Buddy, good afternoon and welcome. I'm Jeff Morinoff, I'm the Associate Dean of Research and Policy Engagement here at the Ford School of Public Policy, and I am delighted to welcome all of you this afternoon for today's policy talk event with the honorable Mayor Lori Lightfoot. It's good to see our Ford School community gathered here and those who we can't see here in the room, but I would also like to note there's a lot of people from across campus and beyond who I know are tuning in virtually, so we thank them and welcome them as well. And now I will introduce our guest of honor, Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who served as the 56th Mayor of Chicago, the third largest city in America. Mayor Lightfoot was the first African-American woman and first openly gay person to serve as mayor of Chicago. This is also a homecoming of sorts for Mayor Lightfoot as she is a 1984 graduate of the University of Michigan, so go blue. Yeah. Mayor Lightfoot's tenure spans some real American crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the violent protests in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and others. We look forward to our insights and lessons of leading one of America's great cities in these difficult times. So Mayor Lightfoot will be speaking today with Celeste Watkins Hayes, the Joan and Sanford and Sanford Wildean of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and the founding director of the Center for Racial Justice. Then after the conversation, two Ford School students are Bonette Fellows. Katrina Whelan and Madison Prinzing will read audience questions, which you can submit using the QR code on the cards that have been distributed here in the auditorium and that can also be submitted to those of you who are joining us online. I'd also like to acknowledge our co-sponsor, the Center for Local State and Urban Policy and our media partner, Detroit Public Television, which is rebroadcasting this and distributing it across the PBS network. So with that, please join me in welcoming Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Good to see you. Good to see you. Thank you for being here. And good afternoon to the mayor. It's so wonderful to have you here. Always a pleasure to be back. Yes, so I have been saying every time I see you, I say, welcome home. Welcome home. Thank you. So you in fact, we know grew up in Ohio, but as was just mentioned, you were a student here at the University of Michigan. So I wonder... Just across the street at South Quad. Yeah, so I wonder if you can just pause and as you reflect on being back at your alma mater, where you knew folks like Barbara McQuaid, law school professor, Mike Duggan, current mayor, back when, when they were students, all of you going on to be public servants. So I just wonder if you can start with your origin story and your time here at Michigan and what your experience was like that was perhaps foundational for the roles that you've had more recently. Well, first of all, welcome everyone. Thank you so much for being here and go blue. I've already made my trip to Blimpy, so I feel like I've accomplished all that needs to get accomplished. You know, I grew up in Ohio, in a town about 60 miles southeast of Cleveland. And at the time, and still, it was a big, big Ohio State city, sadly. But my oldest brother went to Ohio State as 12 years older than me, went there undergrad on like the five year plan, got a master's, got a second master's. So the pull towards Ohio State was very powerful. Number of my classmates ended up going there, but I've always been a little bit of a contrarian. And I wanted to go someplace where I felt like I was gonna have a kind of quintessential college experience. Growing up in the town that I grew up in, Maslin, football was a big, big part of really the center of community life. So it made sense that I would come to a place like Michigan, except to my friends and family, I'm a traitor to the cause. But my time here, I look back on with great fondness. It wasn't easy. I was not, I didn't come from a family of means. And even though the room and board and tuition was much more modest than what I'm sure it is now, it was a struggle for me to be here. But I think that struggle in many ways helped me. I worked a series of work study jobs when I was here. I did literally everything from clerical work to I was a cook at South Quad and the football training table. That was an experience.  But I had such fond memories of being here. It was tough though in those days, being black on campus, particularly not being from Detroit public schools, which is a lot of where the black student population came from. So that was a new experience. But I found my way and people that I met in my first couple days as a freshman continued to be my close friends to this day. And I really relish every opportunity that I have to come back here. The transformation of the campus has really been pretty extraordinary.  That's a real gift to be able to work in that kind of environment. I hope people here appreciate that because I certainly do. So after law school, University of Chicago Law School, I wonder if you can talk about how you found your way into public service. Did you know that was your path all the way from the time going back to U of M? No, if you would ask me even eight years ago, say, are you gonna run for some kind of public office? I would have told you you were crazy. So after I graduated from law school, I clerked on the Michigan Supreme Court. So I spent a year living in Detroit, which is why I have such an incredible fondness for that city. And started to really kind of understand some of the challenges of living in a big urban environment. Detroit was going through a pretty massive size of shift. Coleman Young was still the mayor when I was here, but he was definitely on the way out and the city was really struggling and struggled for many decades after that. And I think it's really been in the last few years where you see light on the horizon with Detroit, which makes, I think, obviously, Detroiters extraordinarily happy, but it's great to see a great American city coming back and being innovative and being talked about in a very different way than what it was back in the late 80s, early 90s when I lived there. And then I went back to Chicago, joined a law firm, a law firm that I had summered at, and spent about six years there, had the opportunity to go to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which I, when I was in law school, thought about joining the FBI, but for many reasons, not the least of which was because I knew I was a lesbian. I thought, I'm not sure that that matches up with the culture of the FBI back then. I see a woman smirking, you're right. That was not gonna be the right fit at that time. But I've always liked investigations. I love being an advocate. And my time at the U.S. Attorney's Office was really incredibly formative for me. Not only because I love doing the work, I love feeling like I was an advocate for people who were plagued by crime, but it also taught me the importance of using power carefully. When you're a prosecutor and my friend Barbara Quaid can attest to this, you have the power to really change the trajectory of people's life in a really profound way. Just the issuance of a grand jury subpoena which was not a big deal for any of us, that can have a ripple effect on somebody's life. So understanding that and knowing that I think was important. I also thought it was important for me to be in that space as a black woman, as a person who came from a very working class background. I also had a brother at the time who was very much involved in the criminal justice system. So bringing that sensibility to this role that wielded a lot of power, I thought was really important because you really do decide who gets charged, who doesn't and what the charges are and how they're going to be presented to the world when you're seeking through a court to deprive them of their liberty interest. That's very, a lot of power. And discretion and being discriminating and how you wield that power was really important and there weren't a lot of people like me who had my background that were sitting in those roles anywhere and definitely not in Chicago. You know, in my research, I've written a lot about discretion in the public sector and you just talked about this idea of people on the ground in these roles end up having a lot of power and discretion becomes really important and many of the students in this room will take on jobs where one of the, they may not wield the biggest budgets when they first start, but they're gonna be in positions where they have a lot of discretion and discretion over people's lives. I wonder if you can talk about a little bit more about what advice you would give to people when they wield that kind of power. You know, what kinds of values and principles did you use, what kind of lens did you use when you thought about your use of discretion? Well, I'll answer that question through in anecdote, if I can. Like many young prosecutors starting out, you do a lot of drug cases. And there was a case involving a young man, Latino guy, where he confessed and over time as he got more comfortable with us, confessed to being involved in a horrible murder and for which other people were prosecuted and went to prison. So I had a sense of urgency, obviously, about writing that wrong. He had a sense of urgency about coming to a different place in his life. What I came to learn was that, looking back over the course of his life, there hadn't been really any positive adult role models for him. And so he went to the streets fairly early on when he was a preteen. And it was clear to me that he wanted to get out of that life, but didn't know how. And so when he was approached by these FBI agents, who, by the way, came to me and said, yeah, we met this guy, we, here's his profile, and we asked him if he wanted to get out of life and cooperate, and he told us he would think about it and come back to us. And my response was, you idiots, he's never coming back. You're never gonna find this guy. He's probably five states away. But sure enough, not only did he come back, he brought with him a written confession. And it was for him, I think, just relieving himself of the burden that he had been carrying around because he was involved with these two brothers in particular who were incredibly sadistic. But long story short, and I answer your question, because I got to know him as a person, because I could see the trauma that he had endured for such a long time, I became an advocate for him. I was a prosecutor. There was no confusion about that. Got him a defense lawyer, so he would have defense against the charges he continued to cooperate with us. But when he was sentenced, I was gone from the office by that time, but I came back to testify on his behalf because I believed in the sincereness that he had exhibited in wanting to change his life around. And fast forward, he got a 15 year sentence because of his extraordinary cooperation that people that he was involved with who actually did the murder got life sentences. But I've actually reconnected with him now. He's out of jail. He's turned his life around. He's living in another state. Got a wife and he's kids. And it was important for me to reconnect with him because he was somebody that, of all the defendants that I prosecuted, and I prosecuted many, he was one that stood out to me as somebody who really had, he had a different hand dealt to him in life. Had he had positive adult role models in his life, he would have done something different. And now he's still a young man and he's turned his life around. And I think he's gonna do extraordinary things. And I wanna be close enough that I can see, continue to see that transformation happen. But I could have treated him like any other defendant, not really cared, written up the indictment and going about my business. But there was something about he and I and the connection that we had. And that discretion again, was