New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.
STATED MEETING - November 6, 2003
Quote of the Day:
"I am not backing away from the absentee landlord surcharge and I don't think this body should either. It is the first step in making the real property tax in this city a little fairer. And all I have heard from the administration on this subject has been nonsense and gobbledygook that has confused and frightened taxpayers." - Brooklyn Councilmember Lew Fidler, defending the so-called "absentee landlord" tax that the mayor wants to repeal.
Meeting Summary:
In July, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York City Council agreed to an "absentee landlord" tax as part of the annual budget agreement. The 25 percent tax applies to landlords who own one-, two-, or three-family houses and use the rent for income. Next year, the tax will go up to 50 percent of the assessed value of the building.
At the time, both sides agreed it would make the city's real estate tax code fairer and generate a much-needed $44 million in revenue. Now, the tax plan has fallen apart.
The city's Department of Finance argues that it is too complicated to administer and is blaming the City Council for implementing it. The mayor says the absentee landlord tax should be repealed. And the City Council says that the finance department is billing the wrong people and failing to provide tax rebates to hundreds of thousands of homeowners who qualify for exemptions.
"This is not incredibly complicated: Do you live in your home or do you not?" said Council Speaker Gifford Miller. "The fact that the Department of Finance, with ten months notice, can't figure that out is deeply troubling."
To try to remedy the situation, the City Council passed a bill (Intro 599-A) requiring the city to issue simple certification forms to ensure that the right people are being taxed and delaying the surcharge until March 2004.
The bill passed by a vote of 40 to 2; Republican Councilmember Dennis Gallagher and Democrat Councilmember Madeline Provenzano voted "no." (Ten council members were absent.) Gallagher and Provenzano said that the measure would not fix the problems and that the tax should be repealed.
But others argued that if the council was going to give a tax break it should go to low-income senior citizens, not landlords who have historically paid lower tax rates than single-family home owners and co-op owners.
"Every member of this council has a better use for $44 million than to give it back to people who get a break that frankly they don't deserve," said Bronx Councilmember Oliver Koppel.
The City Council also passed a bill (Intro 409-A) regulating agencies that collect child support payments. Currently collection companies that seek out payments from "dead-beat" parents are excluded from consumer protection laws. A recent city council report (in pdf form) found that some companies charge high fees, institute complicated contracts that are difficult to cancel, and prey on customers.
"Single parents and children are a vulnerable group," said Brooklyn Councilmember Tracy Boyland, who drafted the legislation. "I have heard reports of a variety of abusive debt collection practices such as agencies bullying grandparents into disclosing their charge accounts numbers and misleading parents and employers into believing that they were dealing with the government."
The council also passed a bill (Intro 596) that ensures that private bus service across the city will continue, even if a new contract is not reached between the companies and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. On December 31, 2003 the current contracts held by seven private bus companies will expire. Approximately 400,000 riders depend on the services.
"Negotiations are still taking place, but it is clear that the MTA will not be able to provide the service by the contract deadline," said Flushing Councilmember John Liu, chair of the council's transportation committee.
Both the child support regulations and the extension of bus service legislation passed unanimously.
The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for November 19.
For an archive of past meetings and council votes, visit Gotham Gazette's Searchlight.
Â
"In the stock market, the hot stock gets the money," said Noah Arnow, a press representative for Gioia. "He's a rising star in city politics."
All across the city, incumbent City Council members, who face little or no competition this election season, apparently see themselves as "hot stocks," and continue to bring in the money. Other public officials who aren't even up for re-election this year are also fundraising. This is baffling only to people who do not understand New York politics. These politicians are stockpiling the cash for the future.
"Eric Gioia could end this [election] cycle with $500,000," said political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. "If he can do that every two years with little or no opposition, he will be the public advocate in 2009, which he is shooting for."
But candidates are not just raising money from individual donors. Millions of dollars come from taxpayers, who are helping pay the bill for glossy brochures and posters for incumbents facing little competition.
In Sunset Park, Councilmember Sara Gonzalez requested $82,500 in taxpayer money from the city's campaign finance program because she said her opponent had "the ability to infuse large sums of money into his campaign."
So far, Gonzalez's opponent - who does not even live in Brooklyn - has raised the "large sum" of $2,771.
