The Mayor's handpicked Charter Revision Commission has condensed a bunch of proposals into two ballot measures. The first deals with term limits; the second is a mish-mash of nine different issues.
This is probably the sole reason for the Charter Revision Commission's existence. When Mayor Bloomberg decided to extend term limits to three terms so that he could run again, he made a deal with his friend Ron Lauder – the father of term limits in New York City. The deal would put Lauder on the Commission, a position he later declined, saying that he could accomplish more from the outside.
The Commission has proposed the following:
1. Roll back term limits to two terms:
We fully understand the public's strong desire for mandatory term limits. The power of incumbency is enormous, and the idea that someone can hold on to an elected position for decades without earning it is anathema to any American. Mayor Bloomberg's arm-twisting, and the City Council's submission to those tactics, are even worse. Twenty-nine of them voted to overturn, by legislative fiat, the twice-expressed will of the people. It was a shameful day in City Hall.
We strongly opposed the manner in which the Mayor got the City Council to overturn, by legislative fiat, the twice-expressed will of the people. We oppose term limits, but more firmly oppose the legislature overruling the public's vote. That being said, we also firmly believe that while the City Council's actions were reprehensible, the extension from two terms to three is a good thing.
There are several reasons why three terms is better than two:
I oppose this proposal.
2. Grandfather all current officeholders, allowing them to serve three terms:
This was inevitable. The original 1993 referendum that created term limits had a similar clause. While we aren't fond of letting Council members who voted to give themselves a third term actually get that third term, we believe that rolling back term limits too quickly is also a bad idea. We also believe that by defeating those who will be running for a third term in 2013 we will send a strong message to our elected officials - don't mess with the will of the voters!
I actually support this proposal.
3. Prohibit the City Council from changing the term limits law again (but not really):
This is probably the easiest proposal to support. Even though we oppose term limits in general, we strongly believe that the City Council should have no power to alter the term limits law.
But this proposal doesn't really prohibit the Council from changing term limits law. It only prohibits them from changing their own term limits. If this proposal passed on November 2nd, it would mean that current Council members would be allowed three terms but future Council members would be limited to two terms. Then the Council could meet on November 3rd and rescind the voters' choice, giving all future Council members three terms.
It's even crazier than that. There will be a special election in Queens to replace Council member Tom White (28th district), who passed away recently. The Council could wait until the winner of the special election was seated, and then rescind the voters' choice. Under that circumstance the new Council member would be the only member who is limited to two full terms.
Why is this nuttiness on the ballot? Because the City Council can change any part of the Charter any time they want. This was put on to make it a two-step process for the Council to change their own terms again – first they would have to vote to eliminate the prohibition on changing their own term limits, and then they would have to vote to change the actual term limits.
Despite its problems, however, I support this proposal.
Summary of individual parts:
The full proposal:
The Charter Revision Commission has chosen to lump these three proposals together, which we opposed from the start. While we support prohibiting Council members from changing term limits law, that proposal can be resubmitted separately at a later date without any problem, and it will certainly pass. In addition, the Commission should take a beating at the ballot box for denying voters a choice. Therefore, I strongly oppose the combined proposal.
Recommendation: Vote No
The Commission has lumped together nine separate proposals in three areas.
The three areas of governance cover how elections are held and run, public integrity of elected officials and city employees, and some esoteric areas of government administration. None of these issues is cut-and-dried, and an informed electorate is the best hope we have to ensure that our City Charter is only changed in ways that will make things better.
I have reviewed these proposals, and my views are below. At the bottom, in the Summary section, is my view on whether we should support the combined ballot measure.
The Commission has created three separate proposals dealing with elections:
1. Require independent organizations that spend money on elections to disclose their expenditures:
This is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision, in which the Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, provided only that they don't coordinate their activities with the campaigns. These so-called "independent" expenditures could easily overwhelm spending by the candidates themselves.
Until we get a new Supreme Court to overturn this hideous decision, there are many things we can do (primary among them, of course, is my own "Clean Money, Clean Elections" bill). The Commission proposes requiring outside groups that spend at least $1,000 to disclose how much they are spending and what they are spending it for. In addition, the Campaign Finance Board may require any group that spends at least $5,000 to disclose where the money is coming from, and to put on all their printed and broadcast material the names of the people in charge of the organization.
I fully support this measure. A similar measure for federal elections is stalled in Congress; this is New York City's chance to take the lead.
2. Cut the number of petition signatures needed to get on the ballot in half:
Anyone who has run for office or worked on a campaign knows just how insipid and ridiculous the petitioning process is. It is in dire need of reform. (Note: My own "Clean Money, Clean Elections" bill provides such a reform.)
The Commission's proposal to halve the number of signatures needed, however, is almost as insipid and ridiculous as the process itself. Any legitimate candidate (defined here as a candidate with a campaign organization capable of running a competitive race) is capable of getting the signatures needed now. The real problem is with all the rules governing challenges to those petitions, and the Commission has failed utterly to address this real problem. In addition, cutting the number of required signatures in half will only open up the field to more cranks – a factor that the Commission's chairman has admitted they never considered.
But the worst problem with this proposal is that the number of signatures needed on nominating petitions is set not by the City Charter but by §6-136 of New York State election law. Changing the City Charter is irrelevant, since state law takes precedence.
The Commission makes a very weak argument that the combination of a 1927 court decision and a minor clause in the state's election law make it possible to override state law. Both arguments are false. The court decision doesn't apply to state laws aimed expressly at the city that wants to override it. The minor clause in state election law doesn't give cities the power to override state law, it only explains how to interpret when two state laws clash. The Commission is wrong on this issue.
