Dielli | The Sun

Albanian American Newspaper Devoted to the Intellectual and Cultural Advancement of the Albanians in America | Since 1909

CDC Updates Guidance On Airborne Threat

by

The coronavirus spreads through the air, says the updated guidance posted by The Centers for Disease Control. Infections through inhalation at distances greater than six feet from an infectious source are less likely than at closer distances, but can occur. The science brief put out on the agency’s official website reflects current knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The CDC previous public health guidance said the virus spreads “mainly through close contact from person to person.” The statement summarized below asserts that although the understanding of how transmission occurs has shifted, “the ways to prevent infection with this virus have not” reaffirming that the measures that CDC recommends remain effective for these forms of transmission.

SARS-CoV-2 is Transmitted by Exposure to Infectious Respiratory Fluids

The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus. Exposure occurs in three principal ways: (1) inhalation of very fine respiratory droplets and aerosol particles, (2) deposition of respiratory droplets and particles on exposed mucous membranes in the mouth, nose, or eye by direct splashes and sprays, and (3) touching mucous membranes with hands that have been soiled either directly by virus-containing respiratory fluids or indirectly by touching surfaces with virus on them. The brief lays out how exposure to respiratory fluids (carried through largest droplets within seconds to minutes or smallest fine droplets or air sol particles that may remain suspended for minutes to hours) that cause Covid-19 occurs in three principal ways: 

  1. Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus. Risk of transmission is greatest within three to six feet of an infectious source where the concentration of these very fine droplets and particles is greatest. 
  2. Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on). Risk of transmission is likewise greatest close to an infectious source where the concentration of these exhaled droplets and particles is greatest. 
  3. Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus. 

The Risk of Infection Varies According To The Amount Of virus To Which a Person Is Exposed

Once infectious droplets and particles are exhaled, they move outward from the source. The risk for infection decreases with increasing distance from the source and increasing time after exhalation. Two principal processes determine the amount of virus to which a person is exposed in the air or by touching a surface contaminated by virus: decreasing concentration of virus in the air, progressive loss of viral viability and infectiousness over time influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and ultraviolet radiation (e.g., sunlight). 

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 From Inhalation of Virus In the Air Farther than Six Feet From An Infectious Source Can Occur

Infections through inhalation at distances greater than six feet from an infectious source are less likely than at closer distances, but can occur. These transmission events have involved the presence of an infectious person exhaling virus indoors for an extended time (more than 15 minutes and in some cases hours) leading to virus concentrations in the air space sufficient to transmit infections to people more than 6 feet away, and in some cases to people who have passed through that space soon after the infectious person left. Per published reports, factors that increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection under these circumstances include:

  • Enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation or air handling within which the concentration of exhaled respiratory fluids, especially very fine droplets and aerosol particles, can build-up in the air space. 
  • Increased exhalation of respiratory fluids if the infectious person is engaged in physical exertion or raises their voice (e.g., exercising, shouting, singing). 
  • Prolonged exposure to these conditions, typically more than 15 minutes. 

Prevention of COVID-19 Transmission

The infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 needed to transmit infection has not been established. Current evidence strongly suggests transmission from contaminated surfaces does not contribute substantially to new infections. Despite these knowledge gaps, the available evidence continues to demonstrate that existing recommendations to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission remain effective. These include physical distancing, community use of well-fitting masks (e.g., barrier face coverings, procedure/surgical masks), adequate ventilation, and avoidance of crowded indoor spaces. These methods will reduce transmission both from inhalation of virus and deposition of virus on exposed mucous membranes.

ARDIAN ZIKA – MEMBER OF FLORIDA STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, -A KOSOVAR ALBANIAN AMERICAN

by

By Rafaela Prifti/

Ardian Zika was elected to represent District 37 of Pasco in the Florida State House in 2018 when he began his first term in the legislative body. Dielli was pleased to communicate with the Florida House representative and the first Kosovar Albanian American to be in that seat. 

His first campaign video, posted online, narrates briefly his personal story to convey the idea that America is the country where “your place of beginning does not determine your place of becoming.” Representative Zika is a husband, father of five, business owner, banker, conservative, who appreciates the honor of serving in the Florida House of Representatives while being the first Kosovar-Albanian American to do so. His career and personal story exemplify the importance of hard work and dedication to family and strong beliefs. He says that “as an American, who began my journey as an immigrant from Kosovo, I am a product of American exceptionalism.” 