Candidates argue that political campaigns are expensive and if they want to be competitive they must raise funds for the future. But critics argue that with this forever-fundraising, incumbents are distorting the city's campaign finance laws, bilking the taxpayers, and hijacking the political process away from a focus on community concerns.
The situation, they say, has become worse thanks to billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who used his own fortune to get elected and this year is spending $2 million of his own money to back a ballot proposal for nonpartisan elections. The more money that is spent, the more money that must be spent, and thus the more money that must be raised; the more money raised, the more money that must be raised.
Thus the amount -- and importance -- of money in New York City campaigns continues to rise.
New York City is often praised for having one of the best and most stringent campaign finance programs in the country; City Council candidates who join the program are given public funds in exchange for agreeing not to spend more than $150,000 in any given election. While there are limits to how much money a candidate can roll over into the next election and count toward public matching funds, there are no laws limiting how much a candidate can raise. And there are no rules against raising money for future campaigns.
The biggest fundraiser in the New York City Council is Speaker Gifford Miller. While Miller has officially raised only $151,000 for this year's election, he has already put away $1.6 million for an "undeclared" seat in 2005. Miller will be term-limited out of the council in 2005 and many speculate that he will run for mayor.
Those same insiders believe that two Queens Council members, David Weprin and Melinda Katz, have their eyes on being the next speaker of the City Council when Miller leaves, which is why each has raised over $300,000.
Other public officials - who are not even up for reelection this year - are also stock piling for the future. City Comptroller Bill Thompson has raised over a million dollars and Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion has raised over $500,000.
Incumbents argue that term limits and redistricting make them more vulnerable to challengers and so they must plan for the future.
"Those who are looking to stay in politics are wise to continually raise money," said Evan Paulsen, a representative for Brooklyn Councilmember David Yassky, who has raised $144,000 this year and $84,000 more for an unspecified race in 2005. "The amount of money you raise - valid or not - gives you more power in politics and a seat at the table."
At a recent fundraising event, Bronx Councilmember Oliver Koppell was blunt when asked why he continues to raise money even though he faces little opposition; Koppell told the Norwood News that money can "frighten off the opposition."
Although term limits kicked out two thirds of the City Council members in 2001, this year, since the law allows officials two consecutive terms in office, incumbents once again reign supreme. In the September primary, only one incumbent lost. In the general election, nine of the 51 current council members do not even have an opponent. And many of the others face only nominal opposition.
Yet still they raise money -- and expect their matching funds from the taxpayers. This year, the city's campaign finance program gave City Council candidates $4.9 million in matching funds.
The system has provisions that are supposed to ensure that the money is not spent frivolously.
For example, if a candidate faces no opposition, he is not entitled to matching funds. If a candidate faces a "nominal" opponent, he is eligible for only a quarter of the available matching funds.
However, the program allows candidates to request additional funds and make their case that they face serious opposition. So this year, a dozen City Council incumbents wrote letters to the city's campaign finance board requesting the full amount of public funds.
One Councilmember wanted $82,500 to fight "the entrenched political machine." His opponent raised a total of $1,130. |
However, this "political machine" seems to have broken down a bit, since Barron's primary opponent, Derek Booker, raised a total of $1,130.
Nevertheless, so far, the campaign finance board has awarded $66,000 to Charles Barron and $45,000 to Councilmember Sarah Gonzalez, who also requested the full amount.
While candidates are required to spend their matching money during this election year - and must return whatever they do not spend - getting their face and name out in the neighborhood through mailings and posters can only help in future elections.
Even the Republican council members, who have argued that the campaign finance program costs taxpayers too much money, are not above asking for some extra dough themselves from those taxpayers.
Staten Island Councilmember James Oddo, who voted against the program in 2001, requested additional funds. So did Staten Island Councilmember Andrew Lanza, who wrote "it is important, as one of only three Republicans in the City Council, that I am able to get my message out to voters." His only opponent, Roehl Sybing, may have even more trouble getting the message out, having raised only $4,447.
Oddo and Lanza were both awarded $82,500 in public funds.
This election year, most of the money is coming from a different kind of war chest: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's wallet.
The mayor is spending $2 million of his own money in support of a ballot initiative to institute nonpartisan elections.
