2010 NYC Voter Guide: City Ballot Proposals

The Charter Revision Commission (CRC), which was appointed by the Mayor to consider changes to the City Charter, has submitted two ballot questions for your consideration this year. Prior to making its proposals, the CRC held public meetings and hearings, and published reports on its work. Transcripts of the meetings and hearings, and copies of the reports, are available from the CRC on their website, or by calling 311.

Plain-language Summary

Question 1 would amend term limits in the Charter.

New York City voters adopted a limit of two terms for elected city officials in 1993. Voters rejected a ballot proposal in 1996 to extend the limit to three terms. The City Council lawfully changed the term limits law in 2008 from two to three consecutive terms.

Currently, the mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough presidents, and City Council members are permitted to serve three consecutive four-year terms in office. Question 1 would reduce the term limit from three terms to two. This two-term limit would only apply to officials first elected to office at or after the November 2, 2010 election. In addition, Question 1 would prohibit the City Council from changing the term limits for current elected officials. The Council could still change the term limits for future elected officials.

Reasons to Vote YES on Question 1

A two-term limit for elected city officials was passed by voters twice. Question 1 would return term limits to the two-term limit previously approved by the city's voters.
Officials do not need three terms in office to develop policies responsive to the needs of New York City. What is really needed is the independence and creativity of citizen-politicians who are experienced and knowledgeable about the real world outside of government.
The longer elected officials serve, the more indebted they may become to special interest groups, both within and outside government, at the expense of their constituents.
The President of the United States, a majority of state governors, and many county and city elected officials across the nation are subject to a two-term limit in their offices.
The proposal prohibits the City Council from altering their own term limits and those of other current elected officials.

Reasons to Vote NO on Question 1

Since there is no proposal to eliminate term limits altogether, opponents of term limits should vote "no" to stick with the current limit of three terms rather than two terms.
In a democracy, voters should have the power to decide who represents them. If elected officials are doing a good job of representing their constituents, voters should have the right to keep them in office for a third term.
New York City has a powerful mayor because he prepares the budget and delivers services. Serving three terms helps Council members gain the expertise, good working relationships, and ability to implement longer term plans, to serve as a counterbalance to the mayor.
Officials in their last term may spend more time looking for their next job instead of representing their constituents. Special interests that can provide an official with a job after the term ends may gain favor. A two-term limit may accelerate this.
Question 1 would restrict the Council's ability to legislate term limits. The Charter should not dictate which issues are beyond the Council's legislative authority.

Public Commentary on Question 1—

List of Submitters

Matthew Goldstein, CRC Chair

After an open and independent review of the city charter, the 2010 New York City Charter Revision Commission has recommended two comprehensive proposals that will lead to better-functioning government.

New Yorkers have made it clear that government should be responsive to the needs of the people. The commission voted unanimously to give voters the opportunity to vote again on a two-term limit. The first question not only establishes a two-term limit for officials elected at or after the 2010 election but also prohibits the City Council from changing that limit for officials then serving in office. It phases in the two-term limit, consistent with the 1993 term-limits referendum, in order to improve government over the long term, rather than focus solely on how current officeholders might be affected.

The second question enables voters to improve government transparency, efficiency, and integrity in several critical ways, including fuller disclosure of campaign expenditures, expanded ballot access, and tougher conflicts of interest requirements. These measures recognize that a government can only function effectively when citizens have confidence that it is acting responsibly and openly.

Voting “YES” on Questions 1 and 2 will reform the city charter to create a more democratic and efficient city government that truly serves the will of its citizens.

John H. Banks, CRC Vice Chair

With these two questions the voters of New York will make several important decisions about the structure of their government.

The first question once again gives the voters an opportunity to decide the issue of term limits in New York City. The second question seeks the voters’ concurrence with several operational changes to New York City's structure, management, and the way elections in the city are conducted.

I wholeheartedly support the goals of these questions and urge my fellow New Yorkers to vote yes on both.

Jose A. Padilla, Jr.

A democracy is defined as a government in which the Supreme power is held by the people; Rule of the majority. In an unprecedented move in 2009 a majority of the members of the City Council disrespected, disregarded, and violated that democratic principal and the voters "Will" when they voted in legislation favoring themselves thus granting some of the members the right to run for a third consecutive term. This despite voters having voted on two occasions to limit each elected official term in New York City to two. This Amendment to the New York City Charter; Despite the fact that it would only apply to those officials who will be first elected at or after the 2010 General Election on November 2, 2010, will once restore what the people originally voted for in two referendums. It will also assure that such a "Self Serving" and “Benefitting" vote by the City Council will not occur again as the Loop - Hole used in the law will now be closed. "A governmental body or agency; An Entity; or an Individual should not be judge and jury over a matter which in some way or form would benefit them."

