Oversight of Codified Law

The following body of information outlines the standards for operationalizing workforces that all stakeholders must understand to create a pragmatic pathway toward reform, from conception through implementation. It outlines methodologies to stabilize staff management within the New York State and New York City correctional workforces, as well as systems nationwide, in a conscientious and fiduciary manner, enabling practical and disciplined reform when sound policies and procedures are consistently applied in practice and oversight. These standards address longstanding complexities that have long undermined correctional systems. Such inefficiencies hinder the delivery of programming, medical, educational, nutritional, substance abuse treatment, and other essential services—driven by outdated staff management systems and policies shaped more by poor leadership discretion than by evidence-based organizational decisions. Calculations to impress the mind, with an idea that, nevertheless, can premeditate injustice within the sovereign power of government within the United  States. These deficiencies persist within an inadequate operationalization and oversight framework, as codified in Title 9 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR), where Part 7017 governs personnel standards and Part 7041 prescribes staffing requirements—yet neither imposes proactive controls, real-time monitoring, enforceable limits on overtime, forbearance mechanisms, or measures to provide both ethicacy and efficacy in budgetary foresight.

"Systems Engineering and Practical Overtime Limitations and Controls"
Systems engineering, combined with practical overtime limitations and controls, ensures safe operational standards and safeguards for all staff (uniformed and civilian) and the incarcerated population.  Additionally, an organization’s adherence to such standards supports methodologies that effectively manage fatigue rates (both monthly and weekly), thereby maintaining qualitative operational continuity and budgetary fitness.
 

The previous New York City Board of Correction Minimum Standards established a limit of 20% above standard weekly work hours for overtime. Although these regulations proved effective, they were regarded as excessively restrictive regarding salaries, overtime benefits, and the comparative advantages and disadvantages of compensating overtime versus employing additional personnel.

Repeal of Section 1-03 (“Overtime for Correction Officers”) 

The repeal of § 1-03 indicates that it reflects the longstanding opinion of the Law Department that the Board’s efforts to regulate involuntary overtime for correctional officers exceeded the Board’s jurisdiction, as this would constitute an intrusion upon the labor relations prerogatives of the City and employee unions. Subsequently, these constitutional protections were repealed within the Minimum Standards as amended in 2008, with Section 1-03 - Overtime for Correctional Officers being removed in its entirety and not adequately reinforced or replaced with alternative safeguards. The aforementioned amendment required recalculated assumptions to manage staffing gaps in a manner that is reasonable, practical, and sustainable. This is essential to safeguard all stakeholders—including the government, unions (both civilian and uniformed personnel), incarcerated populations, and the general public, “WE THE PEOPLE”—as integral controls in the government's responsibility to promote good governance and uphold order within our nation's correctional systems.

The repeal and absence of such regulatory mechanisms place the New York City Department of Correction and other correctional systems alike in a position that can have detrimental consequences for all parties, as they are subjected to narrow, highly charged political viewpoints rather than enduring qualitative organizational decisions.

"For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can  invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter."   From George Washington to Officers of the Army, 15 March 1783

In the absence of clear regulatory standards and oversight, facilities operate with diminished capacity for rehabilitation and detention, thereby undermining the objectives of the criminal justice system under the rule of law. Such an approach frequently results in unaddressed operational deficiencies, as inadequate budgetary constraints perpetuate cycles of workforce mismanagement. This can be deliberately concealed and exacerbated over time due to the lack of administrative safeguards against maladministration or the implementation of harmful policies through political discourse. 

When the formal repeal of a law or regulation explicitly removes the legal basis for related administrative and public safeguards, including provisions that established specific protections, oversight mechanisms, or requirements for regulatory compliance to uphold constitutional standards, it may impair compliance. Suppose safeguards deemed necessary to ensure that the original law maintains constitutional compliance are not adequately replaced by alternative measures in the repealing statute. In that case, the new legislative framework may be subject to constitutional challenges in judicial proceedings, particularly in the context of an actual case or controversy. 