"I have a right as an individual citizen to spend my money," Bloomberg said.
The State Democratic Party is reportedly spending about $400,000 to defeat the measure.
Mayor Bloomberg defends spending his own money, saying that his financial independence means he is not beholden to unions, special interests, or donors. And he argues that nonpartisan elections will open city elections to more candidates and voters.
Opponents, who point out that the mayor's name and photograph are not even listed on the expensive brochures being mailed to voters, say that nonpartisan elections will only make it easier for rich, self-financed candidates to get elected.
In 2001, the mayor spent $75 million, or $100 for each of the 744,757 votes he received. Bloomberg has said he loves his job so much that he is prepared to spend the same amount - or even more - in 2005.
Facing that kind of war chest, would-be Democratic mayoral candidates like Council Speaker Gifford Miller want to start fundraising as early as possible.
"In politics," said Sheinkopf, "money is almost everything."
Last Minute Voter's Guide:
• What Is At Stake? • Who Is Running for City Council in My District? • Which City Council Races Are Competitive? • What Questions Are on the Ballot? • What Are Nonpartisan Elections? • Where Do I Vote? • What If I Encounter Problems At the Polls • How Do I Find Out the Results? related articles: • Guide To The Ballot Proposals • Campaign 2003 Primary Coverage(July, 2003) • Ballot Bumping in New York • History of NY Election Law |
Newman stays late at subway stops in Brooklyn while volunteers for the Working Families Party urge New Yorkers to vote "no" on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ballot proposal for nonpartisan elections.
A registered Democrat, Newman is also campaigning with the Working Families Party, a small party started in 1998, which has a shot at electing their first member of the New York City Council in Fort Greene this year, in the race to succeed assassinated Councilmember James Davis.
Then there is the fact that Newman, a legal aid lawyer, is himself running for Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge. The Brooklyn judicial system has been plagued with scandal and Newman feels he has a shot. "I think voters are looking for an alternative," he said. "We have a whole slate of candidates."
Non-partisan elections, competitive City Council races, the Brooklyn judges scandal -- there are plenty of reasons to vote on November 4. For those New Yorkers confused by all of the brochures, ballot questions, and judicial and City Council races this fall, we offer the following guide:
• What Is At Stake?
• Who Is Running for City Council in My District?
• Which City Council Races Are Competitive?
• What Questions Are on the Ballot?
• What Are Nonpartisan Elections?
• Where Do I Vote?
• What If I Encounter Problems At the Polls
• How Do I Find Out the Results?
On November 4, New Yorkers will decide races for City Council, judicial seats, and district attorney. They will also answer "yes" or "no" to five ballot questions dealing with issues like debt, sewers, schools, city elections, contracts, and government administration.
While many New Yorkers may not be able to name their City Council member, most have something to say about issues like taxes, trash pick-ups, firehouse closures, or the school system, for which council members are responsible. In the last two years, the City Council has approved increases to the property tax, sales tax, and income tax. Just a few months ago, the council voted on a budget that cut 4,000 city workers and closed six firehouses. Next year, the city is expected to have a $2 billion deficit, which means that more cuts may be needed.
The Brooklyn judicial system has been plagued by news reports of scandal and political patronage. Recently Brooklyn Democratic leader Clarence Norman was indicted for allegedly buying and selling judgeships, but many argue that the other boroughs have similar problems. (For more on the judicial scandal, play Gotham Gazette's Judges Game.)
While the ballot questions are written in confusing legal language and take some effort to comprehend, each will affect the future of the city. Should small towns be able to build more sewers or schools? Should the election system be overhauled? Does the city need to give more city contracts to women and minority-owned businesses? Is the government run efficiently? Voters will have to consider each of these questions.
On Election Day, some voters will find they live in a different City Council district than the last time they went to the polls.
Since the last local election in 2001, the City Council district lines were redrawn to reflect new census data, and so some voters have new representatives. Those who live on the edge of a district or in a neighborhood that has experienced a large change in ethnic make-up are most likely to see a change.
The best way to find your district is to:
1. Go to Gotham Gazette's Campaign 2003 page. 2. Type in your address. 3. Click "Find It!" 4. Click on the Campaign Button in the top right hand column.