Michael Romano

The 2 term limit should be adopted and only 2 terms. Not 3 terms for elected officials elected at or after the 2010 general election. The 2 term limit should apply to ALL elected officials. The public twice voted for a 2 term limit. The public has the right to these 2 term limits so fresh ideas can be brought into play for their benefit. An elected official can become complacent in a 3 term limit. The City Council should not be able to vote on their own term limits. I find this a conflict of interest. In a Democracy the public vote should mean everything.

Sebastian Ulanga Santiago

I believe that the will of the New York City voters that voted for term limits on two occasions should have been respected. Before the charter was changed, a referendum should have been part the 2009 elections. The voters of New York City are to decide and have the power not the elected officials.

Theresa Scavo, 2009 City Council Candidate

On the issue of term limits--- The voters in the City of New York voiced their wishes for a two term limit, twice. Their votes meant nothing, the Mayor and the City Council went against the will of the people to better serve themselves as opposed to the people they represent. The two term limit should apply to all elected officials including those now serving in the City Council as well as the Public Advocate and the Comptroller. To allow electeds a life long career is offensive and trying to unseat an incumbent is slim to none. Vote for a two term limit with no exceptions.

Henry J. Stern, President, New York Civic; Former Commissioner of Parks & Recreation

I urge you to vote “yes” on question 1. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Charter Commission insisted on postponing the effective date of the two-term limit until 2021, Question 1 still offers an improvement over the present system. The people of New York City voted twice in the 1990s to adopt a two-term limit. Unfortunately, the Mayor and the Council used a legal loophole to over-ride the referenda and make themselves eligible for a third term. The Mayor appointed a new Charter Commission this year. They placed a two-term limit on the 2010 ballot. However, in a scheme to protect insiders, they delayed the effective date of this reform to 2021. In politics, that’s a lifetime.

The enemies of term limits hope the public will vote No in disgust with these machinations. They will say people oppose term limits, and prefer allowing politicians to remain in office forever.

Fortunately, Question 1 also forbids Councilmembers from manipulating term limits, as they shamefully did in 2008.

The way to reject the enemies of term limits, the lifetime politicians, is to vote Yes on Question 1 in 2010, and to join us in working for Term Limits Now in 2011.

Public Commentary on Question 1—

List of Submitters

Ruth E. Acker, President, Women’s City Club of NY

The Women’s City Club of New York believes that term limits do not improve government in New York City. Term limits tend to focus government officials’ attention on short-term results rather than long-term planning. There is no incentive for long-range planning if officials will not be able to implement the plans before they are term-limited out of office. Furthermore, elected officials are not held accountable for the long term results of their actions because they are already on to other pursuits. Term limits create a governmental game of musical chairs where staff and lobbyists wield undue influence.

The WCC had hoped that the Charter Revision Commission would include a question: Do you favor Term Limits? To that question, we would have recommended an answer of “No”. Since the ballot option is whether to reduce from three to two the maximum number of consecutive full terms that can be served by elected city officials, we urge a vote of No on the entire Ballot Question #1.

James Brennan, Assemblymember, Brooklyn

In January good government groups, recognizing the Mayor would create a Charter Commission, wrote him asking that any commission “be given sufficient time to do its important work…“ I also wrote the Mayor asking, “Will the Charter Commission be taking a serious look at the City government?”

Borough President Scott Stringer urged the Commission to put its questions on the ballot in 2011, and the New York Times urged the Commission to postpone placing questions on the ballot until 2012. The hope was for broad public engagement.

Unfortunately, the first question is simply the fulfillment of the deal between Mayor Bloomberg and businessman Ronald Lauder, to revisit term limits through a charter commission in exchange for Mr. Lauder’s support for Mr. Bloomberg’s third term.

The second question is seven separate questions but you can only vote yes or no on them as a group, which is unfair to the voters. One of these proposals would put the judges who hear cases involving sanitation and other tickets in one agency and allow their working conditions to be altered, which could harm their independence and ability to be fair to citizens.

Vote no.

Gale A. Brewer, City Council Member, District 6

I voted against the third term as a Member of the Council because I thought that the public should have the right to decide on term limits. The Charter Revision Commission's proposal is well intentioned, but mistaken. I believe that all city elected officials should serve three terms. The reason is that New York City's complexity and scale require a long learning curve in order to govern effectively.

Tyrrell L. Eiland, Chair, New Voice Political Action Committee; 2009 Mayoral Candidate

Elected officials should be allowed to serve three consecutive terms in office as previously re-written by the City Council. Overturning this law would give preferential treatment and favor to those officials who were re-elected in 2009 and would further give voters a confused and distorted view of equal government for all people. No one group of public officials should benefit from a law change while others are left to adhere to another re-write in the Law. Further, the City Council should no longer be allowed to change election law in this manner, all changes and revisions should go before the people as a voter referendum. Transparency and equality in government are key to the City's further success.