something that I used to try to help him get to where he wanted to be, which is a different person, a different life. So after your time in the U.S. Attorney's Office, you had to really in critical work in- I went to work for the Chicago Police Department. In policing. Oh my goodness. So let's unpack that. First of all, why go from the judicial system, moving more, it sounds like you're starting to move more and more towards executive leadership? Because the mayor position would come after that. Tell me about that shift in terms of that. Well, I was ready to take on a different role. And frankly, I felt like the possibilities for leadership within the office were gonna be limited for me. And I was ready to kind of expand my wings and expand my skill set. This opportunity kind of fell in my lap out of the blue. Going back, there was an internal unit within the Chicago Police Department that was responsible for investigating allegations of serious police misconduct. So of course, use of excessive force, but also police involved shootings. It had been around since the mid 1970s, arose out of a conflict where black residents were being grossly mistreated by members of the police department in ways that there was no vehicle at that time in the 70s for ordinary residents to lodge a complaint. And when they did it, they weren't investigated. Long story short, this opportunity for me to lead this investigative unit within the police department came up. And I thought it was a good opportunity for me to take on this responsibility, lead investigations, which I love, but also see a different part of the city. I'd worked a bit with Chicago police officers when I was a prosecutor. Many of them were task force officers. And I knew I was gonna enter into interesting terrain. Police departments are a culture unto themselves. But I worked for a superintendent that I believed in and who believed in me and gave me a lot of support to kind of grow in the role. And it was, I only did the job for two years, but man, oh man, it was two years of an incredible experience that really shaped my thinking about justice and equity and fairness in pretty profound ways. What was it about being within that role that shaped your views and what did you learn from it? What were the surprises that all of us need to understand? We think about police. Well, there's so much that I learned. First and foremost, it's a really tough place to be if you're female and a civilian. The culture is one where you are respected and valued if you have a badge. And you're particularly respected and valued if you're male with a badge. Female police officers, regardless of what their rank was, had a really difficult time. People of color had a very difficult time, even if they were sworn. But coming in as I did, most people felt like my unit was called the Office of Professional Standards. All our job was is to ruin the careers of good police officers. But I think we got a lot of good done. We, and I really insisted that we set a particular standard. My view was police officers can't lie. You cannot be a law enforcement officer and lie.  And I vigorously enforced that, not surprisingly, generating a lot of enemies. Among police officers felt like, why are you ruining this person's career just because they didn't tell the truth one time? Well, my view was one time was one time too many. And I'm not talking about honest mistakes. I'm talking about obstructing an investigation, lying about whether they were present, things along that line. I just felt like I believe in law enforcement, but I believe law enforcement has to stand for integrity and hold itself to a better standard, not a different standard, not above the law, but a standard of integrity and excellence that can't be compromised. So much of what you said has to do with the culture of the department, but I wonder if you can also talk about the structural dynamics. What about the way that the organization is set up, the rules, the policies that reinforce some of the cultural dynamics that you just described? Well, I mean, some of that is about the way in which policing has historically been deployed to address issues of public safety. For decades, if you talked about public safety, there was one strategy only, but as many cops on dots in hotspots as possible and hope for the best. Well, we now have decades of data that tell us that law enforcement first and only alone is a failed strategy. It's never going to turn the tide. It may help in a reactive way, but proactively winning the hearts and minds of the public, it's not the right strategy alone. Now, don't get me wrong. The police absolutely have a critical role to play in keeping communities safe, but it can't be the only role. It's not effective, we know that. Also, it sets a police up for failure because it's asking them to do certain things that they are never going to be trained to do, never capable of doing. And so that's certainly part of their culture, but I think the only way that you bring lasting peace to neighborhoods is to really look at the root causes of the problems. Why is it that so many young boys and young men are picking up guns in cities like Chicago, like LA, like Atlanta? What's going on in their neighborhoods? What's going on in the opportunities for them to do something different? Be a part of the legitimate economy. If you don't ask those questions and importantly, go into those neighborhoods on a block-by-block basis and ask the residents what they believe that they need to be safe, you're never going to bring lasting peace to cities across our country. And so it's a combination of holding police accountable to the people that they're sworn to serve and protect, making sure that they've got the best training possible, but then bringing the community to the table to design and curate community-specific plans and strategies for peace that, in my experience, is what really makes the difference. All over the country following the murder of George Floyd, violent crime just went through the roof, homicide shootings, car jackings. We definitely experienced that in Chicago. 20 and 21 were very difficult years for us, even though we had finished 19 my first year under 500 homicides, which for Chicago was a record. We started thinking about, well, we've got to be engaged in a different strategy because what we're doing isn't working. We thought about borrowing a couple pages from our COVID playbook. Hello, good to see you. And what we did is we brought at COVID what was successful is we brought stakeholders in neighborhoods together to work with us and think about how we could reach people and intervene using data and science. We use some of that same thought process in thinking about public safety, and we implemented that starting in the summer of 21. In 22 year over year, we focused on the 15 neighborhoods in Chicago that has historically driven 50% of the crime. In that one year's time, with the exception of three challenging neighborhoods, 12 of those 15, we saw remarkable progress. Homicides and shootings down, floor of 25% and up to 50%. Neighborhoods on the west side of Chicago, for those of you who know Chicago at all, that have never known peace, started to see it and feel it because we engage with the community, literally on a block by block level, set up neighborhood councils and brought what we call a whole of government approach. So if there was inadequate lighting somewhere, we fix that. If the infrastructure was decaying, we fix that. If there was a building or buildings on a block that became a haven for drug activity, we work to fix that. We open up green spaces for young people to be able to gather safely, all driven by what people in the community told us they needed and what worked. This whole of government approach and then making sure that the police were being constitutional in the policing that they were doing and focusing on the areas in the neighborhoods that the community told us that needed support made a remarkable difference. And this was all, so now as you think about, so much of that was during your time as mayor. During your time working with the Chicago police board before we turned to your mayoral time, there's a lot of both optimism about things like police accountability boards, but there's also a lot of skepticism because of the exact things that I asked about, the culture and the structural dynamics. So I wonder, as cities across the country think about this, how do we create a structure of accountability? How do we create a structure of support? How do we create community policing and safety that is effective and just and fair and equitable and also respects the need for safety? What lessons would you offer? That's a big question. Number one, the police have to play a role in community safety. I'm not a defunder, I think that's a wrong strategy. And frankly, when you talk about defunding, all the work that's been done to diversify police departments, to bring in younger officers, to bring in more diverse officers from a demographic standpoint to make sure that this next generation of officers are well trained, given the vagaries of police contracts where it's reverse seniority when people get laid off. In most police departments, I would say 95%, if not higher, of the budget is personnel. So if you're talking about defunding, you're talking about getting rid of personnel. And who's the personnel you're gonna get rid of? The youngest, most diverse, best trained officers that departments have. The people that I think most of us believe are the problems and are most reticent to embrace the new normal, they're protected by the contracts. They're not going anywhere. So defunding, in my view, will not accomplish what the goal is. Or even shifting resources, because so much of the defunding is moving the resources into kind of more public house. To me, it doesn't have to be in either or circumstance, right? When I talk to people about defunding, and particularly when I was mayor, what I heard is, hey, we want the same focus and resources that you're putting on the police department to come to our neighborhoods. I say agree, 100%. And so economic development can't take the place of making sure that you've got a robust police department. But also what people want is for people, the police department, to respect them. There's a story that I heard when I was running the police accountability task force of a older black couple that lived on the west side of Chicago. There was a shooting that happened in their neighborhood. All these police resources massed in the neighborhood doing the investigation, looking for the shooter. They happened to look out their back window and they saw an individual climbing over their back fence. And they saw the glint of light on what looked like to them a gun. They froze. They froze because they weren't sure that they should call 911. And they weren't sure because in their experience in their neighborhood, they weren't sure that they would be believed. That should never, ever, ever be a consideration. Or that they would be safe if the police responded. We never should be in a situation where residents in a neighborhood that's under siege are worried that if they call the police, they won't be believed, they won't be safe. But we have to deal with that reality because that is a reality. This is an older black couple. This was young guys on the street who literally had paused as to whether or not they were gonna take their chances with the dude in their backyard with a gun or the police. That taught me a lot about the challenging dynamic of winning hearts and minds, having, creating an environment, a culture where people understood the appropriate role of the police. But importantly, in my view, is the police have the primary responsibility in that relationship to make sure that they are doing everything that they can to win the respect of people in those neighborhoods that they took an oath to protect and serve. So let's move on to your time as mayor. What made you run? Well, a little bit crazy. Especially after doing the work you're