On the district page, you will find a list of candidates running, information about their campaign contributions, candidate biographies, and an archive of news stories from the campaign trail.
There is also information on how each council member voted on the dozen most divisive votes of the last two years - like the 18.5 percent property tax increase, the law that banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and a resolution urging the U.S. not to go to war with Iraq.
Since Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in New York, most of the City Council elections are in effect decided in the September primary.
The most watched race for the general election has been the district 35 campaign to fill the vacant seat of slain City Councilmember James Davis, who was shot in City Hall in July. Davis's brother, Geoffrey Davis, has been selected as the Democratic nominee. But he is facing a strong challenge from three other candidates - Letitia James, Anthony Herbert, and Abraham Wasserman.
District 19 in Queens is one of the few areas in the city that has elected a Republican to City Council. But in 2001, Democrat Tony Avella beat his Republican opponent, although only by 357 votes. Now a new Republican candidate is trying to win the seat back and is challenging the incumbent on his record on taxes, zoning, and parking.
District 43 in Brooklyn, City Councilmember Vincent Gentile, who has voted to raise several taxes since taking office in the spring, is hoping he can hang on to his seat in an area that has elected Republicans in the past.
For more races to watch, go to 2003 Campaign Coverage.
On November 4, voters will be asked to answer "yes" or "no" to five ballot questions. (Read Guide to the Ballot Proposals)
The first two questions are amendments to the New York State Constitution that would allow small towns to borrow more money to build sewers and new schools. Although they would primarily affect small counties upstate, all voters in the state - including New York City voters who are not affected - have a say on this proposal because their taxes will pay for the measures.
The last three questions were placed on the ballot by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's charter revision commission and would change the city's laws regarding elections, contracting, and government administration.
Education advocates tried to put a sixth question on the ballot to consider the problem of school overcrowding, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg fought the measure in court and it was removed. (Read more about the class size ballot initiative)
Click on the questions below for a step-by-step guide to each question, with arguments pro and con:
1. Paying for Sewage System
2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities
3. Non-Partisan Elections
4. City Purchasing
5. Government Administration
The most contentious question on the ballot this year: Should New York City institute nonpartisan elections?
This proposal would establish a new system of elections for local city offices. The September primary would be open to all candidates and voters, regardless of party affiliation. Candidates can still list their party affiliation on the ballot. The top two vote getters would then compete in the November general election.
If approved, the plan would not take effect until 2009, after Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves office. Still, the mayor is spending $2 million of his own money to back the plan.
The mayor and the charter commission say that the ballot initiative will increase voter turnout and minority participation, create better choices for voters, and limit the corruption of party politics.
Critics say studies show that minority representation and voter participation have not increased in cities that have nonpartisan elections, and that this kind of nonpartisan elections has no track record in a city like New York. Some also object to the process by which this question was brought to the voters, and what they consider the mayor's stealth campaign to push it through.
For more information on the ballot proposal, try these Web sites:
• City's Campaign Finance Board Voters Guide
• It Is Time for Non Partisan Elections by Frank Macchiarola, charter commission chair. (Gotham Gazette)
• Vote Yes, by Wayne Barrett. (Village Voice)
• City Charter Revision Commission
• Independence Party
• Crusading for Some Real Reforms by Mark Green. (Gotham Gazette)
• Vote No by Tom Robbins. (Village Voice)
• New York Public Research Interest Group
• Association of the Bar of the City of New York
• Citizens Union
• Common Cause New York
• Women's City Club of New York
• Working Families Party
Registered voters should have received a yellow post card in the mail with the address of their polling place. If you did not, call the Board of Elections at 1-866-VOTE NYC, try the board's poll site locator web site, or e-mail them at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with your complete address, and you should receive an email instructing you where to vote.
Polls open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 9:00 p.m. Absentee ballots must be hand-delivered to the Board of Elections by 9:00 p.m.
If you have problems at your polling site on Election Day, call the New York Public Interest Research Group Voter Help Line 212-822-0282 to register your complaint.
On their Web site, the New York Public Research Interest Group also has instructions for how to work the voting machine and a Voter's Bill of Rights, which answers basic questions like "Can I bring someone with me to help vote?" and "Can I still vote if the machine breaks?" (The answer to both questions is "yes.")