Pete Gleason

Vote No on term limits

Voting NO on this referendum is based on law not politics.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that a legislative body is within their power to overturn a voter referendum.

The Second Circuit was unmoved by those challenging the Councils self serving vote to extend their own term limits in contrast to multiple referendums.

We are not persuaded by these efforts. At bottom, plaintiffs challenge New York’s equal treatment of law enacted by referendum and law enacted by a legislative body. Such a scheme, however, does not run afoul of the First Amendment. Any chilling of plaintiffs’ First Amendment activity is self-imposed and thus “incidental and constitutionally insignificant.”

A related State Court action, cited by the Second Circuit buttresses the notion that the Court will not interfere in the legislative process as this would be an undue interference by one branch of government with another…

Even NYC’s own Conflict of Interest Board concluded that the City Council was within ethical bounds to legislatively discard two voter referendums.

A vote of yes here does not have any desired effect as the peoples voice can be usurped by those elected to represent them.

Dan Jacoby, Executive Director, GrassrootsNYC

Term limits are 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 fellow billionaire Ron Lauder to put Lauder on the Commission, a position Lauder later declined.

1.   Roll back term limits to two terms: We understand the public's strong desire for term limits. Term limits, however, are the wrong solution to the problem; they throw out the baby with the bath water, and they don't solve the real problem – the power of incumbency. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2.   Grandfather all current officeholders, allowing them to serve three terms: This was inevitable and legitimate; the 1993 referendum that created term limits had a similar clause. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3.   Prohibit the City Council from changing the term limits law again: The City Council should have no power to alter the term limits law. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

While we approve of taking the power away from the City Council to change term limits, we believe that these three issues should be separated out. Since they are lumped together, GrassrootsNYC strongly recommends a NO vote.

Oliver Koppell, City Council Member, District 11

I am strongly opposed to Ballot Question #1 that reduces from three to two the maximum number of consecutive full terms that can be served by elected city officials.

I have opposed term limits for many years because I believe they are undemocratic, an infringement on the people’s right to select who they believe should remain in office. In addition, where term limits have been enacted, substantial disadvantages have emerged. Experience has been sacrificed and the effectiveness of term limited legislators has been diminished as they have focused on the next political or job opportunity.

Furthermore, the most effective and important legislators are those who have served for lengthy terms. A notable example is Senator Ted Kennedy, who served for almost half a century and is regarded as the most outstanding United States Senator of our time.

Although I would have preferred a Ballot Question that eliminated term limits altogether, I believe that the current law extending term limits to three terms mitigates some of the damage. Changing it by shortening term limits to two terms would be a huge mistake.

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York urges a “no” vote on the term limits proposal. We had asked the Charter Commission to permit an up or down vote on term limits, as well as a second option on the number of terms. The League has long opposed term limits. We believe that the best way to limit terms is at the ballot box where voters can reject incumbents’ re-election due to ineffective representation or differences on public issues. We know of no evidence that term limits produce better elected executives or legislatures. Too often, in their final term, elected officials are preoccupied with enhancing individual records of accomplishment that can lead to the next elected office or government job. This does not foster cooperation or consensus. Longer tenures have enabled some elected officials to develop expertise in areas of public policy which benefit their constituents without having to rely so extensively on the expertise of unelected staff.

While incumbency has always been viewed as an advantage in elections, our city’s campaign finance program goes a long way to level the playing field and enable insurgents to run for and win elective office.

Carl E. Person, 2010 Libertarian Candidate for New York Attorney General

New York City voters have already voted (in 1993) a 2-term limitation in the City Charter, and the voters rejected (in 1996) a subsequent effort by the administration to obtain a charter amendment permitting more than 2 terms. The present ballot proposal would delay the start of the 2-term limitation until 2021, a total of 28 years after voters approved the 2-term charter amendment. NYC needs to have a 2-term limitation to prevent the inherent advantage of an incumbent to defeat and discourage challengers, and to eliminate the way in which entrenched Council members are able to dominate newer Council members, thereby depriving voters in a District of true representation and vote by their elected representative. Also, the provision should be defeated to make it easier for a court to rule that the 1993 2-term limitation is currently the law, and that the Mayor had no right to a third term. Also, by postponing the effective date until 2021, the Charter provision could be amended again to eliminate the provision entirely. What should be included is a provision that prevents the City Council from enacting a Charter provision that nullifies any Charter provision enacted by the voters.

