Theodore Kupfer: Welcome back to 10 Blocks. This week’s special episode features audio from the Manhattan Institute’s 2022 George L. Kelling Lecture, which honored former New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly, who was interviewed by CBS law enforcement analyst James Gagliano and introduced by Manhattan Institute senior fellow and City Journal contributing editor Heather Mac Donald. We hope you enjoy.
Hannah Myers: Well, good evening everyone. I'm so delighted you could all be with us. I'm Hannah Myers. I'm the Director of Policing and Public Safety for the Manhattan Institute. This is our third annual lecture honoring the legacy of MI scholar George Kelling, who passed away in 2019. Our honoree tonight is Ray Kelly, former two-time NYPD police commissioner, retired Marine Corps Reserve colonel, former commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, undersecretary for enforcement of the U.S. Treasury Department, and currently CEO of Guardian Group. Commissioner Kelly not only worked with George, but embodies his commitment to data-based creative policy ideas to make communities and cities safer. Engaging commissioner Kelly in conversation tonight will be James “Jimmy” Gagliano, retired FBI supervisory special agent, and currently CBS law enforcement analyst, as well as the mayor of Cornwall-on-Hudson. But first, we are honored to have Heather Mac Donald speak about the legacy of George Kelling and the work of Ray Kelly in the context of combating urban disorder.
It is a problem most New Yorkers are experiencing right now, and so many in this room are working very hard to combat. Heather is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal and a New York Times bestselling author of the War On Cops, among other wonderful books. Her writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, the New Criterion, and many other prestigious venues. She is a recipient of the 2005 Bradley Prize and numerous awards for writing on law enforcement, for bravery in journalism, and for excellence. So Heather, thank you so much.
Heather Mac Donald: Thank you so much. It's a privilege to honor George Kelling and Ray Kelly this evening. In the early 2000s, during the height of the “driving while black” craze, Professor Kelling invited me to speak about alleged racial profiling to his criminologist colleagues at Rutgers. Ordinarily, this would've been an exercise in masochism. Professor Kelling, however, was not going put up with the usual BS from his fellow faculty. So the afternoon proceeded with a surprising absence of vitriol. In fact, I don't even remember being called a racist, a reflection of Professor Kelling's intellectual authority with his colleagues. Professor Kelling taught me much about the realities of inner city crime and how those realities inevitably affect policing. His insights about the importance of public order were revolutionary. I suspect then that he would be mystified by a society that puts toothpaste behind bars, but not the thieves who regularly steal it.
Drug stores across New York City have secreted the trivial items of daily life—Aspirin, shampoo, and lotion—under Plexiglas barriers. To purchase a tube of toothpaste, a customer must ring for an employee, who may or may not show up, to unlock the protective shield around this apparently priceless commodity. How many customers waiting futilely for the jailer—oh, I mean sales clerk—have decided from now on they’re buying online. This novel ritual, strangely reminiscent of life under communism-induced shortages, is not due to any economic failure. It is due to a failure of will, the will to enforce the norms of civilized society. The result has been an epidemic of mass looting and shoplifting in New York and other American cities. We have all seen the videos: thieves crashing into storefronts with SUVs or viciously wielding sledge hammers against plate-glass windows, stripping the shelves, and then fleeing in their getaway cars.
Then there's the leisurely stroll through the aisles, shoving items into a 50-gallon trash bag and unhurriedly exiting the store. It's hard to decide which is more shocking: the violent assaults on store infrastructure, or the confident shoplifting ramble. That confidence comes from one thing: the knowledge that mass stealing will bring no consequences. Our elites have decided that they would rather subject the property of honest businessmen to mass expropriation than to apprehend and punish looters. And the reason for that deliberate non-enforcement of the law is that enforcing the law has a disparate impact on black criminals. That is not because the law is racist, it is because the disparities in criminal offending are so great. The mass theft that has beset New York City since the George Floyd race riots, up nearly 39 percent this year and up 45 percent since 2020, is arguably as disturbing as the violent street crime.