doing, what made you decide these aren't hard enough problems? I want bigger ones. Well, the work that I had done, particularly as police board president, but then also on a police abound accountability task force was coming at a time where there was a spike in violence in Chicago. So this is 15 and 16. Those of you who may remember, there was a young man named Laquan McDonald that was killed in our city in 2014. The video of his murder was suppressed for almost a year, a little over a year. That video came out right before Thanksgiving in 2015. I was scared. I thought our city was going to go up in flames as we were seeing in other parts of the country. Luckily, that didn't happen, but the level of distrust and anger was palpable. And then the crime spike. And I thought, what's going on in our city in this moment that is making this happen? And really started kind of asking some deep questions about what was going on. And what I could see was not just the tale of two cities, the tale of multiple cities within our city, where certain neighborhoods just weren't getting resources, weren't invested in, where young people were growing up, not knowing anybody who went to work every day because there were no jobs in those neighborhoods, where the quality of the schools was subpar. And again, not surprisingly, let's tell it what it is. These were black and brown, poor and working class neighborhoods that were not getting the attention from city hall that I felt like they deserved. Now I didn't start come to this realization and think, well, I'm going to solve this as, but I'm going to run for mayor. I went to a lot of people that I knew had the attention of the then incumbent mayor and talked to them about urging him to come up with a plan to address this disparity. No one took me up on my urging. And I came to the conclusion that if the current mayor got a third term, our city was going to get worse and it would come apart. And I started watching as the election got closer, people who were making noises about I'm going to run. And frankly, none of them were really talking to what I thought was the most important issues, which is addressing this gross decades in the making disparity in black and brown neighborhoods. And so as I started really analyzing this, I started thinking about what about me? It's not a place where I thought I was going to be. When I raised the possibility for the first time with my wife, she literally wouldn't talk about it with me. So that took some doing, because you can't embark upon something this big without having full support of your family and your friends. And so the more I thought about it, the more I started, and I'm an old trial lawyer, I believe in being prepared, it just felt like if I didn't do it, I'd probably regret it the rest of my life. And I don't like living my life with regrets. But that was a two year plus process. So the run would be historic. Chicago had not had a black mayor since Harold Washington.   Well, and I'm also a very private person. We had to spend a lot of time thinking about that. We, meaning my wife and I, and what impact that would have on us, what impact that would have on our family. And my daughter was still pretty young at the time. But after a lot of thought and a lot of prayer, I just believe that this was the right place for me to be at that moment. And to my surprise, for the most part, the various constituencies that I represented were not viewed as a negative by some. But for the most part. And I think that said a lot, frankly, about our city. It would have been impossible 10 years before I won, I ran. And maybe even five years before I ran, that somebody who represented so many different constituencies and demographics that I do could run on the merits and on the issues. Now, I'm not gonna say that, particularly in a runoff, my opponent tried to make it an issue. Particularly the fact that I was a lesbian and married to a white woman and lived on the north side, which is not traditionally where black folks in the city live. That was out there front and center, no question about it. But I'm proud of the voters who saw past that, all those red herrings that were thrown out there. And made me the 56th mayor of the city. So one of the pieces about identity is the way in which the run is historic, the way in which it is so meaningful, and the way in which people project their expectations on you. I wonder if you can talk about both sides of that coin, what it meant to people, but then also how people project things onto you. Well, it's interesting because I've been thinking a lot about that and kind of writing about that. No one was more stunned than I was that I won 74% of the vote in every one of the 50 awards. And a lot of that was, I think I represented something different. Certainly I represented somebody who was not affiliated with old political order, not affiliated with the machine politics, and ran on a platform of transparent, good government, ethics in government. My first day I signed an executive order ending what was animating a lot of conversations, something called automatic prerogative. So I think people projected on me at the time their hopes and aspirations for a different kind of Chicago mayor, a different compact between city government and the government. That was a good thing.   Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. How did that happen? So I think with the benefit of hindsight, there were some who, and she wants to break up the status quo. No, we're not comfortable with that. Or I think more to the point, we don't want that and we want to stop that from happening. So I think as much as there was a euphoria and a honeymoon initially when I was elected, there was definitely a moneyed, powerful element within the city that really started from day one. Probably before the ink was dry on me, signing my oath that we're like, we've got to stop this from happening. So and on the right and on the left. On the left, I wasn't progressive enough. People forgot who I was. I was now, by virtue of the fact that I now own the title, I was the man, so to speak. I became the enemy. I'm like, no, no, no, no, it's still me. It's still Lori, 74%. Remember me? You like me. Nope. Yeah. Now I'm the man. Unpack that, if you would, because I mean that to link the conversation around your work in the US Attorney's Office and with the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, there's a way in which we're reckoning with people of color being in power, but also being in power in positions that quite honestly are perceived to maintain sometimes status quo, reinforce systems, reinforce structures. A lot of the police force were people of color, so people in power. So can you talk about this question of in dynamic when power comes in the form of a person of color and the balancing act and the struggle that that is? I mean, I think that, you know, one of the conversations in the presidential election was Kamala Harris was a prosecutor. And this idea of people having some skepticism, some concern about that, and then you show up and say, I was a US Attorney. I spent a lot of time with police. You ran on a kind of push-or-pull and chock us through that. The left called me Lori the cop. And the right was, I'm this person who wants to handcuff the police and not let them get their job, do their job. So the dynamic and it plays out, I'm broke, basically any topic that you can think about now, where there are such extremes on either side. And if you're not there or not there, but you're somewhere squarely in the middle, which is where the vast majority of Americans are, you're demonized by the loud voices on either side. And that definitely happened to me. There's no question about it. But my view was, I knew why I was there. I knew what my value system was, what my North Star was, what I wanted to try to accomplish. And I just wasn't gonna let the noise move me away from the things that I knew were important to impact the lives of people who were grown up in families like mine. That's why I ran. I ran to help the young Lori Lightfoot out there. The people that I knew in my neighborhood that were working class and just wanted to live their life in peace and happiness and have a future and be able to pass that down to their kids and build wealth. That's why I ran. And you can't ignore the noise entirely, but you can't let it define your every movement. At least I felt strongly that I couldn't. What would you say were some of your proudest moments and best accomplishments during that time as mayor? Look, there's a lot of things that I could name. But I would say my proudest moments were when I went into a classroom or when I went into a park and I saw a kid whose eyes lit up because they recognized me as their mayor. I can't tell you the number of times that I went into spaces across my city where people told me they'd never seen a mayor in their neighborhood, on their street, in their block, or hadn't seen one since Harold Washington. That made me sad in some ways, but it also made me incredibly proud. One of the things we prepare our students for is leading in crisis. And you had no shortage of them as mayor. Indeed. Let's start with COVID-19. Take us back to that time and walk us through how, as a crisis manager, you came to shape what would be your COVID response as mayor. Well, first of all, most mayors when they come to office don't know the first thing about public health. And I was one of them. I kind of worked on some issues here and there, but I really didn't understand or appreciate public health. Thank goodness we had an incredible public health leader in the form of Dr. Alison Arwini who carried all of us on her shoulders through COVID, had a public health department who was incredibly prepared. And if I can, as an aside, I want to introduce Christina Anderson. Stand up, Christina. Christina worked in the Department of Public Health was basically the chief of staff to the commissioner, organize us through thick and thin. Had work come from the police department, we rescued her, brought her into the mayor's office and Senator Department of Public Health and she's now the chief of staff for your secretary of state. So, Christina, thank you. Thank you for all you've done.  You can have the vision and you can work tirelessly to turn that vision into reality. But where the rubber meets the road is people like Christina and other colleagues across city government coming together and uniting and understanding what we needed to do to save lives in our city, never faced a challenge like that before in my life. And frankly, I hope I never do again. But we worked diligently understanding the data, fouling the science. And in the early days of COVID, you know this, we didn't know a lot. What we knew is that COVID was deadly and it spread like wildfire. But not a lot beyond that. I taught a class last week and there was a clip of me in a press conference for early April of 2020, nobody was wearing masks then. Within a couple of weeks, that all changed. We didn't not wear a mask. We didn't, you know, we started the social distancing, the stay home, save lives campaigns that were prevalent all across the country. It was such an evolving and changing landscape. And I said this earlier today. We also, as city leaders, were working in a world where the federal government wasn't anywhere for us. You know, there was an incident that happened and I'll share it, it was late January. And on a Friday afternoon, the White House issued an edict that all flights coming from Wuhan province and China were gonna be directed to initially seven and then 11 airports in the country. And O'Hare was one of the airports. And what we were told is that anybody coming off of one of those planes had to quarantine for 14 days. Well, there was a lot about that that left and opened up a lot of questions. We started asking, well, quarantine for 14 days, under what order? And you're talking about people coming off planes into local jurisdictions. Who is going to say to them, you have to stay someplace for 14 days? And