Peter F. Vallone, Former City Council Speaker

Vote NO on Question One, Term Limits

I served as Speaker of the City Council from 1986 through 2001 and speak from experience. Term limits for any executive such as the all-powerful mayor is essential. Term limits for the council upsets the balance of power that must exist to continue the good government that has taken place here in our city since charter revision established our present balanced government in 1989.

Do not confuse your city council that has worked so successively here under Mayors Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani and Bloomberg with the state legislature that has been called the most dysfunctional in the country. The great achievements took place by working together as equals: landmark laws and policies such as Safe Streets/Safe City making our city the safest in the country, the landmark Campaign Finance Law giving everyone an equal chance to run for office, the first Clean Air Act limiting smoking, helping the homeless off the streets and into homes, and balancing the budget every single year on time.

The best term limit for the council is to vote the bad ones out, but don’t throw out the good! Vote NO!

Howard Charles Yourow, S.J.D.

The proposal's fatal ' grandfathering ' of currently elected officials means that the reform intended to be enacted will only come into effect as late as a decade hence -- many years after the people decided, in two referenda, to limit all elected city officers to no more than a maximum of two consecutive full terms. Regrettably, by making the proposed change back to two terms from three applicable only to those first elected at or after this election the Commission postpones for an unreasonable length of time the key reform that it was created to realize in the first place! In so doing it stymies the charter revision process itself by casting a pall upon the wisdom of its decisions to reduce limits from three terms to two and to prohibit the Council from altering the term limits of those then serving in office. The people therefore ought to reject the proposal as currently worded so that the Commission may reconsider its otherwise well-crafted reform and propose as soon as possible that a two term limit, not alterable by self-serving incumbents, shall take effect at the very next municipal election, rather than in the distant future.

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?

Plain Language Summary

Question 2 would amend the Charter in multiple ways, as described below.

Most candidates for public office raise and spend money to run their campaigns and communicate with voters. The complete details of fundraising and spending by candidates for city office must be reported to the New York City Campaign Finance Board (CFB), which makes this information available to the public.

When other people or groups (such as a political party, labor union, or corporation) spend money to support or oppose a candidate or a municipal referendum, it is an "independent expenditure." This spending is not reported to the CFB. Examples include an automated phone call from an environmental group urging you to vote for a City Council candidate, or a television commercial funded by a corporation opposing a candidate for borough president.

Question 2 would require persons and groups that make independent expenditures in New York City elections to report this activity to the CFB, which would make it public. Under the proposal any person or group that makes an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more must report the spending to the CFB; any group that makes independent expenditures of $5,000 or more for a candidate must disclose the sources of its money; most campaign literature and advertisements must include the name of the person or group who paid for them; and failure to report independent expenditures may result in a fine.

To get on the ballot in New York City, candidates must collect petition signatures to show community support. The number of signatures required depends on the office the candidate is seeking and whether the candidate is seeking the nomination of a political party or running independently.

Question 2 would reduce the number of required signatures to no more than 3,750 for citywide office, 2,000 for boroughwide office, and 450 for City Council members for both the primary and general election ballots. This is a reduction of 50% in most cases.

The Voter Assistance Commission (VAC) promotes voter registration and voting among New York City residents. The CFB is a nonpartisan, independent city agency that educates voters by publishing the Voter Guide and running the city's Debate Program. It has five board members whose staggered terms begin on April 1.

Question 2 would restructure VAC by moving it within the CFB, renaming it the Voter Assistance Advisory Committee (VAAC), and reducing it from 16 to 9 members. It would also amend the Charter to change the starting date of the new terms of CFB's board members from April 1 to December 1.

People who work for the City of New York must obey rules regarding conflicts of interest. The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) enforces those rules. For example, a city employee is not allowed to accept an expensive gift from a company doing business with the city. When public servants break conflicts of interest rules, they may have to pay a fine.

Question 2 would require all public servants to be trained in conflicts of interest rules, and increases the maximum COIB penalty from $10,000 to $25,000. In addition, if a public servant makes money by breaking the rules, this amendment would permit the COIB to order the person to give that money to the city.

Many city agencies conduct hearings concerning violations of city laws and regulations. These hearings are held before informal courts (tribunals) within the agencies, presided over by administrative law judges (ALJs). The Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) also conducts hearings for agencies. The ALJs at OATH must meet certain professional qualifications, are appointed for five-year terms, and may be removed only for cause.

Question 2 would allow the Mayor, by executive order, to consolidate certain city tribunals into OATH (except for the Office of Administrative Tax Appeals, including the Tax Appeals Tribunal and the Tax Commission, and the Board of Standards and Appeals). OATH's Chief ALJ could set different qualifications and terms of employment for ALJs of tribunals transferred into OATH. The Mayor would create an advisory committee to make recommendations about transfers of agency tribunals into OATH, after soliciting input from the public. Question 2 would also allow the Department of Consumer Affairs to have hearings on all violations of the laws it enforces.