Drive-by shootings represent a breakdown in socialization. Fatherless young men raised by single mothers in chaotic households think nothing of spraying bullets across a sidewalk in the hope of taking out a gang rival. The innocent bystanders who are routinely hit in those drive-by shootings are not the target of the violence, they’re collateral damage. That does not diminish the tragedy of their deaths, of course, or minimize the fear that violent street crime spreads throughout the city. But mass theft represents a breakdown, not just in socialization, but in respect for a pillar of western culture—property. The founders understood that protecting property was the basic obligation of government. The creation of property is the result of man's noble struggle against the insecurity of nature. Through commerce, he lifts himself and others out of privation and vulnerability. A society where stores are routinely plundered, where diners are routinely held up for their jewelry and watches, is no longer a society, but a feral free-for-all without rules or security.
The innocent victims of mass looting—shop owners, managers, employees, customers—are the intended target. They are not collateral damage. We are all, therefore, equally vulnerable. Rampant theft reflects contempt for the bourgeois virtues of hard work, thrift, and deferred gratification, virtues which Madison Hamilton and Franklin believed were essential to a republic. Earlier this year, a Squeegee extortionist in New York City said to a female driver trapped in her car on 40th Street and 9th Avenue, “I know you got some money. I know you got some money.” Translation: If you have something I don't have, I am entitled to take it simply because I want it. That sense of entitlement has been nurtured by the pervasive discourse that America is endemically white-supremacist. That message amplified by the organs of elite society, whether the New York Times, or God forbid, Harvard University, trickles down to the streets and breeds the self-serving sense that all American institutions are illegitimate. Our current de-incarceration policies purportedly have a positive rationale as well, beyond avoiding disparate impact. Keeping criminals in the community, activists say, will prevent crime more effectively than locking those criminals up. We tried this approach in the 1960s and 1970s. The ensuing crime surge sucked the vitality out of American cities and triggered massive white flight to the suburbs. After the George Floyd riots, criminal-justice players rushed to give decriminalization and decarceration another try. The results were predictable. Criminals are not being rehabilitated. They are simply committing more crime. It would be wonderful if de incarceration could succeed. Prison and jail are not ends in themselves, but we don't know how to reliably transform criminals who for the first 20 years of their lives were failed by their parents and by their communities.
Incapacitation and deterrence are our best, possibly our only, crime-fighting tools short of a reconstruction of the inner city family. By now, every New York politician who is not screaming from the roof of city hall and the state capitol every single day for the arrest and reincarceration of criminals is complicit in crime. And that includes our nightlife-loving mayor. These politicians are on full notice that every day dozens of businesses and residents in New York City will be robbed. Yet they turn their eyes away from the continuous assault on the hardworking New Yorkers who give the city its unique commercial landscape. Instead, they grandstand about more funding for illegal aliens and about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis, at least, is serving his constituents. From now on, the rule must be if you are a criminal, you are not getting the benefit of the doubt. You are not getting second chances.
We have tried fifth, tenth, twentieth chances; they don't work. The benefit of the doubt from now on must go to the law-abiding, not to the feral and antisocial. It is the people who respect the law, who deserve the top attention of our policy makers, not those who decimate it. Business owners voluntarily risk their savings and their pride in the city's brutal competitive environment. But in starting a business, they are not assuming the risk that it will be plundered with no response from public officials. Ray Kelly knows how to fix this travesty. When everyone asserted that New York City crime could go no lower, he brought it down further. He was the last NYPD commissioner with guts. He defended stop, question, and frisk against the specious charge that it was racially biased. His mayor, Mike Bloomberg, even uttered the taboo truth that blacks were actually being under stopped by the NYPD and whites over stopped compared to what their crime rates would predict.
That observation created a total media meltdown. Ray Kelly was the original Broken Windows crusader, being the first NYPD leader to crack down on Squeegee men. He kept a binder of photos in his office of public order violations so that he could make sure that they were being addressed. Our current mayor calumnied Commissioner Kelly during the disastrous 2015 stop-question-and-frisk lawsuit against the NYPD. Eric Adams, testifying for the plaintiffs, claimed that Commissioner Kelly had given a patently absurd racial justification for pedestrian stops in a meeting of black lawmakers. Adams's testimony was contradicted by the attendees at that meeting. Yet despite perjuring himself, Adam suffered no consequences. A harbinger, perhaps, of our current mess. Commissioner Kelly could be forgiven for washing his hands of New York at present, but it is our good fortune that he continues to provide us with his crime-fighting wisdom. Now, if only Eric Adams would listen. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Ray Kelly.
