New Yorkers are slated to vote on existing advice-and-consent ballot question in November, but commission could block their choice by rushing ballot proposals to undermine democratic oversight
City Council Members united in calling out the Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission for trying to block voters’ rights and undermine local democracy by rushing the development of new proposals that disenfranchise New Yorkers from voting on an existing advice-and-consent ballot question in November. The elected representatives of districts throughout the city had urged the Mayor’s Commission to instead use its full term to fulfill its responsibility, thoroughly reviewing the City Charter and developing proposals for the 2025 General Election with more extensive policy assessment and public engagement.
Council spokesperson, Julia Agos, issued the following statement in response to the Commission’s final report being released: “This Mayor’s sham Charter Revision Commission has done a disservice to New Yorkers by putting forward rushed proposals that block voters’ rights while undermining democracy and oversight of the Mayor’s administration. The lack of independence of the Mayor’s Commission has made a mockery of what should be a serious process, with their last hearing consisting of commissioners asking testifiers how many votes the Mayor received in the election and inaccurately claiming it was millions. This final report mirrors the commission’s rushed process with it issuing its final report less than 24 hours after this final hearing with hours of public testimony.
“The Mayor’s commission has put forward proposals that impact the Council without engaging us as the entity affected, different from the Council’s legislative process that the Mayor’s Commission has consistently attacked. It has engaged in a legislative process and failed to meet even the most basic requirements for openness and transparency that would be a fraction of the Council’s process. The Council urges this Commission and the Mayor’s Administration to avert this unnecessary and obvious disenfranchisement of voters. Let New Yorkers decide on the existing advice-and-consent ballot question this year instead of continuing with this undemocratic sham.”
The Council released a new video explaining the advice-and-consent proposal that New Yorkers will be able to vote on in November’s General Election, deciding whether 20 additional agency commissioners should require confirmation by the Council. However, the Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission had been rushing to develop new proposals that change the City’s constitution for the 2024 General Election to block New Yorkers from exercising their democratic right to vote on the existing proposal.
Advice-and-consent is a well-established safeguard of democracy to ensure government prioritizes the public interest rather than those of individuals, which has long been used in many of the nation’s cities and state governments, making New York City an outlier. Advice-and-consent can strengthen the city’s government and representative democracy by ensuring that the appointments for agency commissioners are based on qualifications and the public’s interests, rather than political loyalty or other motivations.
A Charter Revision Commission is a major process to change the City’s constitution, which requires a full review of the City Charter and the development of proposals to improve government. It should provide extensive ways for the public to engage and a thorough review of proposals with stakeholders. This Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission has operated on a rushed schedule of less than two months of meetings. However, the law that authorizes the Commission allows it to operate until November 2025, providing ample time to conduct a thorough constitutional review and develop thoughtful proposals. The City’s last Charter Revision Commission in 2019 operated for nearly eight months to review the Charter and advance proposals to the ballot.
The advice-and-consent bill was introduced on May 23 and the Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission held its first meeting on May 29. The law (Int. 908-A) was adopted after the Council passed it in a near-unanimous, bipartisan vote of 46-4 on June 6.
Jeffrey Baker, Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislation and Policy, New York City Council: “Part of the reason the Council’s legislative process has drawn any attention is because it is open and transparent. That fact invites criticism. But most of the decisions that the Mayor and city agencies make daily affecting operations and policy require no public process at all. No fiscal impact statements are required, no public input is solicited, and no explanations are given. And because there is no public process for these decisions, our attention is focused on fine tuning the public process of one branch of city government that actually has one. Frequently, the only meaningful debate on the Mayor’s public policy decisions occurs at the Council, at oversight hearings, or while considering legislation. Weakening the Council’s ability to impact policy through legislation only empowers the office of the Mayor to set policy with no input whatsoever.
“Furthermore, when the Council is considering a bill that affects the operation of city government we always engage with the agencies or entities that we are regulating. We welcome the expression of legal, fiscal, logistical, and operational concerns. And we make amendments where we can without sacrificing the policy vision of the Council.
“As I testify today, we are three days away from what will likely be your final vote to approve ballot measures that may directly impact the operations of the New York City Council. And which may have serious implications to how public policy is formed in New York City. And as of today, no one knows what those measures will be. No one has been given an opportunity to meaningfully comment on them. And no one will have an opportunity to improve them through debate and public discourse. Least of all the entity you are seeking to regulate.
“If this Charter Commission is legitimately concerned about the ability of stakeholders to provide input during the legislative process, then it must recognize that it is currently engaged in a legislative process, and it is failing to meet even the most basic requirements for openness and transparency.”
Jason Otaño, General Counsel of the New York City Council: “The importance of an independent legislative branch was emphasized in the 1989 Charter Revision. In reality, the Council as we currently know it did not exist before then. It was that Charter revision that realigned the City government’s power structure to make the Council a more powerful, more representative co-equal counterpart to the Mayor to fulfill a key American principle: that a legislature serves as a check and balance to the executive branch.”
No comments:
Post a Comment