Various city laws require city agencies to prepare detailed reports, and have created a number of advisory boards and committees that have no decision-making power.

Question 2 would establish a commission made up of Council and Mayoral appointees that would review the relevance, usefulness, and value of many city reports and advisory boards. The commission would recommend modification or elimination of certain reports and boards to the Council, which will have 120 days to accept or reject its recommendations. The Mayor could disapprove any Council decision to reject a recommendation; the Council can override with a twothirds majority. If the Council does not act within 120 days, the recommendations take effect.

The city needs to provide health, social service, transportation, and waste management facilities in the city for its residents. To help plan the location of these facilities, the Charter requires that the city prepare a map showing the location, current use, and future plans for all city-owned property and the location of facilities that provide health and social services for the state and federal government.

Question 2 would require that the map also show the location of non city-owned public and certain private transportation and waste management facilities.

Reasons to Vote YES on Question 2

DISCLOSURE OF INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGN SPENDING

Under the proposed amendment, voters will have more information about persons and groups who spend money to influence the outcome of New York City elections.
People will know who paid for the campaign mailings, commercials, and other communications they see and hear during elections.
Many people believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which eliminated restrictions on independent expenditures in federal elections, will lead to increased spending by corporations and unions in elections at all levels of government. Passing this proposal will help shine a light on this activity.

BALLOT ACCESS

Reducing the number of petition signatures required to get on the ballot in New York City will make it easier and less expensive to run for office.
More candidates may run for office, giving the voters more choices at the polls.
Council candidates running on independent lines will no longer be disadvantaged by higher signature requirements.

VOTER ASSISTANCE AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD

It will be more efficient to combine the voter education and assistance activities currently conducted separately by the CFB and VAC.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LAW

The city should require and provide COIB training for all public servants, so they will know the rules they are expected to follow. New training methods will keep the costs under control.
Public servants will be less likely to break the rules if they can't profit from unethical behavior and may face higher fines.
The maximum fine for an ethics violation has not been increased since 1989.

CITY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Using the same procedures for all cases would make it easier for people appearing at these tribunals.
The proposal may increase fairness, because the hearings would be held at OATH, a neutral tribunal, rather than the agency that wrote the violation.
Consolidating city tribunals into OATH may save money and be more efficient because the administrative duties for the tribunals would be handled by one office.

CITYWIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND ADVISORY BOARDS

Eliminating unnecessary boards and agency reports may save city resources.
Some required reports and advisory boards are outdated, duplicative, or do not provide useful information.

MAP FOR FACILITY SITING

Adding transportation and waste management facilities to the map will help policy makers and the public see when a neighborhood already has its fair share of these types of facilities.
When policy makers see that these facilities are concentrated in one neighborhood, they may try to place new facilities elsewhere.

Reasons to Vote NO on Question 2

DISCLOSURE OF INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGN SPENDING

Persons and groups may not want to exercise their right to take part in the political process and make independent expenditures if they must disclose the details of their activities.
Some people or groups may not want to put their name on campaign literature or advertisements, perhaps out of fear of harassment or retribution.
Independent expenditures have always been a part of New York City's elections. The Citizens United decision does not require that the law be changed.

BALLOT ACCESS

Reducing the number of petition signatures required to get on the ballot in New York City will allow candidates who do not have very much community support to run for office.
No change in city law can address all the obstacles to getting on the ballot.

VOTER ASSISTANCE AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD

Restructuring VAC may reduce its visibility in the community, and may reduce its effectiveness in encouraging greater voter participation and voter registration in the city.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LAW

More training, bigger fines, and being required to pay back money received for breaking the rules may not make public servants more honest. People are either honest or they aren't.
Increasing training will cost money

CITY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

This issue is too complex to rush into. We should take more time to study the impact.
The proposal may not increase judicial independence, because Question 2 does not require tribunal ALJs to have the same job security as OATH ALJs.

CITYWIDE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND ADVISORY BOARDS

Creating a commission is unnecessary. The mayor could already require agencies to review and identify outdated requirements themselves, and the City Council could pass legislation to eliminate some boards or requirements.
The commission created under this proposal may be more expensive than the reports and committees it will recommend eliminating, especially because it is open-ended.

MAP FOR FACILITY SITING

The city needs these facilities and no neighborhood wants them. The addition of transportation and waste management facilities to the map is merely a change in the paperwork and will not affect where the new or expanded facilities are located.