At the time of our phone conversation, the Florida State House was engaged in intense legislative sessions. We communicated in English and there were some interjections in Albanian, which in my opinion, he speaks fluently. That is especially noteworthy since he was born in Bar former Yugoslavia, came to United States at a very young age, received his education before moving to Florida in 2005. He ran for office and in 2018 Ardian Zika began his first term as an elected representative in the Florida State House. 

Representative Zika was gracious, convivial and forthcoming. To my surprise, he said that I was the first Albanian reporter to contact him. I explained that Dielli is the publication of Vatra, the Pan-Albanian Federation of America, an over-a-century old reputable organization dedicated to protecting the rights of Albanians. Although Vatra’s headquarters are located in New York, there are local offices around the country including Tampa Bay, Clearwater, Jacksonville, Fort Lauderdale. An informal invitation to visit Vatra was conveyed in support of his work now and in the future to safeguard the rights of Albanians. Representative Zika spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects of a trip to Kosova and Albania next year. We had previously agreed that part of our brief conversation would be conducted via email. I sent some questions about his service and official positions and receive the answers as follows:  

Dielli; You have the distinction of being an elected official at the state level and a Kosovar Albanian blazing a trail in the Albanian American community. What does public service mean to you?

Representative Zika: It’s a great honor to serve in the Florida House of Representatives as the first Kosovar-Albanian American. Public service is important in the community. I will continue to work tirelessly in the Florida House of Representatives so that no Floridian is left behind as they embark on their journey toward the American Dream. I will continue to support public policy so everyone has an opportunity to reach the American Dream through upward economic mobility. As an American, who began my American journey as an immigrant from Kosova, I’m a product of American exceptionalism. I am forever grateful to America for blessing me with the gift of a lifetime – the gift of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Dielli: You are a husband, father, a business owner, a member of the Florida House of Representatives. How do personal and public components of your life come together?  

Representative Zika: It’s a great honor to serve the community in the Florida House of Representatives. My wife and I are blessed with five beautiful children. We are active in our local church and our community.

Dielli: What are the positions you hold at the Florida House of Representatives currently? 

I presently serve as the Vice Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee and the House Alternating Chairman of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee. I’m also a member of the following House Committees & Subcommittees: Pandemics & Public Emergencies Committee, State Affairs Committee, Government Operations Subcommittee, Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee and Insurance & Banking Subcommittee. 

Dielli is proud to bring to its readers an introductory conversation with Ardian Zika, Florida State House Representative with a unique background as Kosovar-Albanian American. A quote on his first campaign video epitomizes what Representative Zika calls a tribute to the land that he loves, “America is still the light piercing the darkness. A beacon leading the world to freedom’s shores.”

OF POLITICS AND SCIENCE

by

by Rafaela Prifti/

The collision of medical science, political beliefs and public health policy – to the extent that one exists – is not a new topic. Politics and science often have been at odds. The confrontation resurfaced in a pronounced form in the pandemic era concerning various issues related to health and scientific data. The interplay between politics and science is a hotly debated issue and will likely get more heated in the US and around the world. It might lighten the mood to remember an anecdote about a member of Congress who told a scientist that was testifying at a hearing: “You got your science, I have mine!”

I write this because, in its essence, the recurring battle between politics and science may not be about either one of them but rather a mere manifestation of a deeply rooted human desire for power.  

