The Independent View: NYC Mayor and the Charter Revision Commission

The New York City Charter Revision Commission is charged with reviewing the entire Charter of the City of New York, holding hearings in all five boroughs to solicit public input, and issuing a report outlining findings and recommendations to amend or revise the Charter. This then can result in ballot proposals.

During two of Mayor Bloomberg's term, I covered and took part in issues the New York City Independence Party supported.

The commission in 2003 resulted in the following ballot question:

Question 3: City Elections
This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish a new system of city elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and Council member. The September primary election would be open to all voters and all candidates, regardless of party membership or independent status. The top two vote getters would compete in the November general election. In both elections, candidates could indicate their party membership or independent status on the ballot. Candidates participating in the voluntary campaign finance program, which provides public campaign funding, could not accept contributions from political parties or party committees. The new system would replace the current system of political party nominations through primary elections in which only party members may vote. The changes would take effect after the 2005 Citywide election.

The question lost by a 2 to 1 margin.

The last commission in 2010 resulted in the following ballot questions:

City Question 1. Term Limits: The proposal would amend the City Charter to:
• Reduce from three to two the maximum number of consecutive full terms that can be served by elected city officials.
• Make this change in term limits applicable only to those city officials who were first elected at or after the 2010 general election.
• Prohibit the City Council from altering the term limits of elected city officials then serving in office.

City Question 2. Elections and Government Administration: The proposal would amend the City Charter to:
• Disclosure of Independent Campaign Spending: Require public disclosure of expenditures made by entities and individuals independent from candidates to influence the outcome of a city election or referendum.
• Ballot Access: Generally reduce the number of petition signatures needed by candidates for city elective office to appear on a ballot.
• Voter Assistance and Campaign Finance Board: Merge voter assistance functions, including a reconstituted Voter Assistance Advisory Committee, into the Campaign Finance Board, and change when Campaign Finance Board member terms begin.
• Conflicts of Interest Law: Require all public servants to receive conflicts of interest training, raise the maximum fine for a public servant who violates the City’s conflicts of interest law, and allow the City to recover any benefits obtained from such violations.
• City Administrative Tribunals: Authorize the Mayor to direct the merger of administrative tribunals and adjudications into the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings and permit the Department of Consumer Affairs to adjudicate all violations issued by that department.
• City Reporting Requirements and Advisory Bodies: Create a commission to review requirements for reports and advisory bodies and waive the requirements, subject to City Council review, where the commission finds they are not of continuing value.
• Map for Facility Siting: Include in the City’s facilities siting map those transportation and waste management facilities operated by or for governmental entities, or by private entities that provide comparable services.

This time we were not able to convince the commission to put the Open Primary question on the ballot.

Frustration with the city’s limited home rule authority led a mayoral campaign forty-five years ago to urge secession. That effort in 1969, “Mailer, Breslin and the 51st State”, though dismissed as merely imaginative, had a persuasive rationale. After all, each of the state’s sixty-two cites must routinely request permission from Albany to enact many laws affecting its residents.

This governmental arrangement no longer works. New York City has approximately 50 percent of the state’s population, and it is no exaggeration to say that the city drives much of the national economy. Yet even an emboldened new mayor with a mandate for reform is hampered by the city’s second-class legal status.

If it turns out that Albany is less responsive than desired, the new Mayor de Blasio has two alternatives. On the very day he is up for reelection in November 2017, voters throughout the state will decide whether there should be a state constitutional convention to overhaul our fundamental laws. A vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention is mandated every twenty years. The new mayor should consider supporting the effort.

A revised constitution could upend the city’s subordinate relationship to Albany, ensuring greater self-governance. On the other hand, a convention could threaten hard-won rights and obligations embedded in the constitution. For that reason, in 1997 a broad coalition of good government groups, unions and business groups opposed it. With the mayor’s support, however, constitutional reform could be guided by a careful hand and take on a progressive hue.

Mayor de Blasio has a second option as well, which has more immediate benefits, and is perhaps politically more palatable. He can appoint a Charter Revision Commission. Indeed, over the last twenty-five years, without waiting for Albany, the city relied on Charter revision to reform basic voting laws: fundamental campaign finance reform, liberalized ballot access for candidates and nonpartisan elections for city council vacancies, all in contrast to more restrictive state laws.

The city’s creative use of Charter revision in the area of election reform is useful precedent for the new mayor to implement his agenda without undue reliance upon upstate interests: greater autonomy for economic growth, progressive taxation, affordable housing, and the like. Additional reforms in voting rights can be effected as well, such as early voting, same-day registration, and a robust election enforcement agency. Charter revision is a powerful tool the mayor should embrace.

If the mayor can persuade Albany to adopt his legislative program, fine. If not, he has at least two other options that may enable him to accomplish his goals.

I only met the new mayor and his wife once at a book signing, Jackie Salit's Independent Rising. It is well known he is not a proponent of open primaries.

So we could create a primary ballot for independents, or as some are called: no party preference or blanks, and include all the candidates running in the primary process for each position. The candidates with the most votes for each position would then appear on the Independent ballot line in the General Election.