Public Commentary on Question 2—

List of Submitters

Matthew Goldstein, CRC Chair

John H. Banks, CRC Vice Chair

Mark Axinn, Chairman, Libertarian Party of New York

I commend the Commission for its efforts to increase voter turnout by making it easier for independent candidates to get onto the ballot in New York City primaries and general elections. I am particularly pleased that signature requirements for independent candidates are being treated on a par with party candidates. To increase voter turnout, we need to give voters a wider variety of independent voices, and not merely a choice among more party regulars. The reduction to 450 signatures for independent candidates for City Council will do the most to increase the number of independent candidates all over the city.

With the agreement of the state legislature, other ways you can ease petitioning requirements for independent candidates include the following:

1) Lengthen the petition period.

2) Move the petition period for independent candidates earlier in the year. Start it when, or earlier than, the petition period begins for recognized parties. This will allow independent candidates to compete fairly with party candidates for petition signatures. Also, the weather is better!

Thank you again for considering the needs of independent candidates who are not funded or backed to the extent of party regulars but who represent New Yorkers to an extent the parties cannot.

Eddie Bautista, Executive Director, NYC Environmental Justice Alliance

For decades, some low-income communities of color in NYC have borne a disproportionate burden of polluting infrastructure. Communities such as Sunset Park, the South Bronx, and Williamsburg-Greenpoint are saddled with the bulk of the City's waste transfer stations, bus depots and other facilities, both publicly and privately owned. The clustering of these facilities has wreaked environmental havoc in these neighborhoods, which also suffer disproportionately from some public health problems, such as childhood asthma rates.

In 1989, New Yorkers added "Fair Share” criteria to the Charter. Fair Share required City agencies to announce their facilities siting proposals through an Annual Statement of Needs and Map identifying the location of all City facilities. However, Fair Share has yielded neither fairness, nor transparency. The Map only includes City facilities. Environmental impacts of clustered facilities are not limited to City facilities. Polluting facilities operated by State, public authority and private interests likewise undermine our local air quality. By voting yes on the Map for Facility Siting question, New Yorkers will finally begin to see how truly overburdened some communities are - and demand that something be done to correct this environmental injustice.

Mark Davies, Executive Director, NYC Conflicts of Interest Board

Ethics training and education (section 2603). Many cities, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia, require ethics training for their public officials. New York City does not. As a result, most public servants receive no ethics training at all. For that reason, for many years the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, the ethics board for the City of New York, has fought to require ethics training for all public servants. This change in the Charter would do that. The amendments would also help the Board train and educate the City’s 300,000 public servants by providing for automated and online training, for training by Board-trained agency trainers, and for ethics training and education plans in every City agency. Finally, the amendments would make sure that records are kept of every public servant’s ethics training. New York City’s ethics board urges you to vote Yes on Question 2.

Tyrrell L. Eiland, New Voice Political Action Committee, 2009 Mayoral Candidate

Ballot access is the cornerstone to any campaign and candidate for public office. Too often, great candidates find it difficult to get their names on the ballot because of the lack of resources to secure the high number of signatures mandated by law. The number of petition signatures should be lowered to give equal footing to those who do not have a full staff and lack a large volunteer base that would be able to gather the signatures required by the current law.

Campaigns either independent or those participating in the Campaign Finance Board program should be transparent and all transactions disclosed to the public. It is bad government to allow private entities and individuals to spend money to influence elections and not be required to disclose their identity. This current practice lends itself to lopsided elections and candidates with deep pockets and vast resources to overrule less known candidates and push forward without having to be accountable to the system and the rules. Full disclosure is necessary to keep elections clean and candidates and their supporters accountable to the people of New York.

Those candidates in office should be required to participate in conflict of interest training. Similar to participating in the Campaign Finance Board programs, once you are given the knowledge and the rules, it is the responsibility of the public officer to adhere to the rules and guidelines. Leaving no room for error, this required training will give no excuse or tolerance for those who chose to break the Law and profit from their position in City government. With this statute, the City will be able to impose stronger fines and other punishments to those who violate and recoup losses for the City.

Stephen J. Fiala, CRC Commissioner; Richmond County Clerk and Commissioner of Jurors

Having served as a Member of The New York City Council and as a Commissioner on two separate Charter Revision Commissions, I appreciate the central role local government plays in the daily lives of city residents.

The 2010 Charter Revision Commission established the goal of creating a more responsive and efficient city government. The reform measures outlined in Ballot Proposal Two speak directly to these goals. That’s why I urge you to vote “Yes” on Ballot Question Two.

Among the measures included are:

A “Yes” vote on Question Two will help to bring the City Charter into the 21st Century and create a more transparent, responsive and efficient city government.

Daniel R. Garodnick, City Council Member, District 4

Let's work together to ensure that the public can track the dollars spent on our local political campaigns. While the City’s Campaign Finance Board (CFB) requires comprehensive disclosure requirements for candidates, it cannot currently force outside groups to disclose independent expenditures. (Independent expenditures include not only TV and newspaper advertisements, but also telephone calls and direct mail done without the coordination of a campaign – and they can be in support of, or opposition to, a particular candidate or ballot measure.)

