You can vote on that!
- Cecilia Golombek
- Oct 15, 2019
- 7 min read
Let's change the NYC charter!
The guiding document of NYC, our constitution if you will, is known as a Charter. This year, as with many others, we have the opportunity to vote on changes to this important document. There are 5 questions that you will find on your ballot this fall:
Election and Redistricting
Civilian Complaint Review Board
Ethics and Governance
Finance
Land Use
There are multiple proposals in each question, but we will be voting for each question as a whole.
Ballot Question #1 - Election and Redistricting
Proposal 1 - Ranked Choice Voting
One of the most exciting items for us to vote on is in this question - Ranked Choice Voting.
Ranked choice voting is a fairer way to decide elections with more than two candidates. Voters would not need to worry about casting their vote on a less-well-known candidate, or about a similar candidate acting as a spoiler against their favorite.
New York City would save money by eliminating costly, low-turnout runoff elections like the 2013 Public Advocate runoff.
Ranked choice could encourage more positive campaigns, as candidates may not want to lose second choice votes by attacking other candidates.
Proposal 2 - Timing of Special Elections
This proposal would extend the time between when a special election is announced and when it is held from 45 days to 80, allowing enough time to implement the new early voting requirements in State law and federal requirements for military voting.
As with many years in NYC, we have seen a special election or two - this year, we had the special election for Public Advocate. The election was set and candidates (17 individuals at one point!) had 45 days to file, canvass, and get their platforms out to voters all across the city!
Proposal 3 - Timing of Redistricting
This proposal changes the timeline for redrawing City Council districts based on the 2020 census, so that the new districts will be established in time for the 2023 primary elections. Recent changes to State law moved primaries to earlier in the year, necessitating this adjustment.
Like Proposal 2, this is a common-sense measure that keeps the City in compliance with State election law.
Ballot Question #2 - Civilian Complaint Review Board
The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is an independent agency. It is empowered to receive, investigate, mediate, hear, make findings, and recommend action on complaints against New York City police officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or the use of offensive language. The Board’s investigative staff, composed entirely of civilian employees, conducts investigations in an impartial fashion. The Board forwards its findings to the police commissioner.
Proposal 4 - Structure of the CCRB
Currently, the Mayor effectively appoints all 13 members of the CCRB. This proposal would add two additional seats to the board: one to be appointed by the Public Advocate and one to be jointly appointed by the Mayor and the Speaker of the Council. The latter appointee would serve as chair. The Council would be able to directly appoint members to the board without the need for mayoral approval.
This proposal would more equitably distribute power on the CCRB among elected officials, with the balance still residing with the Mayor. The Mayor, as executive, is in charge of the NYPD. The proposal might result in increased CCRB independence.
Proposal 5 - Guaranteed CCRB Budget
This proposal would require that the City provide the CCRB with enough funds to employ a staff equal to 0.65% of the number of uniformed police officers. The planned Fiscal Year 2020 NYPD uniform headcount is 36,113, 0.65% of which is 234. The current Fiscal Year 2020 headcount for the CCRB is 219.
The CCRB is intended to be an independent body, so it should have protections against defunding as political retaliation by the Mayor or City Council. A guaranteed budget can also improve the planning and efficiencies of the CCRB.
Proposal 6 - Deviations from Disciplinary Recommendations
Currently, the CCRB only has the authority to recommend discipline against officers it finds to have violated rules and policies; it is the police commissioner who must impose the recommended discipline. This proposal would require the commissioner to explain in writing to the CCRB why they chose to deviate from the CCRB’s recommendation if they do so.
If a police commissioner chooses to ignore an independent body’s disciplinary recommendation, the public should be made aware, and the commissioner should be compelled to provide an explanation.
Proposal 7 - False Official Statements in CCRB Matters
Currently, the CCRB is not empowered to commence an investigation or recommend discipline against an officer who lies to the board in the course of its investigating police misconduct. This proposal would give the CCRB the power to do so.
Adding the ability for the CCRB to begin investigations or recommend discipline is of upmost importance for an independent agency focused on complaints against the NYPD.
Proposal 8 - Delegation of Subpoena Power
Currently, only the CCRB board has the power of subpoena. This proposal would enable the CCRB to, by majority vote, extend subpoena power to the CCRB’s executive director. The CCRB board could also vote to withdraw that power. This proposal would allow for more efficient and nimble investigations into police misconduct.
Ballot Question #3 - Ethics and Governance
Proposal 9 - Post-Employment Appearance Ban for Elected Officials and Senior Appointed Officials Extend the prohibition on City officials appearing, including in an employment or lobbying capacity, before the branch of government in which they served from one year to two.
