Common Cause/NY Testifies to NYC Council in Favor of New, Council-Led Charter Review Commission

NEW YORK, NY (10/30/2024) (readMedia)-- Today, Common Cause New York Executive Director Susan Lerner testified before the New York City Council Committee on Governmental Operations' hearing on Int. 1088, which would establish a new charter revision commission. Her testimony highlighted Common Cause New York's previous opposition to the Mayor's rushed charter review commission this summer and recommended several changes to the Council's bill to "ensure a more open, deliberative and successful charter revision commission." The full testimony, as written, is attached and below.

In her testimony, Lerner states that, "While we believe the public is best served when the mayor and the Council collaborate on the appointment of one Charter Revision Commission, with adequate time, resources and independence to fully review the City Charter, we recognize the political realities of the moment and support the impetus behind Int. 1088."

She also criticized the Mayor's previous charter review commission and made several recommendations to the Council's bill proposing a new commission, including that, "the bill set a minimum timeframe of no less than six months for the commission to accomplish its work," reduce the number of Commissioners from the proposed number, and require extensive public outreach and ample opportunity for input across each of the five boroughs.

Background

Earlier this month, New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams announced that the Council would introduce a bill to form a new charter review commission to consider changes to the City's existing laws. The decision follows New York City Mayor Eric Adams' own Charter Revision Commission, which unlike previous Commissions, operated for just two months during the summer and a primary election season before final recommendations were put to voters. Only Mayor Giuliani's three Commissions, and Mayor Bloomberg's 2002 Commission, were as short as the current Commission.

During the Commission's public hearings, Common Cause New York and many other organizations repeatedly testified that the Commission's rushed process and inaccessible opportunities for public feedback were insufficient for everyday New Yorkers. The organizations called on the Commission to delay its progress and ensure that any proposals put before voters are done so after this November's elections so that voters can have time to adequately review the questions they are asked to vote on. Common Cause New York has since joined a coalition urging voters to vote against Propositions 2 through 6 on this year's ballot, which were the result of the Mayor's charter review commission.

Testimony from Common Cause New York Executive Director Susan Lerner

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause NY. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process. We have thousands of members and activists in New York City. We have testified and made recommendations to numerous charter revision commissions and, in instances where we supported the commission's proposed changes, as in 2019, helped to pass those proposals on the ballot.

We have been alarmed to see the charter revision process become a political football in power struggles within city government in recent years. Most recently, it seems that mayors are appointing charter commissions simply to thwart action by the City Council. This is an abuse of the charter revision process. Both Mayor de Blasio and Mayor Adams hastily convened charter revision commissions with short deadlines to place provisions favored by the mayor on the ballot, denying the public an adequate opportunity to weigh in with appropriate revisions to the charter and without time for the commissions themselves to fully explore and appropriately weigh possible charter change. We are on record as having opposed the most recent charter commission convened by Mayor Adams this past summer and testified to the commission, urging it to refrain from taking any action because of the abbreviated time in which it was given to work. Obviously, our advice was not heeded and, in full disclosure, we are a member of the coalition which opposes the charter revisions which are on this November's ballot. The City Council responded to Mayor de Blasio's move by appointing a charter revision commission of its own, giving it adequate resources, independence, and time to consider a wide array of suggestions and ultimately placing successful charter revisions before the voters. The measure before us, Int. 1088 is yet another move by the City council to balance a mayor's precipitous charter commission.

While we believe the public is best served when the mayor and the Council collaborate on the appointment of one Charter Revision Commission, with adequate time, resources and independence to fully review the City Charter, we recognize the political realities of the moment and support the impetus behind Int. 1088.

We further recognize that Int. 1088 basically repeats the language of earlier statutes setting up charter revision commissions. Nevertheless, we would like to see some revisions to the Intro in order to ensure an open, deliberative and successful charter revision commission. Accordingly, we join in Citizens Union's 2 recommendation that the bill set a minimum timeframe of no less than six months for the commission to accomplish its work.

Size of Commission

We question expanding the commission to 17 members, particularly when the composition is so heavily weighted towards the City Council. We recommend that the Commission be no larger than 13 members. We strongly support commissions that have an odd number of members.

Commission Independence

Common Cause NY strongly supports measures which seek to foster the independence of a charter revision commission. We join Citizens Union in urging that appointments to the commission be evenly distributed across city government and not be concentrated in the Council. While earlier commissions have had their chairs chosen by the primary appointing authority, either the mayor or the Speaker of the City Council, we believe it is preferable to allow the commission to choose its own chair. We recognize the utility of the permission given in sections 2.f and 3.g for elected and appointed officials to serve on the commission or part of its staff, but would like to see the number of appointees or employees who fall within this category limited, to foster the greatest degree of independence for the commission.

Public Participation & Transparency

Section 3b requires the commission to "conduct no less than one public hearing in each of the five boroughs of the city". The floor for minimal public hearings should require that the commission conduct hearings in each borough at the start of its work, upon the release of an initial staff recommendation and again before any final vote is taken. Public outreach through ethnic media should be required, as well as the capability of the required commission website to receive public comment. Past commissions have satisfied these language and comment conditions and, while it is most likely the commission empowered by this bill would as well, it is best to spell out expectations clearly. All of the commission's business, except for personnel matters and legal advice, should be conducted in public and not in "private meetings." The commission should be required to present its proposals before the voters in plain language, not in legalese or complex opaque language.

The commission should be required to set forth its proposals in language that is no more complicated than requiring an 8th grade reading level, should include an explanation of what a "yes" or "no" vote for each proposal would accomplish, setting forth the practical effect of passing the proposal and not its legal mechanism.

We look forward to encouraging public participation in the proposed charter revision commission and fostering the serious examination of creative and thoughtful suggestions for improving the charter.