Follow us on 
|
Please upgrade your Flash Player
|
|
Click on underlined names for statements. PRO AND CON STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC
“PRO” STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC RANDY M. MASTRO As Chair of the City’s Charter Revision Commission, I have been asked: Why change the Charter now? The answer is simple: Because our children’s future depends on it. First, this Commission’s budget proposals would promote fiscal prudence by making it harder for a Mayor and City Council to raise taxes or impose new taxes on New Yorkers, limiting City spending increases to the rate of inflation, and requiring creation of an emergency fund to hold City surpluses in reserve for emergency needs or to prepay debt. Mayor Giuliani and City Council Speaker Vallone have jointly supported such fiscal discipline. But what of the next Mayor and Speaker? Will they be as responsible? With these Charter changes, they will have to be. Next, this Commission’s proposals emphasize social responsibility by promoting child welfare, protecting civil rights and immigrant rights, improving the delivery of health and mental health services, preventing domestic violence, and fighting organized crime. In each of these areas, the current administration’s commitment is well documented. But will future administrations be as vigilant? By making these changes a permanent part of the City Charter, they will have to be. This Commission has further recommended that voters be given the right to elect a new Mayor within 60 days of a mayoral vacancy, just as they are already empowered to vote to fill vacancies in every other City elected office. To eliminate any concerns about the effect of this proposal on current officeholders, the Commission has recommended that this proposal only become effective on January 1, 2002. The essence of democracy is the people’s right to elect their leaders. Why shouldn’t voters have that same right to elect their Mayor? With these Charter changes, they will. Perhaps most important among these Charter reforms, however, are those to protect our children from gun violence. These proposals would create “gun free” school safety zones within 1,000 feet of every City school — similar to the “drug-free” school safety zones already in existence — and require all gun owners to keep safety locks on their guns or else face criminal sanctions. What could be more important than protecting our children from gun violence? This is an issue that transcends politics. It is a moral imperative.
AMALIA V. BETANZOS This year, I had the privilege of serving on my fifth Charter Revision Commission. Based on my 15-year experience, I know that this year’s Commission followed the best traditions of Charter review and produced a wonderful package of reforms that will benefit all New Yorkers. The 1999 Commission had more women (40%) than ever before and the City’s first Asian-American member. We were also politically diverse, with ten Democrats, three Republicans, one Liberal, and one Independent. Although we came from all walks of life, we shared a single purpose: to find ways to make the Charter, and the City, work better. Our process began with a public outreach campaign to solicit ideas for Charter change, conducted through a dozen newspapers, cable television, the World Wide Web, and a mass-mailing to about 4,000 interested persons. We considered more than 100 ideas, analyzed 40 in greater detail (in a 250-page public report), and adopted 14. Our deliberative process was open to the public and televised in its entirety. We held six public hearings (including one in each borough). We published our proposals in 15 newspapers in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Russian and brought Spanish, Chinese, and American Sign Language interpreters with us to ensure that all would be heard. We heard from hundreds of witnesses, including more than 300 members of the public, 40 elected officials, and 30 invited experts. We received more than 4,600 “hits” at our site on the World Wide Web. Our work was covered in more than 100 articles that appeared in more than 20 publications. We’ve recommended exciting reforms for New York’s Charter. Protections for minorities, gays and lesbians, and immigrants. Better City services to prevent child abuse and neglect and domestic violence. Coordinated health and mental hygiene services. New Laws to protect our children from gun violence. We followed a great process and produced a great proposal. For the fifth time, I am proud to ask you to vote “yes” on Charter change.
ABRAHAM BIDERMAN As a member of the 1999 Charter Revision Commission, I voted for the Charter reforms that will be before you on November 2nd. I urge you to vote “yes” on Charter change this election day. Reforming the Charter will improve our government in many ways. We’ll protect our children by creating “gun free” school safety zones and requiring gun owners to use “trigger locks” to prevent tragic accidents. We’ll root organized crime out of our economy, an effort that has already saved businesses $750 million per year. And we’ll ensure that immigrants can access City services without fear of deportation. I am excited about all of these important reforms. But as a former Commissioner of two City agencies, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, during the Koch Administration, I am most excited about the reforms to the City’s contracting system. About one-fifth of your tax dollars is spent on City contracts, and it takes the City, on average, five to ten months to spend that money. That means delays in construction and technology projects, the provision of social services, and the City’s daily operations. This lengthy bureaucratic process is unnecessary and unacceptable. Voting “yes” on Charter change will accelerate the process in many ways. First, for about 14% of the City’s contracts, the “small purchases,” the delays will be cut by about 88%. Second, it will be easier to work with other governments that have contracts, like the State of New York. Third, there will be a centralized system for determining which contractors are corrupt or bad performers, thereby eliminating duplication of effort and reducing the risk that the City will be cheated. Charter change means better government. It means a government that buys technology that is state of the art, rather than obsolete. It means a government that pays its bills on time and that all businesses, large and small, want to have as a client. That’s the kind of government that will spend your tax dollars effectively. Vote “yes” on November 2nd.
NOACH DEAR Requiring anyone who purchases a weapon to also purchase and install a safety-lock makes perfect sense. Every year, too many of our family, friends, children and acquaintances have their lives needlessly taken away from them by a gun. Be it a shooting where the gun goes off accidentally and kills an innocent child or a senseless tragedy like the high school shooting in Colorado, having a simple precaution such as a trigger lock, could have prevented the loss of life. By including the placement of trigger locks on rifles, shot guns, assault weapons and machine guns, you ensure that lives will be saved. If one must own such a weapon, they must be required to take responsibility for the weapon and the lives of those that come near it; a trigger lock protects us all. I also stand in support of holding a special election within 60 days when the position of Mayor is vacated. It will make the process of electing a Mayor more uniform while still preserving the role of the public advocate. By making this process more uniform, the public advocate fulfills a vital role and provides a seamless transition of power. Furthermore, by making this process more uniform, the City can get back to business-as-usual in a more effective and timely manner. Currently, when the Office of Mayor is vacated, the public advocate fills the position and stays there until the next election cycle. The citizens of New York should be able to elect their own candidate and to have him functioning on their behalf as soon as possible.
