The Independent View: NY Mayor and City Council at Odds Over City Charter Reforms

New York City Mayor de Blasio and the City Council are forming Separate Charter Revision Commissions, with Taxpayers left holding the Multimillion-Dollar tab.

The Council held a Public Hearing Friday to move ahead with its Plan. But the Mayor beat them to the punch a day earlier by naming the Chair of his Panel, Cesar Perales, a Veteran of City and State Government.

“I don’t think it’s an accident,” said Public Advocate Letitia James, who is Co-Sponsoring the Bill permitting the City Council’s Panel. “My concern is the cost of two commissions, and I am hoping the mayor would join us in an effort to look at how democracy works.” She said.

By Law, both the Mayor and city Council have the right to form Commissions to recommend Changes to how the City should be Governed.

Voters then get to Vote on those Recommendations.

But the Mayor goes First, so his Commission’s Ideas will be on the 2018 Ballot this November. The Council must wait until 2019.

Taxpayers will be footing the Bill. In 2008, a Commission formed by former Mayor Mike Bloomberg cost $3.4 Million.

De Blasio’s Commission is expected to focus on Campaign Finance Reforms, while the City Council is looking to examine “a wide swath of issues — including a more transparent budgeting process, more robust community engagement in land use, and a more independent Law Department,” according to City Council Speaker Corey Johnson.

Ethan Geringer-Sameth, Public Policy Director of Citizens Union, said Two Commissions create the Impression City Officials are working toward Opposite Goals. “Ideally, they should be working together,” he said.

Here are just some of their ideas that could use a Charter Commission’s attention:

Land Use and Zoning - The 1989 Charter gave us the current version of our Land Use and Zoning Process, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. For the most part, it’s worked well, providing a defined Timeline and meaningful Transparency. But too often, input from Community Members comes late in the game, alternative Plans are ruled out early on, and Changes are negotiated and unveiled at the last minute. We can revise the Process to require that far-reaching Projects include more Community input before Applications are Finalized and the starting gun is fired.

Budgeting - The Framers of the 1989 Charter intended the City’s Budget to be a clearer, more useful document, one where Priorities are spelled out, Funding is broken out in Detailed Categories by Program, and Council Members have more Input in setting Objectives. That vision wasn’t realized. Instead, most Council Members’ involvement in Budgeting is limited to how their own Discretionary Funds are spent. We should Adjust the City Charter to give the Council its intended Role in Planning City Budgets.

Streamlining Bureaucracies - In the 30 years since the last major Charter Revision, New Laws, Agencies, Reforms, and Bureaucracies to deal with Problems have piled up. Consider Police Oversight: Over time, we’ve accumulated a Mayoral Oversight Board, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and a Department of Investigation unit dedicated to the Police. Three different Agencies, with Three overlapping Missions and Sets of Powers. Should we rethink that?

The City also has at least Three different Agencies for Records, Information Technology, and Communications, as well as Property and Fleet Management. Could they be more Efficient and Effective if we Reorganized? It’s worth a look.

The City Council proposes 15 Appointees, Four appointed by the Mayor, Four by the City Council, one each for the Controller and Public Advocate, and one per Borough President (5). It’s important that No Single Official appoints a Majority. Some previous Charter Reviews haven’t been Independent, instead Dominated by Appointees answering directly to Mayors. If the Commissioners act as mere Proxies, the Process will be weaker for it.

One issue I would like to see is the NYC Run-Off Process changed. The Mayor, Public Advocate, and Comptroller Candidates run in the Primaries using a 40%+ to win or two weeks later the Top-Two have a Run-off. But a smaller number of Voters turn out for the Run-Off, at a large Cost. A would like to see these Elections run with Ranked-Choice Voting.