where are they staying? And by the way, who's paying for that? And what if they say, you know, I feel fine. Because as we later learn COVID, there were people who carry COVID that were asymptomatic. No, no, no, I'm fine, I'm going home. What would we do in those circumstances? And the more questions we ask, the more we dug into it, the more it was clear that the folks who made this decision hadn't fought through a single one of these questions. So as I said, this was issued on a Friday night. By Saturday midday, we still didn't have any answers. I convened a conference call of all the mayors that were affected by this. And they were experiencing the same frustration. And many of them, we found out, we were talking to the same people from the federal government, whether it was DHS, HHS, or the White House, and getting different answers from the same people. It was a disaster. But what that meant then was it was real clear, unlike other circumstances, particularly public health crises, where the CDC comes in, takes control, tells everybody else what to do, that was not gonna happen. The CDC was sidelined. These decisions were being made in the White House, they were being made at DHS, and to a small extent, HHS. Wrong people, wrong seat on the bus, and we were left to pick up the pieces. So on the one hand, as a local leader, that was a little terrifying. But it also, frankly, gave us the opportunity to speak to the needs of our residents in a very direct way. Again, we were flying a little bit without a net because the crisis was evolving, but we looked to other cities, other countries, frankly. Germany was really a leader during that time period, and learned a lot about fighting this fight for ourselves. And it gave us tremendous opportunities that in normal circumstances, we may not have otherwise had. And it's such an interesting example, because I can imagine people were angry with you. And I remember the memes when, you know, don't go, you know, the kind of shelter-in-place orders and having to reinforce it and having to say, this is how we're gonna think about this early stage. And you have to, as a leader, steal yourself in that moment. Can you talk to us about having to steal yourself even when there's a lot of uncertainty as to what you're grounding your statements in or actually based in the science, because we just didn't know? So those of you who followed this, well, it may remember the experience of Italy, and particularly Northern Italy. It was a disaster. The response was woefully inadequate, and Italians, particularly older Italians, were dying at an unbelievable rate. There was a lot of work going on to understand what was happening in Italy. So my public health commissioner and her deputy came to see me in late February, early March. And they had been working with some of the universities in Argonne labs and doing some projections and modeling about where we were kind of in the arc of our build, our history with COVID-19. And what they told me in that meeting was based upon the work that they had done, we were on the same trajectory in Chicago as Italy. That was terrifying. And so I knew that we had to take some immediate steps to address the problem. So one of the toughest meetings that I recall during that early, those early days was bringing in all the people who benefited from our convention and tourism business, which was enormous. We have one of the largest convention sitters in the world in Chicago. Lots of people are fed through that work, through the shows that came in. And to tell them that we were shutting down our convention and tourism business in our city. A lot of grown men, a lot of rough and tumble trade union members, I had to tell them that they were out of work. That was tough, really tough. And you went to the valley of peace. Because there was no safety net for them. Right, right. Tell me about that moment and that conversation. Well, I just told them, I showed them the data, talked to them about what the trajectory that we were on and that if we didn't do something dramatic to keep people home and not gather in these large groups, that we were gonna lose a lot of lives, including maybe them, maybe their members. They got it intellectually, but that was not the news that they were expecting to hear. And promised to, which we did, work with them to figure out a path forward to make sure that we were continuing to be in contact and communicate and being transparent about what we were doing and why we were doing it. And hoping, frankly, that we would be able to open back up sooner rather than later. As it turned out, obviously, we were closed down for a long time. And frankly, a lot of the groups that were organizing, the conventions, the big business meetings, their members didn't want any part of large gatherings because it became clear that that was a source of spreading the disease. And at that time, there was no vaccine on a horizon. But that was a really, really tough moment, another tough moment. Testing in Chicago and maybe other places was like the wild, wild West in the early days. Everybody in their brother was trying to set up testing and make a profit off of my cynical view, people's fears. But what they weren't doing is doing in a way that had integrity, that was following the public health guidance. They weren't collecting enough demographic information early on for us to be able to understand who was being most impacted by the testing data. In fact, we had to issue, Dr. Arwity issued an order to require anybody who was doing testing to collect that demographic information. Lots of issues with the testing. But when that first wave of demographic information started coming in, what we learned was that black people in Chicago were dying at seven times the rate of any other demographic in our city. That was like a gut punch. That's when it becomes real and personal. But I knew I couldn't just put that information out there without having some specific solutions. So very long story short, we partnered up with a number of community health organizations that have been doing life expectancy gap work and work with them to go into neighborhoods that were most badly hit by COVID and where people were dying the most. We called it the racial equity rapid response team, a mouthful to be sure. But working with those community leaders at that early stage gave us legitimacy in spaces across our city that we probably wouldn't have been able to get into without those community leaders. And that infrastructure that we built in those early days, we then were able to mobilize that to do contact tracing. We stood up a 600 person community health worker cohort using those resources. When the vaccine came, we went to that same group of community leaders and worked together to put what I think is the most equitable vaccine distribution plan in the country. My mantra through COVID was no temporary scaffolding. Everything that we did, I wanted it to be intentional. I wanted to make sure that we were thinking thoughtfully about how we could, the investments that we were making, the decisions that we were making, not just in a moment, but looking at that chess board multiple steps down the game to make sure that we were utilizing resources at a high level that we could then turn to over and over again. In the course of all of this, George Floyd is murdered. Conversations about Breonna Taylor, Castile, just throughout the country, a conversation globally on policing, you're back in the policing conversation. And the protests in Chicago are significant. Talk to us about how you navigated the obvious questions around policing, race, but also protest and how you managed, or how you think you managed the protest process. So let me take those kind of one at a time. After we kind of got past the protest, and I want to go back and talk about that because that was another one of those circumstances I hope I never experienced again. There was a big push, particularly nationally, to get a pretty massive police reform package over the finish line. As we now know, it never happened. There's a concept in policing called de-escalation and the pillars of de-escalation are time and distance. And what it means is not react, not escalate, but work with the person, give them sufficient time and distance and hope that you can de-escalate the issues. That was kind of the approach that I took to this massive push to completely upend policing as we knew it. There were some things about it that I thought were really, really good, but I thought there were some things about it that were really dangerous. It was hard to offer nuance in those discussions at the time. So my view was I wasn't gonna be like my friend, Eric, our city in LA, my friend Bill de Blasio in New York and move so quickly that we would miss the nuance because to me, as a public policy geek, that's where you really make a big difference and have lasting change is in that nuance, the gray. So there were things that we did and frankly, I had started doing police reform work from the very beginning of my tenure having worked with the police department. I had a pretty good idea of what we needed to do to really kickstart the reform plus the Chicago Police Department was under a consent decree so there were a lot of things that were mandated by the consent decree. But striking that balance, making sure all voices are heard and I also, given what we were experiencing that summer, I knew that I couldn't lose the police meaning I couldn't have them showing up for work and doing nothing as we saw frankly happen I think in many places across the country. So a very delicate balance carefully calibrated and not easy to implement because there was a huge push for change to come, change to come now, which I understood, but I wanted to do it in a way that we wouldn't regret it down the road. But the other thing that was going on simultaneously with this was these very violent protests. We were seeing in Chicago kind of like a three-legged stool, peaceful protest that got hijacked by vigilantes that came for a fight with the police and then organized retail theft crews that would take advantage of the chaos and looting of stores, really destroying small businesses really all across our city. It was a very, very difficult time. We saw frankly police officers forget their training, take the bait, get into physical confrontations with protesters and frankly not respect their first amendment rights, which is a huge problem. And all of this is being probably photographed all of it is on video. The people who were not the Chicagoans who came to these protests, and I've been in many protests in my day, many marches for one cause or another. I never came to a protest with a baseball bat, a tire arm, frozen bottles of urine, firearms. And we were seeing this on a regular basis in these protests that played out at the end of May into June into July. That was a lot, a lot to manage. And it was happening all over the city, simultaneously, seemed like every day, four weeks at a time. Though that was a tough, tough time to manage and keep the peace, protect the protesters who had an absolute right to pursue into the first amendment to protest whatever it is that they wanted to protest, make sure officers were safeguarding them, but also doing their jobs, and then safeguarding against these organized crews of retail theft and others at a time also when shootings, car jackings and homicides were spiking. And in all of this, you also have to think about the economic development, the economic engine of the city. I wonder if you can comment on that either during, not just during the COVID time, but throughout your administration, education and schools, and they're dealing with the teacher strike, et cetera, and kind of larger quality of life issues that people expect of their city, their mayors, et cetera. I wonder if you can comment on any or all of those three and how you kept those ships afloat while all of this was happening. Well, I'll say what I said before, which is you have to have a good, smart, empathetic, passionate, committed