FOREST HILLS COMMUNITY & CIVIC
ASSOCIATION, INC. We applaud the recommendation that gun free zones be created around the perimeter of school properties. The climate today encourages youth to react, or act, in a violent manner whenever provoked and any control which will reduce the possibility of grievous harm can only prove beneficial.
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI In the past six years, New York City has experienced a renaissance. We are once again the undisputed “Capital of the World,” a city renewed through a commitment to public safety, fiscal integrity and social responsibility. On November 2nd, you will have an opportunity to extend this renaissance into the next century. To make our progress permanent, vote “yes” on Charter change. Below are just a few reasons why. Since I became Mayor, the crime rate has fallen by 50% and the murder rate has been reduced by 70%. Charter reform will make our City even safer by creating “gun free” school safety zones, requiring trigger locks on guns, creating an Organized Crime Control Commission and mandating coordinated services to prevent domestic violence. I have sponsored tax cuts that by fiscal year 2003 will have saved taxpayers $8.8 billion. Charter reform will ensure fiscal responsibility in the future and make it harder to raise your taxes. This Administration has lived up to its social responsibilities. I have fought for immigrant rights, doubled the efficiency of the City’s civil rights enforcement program, overhauled our approach to protecting children from abuse and neglect, coordinated our public health and mental hygiene programs, and cut most of the red-tape from the City’s contracting system. A “yes” vote on Charter reform will make these changes permanent by adding four new agencies to the Charter: the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs and Language Services, the Commission on Human Rights, the Administration for Children’s Services, and the Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene. Charter reform will make our City more democratic. If I left office early, the Public Advocate would be your Mayor for up to fifteen months. That’s not democracy — and it’s not the system we use to fill vacancies in any other City elected office. A “yes” vote on Charter change won’t solve this problem during my term but it will eliminate it starting January 1, 2002. If you like what I’ve done for New York City, vote “yes” on November 2nd and make these reforms permanent.
MARTIN J. GOLDEN I support the proposal to revise the City Charter that will be on the ballot in this November’s election. In particular, I would like to emphasize my support for the amalgamation of two health-related city agencies into one department. The proposed merger of the Department of Health and the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services provides the City an opportunity to combine the considerable talents, expertise, and resources of the city’s public health agencies into a single entity. By joining these departments, the City will be better able to address the health, safety and well being of all New Yorkers while improving services to New Yorkers most in need. A single public health agency will be able to take on many of the public health problems facing New Yorkers. The synergies produced by the merger will allow the new agency to provide a comprehensive array of services. The present bureaucracy impedes cooperation between the agencies, and makes it difficult for the City to develop a focused response to many public health problems. Whether it be managed care, the complex needs of children and adolescents, or the needs of New Yorkers fighting the scourge of alcohol, I am confident that a single public health agency will be a more effective instrument for securing the health of all New Yorkers.
VITO J. LOPEZ As a Brooklyn Democrat and Assemblyman representing the Bushwick and Williamsburg communities, I have witnessed a kind of miracle occur here in recent years. The historically impoverished Bushwick and Williamsburg neighborhoods, with one of the largest Latino populations, has undergone a remarkable transformation. Over the past four years, crime has fallen in Bushwick and Williamsburg by more than 50% and the murder rate has dropped by more than 75%. Our people are finding new employment opportunities and we see new housing and new businesses coming to our community. In short, our children now live in a safer, cleaner neighborhood where they can look to a bright future. I am proud to have played my part in the Bushwick renaissance, and I appreciate recent policies that have helped make this renaissance a reality. That is why I strongly support these City Charter changes. They will make permanent the reforms that have served our city so well in recent years. We must make sure that our City’s progress continues. With these Charter changes, our City’s progress will continue into the new millennium. These Charter changes will protect our children from gun violence by creating “gun free” school safety zones within 1000 feet of every school and requiring safety locks on all guns. These Charter changes will preserve our City’s commitment to civil rights and immigrants’ rights by incorporating those protections (and the agencies responsible for them) directly into the Charter. These Charter changes will ensure our City’s fiscal integrity — and keep our local economic boom going — by creating an emergency fund out of City surpluses to fund emergency needs or to prepay debt, to limit City spending increases to the rate of inflation, and to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes or impose new taxes. Finally, these Charter changes will institutionalize government reorganizations that are working well, such as establishing the Administration for Children’s Services as an independent agency, forming an Organized Crime Control Commission, consolidating City agencies to create a Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene Services, and require executive coordination of City services to prevent domestic violence.
GUY V. MOLINARI I urge all New Yorkers to vote in favor of the Charter Revision Commission’s proposed changes to the New York City Charter, which are presented to you on the referendum ballot. I believe these changes can ultimately improve the quality of life of all New Yorkers, and help build a stronger City as we enter the new Millennium. By way of background, the Charter Revision Commission conducted extensive, painstaking research, with an eye toward developing proposals which can enhance fiscal responsibility and effectiveness of your City government. In terms of the City budget, the Commission proposes changes which will provide a long-sought deterrent to overburdening our residents with additional or increased taxes. It also proposes to reserve at least 50% of any surplus revenue for a special Budget Stabilization Emergency fund. This can be an effective mechanism ensuring the fiscal health of our City in the event of an emergency. Also proposed is consolidation of the Department of Health and the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services. Since these two agencies share similar missions, many populations in our City can benefit by coordinated service delivery. Furthermore, the Commission proposes the establishment of the Administration of Children Services as a Charter agency. I am pleased that the Commission has recommended a Charter amendment to streamline the City’s procurement process. I favor the authorization of an integrity review of vendors contracting with the City, thus better safeguarding residents against corrupt businesses. Finally, on the issue of mayoral succession, the Commission’s proposal offers you the electorate the right to choose a new Mayor in a special election. Therefore I endorse the Commission’s proposal to revise the Charter in this regard, effective January 1, 2002. Your vote in favor of the referendum will help prepare New York City for the 21st Century.