Former City officials have leveraged personal relationships from their time working in government when subsequently moving into the private sector. This proposal would extend the time former City employees are prohibited from doing so.
Proposal 10 - Conflict of Interest Board Structure
Currently the Conflict of Interest Board (COIB) has five members, all of which are appointed by the mayor. This proposal would allow the Comptroller and the Public Advocate to appoint one member each, leaving the mayor with three appointees. It would also require major decisions be approved by at least three members of the COIB (currently only requires two).
This would bring a more diverse set of perspectives to the issue of what constitutes a conflict of interest, with the Comptroller likely to bring an appointee more sensitive to financial conflicts of interest, and the Public Advocate acting as a voice for the elected “ombudsman”. Proposal 11 - Campaign Contributions by Members of COIB
Reduce the maximum amount of money members of the Conflict of Interest Board are allowed to donate to local elections and prohibit them from otherwise participating in campaigns for local elected office.
Members of the board charged with overseeing conflicts of interest should not be providing financial support to the people they are supposed to be supervising.
Proposal 12 - Minority and Women Owned Business Citywide Director and Office
Enshrine in the Charter that there be a Minority and Women Owned Business (M/WBE) office within the Mayor’s office and require that its director report directly to the Mayor. This is currently the case, however, as the office and position are not required by law, the next Mayor could do away with it.
Requiring an M/WBE director, and one that reports directly to the Mayor, theoretically elevates the importance of M/WBE contracting opportunities and ensures at least one person is working to ensure that M/WBEs have adequate access to contracting opportunities in every administration.
Proposal 13 - Appointment of the Corporation Counsel
Currently the Mayor appoints the City’s Corporation Counsel, which in turn heads the City’s law department. This proposal mandates that the City Council provide ‘advice and consent’ for the Mayor’s choice.
Provides a check on the Mayor’s selection of the lawyer that will represent the City, and ensures the City’s interested are considered.
Ballot Question #4 - Finance
Proposal 14 - "Rainy Day" Fund
New York City is precluded from establishing a Rainy Day Fund (RDF) by its Charter and State law. This proposal would eliminate the restriction in the Charter so that if/when State law changes, the City could establish an RDF.
Having savings is an important part of financial management; it allows the City to save money in good economic times in order to buffer against service cuts and tax increases during economic slowdowns or contractions.
Proposal 15 - Guaranteed Budgets for the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents
Currently, the budgets for the offices of the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents are set through the normal budgetary process. This proposal would guarantee that, at a minimum, their respective budgets would be set at or above the Fiscal Year 2020 levels and adjusted each fiscal year by the lesser of (i) inflation or (ii) percentage change in the City’s total budget.
The current process allows political calculations to factor into the setting of the budgets.
Proposal 16 - Revenue Estimate
While the City Council adopts the spending budget, it’s the Mayor’s responsibility to forecast tax, grant, and other revenues (i.e., to determine how much money there is to be spent). This proposal would require the Mayor to submit this revenue estimate earlier in the budget adoption process, by April 26 instead of June 5, with the option of updating in on May 25.
This proposal will allow the Council to have a better understanding of what monies are available for the coming year and adopt a spending plan in accordance.
Proposal 17 - Budget Modification Timing
This proposal would require the Mayor to submit budget modifications to the City Council for approval periodically throughout the fiscal year instead of all at once at the end of the fiscal year.
Would allow for periodic oversight over changes to the City’s financial plan and ensure that the City’s approved spending plan aligns with what’s in the budget.
Ballot Question #5 - Land Use
The following proposals are focused on updating parts of ULURP: the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. ULURP is a standardized process for reviewing certain zoning changes and dispositions. The goal is to let the relevant governmental bodies (City Planning Commission, Community Board, Borough Board, and other stakeholders) assess the impact of the proposed changes, make recommendations, and give community stakeholders an opportunity to have a say.
Proposal 18 - ULURP Pre-Certification Notice Period
This proposal specifically calls for a developer to provide a “project summary, sufficient in detail so as to put the affected community on notice of impending land use action” 30 days before the ULURP process begins to create a pre-certification notice period.
The “plain English” intent seems to exist to force a developer to state clearly the intent of their application and make it easily accessible to the public. Whatever your stance on development, it seems difficult to object to the requirement to clarity and transparency.
Proposal 19 - Additional ULURP Review Time for Community Boards
This proposal would give Community Boards extra time to review land use proposals submitted to them in June and July for review in July and August, when they are not in session. Normally Community Boards have 60 days to complete their whole review. By passing this proposal, Community Boards will have more time to solicit the opinion of their constituents.
Descriptions of the proposals and arguments were pulled from the New Kings Democrats Charter Revision Platform reader.
Additional information and arguments on the proposals can be found here:
Comments