team. No mayor, certainly not of a city that's size and complexity of Chicago can do, keep all of those things going in a productive way by herself. It's impossible. So making sure you set the vision that you select the right people with the right skill sets and then empower them to do their jobs, but also hold them accountable for the work that they're doing. I believe in collaborative governance and so we spent a lot of time working together, learning how to work together, breaking down silos and making sure that we were checking in with each other emotionally. That was a really, really difficult, stressful time. When you think about from the end of February into March when COVID is at its height, dealing with all of that, we had about a two week window before George Floyd was murdered and then sets off a whole new stage of activity. The stress and burdens that we were all carrying during that time, as a leader, you also have to care about your people as human beings and making sure that they're engaging in self-care, which I'm a big proponent of. That was a lot. That summer, in those six months, probably some of the most difficult times in my life. I suspect we might have some students in the audience who are listening to this and saying to themselves, there is no way I would sign up for something like that. And I wonder if you can talk about the power of doing hard things anyway, even when you're scared, even when it's not convenient. I wonder if you can talk about that. Because it's most, you do it if you believe in public service as a vehicle for changing the trajectory of people's lives, transforming cities. I think you do it if you believe in democracy, as I do. And I'm very concerned about our democracy and this point in our civic life. But there's nothing more satisfying. When you come together, you work as a team, you work hard, and you accomplish a goal on behalf of people. When you see the light go on in people's lives, when you know that you've done something that makes a difference, that is incredibly powerful. We're gonna turn to the student questions, but before we do, I wonder if you can pick up that thread of democracy. If you can talk about where you see us as a country, where you see us in larger conversations around the power of government, the importance of government, public service. As we head into a presidential election cycle, I wonder if you can talk about the power of democracy and why you're concerned. Well, I'm very concerned right now, and I've been concerned, frankly, for a while. Long before a certain someone came down the escalators in 2015, I think the winds of dissension that were pulling us apart were very much in play. And I think what's happened in the intervening time period is it's become acceptable to demonize anybody who has a different point of view on any topic. What I see too much is if you do not subscribe to my specific point of view on a topic, then you're the enemy. If you do not believe what I believe, then we have no basis for common ground.  And if you think about the origins of our country, you think about the pillars that make us different as a democracy than other places, it is built upon collaboration and compromise. And yet what we see played out on a daily basis is everything but that. I'll pick on an issue that's in the news these days. Funding for Ukraine, funding for Israel and the border. Now, I'm not gonna say that I agree with everything that was put together in the Senate package, but there was some markers that were laid down, particularly by the House Republicans, that this is what's gonna be needed to do this as an S. That goal was met, and now the goalpost has been moved again. And I bet as a mayor, or former mayor, you're really thinking about, say, that immigration package, because now we're seeing increasingly mayors all over the country grappling with immigration from New York to Chicago to this is, it's a national policy debate, but it's a very local issue. Well, what I would say is that as a local mayor, you don't have time for nonsense, right? Our residents expect us to deliver now. Not tomorrow, not down the road, but now. And it could be everything as mundane from, making sure the streets are cleared after a snowstorm, to dealing with public safety, to making sure that our kids are able to learn in a safe and productive environment in schools. As a local leader, the expectations for excellence and immediacy are very, very high. And what goes on in Washington is so much nonsense that people sitting around their kitchen table, expecting government to actually function. So the level of dysfunction, disagreement that goes on in Washington DC that gets perpetuated in a bubble on the cable news stations is a distraction to what people, what I'm really thinking in here and now. And as a local mayor, you gotta deliver. And so when you depend, though, on the federal government for funding, when you depend upon the federal government for policies that are gonna help your community reach its objectives and they continually don't deliver, then you have to be creative and think about how you get it for yourself. Madison and Katrina, to you. Thank you so much for having us. We have quite a few questions, so we're gonna talk about you first. Can you just speak up a little bit? Yeah. Yes. So connecting to your team and your comment, we have a question. How do you assemble and motivate a team that is effective and crisis ready? Well, hopefully you're not assembling that team in the middle of a crisis. That's kind of like building a plane and trying to fight at the same time. You come into office with a vision for what you wanna accomplish and you have a sense of what the major issues are. And I think you build the core competency of your team around those issues. And frankly, looking for people that have a level of flexibility and capabilities to be able to adapt to a changing environment. As I said, I came into office knowing very little about public health and certainly not thinking that this global pandemic was on the horizon. But thankfully we already had a team of people at our public health department that were ready and prepared for the unknown. And the unknown was virtually every day for the first couple of weeks of a couple of months of this pandemic. But what I knew about the rest of my team that also had to, because this was all hands on deck moment, that I had really smart capable people who were able to think about logistics, that were able to think about and work on gathering community together and think about messaging and outreach. All of the things that you need to calm people, to tell them the truth, even when it was hard to hear and deliver concrete solutions, we had those things in place and we were very fortunate. So you've talked a little bit about COVID and how you had to coordinate with both the federal government and the state government. Can you talk a little bit more about what it's like to coordinate with other levels of government, particularly with the state during COVID? Challenging. Challenging. I think you asked a similar question earlier today. I paid a lot of attention to what my counterparts were doing across the country and the dynamics between mayors and governors. And in some states, they were of the same party and other states, they were not. I paid attention a lot to, of course, how the coast were responding to the challenges of COVID, pardon me. And in particular to San Francisco and San Francisco County, they got hit, I think, first and hardest of any other location. I can remember when Mayor London Breed signed her very expansive stay-at-home order. Got a copy, read it. I thought, holy smokes. We could never do this in Chicago. Well, guess what? We did it like three weeks later, almost verbatim. So really paying attention to what's happening elsewhere. But one of the things that I paid a lot of attention to was kind of the daily slug fest between Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo. And I just felt like at a time when we are facing this existential threat, when people are fearful about leaving their home and going to the grocery store, doing anything in their daily lives. And by the way, when we were telling them, don't do any of that, because that's not safe. They deserved us, the governor and I, to be the adults in the room, to be stable, and to make sure that they could count on us and that they could have confidence in us. There were a lot of things that we did not agree on. But in public, I will say for my part, I made sure that where we could be aligned, we were aligned. And they were communicating that confidence and that alignment to the public. And I think that served our residents well. But it's complicated. And particularly public health is, anybody who knows anything about the public health system, it's incredibly fractured all across the country. Local public health departments, usually at the counting level, have unbelievable amounts of power, which frankly we saw this recognition in some states, and then people racing in their state legislatures to peel back that power of local public health authorities. But it was important for us to be as aligned as we possibly could. And not speaking with different voices and saying different things and confusing residents and business owners. It was really important that we collaborate as much as possible. So the migrant issue has been talked about. We have a few questions regarding what you would recommend to mayors in the migrant crisis right now. Well, it's something obviously that I spent a huge amount of time on. We got the first buses in Chicago, August 31st of 22, which was a total surprise because there was no collaboration. It was just, we got wind that some buses were coming. We didn't know who, we weren't even clear from where. And we had to spring into action quickly. We're a sanctuary city in Chicago. It's happened since the early 80s, started under Mayor Harold Washington. And I just believe that if you look at the waves of immigrants who have come to our city over the centuries, that we shouldn't treat this next wave of migrants who are here in the country legally any differently than we were treated people who came in the 1800s or early 1900s. I think the challenge that cities are facing right now are multiple. But there's a solution that I think could relieve some of the pressure. I just think that if you let people into the country legally, as the migrants that are coming to cities are, that you have a responsibility to also give them the power to work. Not allowing migrants the ability to work or having this lengthy, in some instances, years-long process is adding to the tension that we see playing out in cities all across the country. And frankly, it's costing cities and states untold amounts of money. When I left office last May, we were at a burn rate of over $20 million a month. That's a lot of money. Even more migrants have come to Chicago since then. I can only imagine that the burn rate is probably closer to 30, 35 million a month. That is not sustainable. And a big part of that is you stand up these shelter systems. And the concept of shelters is you bring people in, you help them get stable, you move them on and help them move to other kinds of more permanent housing, but there's an outflow. If migrants aren't able to work, where are they going? They can't pay for food. They can't pay for shelter. There won't be outflow. And so what we've seen in cities like Chicago and New York, in DC, Denver, Phoenix, other places is the migrants effectively become wards of the city. That is not a sustainable process. So I think mayors have to keep lobbying the federal government to step up and accelerate the process for getting people work permits. I think the federal government has an absolute responsibility for sending more dollars to cities and states to help with this crisis. And then in the long term, there's gotta be a more concentrated effort to look at the root causes of why is it that people are fleeing their homeland, their home country to come to a