JAMES S. ODDO As legislators, we are charged with the duty of enacting laws. Moreover, we must also look at laws in their current form and determine how we can improve upon them to best serve the inhabitants of our City. “Christopher’s Law” in its current form has good intentions. However, it is not all-inclusive because weapons of choice are no longer simply revolvers and pistols, but rather rifles, assault weapons and machine guns. Therefore, the law should be amended to require that safety-locking devices be purchased whenever any weapon is purchased, and not solely for revolvers or pistols. Additionally, the law should be retroactive to the enactment of “Christopher’s Law.”
JOHN RAVITZ As a Manhattan Assemblyman, I have seen how much the Wall Street boom has helped our City’s economy. Perhaps even more important in facilitating our local economy recovery, however, has been the prudent fiscal management of the City’s budget in recent years. That is why I testified and support Charter change. It would make permanent those budgetary reforms that have taken our City from the brink of fiscal crisis in the early 1990’s to a sound, structurally balanced budget today. We can not necessarily count on the next Mayor and the next City Council Speaker to be as fiscally prudent as the current officeholders. I want to see the next Mayor and the next City Council Speaker follow these same practices of fiscal integrity and budgetary restraint. That is why these Charter changes are so essential. They will require City government to limit City spending increases to the rate of inflation, to hold the line on taxes by requiring a super majority two-thirds vote to raise a tax or impose a new tax, and to establish an emergency fund out of City surpluses to fund emergency needs or to prepay debt. In short, with these Charter changes, we can be assured of a sound fiscal future from our City, regardless of who is our next Mayor or City Council Speaker. Finally, I also enthusiastically support Charter change to require a special election within 60 days of a mayoral vacancy, to become effective as of January 1, 2002. This is how we currently fill vacancies in every other City elected office, and this is how mayoral vacancies are filled in such other major cities as Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Denver, and Minneapolis. The essence of democracy is the right to vote. New Yorkers should be empowered to elect a new Mayor, just as they are empowered to fill vacancies in other City elected offices. The Charter Revision Commission has wisely chosen, however, to make this change effective as January 1, 2002, so that no current office holder can claim any unfairness in the process.
CLAIRE SHULMAN The New York City Charter has been compared to the U.S. Constitution, and, like the Constitution, it both defends and protects the way we are governed in a democratic society. However, like any great document, the City Charter can and must be amended. During the course of New York City’s unique and evolving history, a Charter Commission may propose a sweeping overhaul or focus on certain sections. In my testimony before the Charter Revision Commission of 1999, I supported many of the recommendations put forth by the commission. Those related to domestic violence, civil rights and immigrant affairs have a particular relevance here in Queens. On a broader scale, who can argue against a charter revision that creates gun-free school safety zones within 1,000 feet of every school in New York City? Another amendment would require persons purchasing or obtaining safety locking devices for firearms at the time one is purchased or obtained, and to use the safety locking device when storing the firearm or else face criminal penalties. I also support a “Yes” vote to revise the City Charter to provide for a special election to be held within 60 days to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor. Although much debate surrounded this particular recommendation, we must recall the words of Harry Truman, who stated: “It isn’t the polls or public opinion of the moment that counts. It is right and wrong.”
TOSANO J. SIMONETTI I urge you to vote “yes” on Charter change. I was a member of the New York Police department for 40 years and retired after serving as the NYPD’s First Deputy Commissioner. I also served on the 1999 Charter Revision Commission and voted for the Charter revisions that will be on the ballot this November. Once infamous for its high crime rate, New York City has become the safest large city in America. One way to keep New York safe is to vote for Charter change. The Charter reforms on the ballot include a number of public safety measures: creation of an Organized Crime Control Commission, mandated executive coordination of services to prevent domestic violence, centralized integrity review of contractors that do business with the City, creation of “gun-free” school safety zones within 1,000 feet of every City school, and required use of “trigger locks” on guns. While there are many reasons to vote for Charter change, for me, these are among the most compelling. I feel particularly strongly about the creation of “gun-free” school safety zones. The tragedies at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, at schools in Arkansas and Kentucky, and most recently at a Los Angeles pre-school have shattered the notion that schools are safe havens for children. New York City’s schools are not immune to gun-related incidents. In the last eight months alone, the NYPD’s School Safety Division reported 34 gun-related incidents at our schools. And, over that period, officers seized 17 handguns. Guns do not belong at or near schools. The proposed Charter reform will make it illegal in most instances to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of any school in the City. It’s hard for me to believe that we haven’t already outlawed guns near schools. Charter change is long overdue. Vote “yes” in November.
ALFONSO C. STABILE I am writing in favor of final proposal submitted by the Charter Revision Commission. I am particularly in favor of the proposed revision that would combine various public health agencies into a single, unified agency. By combining such agencies as the Department of Health and Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services, our great City would be opening up numerous doorways for not only the residents of our City but for those who work in either Department. Valuable conduits of expertise and resources will for the first time be available under one agency. This will enable our City to provide better, effective and efficient care and services to the thousands of residents who depend on public assistance for health care. In a City as large and diverse as ours, having a single public health agency will be better able to address and treat the numerous physical and mental health problems affecting our City. Such new initiatives could include more detailed information on high-risk groups, treatment programs that more intricately link substance abuse treatment to primary health care, and comprehensive programs and services designed to deal with our greatest asset, our children. A single organization can reach out to all five boroughs and build relationships with each community, providing assistance with such other programs as Medicaid. Currently, the Office of Medicaid Managed Care manages Medicaid. If merged into one agency, two million residents who are projected to enroll into Medicaid over the next several years will have a new agency to provide them assistance. One, single agency will eliminate much of the hassle and “run-around” experienced by many New Yorkers and will provide a more effective and efficient New York City service.