Television stations and newspapers will cover the ballot questions and City Council races, but some results - like judicial races - are more difficult to find.
Visit Gotham Gazette's results page on election night and the following days. Remember, a close race can take days or weeks to decide.
Earlier this month in state Supreme Court, Brooklyn Democratic leader and New York state assemblyman Clarence Norman faced charges of grand larceny and failing to file business records.
The charges outline a series of alleged misdeeds by the nine-term assemblyman, including failing to report thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, and accepting contributions in excess of the limits allowed by campaign finance law. He is also accused of taking $5000 from the Democratic Party coffers for personal use, and taking a per diem from the State of New York for travel expenses to and from Albany, while separately billing the county Democratic Party for the same travel related expenses.
Norman, who pled not guilty to all charges and professes his innocence, faces seven years in prison if convicted.
The arraignment of the Democratic Party boss came less than a month before New York City voters are scheduled to go to the polls and decide whether or not to replace the current citywide election system with a series of non-partisan elections. Supporters of the non-partisan election system have suggested there is a need to reduce the influence of political party bosses in the voting process.
These charges, if proven to be accurate, could be seen as an example of the need to change the system. But a non-partisan election system, on its own, won't automatically reduce the influence of political parties in city government. Here's a breakdown of what should, could, and will not change, depending on the outcome of the November 4th elections:
What Should Change
The fact that someone can hold an elected government office and be an elected party official simultaneously is more than an example of the potential for undue influence of a political party; it's an example of the potential for massive conflicts of interest.
It is an apparent quirk in an otherwise stringent set of financing and electioneering rules. But the body of legislation that encompasses local, state, and federal election law does not prohibit, in the City of New York, a person from holding both a party office and an elected legislative or executive office at the same time.
The law does provide extensive rules for ensuring that elected legislators don't do political work on taxpayer time, or for making sure that political parties and party committees don't collude with campaigns to do their campaigning directly for them. There are firewalls, and disclosure forms, and compliance standards, all to make sure that the work of political parties, and the work of political campaigns, and the work of governing, are all kept separate. As they should be.
But there is nothing preventing the people who are in charge of all those things from actually being the same person. And that should change.
What Could Change
The non-partisan election proposal doesn't actually get rid of political parties. It doesn't outlaw political parties, or take away their ability to organize; it just takes political party labels off of election ballots, and the nomination process out of party hands. The people running for office could still be endorsed by political parties, they could still receive the support of a party organization, they could still be their party's "preferred choice" or standard bearer. But without party primaries to officially determine the nominees, the candidates may not need the party the way they did in the past. They may still want the party's help. They may still court the party members. But they won't need the party. They can get along without the party, if they have to.
And when you go from being the party that chooses the nominee, to the party who is allowed to help the nominee, you've lost statutory authority. It doesn't necessarily follow that you are going to lose influence as well. But it's a possibility. Political parties are the single most important voting cue in New York City right now. And that could change.
What Will Not Change
If the non-partisan election proposal passes, the law will apply to all citywide elections for city offices. It will not apply to those elected officials who represent part of New York City in other levels of government:
• It will not apply to U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen from New York City.
• It will not apply to state senators from New York City.
• It will not apply to members of the state assembly from New York City (e.g., it would not apply to Clarence Norman).
And, if the non-partisan proposal passes, it won't prohibit anyone who is a party leader or party official from running for office in a non-partisan election. Under the new law, the same person, in theory, could be a top party official and be elected mayor of New York at the same time.
Whatever happens on November 4th, whether non-partisan elections are voted into law, or the existing system stays in place, there are a number of factors that determine how much influence political parties hold in our election system. And the party primary/party nomination is only one of those factors.
Susan Reefer is a Republican pollster and media strategist. She is based in New York City.
New York City Council Stated Meeting Report
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Searchlight covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.
STATED MEETING - October 24, 2003
Quote of the Day:
"No one here would argue that St. John the Divine hasn't been a landmark in New York City history... but landmark designation should preserve and protect an area from future development. This only protects the church structure, not the land around it." - Councilmember Melinda Katz, chair of the land use committee, urging a "no" vote on a measure to make the Cathedral of St. John the Divine a landmark.