James A. Gagliano: First of all, thank you for having us here tonight. This is a thrill for me. I don't want to do too much of a fanboy thing, but the commissioner and I met back in 1993, when I brought the first FBI director over to 1PP. I was just standing there. I wasn't allowed to speak. Children were to be seen and not heard in those days. But it was a thrill then. And watching what this man has done for New York City, I just want to run down a couple of highlights of his career. So we're going to talk tonight with the longest-serving commissioner in the history of the NYPD and the first and only to hold the post for two non-consecutive tenures, a combat vet, a Marine—1963 to 1965—45 years in the NYPD, a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, a director of the police under the UN mission in Haiti, served as undersecretary for enforcement in the Clinton administration Treasury Department, served as the executive commissioner for Interpol, served as the commission chair for the New York State Athletic Commission, and commissioner for the Customs Service. Most interestingly, served under two different mayoralties, the Dinkins administration from September 1st, 1992 to January 1st, 1994. Small break in service, came back as NYPD commissioner under the Bloomberg administration from January 1st, 2002 to December 31st, 2013. I have the pleasure of interviewing the 37th and the 41st police commissioner of the greatest police department the world has ever seen.
Raymond Kelly: Wow. Thank you so much, Jim.
James A. Gagliano: Sir, after reading all that, I think most of the room feels you are the classic underachiever.
Raymond Kelly: I just want to say two things before we start. First, George Kelling was a friend of mine. He was my professor in the Kennedy School at Harvard—which, I got an A, by the way—and I actually brought him on as a contractor to help with some quality-of-life issues in I think 1993. But anyway, he was a good man, and the thing I really liked about him was he had common sense. He had both feet on the ground. He knew the business, and I think he is, and will be seriously missed by the criminal-justice community. Secondly, I want to thank Ken Corey, who's here. He is right now the chief of the New York City Police Department, but he announced that he's leaving and he's an outstanding police executive. And just I wish he stayed around, but he's got other work to do. But thank you, Ken, for everything you've done.
James A. Gagliano: So in 1990, New York City at its apex suffered 2,262 homicides. You left in 2013. And it takes a while to turn a battleship, but I think in 2014, 2015, the NYPDA—credit to the men and women, the 36,000 cops that you have under your command—the NYPD had driven homicides down below 300. So after a quarter century of unprecedented successes on the crime-fighting front, New York City finds itself in a similar position of many other urban areas and other cities across the country facing sharp rises in shootings and homicides. And since then, other major crimes have seen similar spikes—robberies, auto theft, burglaries, grand larcenies, all up 33 percent, 29 percent, and 39 percent through October 23rd of this year. The subways—wait until you hear this one—have almost as many murders since 2020 as they had in the two preceding decades. Wow. General forms of disorder, illegal drugs, racing on New York City streets, dirt bike gangs taking over the streets, open-air drug use, and, as Ms. Mac Donald mentioned, brazen retail thefts seem to have New Yorkers on edge. Sir, would you agree that what we have on our hands right now can be fairly characterized as a public-safety crisis. Putting aside hyperbole despite the crime measures remaining well below their 1990s peaks, are we currently in a public safety crisis?
Raymond Kelly: Yeah, I would agree with that primarily because I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel. The department, as long as we have Mayor Adams in the position, is not going to change its tactics or strategy. It's not going to let them do that. So we are going to have this number probably plateau somewhat, but it's going continue. And obviously the percentage increase will be less because it's based on this year. But I'm talking as we go forward I think that even more important issue is the hemorrhaging of police officers out of the department. It is a huge problem. And also retaining incumbents and recruiting. How do you get people to join an organization where thousands of people are leaving, they're leaving before they reach their retirement age or retirement ability, and they're just packing up and going. It's not what they signed on for. So that is something that is going to have to be addressed soon. And I've spoken to somebody in city administration, not the police administration, but they are concerned about the quality of people that will come on to the department and who are now applying, who's seeing a lot of criminal records in the applications. And obviously that's a huge concern.