I oppose this proposal.
3. Put the Voter Assistance Commission under the Campaign Finance Board
The Voter Assistance Commission (VAC) should not be a separate entity. It should be under the auspices of the Board of Elections (BoE), however, and not the Campaign Finance Board (CFB). The CFB should deal only with campaign finances, and it is a difficult job.
The Commission argues that the VAC is underfunded, while the CFB has plenty of money, so combining the two will ensure proper funding for the VAC. This is a phony argument. While the VAC is certainly underfunded, the CFB has no money to spare – most of the money that goes through the CFB goes right out to campaigns in the form of matching funds, and the CFB cannot just demand more money for administrative duties. Any extra funding that the VAC would get under this scheme would mean that the CFB would be unable to do its job – enforcing campaign finance law. This proposal won't solve the problem, and could create new problems.
I oppose this proposal.
Summary:
Back to the beginning of this section.
The Commission is making three recommendations. They are:
1. Raise maximum fines for a single violation of the City’s conflicts of interest law from $10,000 to $25,000:
We are not fond of this measure. For the past 30 years there has been a push to raise punishments for a variety of crimes and infractions, yet there is no evidence that the threat of a higher fine will change anyone's behavior. Instead, it opens up the possibility that fines will be levied in a draconian manner, especially as there is no provision for deciding which infractions deserve which level of fines. As H.L. Mencken wrote, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." This is such a "solution."
I oppose this proposal.
2. Authorize disgorgement of gains obtained as a result of any violation:
The idea that a person can violate the law, be punished, yet keep any ill-gotten gains is unsettling, to say the least. If someone faces not only a fine, but also the loss of any gains made through illicit activities, then there is far less incentive to violate the City's rules.
I support this proposal.
3. Mandate that each employee of the City receive training in the City’s conflicts of interest law:
While this seems like a reasonable proposal, it is not. New York City employs so many people, and the turnover rate is so high, that training sessions will have to be ongoing and very expensive. Furthermore, such training sessions are generally not instructive; what little is learned is usually not retained. Finally, because every department and agency has its own set of conflict of interest rules, each of them would have to create its own training session – and those sessions would generally have one or two people taking them. It's a colossal waste of money to pay for such sessions.
I oppose this proposal.
Summary:
Back to the beginning of this section.
The Commission has made three recommendations regarding government administration:
1. Grant the Mayor power to reorganize administrative tribunals:
The City Charter has an Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), which "conduct[s] adjudicatory hearings for all agencies of the city unless otherwise provided for by executive order, rule, law or pursuant to collective bargaining agreements." OATH hearings are presided over by administrative law judges, who must be attorneys who have been admitted to the New York bar for at least five years.
The Commission's proposal would give the Mayor the power to change the tribunals, presumably on a whim, and also change the qualifications for administrative law judges. This would give the Mayor extraordinary power to control what is supposed to be an independent proceeding. What's worse, the tribunals oversee agencies run by the Mayor, therefore the Mayor should have no power whatsoever over these tribunals.
Here in America we are supposed to have a system of "checks and balances" in our government to help ensure that our elected officials do their jobs properly. In New York City, that system is woefully inadequate, and this proposal will only make things worse. These agencies report to the Mayor; the Mayor should have no power over the tribunals sitting in judgment.
I oppose this proposal.
2. Create a commission to recommend elimination of reporting requirements that are unnecessary:
While it probably isn't necessary to change the City Charter in order to create such a commission, since the commission would have no actual power, the idea of having a permanent commission whose function is to recommend getting rid of unnecessary red tape is very attractive. One problem is that such a commission is badly constructed, won't have any power, and will just be another drain on our resources. The other problem is that creating a permanent commission will just result in a new bureaucracy; they'll never even try to finish the job because they don't want to go out of existence.
I oppose this proposal.
3. Add to the annual map of the "citywide statement of needs" state, federal and private transportation and waste management services:
Every year, the Mayor is required to submit a "citywide statement of needs," outlining where city services are needed, and what facilities are being used or proposed to be used for such services. This statement must include a map showing where these facilities are. In addition to city services, the map must include state and federal health and social services facilities.
The Commission recommends adding state and federal transportation and waste management facilities, as well as private waste management facilities. These additions will give us a better understanding of the services that are available. More needs to be done to make siting of less than desirable facilities fair to all (especially poor) neighborhoods, and this would seem to be a good start.
The problem is that the map is never truly followed. Any proposal to change the rules here must include a stronger requirement that the City Council follow the map. Otherwise, we're just adding more expense without making things better.
I oppose this proposal.
Summary:
Back to the beginning of this section.
Sadly, the Charter Revision Commission has chosen to lump all nine of these proposals together, which will deny voters the ability to pick and choose. I support two, and oppose seven, of the individual proposals, and more strongly opposes denying voters the right to choose.
What's worse, we already voted on three of the nine proposals. In 2003, a Charter Revision Commission handpicked by Mayor Bloomberg (just as this one is) placed an omnibus proposal on the ballot that lost, as 65.5% of voters rejected it. The following three items were already rejected by voters:
It seems that with charter revision proposals, just as with term limits, Mayor Bloomberg refuses to accept the will of the people.
Finally, the good things on this list won't go away. Even if we vote this proposal down, there is nothing to stop the City Council from passing a law to enact the campaign finance disclosure and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains provisions.
Because we have already voted on some of these proposals, because this Mayor refuses to accept the choices that the voters of NYC make, because he and his handpicked Commission refuse to give us the right to choose, and mostly because most of these proposals would make things worse, not better:
Back to the beginning of this section.