History of science is riddled with denial and opposition that vary in nature and outcome but mostly fall in one or more categories associated with ideological, political, religious or scientific domains. Discoveries from evolution to gravity and so on have been initially objected to and objected by fellow scientists and science community before being embraced by society. The rise of policy reports issued by ideologically based think tanks and more scientific advancement coming on the horizon are bound to raise political questions with severe social implications. I asked Sulejman Rushiti, University Lecturer at State University of Tetova and former Minister of Education, Northern Republic of Macedonia, to explain how the public narrative of the issue takes shape. “In general, politics is regarded as sinister whereas science as inherently virtuous, therefore politicians are often viewed as malicious in contrast with a benign nature of scientists. Yet history offers plenty of exemptions in both categories,” he said. In his view, in the past as in the present, certain conditions meet at one point to fuel an extreme kind of polarization. “The Middle Ages is the best illustration of state and church opposition towards science. Fast forward to the present, when scientific advancement and political ambition clash in societies that have seen the rise of troubled personalities and inept individuals.” Mr. Rushiti argued that the politicization of science, particularly medical, has been particularly present in times of war. “One example is the notorious case of the Nazi doctors who performed horrible medical experiments violating ethics and human rights in the name of science and its advancement. They went a step further in justifying these atrocities based on some cultural constructs and man-made beliefs about race and social systems.” The convergence comes to surface once it is realized that the pursuit of knowledge in turn provides power. In politics, the love of power is a very strong motive. One of the best analysis of power as “the singular most powerful motive among human desires” is Bertrand Russell’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1950. A British philosopher, mathematician, social critic, and political activist, Russell is considered to be one of the founders of analytic philosophy and one of the most important logicians in the 20th century. “Economic facts, population statistics, constitutional organization, and so on, are set forth minutely. If politics is to become scientific, and if the event is not to be constantly surprising, it is imperative that our political thinking should examine the springs of human action. What is the influence of hunger upon slogans? If one man offers you democracy and another offers you a bag of grain, at what stage of starvation will you prefer the grain to the vote?” asks Russell before setting out to give a presentation that should be, in my opinion, a recommended reading in school curricula.

Bertrand Russell argues that all human activity is prompted by desire. He decries the theory advanced by moralists purporting that it is possible to resist desire in the name of duty and principle. He does not deny that man actions stem from a sense of duty yet he looks further into it. His main theses is that “If you wish to know what men will do, you must know not only, or principally, their material circumstances, but rather the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.”

To look at the comparison between scientists and politicians, Mr. Rushiti opined that “they are driven by their ambition, and capabilities, just as they are conditioned by their personal upbringing and education, yet they may rise above them.” Since he is a prolific theater director, he offered a literature reference that is both recognizable and influential. “Lets take the Faust legend as an example of the scientist driven by political ambitions who cuts a deal with Mephisto to drive away the passions of personal pleasures. Mephisto is the metaphor for a social system, patterns of behavior and collective norms that cultivate personal drive and individual success. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, is the case of a statesman with a mind of a scientist.”

Powered by a strong motive and shaped by their own capacities, strengths and shortcomings, scientists and politicians are led to actions which may be useful or pernicious. “In a manner of speaking,” Mr. Rushiti argued, “a politician and a scientist carry out experiments that have a direct impact on our lives or quality of life. So it is important to adhere to an ethical society based on accepted humane values as a premise for individuals that believe in something bigger than themselves. In the flip side, history provides plenty of examples of personalities whose mission has been to restrict freedom and object science.”

Across the world, the response of countries and leaders to the pandemic offered more evidence of the troubling relationship between politics and science. The controversies surrounding each one are likely to increase as pursuits in either field are fueled by powerful motives and actors. A reformer or a despot may be led to actions motivated by power, yet the nature of their actions depends upon the social system, their abilities and ethics.

DO YOU HAVE TIME?

by

by Rafaela Prifti/*

Most agree that we have asked ourselves or someone the question What day is today? much more often in the course of the bleakness of the yearlong pandemic. In many ways, the specifications of time mattered less whereas time, perceived as moments shared with loved ones and on earth, mattered much more. 

In its definition as a social construct, time is both complex and simple relative to human activity and purpose. As the saying goes, we cannot give ourselves more time but we can make the relationship with the clock more meaningful. Keeping and losing time might sound arbitrary because it is. One example that most of us are still adjusting to is the existence of Daylight Saving Time. In the early hours of Sunday morning, clocks “sprung forward” due to an over half a century legislation designed to give us one more hour of sunlight in the evening. If you are of a curious nature or a trivia driven person, you might know that since 2007 in the US the clock spring forward on the second Sunday of March, and they go back, the first Sunday of November. In many countries in Europe, Britain, France and Germany, the clocks change on the last Sunday in March, and the last Sunday in October. There is a law called the Uniform Time Act signed by American lawmakers in 1966, that decided that the right time of day for this shift was “2 o’clock antemeridian,” better known as 2 a.m.