The Supreme Court in the 2010Citizens United case ruled that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures by corporations and other outside groups. But we can require that they reveal their spending. Given that the financial resources of these institutions exceed those of most individuals, they could have a considerable impact on local elections. The public should be able to know who is spending money to support, or oppose, candidates, and who is influencing local political campaigns. I encourage you to vote "yes" on the proposal on Elections and Government Administration.

Wayne Hawley, Deputy Executive Director, NYC Conflicts of Interest Board

Ethics penalties (section 2606). The maximum fine for a violation of the City’s ethics law has not been increased since 1989. Increasing the maximum fine not only takes care of 21 years of inflation but also gives the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board, the ethics board for the City of New York, more flexibility in fining public servants who violate the City’s ethics law. Also, in a number of cities, such as Chicago, Honolulu, Jacksonville, San Francisco, and Seattle, the ethics law allows the city to get back money that a public servant gets by violating the ethics law. This “disgorgement” provision is important because sometimes the gain from violating the law is much greater than the highest possible fine. These amendments to the Charter would accomplish all of these important goals. New York City’s ethics board urges you to vote Yes on Question 2.

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York urges a “yes” vote on the Elections and Government Administration proposal. While we believe the Commission should have submitted each of the seven provisions separately since they deal with different subjects, we are convinced that the majority of the proposals significantly improve accountability and transparency in city government and may not easily be secured through the legislative process.

Carl E. Person, 2010 Libertarian Candidate for New York Attorney General

Disclosure is desirable, and should include email addresses of the entities (to enable voters and others to attempt to influence the influencers) and individuals and the interests they represent. Increasing ballot access by reducing the required number of petition signatures is a sorely needed reform. The requirement of signatures places a costly burden on any candidate or party seeking to be placed on the ballot. For example, it cost about $60,000 in money and volunteer time (@ $10/hour) to place the Libertarian Party on the ballot with its statewide candidates this year. This is money that cannot be spent in the election campaign itself, and often prevents a person or party which gets on the ballot from mounting an effective challenge against the Democratic and Republican nominees (who did not have to obtain any petition signatures to get on the ballot).

Gene Russianoff, Senior Attorney, New York Public Interest Research Group

NYPIRG recommends a YES vote on Ballot Question Two. This question contains seven different proposals to change the City Charter, which is the city's basic constitution. NYPIRG believes that five of these measures represent solid steps forward. These include: increasing disclosure on independent campaign expenditures in city elections; making it easier for City candidates to get on the ballot by reducing the number of signatures required for election petitions; strengthening City non-partisan efforts to increase voter registration by placing the existing Voter Assistance Commission in the widely-praised Campaign Finance Board and re-making a new Voter Assistance Committee more independent; requiring conflicts of interest training for all City employees and raising penalties for violation of the City’s conflicts code; and mandating more information in siting City facilities, including transportation and waste facilities on the City’s facilities siting map. In the case of the remaining two proposals, we either have concerns (this provision creates a commission to recommend the possible elimination of City reporting requirements, subject to City Council and mayoral oversight) or lack expertise to form an opinion (whether to grant the mayor authority to merge City administrative tribunals.) On balance, NYPIRG recommends a YES vote on Ballot Question Two.

Henry J. Stern, President, New York Civic; Former Commissioner of Parks & Recreation

I urge you to vote “yes” on question 2. This collection of reforms represents a moderate step forward for New York. Particularly important is the provision to halve the number of signatures necessary for candidates to get on the ballot. This reform will increase competition for elected office and make it harder for political machines to throw challengers off the ballot.

Strengthening the conflict of interest law and the disclosure of independent campaign spending will hopefully prod the politicians to be a little more honest and limit the influence of special interest groups. While Question 2 scratches the surface of improper influence, it leaves healthy scratch marks and deserves public support. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Scott M. Stringer, Manhattan Borough President

I strongly support the adoption of this proposal. While I have urged the Commission to continue its work and conduct a top-to-bottom review on how to improve city government, these charter changes are an important step forward in restoring trust in government and increasing civic and voter participation. Our draconian ballot access laws have for too long discouraged individuals from running for public office. Reducing the number of required ballot petition signatures is an important reform towards minimizing barriers for those seeking elective office. Merging the Voter Assistance Commission with the Campaign Finance Board should provide increased clout and accountability in our city’s efforts to encourage voter turnout and registration. Given the city’s fiscal crisis, this streamlining of government is a timely charter change.