In such instances, the core principle established by Marbury v. Madison becomes relevant: 'A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.' This power of judicial review enables courts to examine whether a vague or insufficient regulatory framework adequately upholds constitutional standards of safety and due process, ensuring that the judiciary can invalidate state regulations that fail to meet this fundamental requirement. 

Historical Context of Overtime Conditions

The minimum standards for correctional facilities have long included provisions to manage staffing and working conditions, with historical documents indicating a specific focus on correctional officer overtime.  For instance, the "Minimum Standards for New York City Correctional  Facilities" from 1980, as referenced in the Office of Justice Programs abstract (Minimum Standards for New York City Correctional Facilities), included standards covering "correctional officer overtime" alongside other operational aspects, such as inmate age and security classifications.  These standards were part of the original 1978 minimum standards established by the Board of Correction (BOC), which remained substantially unchanged until 1985, with subsequent amendments in 2008, 2014, and 2015 that focused on issues such as overcrowding and punitive segregation (Minimum Standards - BOC).

When implemented qualitatively, overtime dependency can offer certain advantages. However, excessive reliance on overtime becomes detrimental. It creates operational inefficiencies and increases costs due to inadequate staffing deployment, organizational decline, and significant mismanagement.
 

Yes. Organizations can evolve through the introduction of new programs, classifications, facilities, or other factors, including those unique to a particular existing facility. Leadership’s understanding of systems engineering and the parameters that must be met will determine the success of reform.
 

As organizations transition, they must understand how their full-time equivalent (F.T.E.) total coverage factors are to be formulated.
 

• Maintain full compliance with all statutory regulations.
• Ensure staffing levels are funded in an effective and fiduciary manner.
• Maintain policies to properly manage workforce engineering and overtime limitations on uniformed and civilian personnel.
• Ensure the medical staffing matrix is sufficient to provide qualitative healthcare service effectively.
• Ensure the health-and-safety committee maintains robust overviews of staffing levels to prevent excessive overtime, which can compromise the health and safety of staff, incarcerated populations, and the integrity of an organization’s ability to operate efficiently.
 

Requirement safeguards are necessary to ensure adequate staffing levels to provide care, custody, and control in a safe and effective environment.
 

Risk Factors: Infrastructure modifications are subject to defined timelines. Staffing ratios must not be prematurely adjusted to meet benchmarks without corresponding infrastructure support. Such actions may lead to serious repercussions for organizational safety and operational efficiency, including excessive overtime, staffing shortages, service disruptions, heightened safety risks to all parties involved, a decline in morale, and erosion of public trust.
 

A notable quote about humankind's history is, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
 

In 1975, a major riot occurred at the House of Detention for Men,  causing millions of dollars of physical damage and endangering the lives of several correction officers who were taken hostage. Following the riot, a lawsuit, Benjamin vs. Malcolm, was filed in June 1975. As noted  in Benjamin vs. Malcolm, the Commissioner of Correction stated that  “perhaps the most singularly causative factor in the House of Detention  for Men’s  explosion was overcrowding coupled with staff shortages and  the delay in processing inmates for trial.” Also noted was the city witnesses’ ignorance of the institution's history.
 

Elected leadership must establish the facts in controversy and define laws to maintain a fair, equitable, and effective criminal justice system. As a government, the failure to conceptualize the importance of systems engineering has detrimental impacts on all classes of society.
 

Correctional systems engineering encompasses several key steps, including infrastructure development, staffing ratios, policy development, compliance, rehabilitation, education, re-entry planning, community-based services, and alternatives to incarceration. All of these measures must be subjected to comprehensive oversight to become effective. Measurements that provide a sound foundation for a fair, equitable, and effective criminal justice system, with effective organizational management and tools that ensure long-term fiscal stability and principled governance into the future.