The idea of passing legislation about time and the Daylight Saving Time does help create a false sense of control. Why does it exist? A popular myth blames the farmers for whom the daylight saving time not only is not helpful, it disrupts their schedule in serious ways. For the business community, gas stations, golf courses, moving an hour of sunlight from the early morning to the evening, drives the sales at the pumps or at the registers of the local convenience store. 

The Backstory

There are records from the 18th century that credit Benjamin Franklin with the idea of reducing candle consumption at night and suggested to French to fire cannons at sunrise, after he realized he was wasting Parisian mornings in bed. The Industrial Revolution ushered the railway and with it the rising need to deliver passengers and freight on time. It meant that companies had to agree on whose time it was. Setting the time to the sun and by the people who ran the clocks in towns and cities created headaches and conflicting schedules. In the 1840s, British railroads adopted standard times to reduce confusion. American counterparts soon followed. Also scientists were urging a standardized system for marking time. 

A coalition of businessmen and scientists introduced time zones. In 1883, U.S. and Canadian railroads adopted four (Eastern, Central, Mountain and Pacific) to streamline service. Records indicate that the event prompted fears of a kind of Y2K hysteria. 

The time, seen as business, partnered with the industrial world and in the 1900s when it was understood that shifting the clocks could reap economic benefits. In 1916, under the pressures of World War I, Germany enacted the policy in an effort to cut energy costs and boost production. And several Western nations followed suit shortly after. In the United States, the federal government took oversight of time zones in 1918. And in March of that year, the country lost its first hour of sleep. 

The daylight saving time started as a World War I energy- and cost-savings measure — with the added value of giving people more daylight hours to go shopping which grew into a myth about helping farmers.  Fifty years later, Arizona opted not to observe Daylight Savings, with the exception of the Navajo Nation. As the locals would say “in Arizona, we don’t engage in such silliness” because they don’t participate in the Daylight Savings Time. Nor does Hawaii. Several U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the United States Virgin Islands also do not apply daylight saving time. China, India and Russia do not use daylight saving time. 

What Is the Point? Is it Really About Energy Costs? 

The much talked about intent of the policy enacted by lawmakers is not fully supported by data. We have heard one of the oldest arguments that daylight saving time saves energy costs. Yet, there are conflicting studies on the topic. A 2008 report issued by the Department of Energy found that extended daylight saving time saved about 0.5 percent in total electricity use per day. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the shift in daylight saving time, “contrary to the policy’s intent,” increased residential electricity demand by about 1 percent, raising electricity bills and increasing pollution emissions. Among the most fervent supporters of the policy are the business advocates who argue it helps drive the economy. Nowadays, various special interests of pro-daylight-saving-time include golf course owners and candy manufacturers related to Thanksgiving. Making the case that a permanent schedule is more beneficial to our sleep habits and overall impact on health, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine called for the abolition of daylight saving time. The 2020 statement by the Academy said that by disrupting the body’s natural clock, the shift could cause an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular events, and could lead to more traffic accidents. There is a counter argument about public safety as crimes of opportunity increase after hours. 

Time Matters

“Daylight saving” time is relatively new and not even that popular. You may even be in the group that believes that the reason we probably resist switching back and forth is the simple fact that it makes us feel in control of the one thing we absolutely cannot dictate: time. Yes, the ‘extra hour’ is a mental trick that requires some practice. Now you may be facing a choice of picking either daylight saving or standard time and stick to it. 

Fifteen states have passed some sort of legislation to make daylight saving time the permanent time in their state. The European Union and several U.S. states, including California, Florida and Ohio, are either considering dropping the shift or taking steps to do so. A group of senators of both parties have introduced a bill to make daylight time permanent year-round. Passing a full year of a pandemic has revealed that it is not the clock that matters, not even the time on it when it comes to maximizing the year-round hours of light available.

*Correction:  In the early hours of Sunday morning, clocks “sprung forward” due to an over a century legislation designed to give us one more hour of sunlight in the evening.

Contenders of the City Mayoral Race and the Community

by

by Rafaela Prifti/

Changes that have occurred point towards potential shifts in the landscape with major implications for elected offices in the city government in 2021 ….