Meeting Summary:
On October 24, the New York City Council unanimously rejected landmark status for the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the world's largest Gothic cathedral located on the Upper West Side.
It was only the third time since the Landmark Preservation Commission was created in 1965 that the council has overturned a landmark status recommendation. (Read more about landmark preservation in New York City.)
The issue was not whether the 111-year-old cathedral should be preserved; in fact the commission has been trying to give the church a landmark designation for the last 37 years. The problem, council members contended, was that the action applied only the church structure itself. The 11-acre ground surrounding the church was not included.
St. John the Divine has plans to develop the area around the church and lease it to Columbia University. Current regulations would allow two buildings as tall as 20 stories to be built on the property.
Church officials said that they need the money from the lease to keep the institution running. They estimated that the church currently needs $20 million in repairs and said operating expenses have consumed their endowment. They also emphasized that much of their budget goes to social programs, like after-school programs, homeless services, and soup kitchens.
"What is at stake is clear: the financial security and existence of this beloved religious and public institution," said Reverend James Kowalski, the dean of St. John the Divine.
But council members questioned the integrity of the process, criticized the commission for letting financial concerns become part of their consideration, and raised doubts about whether the planned development would be appropriate for the cathedral and the neighborhood."This is not the way to do it, not at the expense of the integrity of the landmarking process," said Harlem Councilmember Bill Perkins, who represents the area.
The council voted 44 to 0 to reject the landmark commission's recommendation; six council members were absent. The council's action will not stop development of the land around the cathedral. The members urged the landmarks commission to start their process again.
The City Council also unanimously approved a bill (Intro 539) that allows more senior citizens to qualify for rent increase exemptions. Rent increase exemptions are available to New Yorkers over the age of 62, who pay a least a third of their income toward rent, and live in rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments.
Under the old law, a household had to earn less than $20,000 a year to qualify; the new bill raises the annual income level to $24,000.
The Independent Budget Office estimates that the bill will allow 2,575 more households to participate in the program at a cost of $1.8 million to the city.
The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for November 6.
For an archive of past meetings and council votes, visit Gotham Gazette's Searchlight.
New York City spent $9 billion of its nearly $44 billion budget in FY 2003 to purchase, or procure, goods and deliver essential services through contracts. Despite the volume of business that the city processes through its contracting system, the Commission found this system to be antiquated and inflexible. Effective and efficient government service delivery must be supported by a purchasing system that embraces both modern demands and technological advances. Mayor Bloomberg has long recognized this reality and, when he took office, he committed to reforming the system. Although the Administration has already implemented a number of procurement reforms, the Mayor asked that the Charter Revision Commission also study the issue and make recommendations for formal Charter change. On November 4th, the public will have the opportunity to vote on these proposed reforms (Ballot Question 4: City Purchasing) which are abstracted in the Voter Guide and detailed fully in the Commission's final report: "Enhancing Access, Opportunity & Competition: A Blueprint for Reform".
In its report, the Commission detailed the objectives it sought to achieve through Charter change: prevention of fraud, favoritism and corruption; promotion of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability; and promotion of fairness and enhanced access for vendors. Accordingly, the Commission proposals would alter provisions that currently hamstring both the city and its potential contractors, preventing the city's procurement system from adapting as needs change over time. As the Commission recognized, such inflexibility actually impedes the achievement of important public goals.
The Commission found that the Procurement Policy Board (PPB), composed of Mayoral and Comptroller appointees, would be better suited to provide the needed flexibility, through its public rulemaking process, and ensure appropriate policy governance and oversight. The central element of the city purchasing proposal is the empowerment of the PPB to set the terms and conditions for the various alternative methods of procurement which State law allows the city to use - thereby repealing much of the inflexible detail concerning such methods that now appears in the Charter. That current inflexibility limits the kinds of determinations that the Mayor can delegate to his Commissioners.
To enhance flexibility, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS"), the city's centralized purchasing agency, would be permitted to delegate to the agencies that use certain kinds of unique goods - such as sewage treatment chemicals or bomb-detecting robots - the authority to purchase such items on their own. Currently, while the user agency's expertise is essential to solicit and complete the purchase, the procurement also must move through DCAS to be accomplished - creating significant duplication of effort.