James A. Gagliano: So, let's stay on that thread. So there's a major problem right now with recruitment and retention and with the NYPD being hard-pressed to recruit folks who don't want to come in and face the uber-scrutiny and the vitriol and the rhetoric. What should the department's order of operations be? The aim to restore the public safety gains, which many New Yorkers have grown accustomed to? Or in other words, should the department weight order maintenance—and this brings you right into Broken Windows, and how that basically began its genesis in relation to violent-crime investigations—should order maintenance be prioritized now, even though that has been demonized through the false narrative that this is either racist or it disproportionately affects some communities versus others?
Raymond Kelly: Yeah, I think we we're actually past, that because we're at a personnel level, manpower level that doesn't allow something like order maintenance. I really haven't heard that term since I was in Japan, where they have a couple of thousand police officers every day in the middle of Tokyo for order maintenance. If something happens, they dispatch those cops. But I think to the extent we have order maintenance here, it's baked into the system. Precincts address that for the most part. But when you say the sequence and order, there's two fundamental services that have to be performed. That is emergency response and investigations. So if you, as the department trends down, it's a very difficult situation to manage, because people are retiring. You don't know where they're retiring from. They come up to their time and they go, or they just leave. So it's not uniform. You've got to, usually the chief of personnel would do this, but you've got to monitor and shift people around.
Now they have a police academy class that graduated just a few weeks ago. The target was roughly 1,200 police officers that they wanted to hire. The class was about 600, and those 600 police officers are going on the street. But you can see if you keep this situation up, you're going to fall very, very short. So we have to do some innovative thinking here. I think the federal government can help with money, and that's really the only thing the federal government can do. But we need to think about, and maybe we bring in an outside consultant or somebody to take a look at this, what will motivate people to come? Is it money? Is it bonuses to sign on? Is it college scholarships? We need to think seriously about that. Otherwise, in my view, we're going to continue on this downward slope. Cops now say they won't recommend the police department to anybody.
Certainly not their relatives. So something like that has to be done. And also, I would say this. There's a lot of regulations that have been put in place post-George Floyd, which was a terrible, terrible event, no question about it. But there has been, in some quarters, an overreaction. So 300, at least 300 pieces of legislation have swept the country to restrict police officers to eliminate in some certain quarters, including here, qualified immunity, which is a defense that all public servants can use. But in New York City and other places, they passed legislation saying police officers cannot use it. This is a federal court situation, but it is about, the only thing I can think of getting people to sign on and stay is those two things
James A. Gagliano: So, let's stay on the thread in regards to resources. And I think one of the things that you and other recent commissioners have done well is take the resources, deploy 'em smartly—just because you have plenty of resources, whether it's money or whether it's cops, that's not always the margin of victory. And I think it was probably back in the latter stages of the George W. Bush presidency where the surge strategy was begun by generals Petraeus and McChrystal. And I remember sitting there with a bunch of SWAT guys at 26 Federal Plaza, FBI SWAT guys and saying, “Man, I've seen this before.” And I remember looking it up, and it was in 2004, you and Mayor Bloomberg were conducting a briefing on Operation Impact, and you had a pointer, and you pointed out 52 hot spots across the five boroughs, and you committed 1,000 police officers to flood the zone, essentially a surge strategy. Do you think that's something that there would ever be an appetite for? Now, I know there's been discussion about putting more cops in the subways, and I know it's election time, and people are jockeying and doing things for appearance, but do you think this is something that, as the pendulum swings, we will get back to where something like Operation Impact could be something utilized again?
Raymond Kelly: They're doing it right now under a different name. They put a coat of paint on it, but it's the same program. You take recruits out of the academy and put them in sort clusters in high-crime areas. Now I was criticized for that because these are rookies, “Hey, why are you putting 'em out there?” We obviously link them up with experienced people. But it was interesting, the comments that I got from sergeants and lieutenants that were out with them on the street. It was the energy. They wanted to work, and they wanted to do lots of things where a more experienced cop may not engage the way they engage. So yeah, they're actually doing it right now.
James A. Gagliano: I'd be remiss if I didn't bring this up, because I think this was something that was a hallmark of your administration and your time as commissioner: stop, question, and frisk. And I think something that makes me bristle every times that I hear it mischaracterized as “stop and frisk.” It's essentially the Terry v. Ohio stop, and the purposes of brief investigative detention to determine whether somebody's committed a crime, is currently committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. Let me give you a couple of statistics. In 2002, the NYPD conducted 97,296 stop, question, and frisks. In 2011, at its peak under your tutelage, 685,724. In 2019, that number had shrunk to 13,459. Sir, do you believe that dispensing with stop, question, and frisk, the Terry v. Ohio stop has led in some way to the crime surge?