In late February Council member Mark Gjonaj announced that he will not seek re-election this year. The first-term Councilman was elected in 2018 for his seat representing the 13th Council District in the Bronx. In a two-page statement, Mr. Gjonaj cited centrist ideology and political climate as reasons for his decision not to seek re-election. “I sought public service to give back to a country, state and city that gave me and my family so much…The current political climate is not favorable to a centrist ideology that my constituency, community and I embrace,” Mr. Gjonaj wrote in a letter mailed to his constituents. Prior to his 2018 election in the New York City Council, Mark Gjonaj, served in the state Assembly. Since then, there have been reports of investigations on Gjonaj involving financial issues and campaign contributions. In his letter to constituents, the Albanian-American politician claimed that he was the victim of “ethnic smears” stating that public service should never be about identity politics which divides [sic] us.

In the meantime, the field of contenders in the mayoral race is brimming with candidates ranging from career elected officials to newcomers. Some 40 candidates have registered to run for the city’s top job to succeed Mayor Bill de Blasio. A primary winner will be decided on June 22nd. The Democrat primary winner is generally considered the favorite in the general election.

There is an avalanche of information via virtual layouts and platforms forums that allows you to  get to know each candidate vying to be the next mayor. The Albanian community is keen to be informed about the issues that matter to them going forward. To help, here is a compiled short list of the current leading candidates in no particular order that focuses on experience, name recognition, active campaigning and fundraising. 

Eric Adams

The Brooklyn Borough President is considered one of the front runners. He has offered up his blue-collar background as one of his strengths: a native New Yorker who grew up in poverty and became a victim of police brutality, he joined the NYPD and worked his way up to becoming a captain. He has held up his life story as testament to why he is uniquely qualified to tackle rising crime rates and systemic racism in the police force. Addressing government inefficiencies has been another theme of his campaign. According to campaign filings, Adams is one of the top fundraisers with $8.6 million. He has been criticized for his willingness to take money from real estate developers. Stringer also initially welcomed money from real estate developers but has since reversed course. He lives in Bed-Stuy. After being diagnosed with diabetes in 2016, Adams switched to a plant-based diet and fitness regime that led him to manage his health condition without medication.

Shaun Donovan

Served as city’s housing commissioner under Michael Bloomberg before being tapped to serve as President Obama’s Housing Secretary and budget director. A former architect, Donavan has tried to set himself apart by being among the first to issue concrete policy proposals. He has proposed building a city of “15 minute neighborhoods,” in which residents live within a short walk of all their essential needs, such as a school, grocery, subway and park. He has released an economic recovery plan that includes a promise to bring back half a million jobs by the end of his four years. Donovan has raised $1.6 million, but did not qualify for matching funds. Donovan lives in Boerum Hill. He and his wife have two sons.

Kathryn Garcia

The city’s sanitation commissioner under Mayor de Blasio, Garcia has billed herself as a “go-to crisis manager” who has impacted the lives of every New Yorker—through trash pickups and the snow plowing of streets. She rolled out a platform that emphasizes battling climate change as well as quality of life issues. Garcia does not favor defunding NYPD but she wants to reform the culture of the agency. On the racial justice issue, she has brought up her diverse family: she was adopted and two of her siblings, who were also adopted, are both Black. As part of her recovery plan, she has also proposed building universal broadband and giving free childcare for families making under $70,000 a year. She lives in Park Slope. She was married to Jerry Garcia but they have since divorced. They have two children.

Scott Stringer

The current City Comptroller has frequently used his platform to criticize Mayor de Blasio. Since entering the race in September, Stringer has racked up more than $8 million in fundraising. Although an establishment candidate, Stringer has also positioned himself as a progressive. He began his campaign flanked by three state Senators who are young progressive Democrats that he supported in their run. He has called de Blasio’s policy strategy a “disaster” and said he would hold the NYPD to a higher standard of accountability in addition to cutting its budget by $1.1 billion over four years. As comptroller, Stringer has issued a slew of reports on issues ranging from homelessness, affordable housing and the pandemic. 

Mr. Stringer holds the distinction of being a dedicated supporter of the Albanian community. In 2009, he joined organizing efforts with leaders of Sons and Daughter of Albania in America, The Bronx Borough President Diaz and community representatives to honor Mother Teresa in naming a block of Lydig Avenue between Holland Avenue and Wallace Avenue as “Mother Teresa Way”. Over the years and other events, he has celebrated Albanian history and culture while honoring the humanitarian legacy of this Nobel Peace Prize winner. 

