FINAL REPORT OF THE 2010 NEW YORK CITY CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION

After six months of public hearings and forums across the five boroughs, attached please find the Final Report of the New York City Charter Revision Commission, which contains two ballot questions approved by the Commission on August 23, 2010 for consideration by voters this Election Day. 

 

Visit the Commission at www.nyc.gov/charter

 

---

 

FINAL REPORT OF THE 2010 NEW YORK CITY CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The 2010 Charter Revision Commission was appointed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg  in March 2010. Dr. Matthew Goldstein, Chancellor of the City University of New York (CUNY) was appointed chair of the Commission, which consists of 14 other distinguished New Yorkers. The first act of the Commission was to hold five public hearings in the City's five boroughs and to conduct an analysis of the public testimony. Based on this analysis, the commissioners resolved to further explore five broad areas: term limits, voter participation, public integrity, government structure, and land use. The Commission subsequently held five issue forums at which it heard presentations by experts and additional testimony by the public.

 

At the direction of the Chair, the staff then prepared a Preliminary Report containing recommendations for the Commission's consideration. The Commission solicited public comments on these recommendations at a final round of hearings, again held in each of the boroughs.

 

On August 11, the Commission met and resolved to place the proposals described below on the November ballot.

 

Term Limits

Under existing charter provisions, as amended by a local law enacted in 2008, elected city officials may serve up to three consecutive full terms. Previously, a law enacted by voter initiative in 1993 had established a limit of two full terms for elected officials. In order to allow the electorate to choose between a two-term and a three-term limit, the Commission determined to place a proposal on the ballot that would allow voters to restore the original two-term limit. Additionally, the proposal would prohibit the City Council from altering the term limit applicable to persons holding elective office at the time the Council acts; and provide that the proposed two-term limit would apply to officials first elected to office on or after November 2, 2010.

 

Require the Disclosure of Independent Campaign Expenditures

In recent years, independent expenditures by individuals or entities not working in tandem with declared candidates have become an increasingly significant part of election-related spending in New York City. To provide the public with more information about these expenditures and enhance the extensive disclosure already required of persons or entities that expend or contribute monies in conjunction with identified candidates for city office, the Commission proposes to require disclosure of expenditures by persons or entities who are acting independently of candidates. (This proposal involves disclosure only and does not set new contribution and expenditure limits for candidates.) The Commission's proposal will require reporting from all individuals and entities making independent expenditures of $1,000 or more to support or oppose a municipal candidate or referendum; require entities making independent expenditures of $5,000 or more in support of or in opposition to a candidate in the 12 months preceding a city election to disclose the identity of any entity that contributed to the entity reporting the expenditure and any individual who contributed $1,000 or more to the entity reporting the expenditure in the 12 months preceding the covered election; and require all literature, advertising, and other communications that support or oppose a candidate for city office, and are paid for by an individual or entity making independent expenditures in the amount of $1,000 or more, to identify the source of its funding.

 

Reducing Signature Requirements for Petitions

In order to expand ballot access, the Commission has proposed a measure to enable candidates for city elections to get onto the ballot with a reduced number of petition signatures. The proposal reduces from 7,500 to 3,750 the number of signatures necessary to gain access to a party primary for the Mayor, Comptroller, and Public Advocate; reduces from 4,000 to 2,000 the number of signatures necessary to gain access to a party primary for Borough Presidents; and reduces from 900 to 450 the number of signatures necessary for Council members to gain access to either the party primary or the general election ballot for independent candidates.

 

Reconstituting the Voter Assistance Commission within the Campaign Finance Board and Changing the Terms of Campaign Finance Board Members

The Commission is proposing to move the Voter Assistance Commission (VAC), presently a freestanding body, into the Campaign Finance Board (CFB); restructure its membership; rename it the "Voter Assistance Advisory Committee" (VAAC); and redefine certain functions and responsibilities of both entities. CFB has a well-established operating framework which can enhance VAC's impact. VAC already works with CFB in producing the Voter Guide and the Video Voter Guide. Under the proposal, CFB would select the voter assistance coordinator and, with the advice and assistance of the coordinator and VAAC, be responsible for carrying out the voter assistance functions currently listed in the Charter. The proposal will also move the commencement date for new CFB members from April 1 to December 1.