The reality of City purchasing in a post-9/11 world is reflected in another proposed revision that would permit the Mayor to determine when particular procurements raised sensitive security-related concerns, such that full public disclosures would put the security of the city and its citizens at risk. In those cases, exemptions from the Charter's notice and hearing provisions would be allowed. Although the public would not be given the details of sensitive government projects, oversight to ensure integrity in such contracts would be still be provided through the city's Department of Investigation, Comptroller, Law Department and Office of Management and Budget.
The proposal also would allow the Mayor to designate agencies - typically smaller ones that have only limited amounts of purchasing each year - to have their purchases done or assisted centrally through DCAS.
Another aspect of the proposal is designed to ensure accountability and to put an end to late contracting patterns. The revision would mandate a comprehensive annual Mayoral procurement report that would include a specific focus on timeliness. It would also require that the city's human services agencies develop and publish annual contract plans for client services on a schedule linked to the budget adoption cycle, so that their vendors can plan their programs and services appropriately.
The proposal revises the city's vendor integrity process. the city currently uses a computerized vendor integrity data system, known as "VENDEX," to help agencies make responsibility determinations concerning potential contractors and subcontractors. This system was created in the early 1990s in response to several procurement-related scandals and contains detailed requirements for what information must be submitted, the timing of the submission, the consequences for failure to submit information, and the limited circumstances under which exceptions may be available. Over time, this "one-size-fits-all" system has proven exceedingly burdensome to vendors without necessarily providing City agencies with the most relevant information in a readily accessible format. The proposed change would require that the Mayor and the Comptroller determine jointly - with the aid of conforming legislation brought before the city Council - what information to require vendors to submit. With current technology, it is intended that the city be able to design a much more sophisticated system that will permit different reporting requirements for different kinds of procurements, depending on such variables as the value of the contract, type of procurement, and the nature of the market or industry involved.
Finally, the proposed revisions are designed to promote equal opportunities for diverse vendors to do business with the city. They incorporate a specific legal mandate for the Mayor to require citywide agency coordination in the pursuit of expanded vendor opportunities particularly for businesses that are women and/or minority owned, locally-based businesses and other small businesses, to participate as vendors to the city, increasing their economic viability and engagement with the city, and furthering competition in procurement. Because many of these businesses are small, they also would benefit greatly from the reductions proposed for the system by which City contractors report on their employment practices to the Department of Small Business Services. That system, now very burdensome, would be streamlined and improved while at the same time allowing the city still to capture the data necessary to ensure continued contracting and workforce opportunities, including for women and/or minorities.
The Commission's reports, and transcripts of public meetings and hearings, can be found at www.nyc.gov/charter, or by calling the Charter Revision Commission at 212-676-2060.
Anthony Crowell is Chief Counsel to the Charter Revision Commission.
# # #
• Vote No on 4: Making Contracts Work by Robert Jackson
• Guide to New York City's 2003 Ballot Proposals
The Six Questions1. Paying for Sewage Systems2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities 3. Non-Partisan Elections 4. City Purchasing 5. Government Administration 6. Class Size Related LinksNew York City Campaign Finance Board - Voter's guide provides information on ballot proposals and candidates.New York City Board of Elections New York City Charter Commission |
Click here for 2005 ballot proposals
In the days leading up the November 4 election, New Yorkers will likely hear little about candidates running for office.
Most of the races for City Council and judicial seats were effectively decided in the September primary. In New York City, incumbents rarely lose. And many candidates do not even have an opponent.
Most of the debate, campaign flyers, and advertising will focus on six ballot questions.
This fall, voters will be asked to consider issues like sewers, class size, and measures to overhaul city government and contracting. The most contentious question: Should New York City institute nonpartisan elections?
The problem is few voters will have an idea exactly what they are voting for. A State Supreme Court Judge recently described New York's ballot questions as "lengthy and inherently confusing." (Text of the questions as they will appear on the ballot.)
But if voters need a reason to pay attention, they can look to California, where dozens of ballot proposals in recent years have radically altered politics, including the recent recall election that turned the erstwhile Conan the Barbarian into Governor Schwarzenegger.
Some say that New Yorkers should vote "no" on all of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposals on principle.