Raymond Kelly: So what is stop, question, frisk? It comes from the common law. This is what you want the sheriff to do. If there's suspicious activity, you want them to go and investigate. It's codified in virtually every state in the union. In other words, it's in the law, it's in procedural law. And as Jim said, it has a Supreme Court case that validates it, Terry v. Ohio. Jim mentioned a number, pretty high number, 650,000 stops. Wow. You know what that is? That is less than one stop a week per patrol officer. We took 19,000 as the patrol force, and less than one pat down every two weeks by patrol officer. Everything is bigger in New York. So, we did have a trial. The judge, Shira Scheindlin, held onto the case for 12 years. There was no doubt what her verdict was going to be. And I'll talk about that in a moment. In the trial, there were only 19 stops that were examined. Ten of those 19 stops met constitutional muster, according to her. There was an expert that the plaintiffs had who looked at 4 million stops going back a decade or so.
He found that 96 percent also met constitutional requirements. So that's what we had. But we know when we knew what Scheindlin was going to do from the get-go. Now we should have had an appeal ready to go. Let me say this. Scheindlin was removed from the case after the verdict by the Second Circuit, which does the appeals for this geographical area. She was removed sua sponte, that means on the Second Circuit's own volition. This is done so rarely. She was removed because of pre-trial publicity that she put forward. So those are some of the facts. We can never really get that story out. It is a pejorative term. I don't want to be first. Nobody wants to be first. We understand it. In other jurisdictions, it's called field stops or field interrogation, that sort of thing. So the name is part of the problem.
Do I think it added to the crime problem? I think that it has an effect on guns and the carrying of guns and the willingness to carry guns. It is a tool. It's a tool that I think every police officer should have in his toolbox. Now, I know that this is controversial. I know we'd have a difficulty and friction trying to reinstitute it in any great degree. It goes on now, but it goes on in very small number when you consider the number of, say, “suspicious man in front of a building,” that's like 200,000 calls a year, but they're not making out the forms. Or maybe if they're talking to him but they're still not making out the forms. So I think you have to think of some imaginative ways to get it going again. But I think it's a value, and I want to say this about the gun tactics and strategies that they're using now.
I think it is very inventive in the precincts. They're FIOs, they call them—field intelligence officers. The program was started by Bernie Kerik before my second term there, and I expanded it. And they are the sergeant, and now they have police officers working for them. But they basically are using confidential informants to tell them who has a gun to go into court, and getting a warrant based on the probable cause. And they're arresting other people. That has been very effective. We see that shooting incidents are down like 14 percent. Murders are down 14 percent, by the way. This is a national phenomenon. Murders are going down in Chicago and in shootings, which nobody thought could ever happened. So to answer your question, I think it has an effect. To reinstitute it would be a challenge, but I think it could be done, because people are getting more and more frustrated and you need that sort of public support. We've got to do everything we can do and move in that direction.
James A. Gagliano: All right, so we're talking at the micro level, we're talking at the street level, which is important because nobody cares about the crime index except how it applies to the corner of “walk” and “don't walk,” and where they live. That's where it has a huge impact. But let's go to the macro level, the criminal-justice system, writ large. Let's look at our state, New York state. So a number of fairly controversial things have recently been passed. Cashless bai,l or bail reform. Raise the age discovery reform, the chilling effect of discovery reform on cooperators and witnesses, and then progressive district attorneys across the country. Sir, speak on each of those if you would, and give us your idea of how much of an impact, how that hurts policing or helps policing, and where you see this going next year.
Raymond Kelly: Well, cashless bail, Dermot Shea is involved in making a very good argument. This could be handled by the legislature just passing an addendum to the bill that allows judges to make a determination on dangerousness, which is going on throughout the country. Why aren't they doing it? Because they don't have to. It is the arrogance of the legislature, in my opinion. It's about the Senate and the assembly. They made the argument that it’s racism, it'll be somehow detrimental to people of color. The fact of the matter is that about 90 percent of the people arrested in New York state are people of color. So it was a false argument. But they have a supermajority, and if you read what they say about it, they can do it, and they're going do it. And they did it as far as the attorneys
James A. Gagliano: Progressive district attorneys—Alvin Bragg would be a perfect example.