Public Commentary on Question 2—

List of Submitters

Alvin M. Berk

Vote "No" on Question 2. Disclosure of Independent Campaign Spending wouldn’t affect candidates wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. Mandatory Conflicts of Interest training and increased fines would have minimal effect. Merger of administrative tribunals into OATH could compromise the effectiveness of specialized administrative tribunals and would make it easier for future mayors to use political influence to control ALJ selection and assignment. Establishment of a commission to oversee report reduction would enable the mayor's majority appointees on the commission to block any City Council initiative to enhance or expand reports required of the mayor. The facility siting information to be added to the mapping requirement already is publicly available; this proposal doesn’t address the real Fair Share problems, especially City Hall’s ability to withhold siting information from the public until the last minute, thereby squelching effective public opposition. On balance, the negative components of Question 2 outweigh the positive ones. Vote "No."

James Brennan, Assemblymember, Brooklyn

In January good government groups, recognizing the Mayor would create a Charter Commission, wrote him asking that any commission “be given sufficient time to do its important work…” I also wrote the Mayor asking, “Will the Charter Commission be taking a serious look at the City government?”

Borough President Scott Stringer urged the Commission to put its questions on the ballot in 2011, and the New York Times urged the Commission to postpone placing questions on the ballot until 2012. The hope was for broad public engagement.

Unfortunately, the first question is simply the fulfillment of the deal between Mayor Bloomberg and businessman Ronald Lauder, to revisit term limits through a charter commission in exchange for Mr. Lauder’s support for Mr. Bloomberg’s third term.

The second question is seven separate questions but you can only vote yes or no on them as a group, which is unfair to the voters. One of these proposals would put the judges who hear cases involving sanitation and other tickets in one agency and allow their working conditions to be altered, which could harm their independence and ability to be fair to citizens.

Vote no.

Gale A. Brewer, City Council Member, District 6

There may or may not be merit to each of the individual proposals. But I see three problems with recommending approval. First, some of the provisions contained in these proposals were added in the final days of the Charter Revision Commission with little or no discussion. Second, proposals such as the consolidation of administrative tribunals, are varied and complex, and require careful consideration. Third, the design of the ballot requires voters to cast a "yes" or "no" vote on all seven proposals, and prohibits a vote on each proposal separately.

I believe that constitutional changes should be made only when voters have free choice and adequate input. Therefore, I am recommending a "no" vote on Question 2. As an alternative to a wholesale adoption of the seven changes to law, these proposals could be introduced as legislation in the City Council, become the subject of full public hearings, allow affected constituencies to testify, and then be voted on. Or, they could be taken up by a new Charter Revision Commission, given a full public hearing, and listed on the ballot individually.

Dan Jacoby, Executive Director, GrassrootsNYC

Part I – 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. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

2.   Cut the number of petition signatures to get on the ballot: The number of signatures is set by state election law, which takes precedence. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

3.   Put the Voter Assistance Commission under the Campaign Finance Board: The VAC should be under the auspices of the Board of Elections, not the Campaign Finance Board. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

Part II - Public Integrity
1. Raise maximum fines for a single violation of the City’s conflicts of interest law from $10,000 to $25,000: This makes draconian fines possible – and likely. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2. Authorize disgorgement of gains obtained as a result of any violation: This one is obvious. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3. Require each city employee to receive training in conflicts of interest law: Training sessions will be ongoing, expensive, and generally ineffective; what is learned is usually not retained. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

Part III - Government Administration
1.   Allow the Mayor to reorganize administrative tribunals: This gives the Mayor power to control what is supposed to be an independent proceeding. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2.   Create a commission to recommend elimination of unnecessary reporting requirements: Again, obvious. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3.   Add to the annual map of the "citywide statement of needs" certain state, federal and private services: These additions will give us a better understanding of what is available. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

Summary
The Charter Revision Commission is grouping all of these proposals together, denying voters our right to choose. GrassrootsNYC supports four, and opposes five, of the individual proposals, and more strongly opposes denying voters the right to choose. Therefore, GrassrootsNYC strongly opposes the combined proposal.

Charter Revision Ballot Questions

Question 1: Term Limits

Question 2: Elections and Government Administration

QUESTION 1. Term Limits: The proposal would amend the City Charter to:

Plain-language Summary

Question 1 would amend term limits in the Charter.

Reasons to Vote YES on Question 1

Reasons to Vote NO on Question 1

Public Commentary on Question 1—

List of Submitters

Public Commentary on Question 1—

List of Submitters

QUESTION 2. Elections and Government Administration: The proposal would amend the City Charter to:

Plain Language Summary

Question 2 would amend the Charter in multiple ways, as described below.

Reasons to Vote YES on Question 2

Reasons to Vote NO on Question 2

Public Commentary on Question 2—

List of Submitters

Public Commentary on Question 2—

List of Submitters