different place that they don't know and in many instances don't have any familial or other connection to. And what can be done to stabilize those countries? So it's gotta be a multi-tiered strategy, some of which local mayors can impact, but we all have bully pulpits. We all have federal delegations. And I think we've gotta continue the work that frankly was started by mayors in 22 when this ridiculous process started. But I also think frankly, the federal government has gotta sue Greg Abbott and for preempting the federal government's unique province to regulate immigration in our country. There can't be any more timidity. There's gotta be a concerted effort, not to just react, but to stop him in his tracks and what he's doing. I've saw too many people come to my city who were sick and had to be immediately rushed to the hospital. Women that literally got off the bus, walked into a shelter and gave birth. People who were forced to travel with their abusers and human trafficking situations. People are not freight. People are not fungible. What's happened in this process is humanity of the individuals has been lost. That's not who we are as a country. And we can't tolerate that. No matter the color of the skin of the country of origin, it's not right. And if we are really a democracy, if we are that shining light across the world, then this is our moment to prove that. By making sure that we are treating these people who come to our shores, that we are letting in our country, we treat them with dignity and humanity. And we have not done that, not nearly in the way that we should. So you spent some time in the city of Detroit and a couple people have asked about parallels between Chicago and Detroit. So are there lessons from Chicago's history for Detroit or vice versa? So it's a question, what's the parallels between Chicago and Detroit? There are lessons from one city for the other. There's a lot of, frankly, I think there's a lot of lessons from Detroit that we learned in Chicago. Many of the challenges that Detroit is facing in its neighborhoods are almost the same challenges that we face in Chicago and many of our neighborhoods. And so a lot of the innovation that we're seeing happening in Detroit, we are doing in Chicago and I think vice versa. It's not a secret that the planning commissioner in Detroit came to Chicago. And a lot of the ideas that he incubated in Detroit, he brought with him and we use those in our efforts to revitalize neighborhoods in Chicago. We're different than Detroit. We're bigger obviously. We're I think more diverse than Detroit. We've got a more robust economy because it's a much more diverse economy. We have more colleges and universities, which means innovation, technology, arts and culture that is different. But there's a lot of similarities. There's a reason why I talk to Mike Duggan on a regular basis, not just because he was my old RD here at Michigan, but I think there's a lot that we can learn from each other. Can you talk about lessons learned from the Expedited Housing Initiative and other programs implemented during COVID? Say that again, I'm sorry. Can you talk about lessons learned from the Expedited Housing Initiative and other programs implemented during COVID? You know, people have said to me over and over again, it's too bad that you were mayor during COVID because you weren't able to accomplish the things that you really wanted to accomplish. In many ways that couldn't be further from the truth. COVID gave us I think the ability to start the process of writing many historic wrongs. Whether it was around housing, whether it was on public health, whether it was about economic investments, mental health, substance addiction, you name it, all of those needs were flashing like neon signs during COVID. And in my view, we ignored them at our peril. So Dean, you asked earlier, people started getting angry. We didn't experience that early on in Chicago. We actually had a lot of, I think public support for the things that we were doing. And the practical reality was we couldn't go and solve and mitigate against COVID if we didn't solve and mitigate for the challenges that people were telling me that they were facing. So I mentioned earlier that early on in April of 2020, we saw this horrible statistic. A black folks dying is seven times the rate of any other demographic in our city. Or the area that was kind of ground zero for that is a neighborhood called Auburn Gresham. So we assembled this team, the racial equity folks. We went into Auburn Gresham and we said, we're here to help. We wanna help you with the challenges that you're facing in COVID. All right, well, that's good. But what we really need is we need food. We're a food desert. We need to make sure that our people have healthy, sustainable access to food. And so sure enough, the team came back, looked at the calls for 311 and the other data and one of the leading calls for service was for food. So by listening to this community, not going in with preconceived notions, but addressing their immediate need, it bought us a lot of legitimacy and space to do these other things that were important. And housing, I don't know any city, large, small, medium, where affordability and housing isn't an issue, huge issue in Chicago. It's why we made a billion dollar commitment and affordable housing. And if those projects come online in the way that they should, it will be the first time in recent memory, maybe ever, that Chicago has taken a step towards segregating our city. I'd like to go to a lightning round unless there is one more question. I have one lightning, light-hearted question, which is, what's your favorite place to eat in Chicago? That's a good question. It depends on the mood. I'm very much, what do I feel and think? You know, look, I'm a carnivore on a bashed. So we have a number of great steak restaurants in Chicago, which I've frequented probably most of them. I love a variety of ethnic food from Indian to Middle Eastern, Italian, Asian of various sorts. So Chicago, if you like to eat, there is something for everyone. The food is phenomenal. We're just ending what restaurant wreaks. So my wife and I have tried to go to as many places that we hadn't been to, but there's a reason why we are getting praise for the innovative food and restaurant tours that are opening up in Chicago. But something for everybody. So I wanna close by asking you, as I mentioned, a kind of lightning-ground of question. So kind of the first thing that comes to your mind as I ask you these things. The thing I gained from being mayor of Chicago, the mayor, the experience, what did you gain? A lot of humility and an experience of a lifetime. What did you give up? Privacy. What was the thing you were most likely to think about at 3 a.m.? I didn't wake up at 3 a.m. unless somebody called me. What were they most likely calling about? Shooting. Shootings happen often in the middle of the night in far-fonged places. Those were the calls that I got in the middle of the night. A do-over if I had the opportunity. People ask me some version of that question all the time, and usually it's phrased as, do you have any regrets? I'm not a person who lived my life with regrets, but I do feel like I try to learn from every experience. I try to make the best decisions that I can in the moment, and I hope I created a culture within my team in the mayor's office, where people felt comfortable saying, don't do that, or go this way, not that way. But with the benefit of hindsight, you always think, I probably should have done that a little bit differently. I should have said that a little bit differently. But like I said, I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on regrets. I just try to learn from my experiences. When the history books are written about my administration, I want them to write? Well, that's another tough question. My ego doesn't run in that way. I did the work because I wanted to help people, and I feel like my legacy history will be written by the people whose lives were directly affected, the kids that we helped, the elders that we helped, the lives that were saved throughout, and frankly, through the investments that we made, and really fundamentally talking about the relationship between the city, the mayor, and the people, in a fundamentally different way. The repair for the extreme polarization that you previously talked about is? I think that we have to figure out ways to build bridges to each other for people to come to us, and for us to travel to them. And that easier said than done, I certainly recognize. But I don't think we reward people who are the most extreme, the most outrageous, and who are demonizing each other on a regular basis. We've got to teach our kids about democracy, and we've got to get people to participate in ways that move things forward, that are productive, thinking about, and really embracing the fact that people come to discussions in good faith. But what we see played out, what gets those viral moments at the local school board meeting, or the library board with the book bands and all that nonsense. If that is who we have become, our democracy is doomed. I don't believe our democracy is doomed. I have optimism. I have concerns, but I have optimism. I just think too many good people are on the sidelines and not willing to engage or afraid to engage for fear of being that target. And so for those of us who have a voice that have a platform that believe as I do that we have to compromise, we have to collaborate, I think we have an even greater obligation in this moment to do so, and stand up and not be afraid of being taped, not be afraid of somebody saying something untoward. That goes with the territory. We got to be brave and bold in this moment. My last question, what's next for Lori Lightfoot? A couple things. What these many months off have helped me recognize is the importance of continuing to engage in community. I started a not-for-profit that launched a couple weeks ago where we are helping community-based organizations build capacity, strengthen their infrastructure because I believe that one of the ways that you create healthy, vibrant, strong neighborhoods is through community-based organizations. So I'm looking forward to that. That's one of the things I'm doing that I'm probably most excited about. We've gotten some great initial funding, but as I tell my team all the time, now's the time we got to kick it in a gear and perform. I will probably write a book of some sort about my time as mayor. I've been spending a lot of time on high school benches, cheering my daughter on as she plays JV basketball and working the refs, so I'll continue to do that and be more present. But also just I'm embracing being a private citizen again and getting my life back. Mayor Lori Lightfoot, it has been a pleasure, a joy, and an honor to talk to you today. Thank you so much, thank you so much. Thank you so much to our students, Madison and Katrina, and on behalf of the Ford School of Public Policy, thank you for joining us. Thank you all.