GUY J. VELELLA As a State Senator from the Bronx and a lifelong New Yorker, I have marveled at how much our City has changed for the better in recent years. Today, we live in the “new” New York City — a city that is safer, that affords greater economic opportunity and that again offers the hope that our children will enjoy a better life. Those reforms that have served us so well in recent years will become a fleeting memory, however, if we do not take steps now to make them permanent. From my perspective as a State legislator often called upon to help the City get State funding to meet its budget needs, I am particularly impressed by the Commission’s budget proposals. During prior administrations, I saw Mayors spend with recklessness and then impose increased taxes on New Yorkers to pay for those spending excess. In recent years, the current Mayor and City Council Speaker have set the City on a new course of fiscal prudence. Working together, they have reduced City spending growth and cut taxes by historic proportions. And for the past two years in a row, they have produced record City surpluses that they have held in reserve for emergencies and, if not spent, to prepay debt. What this Mayor and this City Council Speaker have done as a matter of policy should become permanent law so that the next Mayor and the next Council Speaker have to stay the course. Therefore, I urge you to support Charter change — especially this Commission’s budget recommendations to limit City spending increases to the rate of inflation, to require a two-thirds vote of the City Council to raise taxes or impose new taxes on New Yorkers, and to create an emergency fund out of City surplus to fund emergency needs as determined jointly by the Mayor and the City Council and, if not spent, to prepay debt. These simple but sound changes will ensure that we avert the fiscal crises of the past and keep our City on a sound financial course into the next century.
“CON” STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
PETER F. VALLONE The public should vote no on the Charter referendum. A yes vote could drastically reduce a future City Council’s ability to put more police on the streets, and more money into schools, libraries and cultural institutions. Most of the Commission’s non-budgetary proposals could be accomplished through legislation. A Charter Revision Commission should concern itself with broad powers and functions of government rather than specific substantive issues better left to the legislature, which can conduct focused public hearings on each issue, and ensure thorough debate of the issues. Due to the Commission’s rush and preoccupation with filling Mayoral vacancies, this process was shortchanged. The budget proposals will weaken the system of checks and balances by centralizing power with the Mayor and eroding the Council’s power. Without the Council’s leadership in budgeting, the City would not have had the Safe Street/Safe City program responsible for dramatically reducing crime, nor would the City’s schools have the money desperately needed for construction and modernization. The Council did this while drastically reducing spending. The Council also created the City’s first Budget Stabilization Fund, and this year enacted the largest tax cut in the City’s history. These accomplishments resulted from the making of difficult choices, and a greater balance of power between the executive and legislature — not from the imposition of arbitrary spending caps, formulas for reserves, or super-majority voting requirements for taxes which could allow small factions of extremists to control the Council. The Commission’s proposal for a special election to fill a Mayoral vacancy after January 1, 2002, given its intention to study Mayoral succession, is premature. Some Commission members voiced support, as did I, for creating a Vice Mayor. If changes are to be made shortly regarding Mayoral succession, these changes should be considered together with changes in the timing of elections to fill vacancies. Presenting this patchwork of fourteen unrelated “legislative” proposals as a single question does a great disservice to voters. A voter who wants stricter gun laws, but fears that merging the City’s health and mental health agencies could result in loss of services to vulnerable populations, is forced to choose which issue is more important.
The proposal is the product of a Commission with a narrow constituency. Its members were all picked by the mayor and are close to him in one way or another. No other government body or high elected official took part in selecting the members. The process took place during the last half of the summer, without opportunity for input from a significant percentage of this city’s citizens. The final proposal will not have been carefully considered or well-understood by many voters, and will be offered up on an election day when the turnout will be low because there are no major contested races. All of the proposed charter changes will have to be voted up or down as a block — denying a voter who likes one but not another the opportunity to distinguish between them with his or her vote. This whole effort is anti-democratic. Substantively, some of the separate elements of this proposal, such as gun regulation, may be good things to do, but they could and should be enacted through the city’s legislative process, by 51 democratically-elected City Council people, with the signature of the Mayor, rather than put forward by a narrow commission and ratified by a small turnout of voters. The first alternative would be more democratic and representative, and allow for fuller debate. There’s no rush. Putting in our charter — the city’s constitution — provisions limiting increases in city spending, how surpluses can be used, and how taxes can be voted, rather than allowing elected officials to determine these matters as necessary, is dead wrong.
JAMES F. BRENNAN There are several proposals that should be rejected by voters. These include abolishing competitive bidding for all City purchases of goods and services under $100,000! The current small purchase exemption is $25,000. The same group or business can get lots of contracts without competitive bidding as long as each one is under $100,000. The door would be wide open to corruption and favoritism in City contracting. Another proposal would allow every City agency to create a list of those businesses or groups it wanted to do business with. If you weren’t on the “list” you could not do business with the City. This process, called “prequalifying bidders” is advertised as an anti-corruption measure. But there are no protections, rules or guidelines in the Charter proposal for getting on or off the list. There are no protections from government favoritism and abuse. If you are a friend of the Mayor, you can do business with the City. If you are an enemy of the Mayor you can’t do business with the City. Voters should reject this idea. The Charter Commission sugarcoated its bad proposals with nice ideas already in law or regulation. The New York City Human Rights Law already bars discrimination against citizens. An Executive Order signed by Mayor Koch prevents discrimination against immigrants. It is already a Federal offense to possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school, and the Council passed a law to require child safety locks on guns.
CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK Voters should reject the proposed charter change because the proposals were adopted in haste and with too little public discussion. And voters should reject the propose charter change because several of the proposals are ill thought-out and could even be harmful in their consequences for the people of New York City. The proposed tax provisions would hamper the ability of future Mayors and Councils to respond to changes in the economy and to urgent needs for public service improvements. For example, a minority of Council members could block a future Safe Streets, Safe City program to help reduce crime. Or a future program to bring the City’s schools up to the standards of the wealthy suburbs could be blocked by a minority of Council members who place too little priority on the education of our future generations. The proposed reorganization of City agencies does not require a Charter change. A hastily assembled and too little thought out set of proposals for reshuffling City agencies does not belong on the referendum ballot. Finally, the proposed change in the mayoral line of succession should be thought through carefully and the citizens of the City given a full chance to respond to the issues. Hasty action to change the City’s fundamental law with regard to our self-government is not good public policy.
CITIZENS UNION Question 1 includes a mix of 14 proposals: good, bad, and indifferent. Some of the proposals involve serious constitutional questions. Many others could be accomplished by simple legislation or executive order, and should not be offered as Charter amendments. The major constitutional level proposals of Question 1 are not desirable: Finance and Future Governments — Question 1 would limit the powers of future City governments to write budgets and raise revenues. The City could not propose spending over the rate of inflation without a declaration “of an emergency or other need” by both Mayor and Council. The Council could not increase taxes over a Mayor’s veto unless it voted by a four-fifths majority. These proposals may seem fiscally prudent, but they represent a serious attempt to tie the hands of future governments and to tilt the balance of power towards the Mayor in a system of checks and balances already weighted in favor of the executive. At the very least, such changes deserve more discussion than this year’s timetable has permitted. Special Election — Question 1 proposes a special election held 60 days after a Mayor’s resignation, no matter when he or she resigns. This proposal originated in partisan politics and continues to raise controversy. Let’s put all of that behind us. Let’s take a calm, non-partisan look at the whole question of what happens when a Mayor resigns or is incapacitated. Should the Mayor be succeeded by the Public Advocate? Or should a new office of Vice Mayor be established? Should there be a special election if the Mayor resigns in the final portion of his or her service? Or should no special election be called within six months of the end of a term? Question 1 was approved by a mayoral charter revision commission in inappropriate haste. The City Charter is the constitution of our community. Changes should be proposed when there is time for a more deliberative process. This was not the case here.
COMMON CAUSE/NY The short timeframe for this commission began on July 4 and ended on Labor Day. Changes to the City Charter deserve more time and attention than a summer break while most New Yorkers are away. In the past, Charter Commissions have taken years to review and debate issues with the public before putting anything on the ballot. There are also numerous precedents of separate ballot questions for controversial and intellectually unconnected issues. There is no reason why in this instance all the issues are being linked in one question, yet that is what will appear on the ballot. The New York Times noted in a September 6, 1999 editorial that, “this entire exercise has suffered from the bad faith that surrounded its inception. There are some worthy proposals here, but voters will not be able to pick and choose among the 14 proposals they are given. They will have to vote the entire package up or down. That is no way to change the City’s Charter.”
JEFFREY DINOWITZ Creating “gun free” school safety zones, requiring firearms purchasers to obtain safety locks, and establishing the Commission on Human Rights as a charter agency are good ideas. Some of these good ideas can be enacted legislatively. Some of the other proposals are horrendous, such as consolidating the Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene Services, and hamstringing the Council by requiring supermajorities to increase or impose new taxes and limiting spending by the City. The real problem is the process. This Commission proposes to change New York City’s Charter — our City’s Constitution, but unlike the 1988-1989 Charter Commission, which held dozens of hearings over many months, this Commission held one poorly publicized hearing inconveniently located in each borough in the middle of August. This Commission, virtually all of whose members are allies of the Mayor, exists primarily to carry out the Mayor’s political agenda rather than to act in the best interests of the people of the City of New York. The inclusion of a few good recommendations to sugarcoat the proposal is not a reason to accept this tainted final product. A YES vote would be an invitation for yearly undemocratic attempts by the Mayor to revise the Charter. The Ballot Question is the product of a highly partisan and tainted process and therefore must be rejected with a strong NO vote.
DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 AFSCME The charter revision process was not inclusive or democratic. Charter revision is not needed to accomplish these changes. Many of these changes can and should be dealt with in the context of the legislative process. A single ballot question does not give voters the option to differentiate between good and bad proposals. While some reforms may be appropriate, others are simply poor public policy which could result in the reduction of vital city services in areas such as health care, education and public safety.
JUNE M. EISLAND I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Charter Revision Commission over the past two months. I testified against the proposed changes in the area of Land Use responsibilities. I’m pleased that those proposals were dropped and will not appear in the referendum. Of particular concern to me is the proposal to merge the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services to create a super-agency, the Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene. That is a bad concept. It has taken many years to bring the special concerns of the mentally retarded, and others who are disabled, up to the current level. These are very different issues from general health problems, and I believe they are being dealt with in a superior manner under the current system. The City Charter has worked remarkably well. It is a well-crafted document which shouldn’t be tampered with. At the same time, several of the proposals are worthy of consideration through the proper process; that is, well-advertised public hearings, which are not held during July or August. All New Yorkers should be invited to comment in truly democratic fashion. This referendum is not needed and therefore I urge a resounding “NO” vote.