Ray McGuire

The most prominent Black executive on Wall Street, who has served as a vice-chairman at Citibank. A favorite of the business community, he has made the economic recovery the core of his campaign. Specifically, he has said that he wants to create “the biggest job program in New York City history” with a goal of half a million new jobs. But he has also stressed his commitment to social and racial justice, often referencing his upbringing by a single mother and his encounters with racism throughout his education and career. His fundraising prowess makes him a highly competitive contender. In 2018, McGuire was said to be on a short list of candidates to head the New York Federal Reserve. He is considered one of Wall Street’s top deal makers, and has advised major corporate mergers, including the Time Warner Inc. sale to AT&T Inc. for more than $80 billion.

Andrew Yang

The former tech entrepreneur joined the race following a longer-than-expected presidential run. Having amassed nearly 2 million Twitter followers known as the “Yang Gang,” he enjoys high name recognition and has presented himself as a forward-thinking “numbers guy” who can raise New York City out of the crisis with new ideas. His major policy platform has been proposing a cash payment to half a million of the poorest New Yorkers, a scaled-down version of his so-called “universal basic income” plan that he pitched on the national level. Yang’s campaign has promised to roll out detailed plans to address criticism that he has not presented much in terms of policies. He is expected to be a front runner who had 21,000 donors from New York City during his presidential run. Yang has been open about raising a son with autism. In addition, his wife last came forward as a survivor of sexual assault. Yang’s most successful entrepreneurial venture was a test-prep company for people taking the entrance exams for business school and law school. 

Carlos Menchaca

Menchaca is a Brooklyn city Council member who most recently garnered attention for his role in doing away with the Industry City rezoning in Sunset Park. The developers promised tens of thousands of jobs, but Menchaca argued that the deal was going to displace residents and hasten gentrification. He is among the most left-leaning candidates running for mayor. One of his signature policy proposals is a guaranteed cash program for New Yorkers which he is planning to introduce into the City Council. He has also embraced investments that would usher in a municipal green new deal. He is the first Mexican-American elected to public office in New York City. Like Sutton, he would be the city’s first open gay mayor. Born and raised in El Paso, Texas, he moved to New York in 2004 after graduating college and interned for then-Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. He is an avid cyclist who routinely bikes from his home to City Hall. If elected Menchaca will be the city’s first “bike mayor”

Dianne Morales

A former nonprofit executive who has called for defunding the police and using the savings toward youth programs, parks and transportation, Morales is a proponent for permanently eliminating screenings as a first step toward desegregating the city’s school system. Ms. Morales has also proposed a guaranteed minimum income for poor New Yorkers financed through a tax on the wealthy without sacrificing other social benefits. She is seeking to become the city’s first Afro-Latina mayor. She lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant, where she was born and raised. Morales has graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia University. She frequently talks about being a single-mother to two children who are now over 18.

Loree Sutton

Former Head of New York City’s Department of Veterans’ Services under Mayor Bill de Blasio has a 35 year career in military and public service. A retired brigadier general, she earned a bronze star during the first gulf war. She is a moderate, who registered as Democrat in 2019 after having been a lifelong independent. Citing a lifelong experience in the armed forces, she has pitched herself as a non-polarizing leader who can bring together the private, philanthropic, and public sectors. She has argued that police need to build better relationships with the community, proposing to appoint a “public safety czar” to carry out the task. Sutton was the Army’s highest-ranking psychiatrist. She has made addressing the city’s mental health crisis one of her main campaign platforms. Sutton lives with her wife Laurie Leitch, a psychotherapist and consultant. 

Maya Wiley

Former legal analyst for MSNBC and a former de Blasio administration official. She has been a vocal critic of her former boss, on his decision to run for president as skirting of his duties, his management of the NYPD during the Black Lives Matter protests, and the management of the pandemic. A former civil rights attorney, Wiley has vowed to reform policing in New York City by increasing accountability. Her first two detailed policy plans have been on reducing gun violence and evictions. One of her proposals calls for using federal funding toward establishing a citywide rent and tax relief program. Born in Syracuse and raised in Washington D.C., Wiley is vying to become the first female mayor of New York City. She would also be the first Black mayor since Mayor David Dinkins, who served one term from 1990 through 1993.

The compiled list may grow or shrink as campaigns progress yet the changes that have occurred point towards potential shifts in the landscape with major implications for elected offices in the city government in 2021.