His Excellency Yasya Akati, Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Chairman of the Board of the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and GSR 2016 Chairman. Engineer Mustafa Abdullahi, Acting Executive President of the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, Egypt. Your Excellency, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. It's really a great pleasure to be here with you this morning at this GSR 2016 opening. In this beautiful city of Shamashink, also a peaceful city, as Mr. Wahway just mentioned. I'm really pleased to see you all here. I know that when we announce that we will have this meeting in Shamashink, there are a lot of discussions and some concerns. But I think that in the end, you are all here from all the parts of the world to join this GSR 2016. It's a real proof that you support GSR and you support GSR to be heard this year in Shamashink. So we really value your presence here. Of course, I also like to take this opportunity to thank our host, the government of Egypt and the National Telecommunications Authority of Egypt, NTIA, for hosting this edition of GSR. Heard under the auspice of his Excellency, Abdullahi Fata, SEC, President of the Republic of Egypt. I found they have done one of the job to prepare this GSR 2016. It's a very high hospitality, very effective preparations. This morning I landed at 8 o'clock at Shamashink. I found this very nice box of chocolate with the promotion of GSR 2016. So I see the panels at the airport and everywhere we see warm messages to welcome us to Shamashink. So I like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to our host. GSR has become the world's largest platform for the ICT regulatory community where every year, since year 2000, we have come together to discuss policy and regulatory challenges. Of course, also opportunities and best practices. As you know, there are many ways in which ICTs can make the world a better place. In today's world, creating the conditions for a data-driven economy to flourish is a must. So creating the regulatory environment right is absolutely vital. GSR 2016 is of particular importance as it is the first symposium since the United Nations General Assembly adopted sustainable development goals last year. Otherwise, we referred to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. ICTs are the foundation upon which economic and social development can grow. ICTs have incredible potential to improve development outcomes in both the developing and developing countries. All three pillars of sustainable development, economic development, social inclusion, and environmental protection need ICT as a key catalyst. ICTs will be absolutely crucial for achieving the goals of the SDG. This GSR will allow regulators, policymakers, industrial leaders and other key ICT stakeholders to share their views, engage in interactive discussions and identify best practices moving ahead. Not only in the ICT telecommunications sector, but also in terms of whole ICT telecommunications into acts with other regulations. There is no doubt that GSR 2016 is the place where we can hold an inclusive dialogue developing innovative solutions and foster an enabling environment to help achieve the sustainable development goals. The successful global dialogue and digital finance inclusion here yesterday confirms today's need for collaboration across the sectors. I think that here we are not only talking about use ICT to offer financial operations, but also we'd like to take this opportunity to engage the financial sector to work with ICT for the next step of infrastructure development. I noted this development recently. For example, in Washington, D.C., 14th of April, State Department of the United States organized a high-level dialogue inviting Minister of Finance from Canada, Denmark, some other developed countries to join discussions with the Minister of Communications. And at that meeting we also had the governors of developing black banks from different regions. So this is very good. I just came from Kigali. I attended the World Economic Forum Africa in Kigali. And tomorrow at that World Economic Forum Africa, they will organize first time the panel between Minister of Finance and Minister of Communication. So I think that this is a new element of our engagement with the financial sector. And we need this kind of development. ITU is expanding its horizons to support the timely attainment of SDGs. And this is why the topic of subject of digital financial inclusion has been included in the agenda of this year's symposium. I would also like to congratulate the telecommunications development bureau under the leadership of the director of the bureau, Mr. Praki Masano. This event continues to grow in influence worldwide and has become the unmissable annual gathering of the global policy and regulatory community. Ladies and gentlemen, before I conclude, let me invite you to three important gatherings of ITU activities organized this year. The World Telecommunications Sanitation Assembly will meet in Yasmin Hamamet, Tunisia, from 25th October to 3rd of November to define the next period of study for ITU telecommunications standardization sector, ITUT. WTSA will be preceded by the Global Standards Symposium on 24th October 2016. I think they take good practice of GSR. And we have GSR always preceded by good dialogue between policy makers and industry. And they will organize these things this year again. They already did that in the past. And the second event is ITU Telecom World 2016, which will take place in Bangkok, Thailand from 14th to 17th November. Telecom World is one global platform to accelerate ICT innovations for social and economic development, where policy makers and regulators meet industry experts, investors, and SMEs, entrepreneurs and innovators. I was very pleased at this right place last year in March, where the Egyptian government invited World Economic Forum here. President Sisi came to announce a lot of initiatives. And included in his initiatives, he also paid high attention to support SMEs. So I would just like to share with you that at Telecom 2016 in Bangkok, we will focus on supporting ICT SMEs. So I would like to invite you to join us. The last but not least, the World Telecommunication ICT Indicator Symposium is a very famous initiative from ITUD. It will be held this year in Botswana from 21st to 23rd November. WTIS has evolved to become the main global forum for telecommunications and information society measurement. The event provides a unique platform for ICT data users and producers to meet and share knowledge and best practice, identify business opportunities and enhance cooperation. So ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to just conclude my remarks by wishing you a very successful meeting. And once more again, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your presence here at this GSR 2016. And my sincere thanks to the host for your wonderful organization of this event. So I wish you a very successful event this week. Thank you very much.


Terrorists are running a parallel government in Kaduna, El Rufi cries out and Wike denies suing Atiku and hits PDP governors. This is Plus Politics and I am Mary Anacol. The Kaduna State Governor Malam Nasser El Rufi alarmed on activities of terrorists now running a parallel government in the state and that has been described as belated and an unfortunate admission. This is as the people of the southern Kaduna area revealed that the area has now become ungovernable in the state and it's about the size of Abya state. Now the development has now elicited fears among Nigerian leaders, Norsan leaders, elders and other stakeholders who warned President Bahari of the threat to the sovereignty of the nation by bandits if any immediate end is not brought to the security challenges in Kaduna. Well joining us to break this down is Reverend Joseph Hayab. He's the Kahn Chairman in Kaduna State and we're also being joined by Roy, Ambassador Roy Ahideve. He's a security expert and consultant. Thank you so much gentlemen for joining us. Thank you for having us. Great. I'm going to start with you Reverend Hayab because you and I have been on this program over and over and over talking about the issues of insecurity that the people in Kaduna State have faced. Now from the reports that we've gotten we know that these guys had established authority according to reports since 2019. Let's fast forward that to 2022 and now they're governing spaces that's as big as Abya State. I'll ask the simplest of questions. Why did we wait for this expansion process to take action? Why are we now all of a sudden crying foul? We waited because those who raised the alarm some years ago were attacked to the enemies of government. I speaking to you have said this over a year ago that we have two governments in Kaduna State. The government of National Air Force, under the government of the Bandit or the terrorist. In fact the point is that I did say that the Kaduna people are afraid of the terrorist government than they are afraid of the government of Air Force because the terrorist government comes with force, they force you into doing what you don't want to do. They can heal, they can mend, they can cause damage. Unfortunately the government of Air Force was more of a propaganda saying what was not true. At that time the accusation was we were just not capable of in love with government. So we're against government. We don't want government. But we are hoping now that the man himself is admitting he is saying that yes, what these people said far back when I was denying is true. But how honest is this admission? And how honest is the hope? It's something that we wait to see. But this has been for a long time. We saw it, we cry out about it, we complain about it, we speak out about it, we shout on the top of our voice about it. Sadly his ears and those with him were closed. They didn't listen to us. We didn't know what we had said. With high security people in Paduna and outside of Paduna. And I always tell them the truth of what we know because what we know is what we could tell security. Security is not just the business of those who are recruited as police or SSS or school army. It is everybody's business. So our job as stakeholders is to know what is happening and to raise concern. We are not saying it because we hate government, neither are we saying it because we are against an individual who are simply saying that our home is in danger. And we need to have, we need to do something about it. Sadly we allow them to have grown big, to have grown out in the day. To unite themselves and now we are crying. I don't know how it's going to be. But it's good that we have come to reality. Let's see how we go way forward.  Now I also have spoken to you on issues of insecurity in Kaduna state. I remember the last time we spoke you talked about the lack of will power and collaboration between security agencies and the government of Kaduna state. Now that Governor El Rufai is crying out loud and saying that the state is being overrun by this terrorist. Has the strategy changed? Has his body language changed? Does it seem more likely that he is open to finally fighting these men off? Or is this more like a drowning man screaming for help? Ambassador Roy, can you hear me? I don't think you can hear me. So I will throw that question back to you, Reverend Hayab. We have said this before that our governor is a man who always wants to show he knows of. So when he sits with security experts to discuss before they say one sentence he has said two paragraphs. So sometimes some of them they don't want to have issues with him. They allow it to flow and nothing happens. So this is where we are.  Even if you know you must allow the other view to come to the table. Because until you have the different views you will not even understand and strategize no other way. Our governor seems to prefer only his voice must be heard, only his voice should be known, only his views should be taken. Luckily, the bandits know his voice, they know his view, and they understand his view cannot make any difference. So this is the situation in Kaguna City. That's why if you look at the history of Kaguna State in the past four years so many security teams have actually been removed. Those who really feel that they want to say no to some of his view, you will just find a group of many children that they are out. That's why I don't subscribe when he says that you are not in charge of security. But you run to Abu Dhabi every day to talk or to get the other person who disagrees with you to be removed. So if you are not in charge, then listen to the people who are advising. Because when you meet with security canceling, listen to them. There was a time he called the religious leaders all together to a meeting.  