 

Amendments to Chapter 68, Conflicts of Interest Law

The Commission proposes amending the Charter to strengthen the City's conflicts of interest law. Specifically, the Commission proposes to establish mandatory training for city public servants and to increase penalties for violation of that law. Concerning training, the Commission proposes to mandate that all city public servants be trained in the City's conflicts of interest law within 60 days of the commencement of public service and periodically thereafter. Agencies would be required to develop plans for providing training in consultation with the Conflicts of Interest Board. The training may be provided in person or online. Concerning penalties, the Commission recommends that fines for a single conflicts of interest law violation be raised from a maximum of $10,000 to a maximum of $25,000. The current fine schedule has not been updated or adjusted for inflation since 1988. The Commission further proposes to authorize disgorgement of gains obtained as a result of any conflicts of interest law violation.

 

Consolidating Administrative Tribunals

Adjudication of administrative violations currently take place at more than a dozen separate tribunals operated under different procedures and with differently qualified administrative law judges. This proposal provides for administrative consolidation of tribunals to streamline operations and create procedural norms. Many adjudicatory hearings are now held in-house at the regulating agency, and have for that reason sometimes been perceived as lacking impartiality. This proposal arose out of a 2005 Charter proposal to set a code of conduct for administrative law judges mirroring the rules applicable to state court judges. The proposal would authorize the Mayor, by executive order, to transfer adjudicatory functions of various tribunals to a single tribunal or agency; authorize the Mayor to convene a committee to evaluate and make recommendations regarding consolidation; authorize the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings to handle the appointment of administrative law judges; and require a public hearing with notice before the Mayor's orders and directives go into effect. Finally, the Commission proposes to enhance the adjudicatory functions of the Department of Consumer Affairs by authorizing the Department to hold impartial hearings for violations of the laws that Department enforces. Currently violations of all consumer protection laws not related to licensed entities are adjudicated in State Court.

 

Reviewing Reporting Requirements and Advisory Bodies

The Commission is proposing a mechanism to review the more than 175 required reports and advisory bodies established in the Charter, the Administrative Code and other local laws to determine if such reports and advisory bodies currently serve a useful purpose. The proposal establishes a Report and Advisory Board Review Commission chaired by the Mayor's Director of Operations and composed of the City Council Speaker and two other Council members chosen by the Speaker, the Corporation Counsel, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Commissioner of the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. The proposal also requires the Report and Advisory Board Review Commission to notify and consider input from the groups and organizations subject to or affected by these reports or advisory bodies before deciding to retain, waive in whole or in part, or dissolve a reporting requirement or an advisory body, subject to review by the Council and the Mayor. The new legislation would establish factors for the Report and Advisory Board Review Commission to consider when reviewing a reporting requirement or advisory body. The proposal also imposes a three-year waiting period before the Commission may review a new reporting requirement; and does not affect the power of the Council to repeal, limit, extend, or enhance a reporting requirement or advisory body.

Fair Share

The City's Fair Share law was established with the goal of equitably distributing the burdens and benefits of city facilities among local communities. In order to give more transparency to "fair share" decisions, the Commission proposes to amend Section 204(d) of the Charter to require that the map and explanatory text published by the Department of City Planning also include the locations of transportation and waste management facilities operated by or for public entities, or by private entities providing comparable services.

 

Issues for Future Consideration

In addition to the questions the Commission is placing on the ballot, the Commission has seriously considered other issues relating to election reform, public integrity and government structures and is recommending that they be further studied. The Commission considered proposing a change to a non-partisan system for city elections, but decided it needed further consideration. The Commission also studied the idea of instituting instant runoff voting for party primaries for citywide offices, but determined that such a sweeping change needed further analysis. The Commission further researched methods to increase voter turnout, and recommends that the State Legislature consider Election Day registration and early or mail-in voting. Public integrity issues examined by the Commission included COIB structure and powers. Government structure was discussed in detail by the Commission, and while the Commission has concluded that it is unprepared to make changes to the balance of powers at this time, it has highlighted important issues for future consideration, including the role of the Public Advocate, City Council practices, regulation of lobbyists, the powers of borough presidents and community boards, guaranteed budgets and the scope of "units of appropriation." Similarly, the Commission left to the future amendments to land use processes because these implicate changes in the balance of powers between local and central decision-makers. Lastly, the Commission recommended that future commissions or the City Council consider measures to streamline the charter.

 

New York City Charter Revision Commission
2 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10007

 

---

 

Final Ballot Questions

 

August 23, 2010

 

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; and
• Make this change in term limits applicable only to those city officials who were first elected at or after the 2010 general election; and
• Prohibit the City Council from altering the term limits of elected city officials then serving in office.
Shall this proposal be adopted?

 

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; and
• 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.
Shall this proposal be adopted?