vote in that special session, representatives of the Mayor?s Of?ce agreed to delay the release of an interim report summarizing the status of the Inquiry. This agreement was apparently made as part of a multi-pronged effort to bolster legislative support for continued mayoral Control over the DOE, which was a signi?cant legislative priority for the Mayor?s Of?ce. The evidence did not permit a conclusion as to whether the Mayor had personally authorized the offer to delay issuance of the interim report. However, the totality of the evidence indicates that the Mayor was aware that the offer to delay had been made, prior to the ?nal push to secure the votes for mayoral control. After being informed of the commitment to delay the interim report, the Mayor personally participated in conversations with at least one state senator and Orthodox community leaders about their broader concerns regarding oversight of yeshivas and how those concerns related to the extension of mayoral control. One witness told D01 and SCI that the City was asked to delay the issuance of the report then scheduled for summer 2017 until April 2018. However, D01 and SCI were unable to con?rm that any City of?cial agreed to a speci?c release date or speci?c period of delay. The agreement to delay the release of an interim report appears to have had minimal substantive impact on the Inquiry itself. Multiple witnesses told D01 and SCI that, as of June 2017, Inquiry was still in its early stages and that any interim report issued at that time would have Contained only limited information. This is consistent with internal DOE documents reviewed Page 2 of 3 by DOI and SCI, which con?rm that DOE had only visited six out of 28 yeshivas by the summer of 2017. While the investigation did not ?nd evidence that the agreement affected the progress of the Inquiry or the substantive ?ndings of the interim report, the agreement did delay public awareness of the fact that the DOE had only Visited six yeshivas by the summer of 2017 despite beginning its Inquiry in 2015. It is impossible to predict the effect, if any, of earlier public awareness of the status of access to yeshivas, the yeshivas? amenability to mutually convenient inspections, and approach to yeshiva inspection as a whole. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: On December 18, 2019, DOI released a statement of ?ndings on their agencies? joint investigation. In the statement, DOI and SCI state that the investigation ?did not identify criminal conduct, nor did it identify any Violations of other relevant laws or regulations, either with respect to the Inquiry itself or the agreement to delay release of any-interim report on the Inquiry.? DOI now recommends that this investigation be closed as substantiated in part, in that DOI substantiated that political in?uence delayed the timing of the interim report, but DOI did not substantiate that political in?uence affected the overall progress of the Inquiry or the substantive ?ndings of the Inquiry in the interim report. Submitted by: Approved by: I (6 0 Inspector General Page 3 of 3