And he just walked on him. He just walked the man in that public country and made no sense of the man. So you see, if any other person have another information he wants to give he's not going to speak because he knows that his reaction from the governor will not be favorable. It is always people who don't know only who the party knows. And that's why we are in the tribe. Okay. Kaguna Khan has been quoted to say that the government has been defending terrorists. That's a very weighty statement when in the midst of a situation as severe as bandits or terrorists overrunning your state saying that the government has been defending them. What exactly did you mean by that? I mean, it does have consequences. Well, there are many reasons why we said that. Number one, when we started crying for because our people are being killed, at that time they were not called terrorists or non-godmen or hired killers. The governor came out in a public television and said that look, he actually followed them even to some of the neighboring countries and gave them money. I remember he was speaking to the interview that they were saying that look, giving them money was the best option. If people have another option they should give, let them tell him when he believes that giving them money will stop the killing. Sadly, giving them money and them to get more with them. Today, they are out running the country or the state. Not only with that. As many times as the people have come out to cry out, I remember when the killings were going on in Brindambari and the stakeholders in Brindambari cry out, he called them enemies of the state, he called them the people who have been paid and sponsored by PDP because any time you tell the governor that things are not going well in your community you are now on a PDP percent. I know personally as a vampire he has served on the many national issues to say that I have been sponsored by PDP. I can't even imagine how I will be sponsored when my people are being killed. I am talking about the lives of citizens of the governor state, the lives of the people I represent. He is attacking me with a political party just because he wants to rubbish any sensible complaint. If he is not speaking for the bandit, why is he attacking people who are raising consign about issues? We need to believe that security is the job of everybody. We see things and we need to say it to security agencies. There was a time when one of the commissioners was asked by him, when he asked the commissioner to invite me over I don't know the right translation he gathered all the other security team and he was shouting on us as he was speaking to his babies. I listened to him and after saying everything I gave him details of everything that I know. I remember that his public relations said, my commissioner it is important we listen to these people because they are nearer than we do and they know about the connected more than crime we know. There are crimes they know about that we don't know. If we fail to listen to them then we will be making mistakes. How can you as a governor do like that and then I don't call you speaking for the bandit. Remember just a night to relation in 2019 when they were still in Encaju the governor who was supposed to protect his citizens, who was supposed to speak to him, came out and was even killing a particular group, a particular tribe, a particular religion of killing others and even gave a number that the commissioner of police later refuted and said he is not aware of the number. If he is not speaking for the bandit or the terrorist, why will he be saying that? So he was he has been covered enough by dividing and ruling by correcting unnecessary tension among us. Unfortunately for him, we have to find a way of relation with the two at least for them to know that the killing is about humanity is not about tribe. The killing is about people is not about religion. So we must work together to stop it and that's why we feel he has been defending the bandit. He's supposed to come out and tell the bandit that if anybody in my state is killed, I will come after you. But when you start blaming other people, either a tribe or a religion or any form of identity then you are actually protecting the bandit identity. Wait a minute. We thought these people would be coming after us for us to learn, but he is really fighting those who are telling him that we exist. So what is his job? A new PR? I'm curious as to why your insistent that he is babying these bandits. I mean, we also the BBC documentary which raised an opera that is saying that at the core of these killings is an ethnic war of sorts and this can be dated back to as old as old can be. But in the interim what is can doing as collaborative efforts with security agencies civil society? Because again you may mention of something that I wanted to query earlier on that the governor is a no-it-all governor in your words and if that no-it-all according to you does not necessarily work or is not working what are you the other concerned people in Kaduna State doing to put an end to this? Yes, there are a lot of people in Kaduna State are worried about the affidavits efforts are being made from different sources to see that this insecurity is addressed but you see there is a limit to what the NGOs will do. More time we at the NGO or those of us who get involved with NGOs are talking to the community we are talking to the victims we don't have what it takes to go after the terrorists so you see what we thought would have happened is that when we are calling the community to unite when we are calling the community not to give space for the party for terrorists to oppress then the government will go after the terrorists and the terrorists will be adorned unfortunately when you are speaking to the government and drawing the attention to the things happening around the government is not going after the terrorists is busy trying to interpret what you mean and who you belong or what you belong it's simple truth is our governor is good at just in every reasonable conversation to make it look as it does not exist he was the same person who felt that these people supposed to be protected sadly when they started coming after him coming after the military and government institution then he said that they should be bombed and some of us ask this question when we call on you when they started they had not grown big they were not they have not established the way they are now if the government of the security agencies have gone after them that time they wouldn't have had the strength to be terrorizing the state the way they are doing but sadly that time he was engaging all of us in war of wars and the terrorists were like they keep talking now that they have threatened that they are going to kidnap him I said that I believe that that is the wake of call I was making all these news stories they are hearing because now it is no longer about the common man it is no longer about those people it is about him that shouldn't be, leadership is about the people let's talk about the inflammatory statement in very sensitive ones that have been making headlines of course the governor I think this morning put out a tweet in response to a one million man march in Kaduna state and he cuffed at the people saying that I think he was saying can they even open their shops on Monday and he can bet that they would not be up to a thousand on that march again like you I said earlier on, Khan had been quoted to say that the government was defending terrorists let's look at peace strategies peaceful strategies now if these sensitive statements continue to make headlines and these kinds of words are being used are we not fueling the crisis as opposed to dousing the tension I'm happy that you notice that but because he is speaking about a political party and a political candidate I think as Khan, I don't need to talk about that if the party feels that what he said he did make reference loosely I'm sorry Revan Hayab, I'm so sorry he did make reference loosely I'm sorry, can you hear me Revan Hayab he made reference I'd like to correct something he did make reference loosely to a particular tribe and I do not want to use the same word that he used but he did speak about a particular tribe and those people are mostly known as traders in Kaduna state attaching them to the party this is why I was asking that question can you hear me Revan? I understand what you mean and I'm just simply saying that because it's enough for Christians I speak for Christian threat if he speaks about Christians I would give him the appropriate response that's why I've listened to him the red words he said I hope they will react and respond accordingly but this is also to confirm to you our governor lacks courtesy when it comes to speech our governor speaks and do not care whether he speaks with fear of religion he does say what he wants to say if you say similar words like him then he will call the police when security to come after you about a month ago I don't say that because now it's no longer safe when full priest where I came up and one of them was still I started getting some evictions from security as if I've said anything that is new Kaduna is not saying people are hiding in every day people cannot travel freely so these addictions we are calling on government to do what is right because one of the constitutional the most important constitutional responsibility of government is to secure lives and propagates once you do that you don't need to do anything with me I will live my life I will so good survive but once there is insecurity how can I go to my farm how can my children go to school to address responsibility when there is security bridge Finally Reverend before I let you go Can we say that the federal government has failed the Nigerian people especially the Kaduna State people and even other state around your region in terms of fighting corruption I'm asking this question because the Bahá'í administration came into power and the heels on the wings of fighting corruption fighting Boko Haraman putting an end to unemployment but let's stay with Boko Haram situation and of course terrorism. Can we say that in the almost eight years of President Buhari that any justice has been done in terms of fighting terrorism? The fact about it is that if there is any grip that is lower than F9, I would give it to them because they have done poorly in that regard. Every day what this government specializes in doing is rhetoric without concrete action. Earlier today we sent to the National Security Advisor a usual story. You are telling us that we have we need to work together. We have offered to have, we have offered to collaborate, we have offered to see that this country is secure but you will not accept any other help from anywhere. But you go to the television and tell people that security is everybody's business. Well in reality you are not willing to help everybody. Look I do say this that instead of calling some young men who don't even know what it means to secure themselves and call them civilian JTF, we have a lot of military, retired military men in Nigeria. And this government honestly ingates them and adds them we can, can you help us? He put them on some kind of insurance, paid them good allowance and adds them to go. They know what it takes to go to the bush. Some of them fought in the war. They have experience of guerrilla warfare. They have so many experience that it can bring to bear to secure this country. When nobody is engaging them you hear millions of men are being spent every day for security and people are still dying. So this government knows that she has done poorly, terribly poor when it comes to securing Nigerians. And Nigerians are really, really, really living in India in this past, especially in the last four years. Well Reverend Joseph Hayab is the Khan Chairman for Kaduna State. We want to thank you so much for speaking with us. Apologies we lost Roy Ahidyeve while we were having that conversation. Thank you once again Reverend. Thank you. All right. Well, it's good to have you stay with us. We'll take a quick break when we return. We'll be discussing the Atiku weekend reconciliation moves. And of course recently Governor Wike has denied suing Atiku and the PDP. We'll be right back after this break.