FERNANDO FERRER The clear partisan motivation of this Commission prevented the measured and complete deliberation that all New Yorkers deserve on these issues, resulting in a faulty product with more holes than we have time to mend. The ultimate failure of the Commission to address many of the issues requiring analysis, even in its formulation of non-controversial proposals, is irresponsible. Anything done by Charter must be undone by Charter, thus changes by Charter may, however unwittingly, impair improvements that would be otherwise possible by legislative or other means. Our current Charter already empowers the Council and the Mayor, and sometimes the Mayor alone, to make many of the reforms this Commission asserts we need. The Commission has shown its political intent to use Charter Revision to achieve parts of City Hall’s legislative agenda. Despite the clear opposition of the consumers served by the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Alcoholism Services, for example, the Giuliani Commission proposes merging the smaller agency into the Health Department, renamed as the Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene Services. In addition to a proposed special election for Mayor, clearly a partisan agenda, the budget proposals would diminish the power of the City Council. In the end, any Charter Revision must work to benefit and empower all New Yorkers, contributing to a more livable City. This hastily convened Commission and its hastily considered mixed bag of proposals insult the very democratic principles upon which our, city, state and nation were built. Voters should reject this take-it-or leave-it package.
C. VIRGINIA FIELDS The Mayoral succession clause has been a part of the City Charter since 1830. No change should occur regarding this issue unless sufficient time is available for the extensive study, analysis and public input it deserves. Any proposal of this nature must be carefully examined and not rushedto judgment. There is nothing preventing the New York City Council from passing legislation creating Gun Free School Safety Zones throughout the City, thereby eliminating the need for mandating such zones by amending the charter. The City is required by law to produce a balanced budget every year despite the level of increases or decreases in City spending. There is a legislative process between the Mayor and City Council, which includes checks and balances on fiscal spending, to ensure stable growth. I do not believe Charter revision is necessary. The Charter currently gives the Mayor the responsibility for the procurement of goods and services through contracts. I have supported several proposals which would allow for greater accountability and broader participation in this regard. There has been no indication by this Commission, however, that any proposal of this nature would be acceptable. There are several Mayoral offices which deserve to be charter mandated agencies. However, structure, function and funding of such agencies will be essential to fulfill their mission. These items are unknown and deserve further public input.
KENNETH K. FISHER Suppose tragedy struck. Suppose the Mayor of the City of New York died in office. Suppose the circumstances were violent. Should the new Mayor’s concern be caring for the City or hiring a campaign manager? That’s the dilemma posed by the ballot question before New Yorkers, a scheme to change the City Charter so that a new Mayor would face election sixty days after filling a vacancy. I urge you to VOTE NO. I remember the shocking day in 1978 when Mayor George Moscone of San Francisco was gunned down in his office. Diane Feinstein, now the United States Senator, was the President of their Board of Supervisors (like the City Council), and became Mayor. She had time to focus on her true priority: healing a city in trauma. She had a chance to breathe before having to worry about an election. We should all hope that such an event never happens here, but we can make sure that if it does happen that our Mayor has the same chance to focus on running the city, not running for office, by voting NO. The current law provides for an orderly transition. Let’s keep it. And what if the vacancy occurs early in a year in which an election for Mayor is scheduled to be held? Could we have one Mayor in January, another for February and March, another for April through December and a fourth the following January? Unless we VOTE NO, we could. And not only that, we could have four elections (a special, a primary, a run off and a general election) at the same time! How can such confusion be good for New Yorkers?
KATHRYN E. FREED As Chair of the City Council Contracts Committee, it is clear to me that the Commission is also using the Charter route in an effort to bypass what should be local legislation in an effort to avoid input from the Council. The proposed changes in the Human Rights Law affecting alienage and gay rights is a proposed law which I am sponsoring that is currently before the council. Ironically, the administration testified against these changes at a Council Hearing. Most of the procurement proposals have also been introduced as local laws and are currently pending before the Council’s Contracts Committee. Many of these, such as the increase in the small purchase provision limits, are, according to the Commission, supposed to help streamline the City contracting process. However, the current practice of many agencies is to split contracts to avoid oversight. Without additional provisions to protect against these practices, massive fraud could result. Similar provisions to prevent fraud or misuse are necessary before most of these procurement proposals are enacted. My committee has held up these changes until these provisions are added. It is inappropriate to introduce local laws in the form of a charter change just to avoid input from the City Council. This violates the Charter-mandated roles of the Council as a legislative body, and cheapens an already-tainted Charter Revision process.
DEBORAH J. GLICK The attempt to restructure government is a very serious undertaking. Yet this administration has operated in a fashion that limits real participation. This entire process has been degraded because the Mayor selected the Charter Commission members based not on a wide range of philosophical perspectives, but rather on their common narrow goal of supporting the Mayor’s political agenda. While there was a show of soliciting public input, had the overwhelming feedback been heeded, there would have been no proposed changes. Some of the most egregious and abusive proposals are: requiring two-thirds vote of the City Council to increase taxes or impose new taxes; limiting City government spending increases generally to the rate of inflation; “simplifying” the City’s procedures for awarding contracts; and requiring a special election within 60 days of a mayoral vacancy. While they vary in content, each of these proposals has the same end aim: further consolidate the powers of the Mayor, while decreasing the powers of every other elected body. The Mayor is already in control of presenting the budget; yet he wants to limit further the ability of the legislative branch to recommend alternative proposals. The Charter Commission’s proposals are directed at restricting the options of the City Council, the Public Advocate or other agencies that may provide some checks and balances, which is the hallmark of a democratic system. Amassing one body’s power only serves to ensure that there is an ever decreasing system of checks and balances.
RICHARD N. GOTTFRIED Most discussion about the Charter Revision Commission has focused on how bad the process was and how it was thoroughly tainted by politics. I agree. But the Commission’s recommendations should also be rejected on the merits. Some worthwhile proposals have been included as sugar-coating, to get people to vote for other parts of this all-or-nothing package. If the package is voted down, the good provisions could all be adopted by the City Council. The core of the package would weaken important checks and balances and shift too much unchecked power to the Mayor. The few good proposals — gun control, charter status for several agencies, and codifying policies against discrimination -- should be submitted by the Mayor to the City Council for adoption. A bad process has produced a bad package. It should be rejected.