Raymond Kelly: Clever as George Soros is, he's been running an effort, a program since 2016 to fund progressive district attorneys in various places. He has to see where they're available to do it. And so it appears that at least 26 district attorneys who he has identified as being progressive, in which he gives about $1 million dollars—$1 million dollars is serious money to a DA's campaign. Now here in New York State, New York City, we have five of them. So very, very crafty because that's where the choke point is in the district attorney's office. But you mentioned Alvin Bragg. Where does a district attorney's discretion stop? I mean, you just rewrite the law. He's given everybody a free ride here in Manhattan. They're not going to write up any theft-of-service reports in the subway. Go right ahead. He's not going to write up any resisting-arrest efforts. I don't know if you recall, but it was fairly well notarized.
There was an African American police officer fighting with an African American teenager in the subway, and they showed it for about a minute. I mean, it was a real battle. That individual was not charged with resisting arrest. I mean, it is just something that shouldn't exist in my judgment. There has to be some control, some rules, laws or whatever written someplace. And it's not just the governor. Yeah, we're talking about it in a heated campaign. But there has to be some restrictions, I believe, on district attorneys’ discretion. We should put together a committee of smart people and think about it.
James A. Gagliano: How do we deal with that when we expect attorneys and district attorneys to exercise prosecutorial discretion? And if the people push back, constituents push back and say, “This is who we elected and who we want,” is it appropriate for a governor or a politician, an elected leader, to remove somebody without it going on a ballot?
Raymond Kelly: Well, that's a good question, a legitimate question. It depends on how far out of bounds you go. And we need some guidelines in that regard, guardrails. So it’s something that has to be discussed. We need to get a lot of smart people in a room and talk about.
James A. Gagliano: All right, sir. My final question to you is this. You come out of retirement, you put the commissioner hat back on, and you are the police commissioner again. What do you think are one or two things that you would do on day one to impact this crime surge?
Raymond Kelly: Well, I would put back in place the anti-crime units. I did this work a hundred years ago, but I know it's effective. If you look at the crimes that are up, they're mugging crimes, they’re robbery, they're grand larceny from the person, they’re grand larceny auto, burglary. You need, in my view, we need people who are not wearing uniforms who maybe go to certain robbery-prone areas or maybe they know of a criminal, they follow that person, but you can't do this kind of work in uniform. Right now, the perpetrators know that there is no anti- crime unit out there. They're looking for a marked police car, but after that goes by, there's really no threat. They're not looking over their shoulder. It's not a panacea, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the blatantness of it.
I know prominent people in this city who have been robbed at 2:00 in the afternoon on the Upper East Side. That's scary stuff. And it's really in your face, not sneaking up, just walking up and pointing a gun at him or taking a bag without any fear of being arrested. So quality of life has gone so far downhill in this city. And one of the things that de Blasio and the city council did was, they decided not to put any restrictions or regulations on scooters. So now you have scooters that go 25 miles an hour. They're on the sidewalk, they're all over the place. I mean, they are a real danger. I was going to an event when I was a commissioner and I saw a guy go by on a bike going about 25 miles an hour.
And I was in a car. He hit a woman. The woman was out, knocked unconscious. She had brain damage. I followed up on it. I don't know the final disposition of her, but if you are anywhere close to my age, you really need to look 360 to make certain that there's not something coming up behind you. And they have no lights on.
James A. Gagliano: All right. Well, I just want say this. I sat up here, and I felt a little incongruity because I'm the mayor of a small upstate village, and I have a 13-member police department similar to the NYPD—three full-time officers, 10 part-time. So we really know what we're doing. First of all, what a huge privilege, sir—I've been a fan for a long time—to have two former police commissioners here, both responsible for a lot of the turnaround in New York. The only thing that would've made my night is if we could have gotten Teddy Roosevelt to come back, that would've been a good one. Ladies and gentlemen, how about a nice round of applause for a Commissioner Kelly?
Raymond Kelly: Thank you.