Ballot Question #3: Ethics and Government

NYPIRG urges a YES vote on Question 3.
A two-year ban on lobbying by former elected and appointed officials in front of their old agencies will help reduce the possibility of corruption. Such lobbying by former government employees and officials can result in undue influence on our government and undermine our democracy. The power these lobbyists wield should be limited so they don’t overshadow the influence of regular New Yorkers.
Further, the Conflicts of Interest Board is tasked as a watchdog overseeing the actions of the Mayor, City Council, and the city’s public servants and employees. Currently the Mayor appoints all five board members with approval from the Council. Redistributing two appointments to the Public Advocate’s and Comptroller’s offices would make the COIB more independent and therefore more effective at their task.
NYPIRG believes that the Corporation Counsel is closely tied to the office of the Mayor and we are wary of any changes that may compromise that status. While the proposed reform to the Corp Counsel is a departure from this, NYPIRG nonetheless believes that, as a whole, this ballot question’s impact is positive and therefore we urge a YES vote.

New York City has a revolving door between city government and those who profit off of government, allowing elected officials and agency heads to take jobs with companies that had business before them. Currently, they must only wait 1 year before lobbying the agency or branch of government they served in. While I believe in a lifetime ban on lobbying to permanently end the revolving door, this question would double the length of our city's revolving door prohibition to 2 years, giving the public more confidence in their government and guarding against actual or perceived corruption.
Women and people of color face discrimination when seeking to do business with the city to such an extent that there is a clear disparity between the number of businesses they own and those getting hired. This question codifies the Office of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) as reporting directly to the Mayor with the mission of ending this discrimination and creating economic opportunity for women and communities of color.
For Question 3 on Ethics and Government, vote YES.

Question 3 would amend the Charter to strengthen existing ethics guidelines in several ways. Most importantly, Question 3 sets strict limits on the political activity of COIB members by prohibiting their participation in any local campaign, and reducing the amount they can contribute to candidates. New Yorkers expect those acting in a watchdog capacity to exhibit integrity, high ethical standards, and most importantly, independence.
Question 3 also aims to close the so-called “revolving door” by extending the ban on former elected City officials or senior appointed officials from communicating with the agency or office that previously employed them. Extending the ban is an essential step in curtailing the all too common practice of former public officials leveraging their previous positions in government.
By changing the appointment process of the city’s chief lawyer, Question 3 ensures that the Corporation Counsel does not fall under improper pressure from the Mayor that would impede their ability to fairly represent the interests of the city as a whole.

New York Immigration Coalition Position: Support
These proposals combat corruption and unfair influence peddling by extending the time former elected officials and city employees may not appear before or contact their former agency; improving the independence of the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) by adding members not appointed by the Mayor; restricting campaign contributions and participation from those tasked with investigating corruption; making the position of Citywide Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprises Director permanent to diversify which business owners receive city funding; and requiring the City Council to approve the City’s top lawyer before they are allowed to join the Mayor’s staff.

Reinvent Albany urges you to vote YES on Question 3.
Question 3 extends the restrictions on elected officials and public servants lobbying their past offices from one year to two years.
When elected officials and government employees lobby their old coworkers soon after leaving office, it can create a perception of undue influence. Lengthening the post-employment ban on former elected officials and government employees makes it less likely that decisions of public servants will be influenced by those they recently worked with, and helps ensure decisions will be made on the merits.
Q3 also restricts how much members of the Conflict of Interest Board (COIB) can donate to candidates for office in NYC and prohibits board members from participating in campaigns for public office.
This proposal will help build public trust in COIB’s conduct. The Board enforces the City’s ethics laws, so board members must sometimes vote on whether elected officials have violated the law. But if a board member has previously contributed to the campaign of the elected official, it is difficult to trust the impartiality of the member’s vote. The new restrictions will make such perceptions less likely.

We recommend a “yes” vote on this ballot item. These measures add some checks and balances on Mayoral power, without weakening our strong mayoral form of government.
This proposal promotes transparency by expanding COIB appointment authority to the COIB to include input from the Public Advocate and Comptroller, as well as by incorporating the advice and consent of the City Counsel into the appointment of the Corporation Counsel, which represents all city entities.
This proposal also creates checks on potential abuses of power, by slowing the revolving door of employees becoming lobbyists and limiting political contributions by members of the Conflict of Interest Board to local candidates.
Lastly, this proposal would codify the current practice of having the Director of the Minority/Women's Business Enterprise (M/WBE) program report directly to the Mayor.

Citizens Union recommends a no vote on question 3, which includes controversial items and covers disparate issues. The question would lengthen the amount of time that city employees could not appear before their former agency to two years rather than the current one year; give the public advocate and comptroller appointments to the Conflict of Interest Board; limit what Conflict of Interest Board members can contribute to city campaigns; create a mayoral office for the Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise program; and require that appointment of the corporation counsel be subject to Council approval.

We ask that you vote no. The Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise ("M/WBE") program is constitutionally justified only as a remedial program for past discrimination. It is inappropriate to inscribe such a temporary program into a permanent charter and office under the Mayor. These are also legislative moves that are inappropriate for the City Charter and deprive City Counsel of any role. The M/WBE program itself is deeply flawed, engaging in racial preferences, encouraging fraud and abuse, and adding inefficiencies and waste to the City budget. The program was only established in 2005 and other cities structure similar programs differently. Chartering the program creates a permanent obstacle to reforming the City’s extremely wasteful and inefficient procurement system or reforming, replacing or eliminating the M/WBE program.

Participating in local elections is an act of participating in democracy. By prohibiting members of the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) from doing that, this proposal would prohibit them from participating in their democracy. It would also set a precedent of potentially prohibiting other members of government agencies from participating in campaigns.
While effort to reduce perceived and actual corruption are appropriate and the reason both the COIB and the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) exist, going all the way as to prohibit COIB employees from being involved in local campaigns is a step too far.
There are thousands of people working in City government. From the local public school teacher to the Mayor himself, they are all permitted to participate in elections. The COIB is already overseeing many City employees and makes sure they do not misuse taxpayer money. Those barriers already exist and an all-out prohibition on participating in campaigns seems inappropriate.
Working for the City, even for the Conflict of Interest Board, shouldn't disqualify you from being an active participant in local democracy.
Because of this, I urge residents to vote NO on ballot question #3.