MARK GREEN New Yorkers who care about democracy and good government should vote against the referendum for four reasons: A Tainted Process Produces a Tainted Result. The All-or-Nothing Referendum By-Passes the City
Council. Many of the Proposals Sound Good, But Wouldn’t
Do Much. Replacing Succession with a Spot Election Would
Be Costly, Chaotic and Might Violate Federal Law. Finally, the Commission’s special election proposal may violate the Federal Voting Rights Act by reducing the voting power of minorities.
SHELDON S. LEFFLER The budget proposals would eliminate the flexibility the City Council and the Mayor now have to most appropriately funnel money to where it is needed when it is needed. These proposals would limit the ability of the City to respond to emergencies. Nor should Charter Revision supplant legislative discretion or legislative initiatives. Many of these proposals standing alone are significant but are far better placed in the legislative arena. For instance, while no one could fault an attempt to require trigger locks on guns, I am not sure that it belongs in the document that establishes the structure of government and the authority of government. Significantly, I am planning for the Public Safety Committee to hold a hearing on October 6 expanding Local Law 21 by broadening the law to apply to all weapons and to those who purchase or possess a gun. The merging of the Mental Health and Health Departments has been received coolly by the council and for reason. Placing this proposal in the charter circumvents the legislative process. Some of the amendments are good ideas, but one must vote for all the proposals or none. This suggests an attempt to pass unworthy proposals by attaching them to worthy ones. Moreover, once a proposal is put in the Charter, it becomes most difficult to change. In fact, another Revision Commission must be convened. Ordinary legislation may be effective and efficient. Therefore I encourage you to vote no in November.
Vote NO! Because the changes and the process are a fraud. A fraud? Because the Mayor created this Commission for purely political purposes as a vendetta against the Public Advocate. Because he insulted voters by appointing a Commission with no diversity of background or viewpoint filled with friends and former staff. Because the Commission conducted its deliberations over the summer and held its “public” meetings in August. Many of the significant items received almost no public discussion. Because the Mayor knows this is a low turnout election and hopes to fundamentally change government and further strengthen the Mayoralty before people know what’s going on. The final insult is lumping together radically different, often meaningless proposals, hoping voters are so stupid that because they are for gun control they will be conned into changing succession and giving the Mayor even more power over our finances. On Mayoral succession, the proposal is wrong whenever it takes effect. Imagine a future Mayor leaving office at a moment of crisis. This proposal could mean the City would have four Mayors in one year, never good for a City that needs stable leadership. The current system has worked for decades. Why change it? Even worse, this hodgepodge of proposals would give the Mayor greater control over the budget. It would lock future generations into using City surpluses in certain ways and require a super-majority of the Council to raise new revenue for police or school services that might be desperately needed. Sure, “gun free” school zones and gun locks are a good idea. But they can be adopted by law. Instead, the public is being asked to swallow huge changes, institutionalize projects that are the personal interest of this administration, all in one mouthful.
A. GIFFORD MILLER Like last year, this year’s proposals to change New York City’s Charter are the result of an undemocratic and flawed process and should be rejected by the voters. While some of the Commission’s proposals might seem worthy of consideration at first glance, the Commission has chosen to group all the questions together so that voters are forced to vote all of them up or down. At least two proposals which would change how the City deals with its budget have been harshly criticized by the New York Times because they “would hamper the city’s flexibility to deal with financial emergencies.” By grouping all the changes, the Commission has left the voters no choice but to disapprove them all. Perhaps the strongest argument against these proposals is that every major good government group in the City and the New York Times Editorial Board have urged voters to vote “NO.” These organizations realize that nothing good can come from such a deeply flawed and undemocratic process.
JERROLD L. NADLER It is absurd that we should have to give singular thumbs up or down to questions as unconnected as gun violence, mayoral succession, and city budget surpluses. Each of these important proposed changes should individually be given due consideration. Some of the individual proposals are fine. I certainly think that the Human Rights Commission and a new Office of Immigrant Affairs should become Charter agencies. I don’t know many New Yorkers who would oppose “gun free” school safety zones. However, requiring a two-thirds vote of the City Council, instead of a majority, to increase taxes is a very bad idea. It violates the principle of majority rule and gives too much power to a small minority. For example, it would require a two-thirds vote to abolish tax loopholes for special interests, as this would be considered a tax increase. Also, if a majority miscalculated and reduced taxes too much — producing a major budget deficit — that same majority would be unable to restore some critical funding without a two-thirds vote. The minority could blackmail the majority on unrelated matters, if the majority wished to avert major cuts in education, police, or other vital services. The majority should rule, whether in reducing or increasing taxes or in any other matters. We should vote NO on this hodgepodge of a Charter proposal and then spend enough time considering the merits of the various proposals individually.
NYC AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION The proposal for a non-partisan (therefore tilted to rich, white voters) election within 60 days of the death or resignation of the Mayor (likely to be a moment of crisis in the city) remains, to take effect in 2002. The rest of the proposals are all properly matters for legislation rather than change in the fundamental law of the city. The Mayor is counting on this hodge-podge of bad and irrelevant proposals to pass on a single up-or-down vote in an election in which almost no one comes to the polls. New York City ADA urges a “NO” vote on the proposed charter revisions.
NEW YORK PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
GROUP These proposals are the product of “a cynical exercise in power politics,” as the New York Times said in a September 6, 1999 editorial. The paper called this question a “hodgepodge of marginal, meaningless or ill-advised proposals that ought to be rejected by voters.” Charter commissions are intended to be a once-in-a-generation look at how to make the city run better. But the mayor has misused his power for short-term political gain. Last year, he used a charter commission as a tool in a fight over Yankee Stadium. On June 15th of this year, he created a new commission to consider changing who would succeed him if he leaves City Hall early. Why vote no? 1. The charter process was terrible. That was inevitable, with the commission doing all its work between July 4th and Labor Day. Its record was dismal, hiding for most of July, then dumping out a 250-page report and giving the public less than two weeks to react. 2. The commission didn’t do its homework. Take its proposal for special elections on 60 days notice to fill mayoral vacancies. Here’s what the commission did not do: It didn’t assess the chances of fringe candidates winning in low turnout special elections. It didn’t take a serious look at what the added election costs would be or the impact on how candidates raise contributions. It didn’t conduct a serious review of whether special elections diluted protected voting rights. (To its credit, the commission did respond to criticism about its short term political outlook by making this proposal effective after the 2001 city elections.)
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY FOUNDATION The wording of the proposed changes, the actual language as it will appear on the ballot in November, is vague and misleading, with sweeping changes proposed in soothing language. For example, one phrase puts forward the idea of “limiting City government spending increases generally to the rate of inflation,” which sounds harmless, but could actually prove disastrous in the real world.
NELLIE SANTIAGO I have some substantive problems with the proposal. For example, holding a special election within two months to fill a mayoral vacancy leaves little time for a potential candidate to raise funds or properly campaign, giving an advantage to “name” candidates who are already well-known or have stockpiles of cash. If less established politicians who desire to serve are handicapped in this way, democracy in the City of New York will suffer. I approve of some initiatives contained in the proposal, such as the gun free school zones, creation of a permanent Human Rights Commission and protection of immigrant access to city services. My support of these measures, however, does not compensate for my concerns with other areas, nor for the process itself by which this proposal was drafted.
The process has been flawed from the beginning. Instead of convening a broad spectrum of citizens, the Commission was dominated by a partisan agenda, few hearings were held, and only in the dead of summer, and the changes are being proposed for an off-year election when turnout is usually low. Faced with vocal opposition, the Commission dropped some of the worst proposals. What is left is a catch-all package of substantive, unrelated items; since discussion and analysis have been minimal, their effects are unknown and could be serious. There simply has not been enough time to educate the public on whether any of these is valid, and to lump them into one package is insulting.
ARCHIE SPIGNER First, there has not been ample time to allow for sufficient discussion and deliberation by the public since the Commission’s proposals were just made known in June. Compare this to the nearly thirty public hearings and twenty-five public meetings held over a thirty-six month period during the debate on the 1989 Charter — not to mention the volumes of material developed by scholars that assisted voters in making the right choice. Second, many of the items proposed should either undergo legislative review and approval or are currently contained in the City’s administrative code. Finally, Charter changes dealing with the City Council’s budgetary powers could limit that body’s ability to deal with fiscal priorities. Limiting annual increases in City funded spending to the inflation rate and requiring a two-thirds vote of the Council (not a majority) to increase taxes could stymie the Council’s ability to deal with emergencies. Mandating that 50% of any budget surplus be used to prepay debt in future years appears to be worthy at first reading, but, if enacted, could actually allow the Mayor to use this year’s surplus to close next year’s budget gap and not permit the City to retire its long term capital debt which is approaching 20% of our revenue income annually.
SCOTT STRINGER Although some of the Commission’s recommendations are worthwhile, these can be accomplished legislatively. Other proposals could have dangerous consequences. A special election within 60 days of a Mayoral vacancy would establish a cycle of low-turnout elections where the influence of monied special interests would be increased, since it is nearly impossible to raise money and mount an effective grass-roots campaign in sixty days. The result: whoever has the most money wins. A smooth mayoral transition is also important during a crisis. If Lyndon Johnson had to mount a rapid campaign for office instead of lead the nation after President Kennedy’s assassination, would we have been better off? Obviously not. Other proposals would upset the City’s balance of power. From diminishing the City Council’s budgetary authority to relinquishing the Public Advocate’s role in presiding over the Council, these proposals strengthen the Mayor’s office at the expense of our system of checks and balances. The 1989 Charter revisions purposely strengthened our independent checks on mayoral power. There is no reason to tip the scales now when term limits will replace virtually the entire Council in 2002. A largely inexperienced Council would be left at a disadvantage against a considerably strengthened Mayoralty. Toying with constitutions — be it a charter or the U.S. Constitution -- is a dangerous game. Our government is loaded with checks and balances and it is difficult to amend the Constitution for a reason — precisely to avoid what is trying to be accomplished with these ballot proposals on a far smaller scale.
WEST FLUSHING CIVIC ASSOCIATION Even if the proposal to change mayoral succession had merit, there is no justification for putting on the ballot this year a proposal that would not take effect until 2002. After all, voters may have a better idea two years from now what kind of City Charter changes, if any, we’ll need in 2002 and beyond. Also, the 2001 election is expected to have a very large turnout.
WOMEN’S CITY CLUB OF NEW YORK The Charter Revision Commission has not demonstrated any urgent need to revise the Charter, which is our City’s Constitution. Political motivation alone led to the convening of this Commission. A number of changes sound good: making the Administration for Children’s Services, the Commission of Human Rights and the Office of Immigrant Affairs “Charter” agencies, for example. These and similar proposals are completely unnecessary, as they could now be made through a Mayoral executive order and/or legislation by the City Council. The changes will do nothing to help any of the agencies do a better job. We oppose a cap on New York City budgets tied to the rate of inflation. Future needs for City action have no connection to the rate of inflation. Different times and different needs require flexibility, not rigid budget caps. We should not make future elected officials powerless to adjust budgets. We also oppose the effort to require extraordinary super majorities in the City Council to increase taxes or create new taxes (2/3) and to override any Mayoral veto of these taxes (4/5). These proposals take power away from your elected representatives on the City Council and give unprecedented power to the Mayor. There is no need to change the current process which allows the Public Advocate to succeed the Mayor, much as a Vice President succeeds a President. This issue would not have arisen if the current Mayor had not disapproved of the person who would automatically succeed him under the current Charter. Introduction |