"Before you know it, New York could end up just like California, with countless ballot initiatives," said City Council Speaker Gifford Miller.
The mayor contends that his ballot initiatives, especially his plan to bring nonpartisan elections to the city, will increase voter turnout, create better choices for voters, and limit the corruption of party politics.
And when it comes to the other questions about running city government - some of which are so detailed that lawmakers cannot even agree on what exactly will happen if they are approved - the mayor believes voters will be able to make informed decisions.
"People understand that they have to keep their households in order," said Anthony Crowell of the mayor's commission. "That is what many of these proposals are doing for city government."
Charter commissions are supposed to provide a way to gather ideas and insight from experts who can recommend changes in the charter (the constitution of the city) in order to improve it and make government more effective.
Increasingly, critics argue, ballot proposals have become political tools.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was famous for his charter commissions. He appointed many of his close friends to commissions and then had them consider issues like whether a new Yankee Stadium should be built or whether Public Advocate Mark Green should be banned from becoming mayor if Giuliani left his seat.
Last year, Mayor Bloomberg tried to get his charter commission to consider nonpartisan elections, but they declined. This year, he put it on the agenda again and they agreed to present a proposal for voters.
But not all of the questions on the November 4 ballot were put there by the mayor.
The first two questions voters will see are amendments to the New York State Constitution and the law requires that the measures must be passed by the State Legislature twice before going directly to voters.
And the last question on the November ballot - number six - would form a commission to study class size limits for New York City public schools. The United Federation of Teachers and other education advocates, who collected 115,000 signatures and took the city to court, put it on the ballot.
UPDATE: October 26, 2003
Question number six will not appear on the November ballot. The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled against it and the court rejected any further appeal by the teachers union.
The Six Questions1. Paying for Sewage Systems2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities 3. Non-Partisan Elections 4. City Purchasing 5. Government Administration 6. Class Size Overview of Ballot Proposals Related LinksNew York City Campaign Finance Board - Voter's guide provides information on ballot proposals and candidates.New York City Board of Elections New York City Charter Commission |
Currently, municipalities in New York State do not have to count construction and repairs to sewer facilities toward the amount of money they can borrow. This allows counties, cities, towns, and villages to make repairs that they might not otherwise be able to afford without having to choose between sewage and other building projects. This exclusion was first enacted in 1963 and will expire in 2004. This proposal would extend it for another ten years until 2014. (Text of the question as it will appear on the ballot.)
Although it would primarily affect small counties upstate, all voters in the state - including New York City voters who are not affected - have a say on this proposal because their taxes will pay for sewer repairs. (Read more about sewage construction in New York City)
Proponents say that this measure gives municipalities the flexibility to make the repairs they need. Assemblymember Robert Sweeney of Suffolk County, who sponsored the measure in the Assembly, said it mostly will help small upstate communities that have small tax bases by allowing them to borrow for critical sewer projects without having to postpone building roads and schools.
Few lawmakers argue against the need to build and repair sewer systems. In fact, when the bill went through the State Legislature, no lawmakers or organizations actively opposed it. However, voters are not as eager to allow the government to take on additional debt. In 1993, when this same measure appeared on the ballot, it passed by only 22,000 votes out of 2.5 million votes cast.
1. Paying for Sewage Systems
2. Paying for Schools in Small Cities
3. Non-Partisan Elections
4. City Purchasing
5. Government Administration
6. Class Size
Overview of Ballot Proposals
On Election Day, New Yorkers should vote "no" on ballot proposal number four that will amend the city's purchasing rules.
The first problem with the proposal is the process.
The mayor is trying to put things in place through a charter referendum that can be done by appropriate legislation. Only when the City Charter, which is the constitution of the city, needs to be revamped should we consider a charter referendum.
Legislation is the City Council's job, and we have put together a package of 13 bills that deal with procurement reform. These bills will:
As the chair of the City Council committee on contracting, I have been trying to work with the mayor's office on these issues for the last two years. They have continued to delay. All of a sudden, instead of coming and talking with the City Council, the administration is trying to roll things into a referendum. That is not the way business is done in the city. We must use the legislative processes that are already in place.
The second issue is the substance of some of the mayor's proposals for changing how the city does contracting.
For example, the mayor proposes eliminating the open bidding process if he feels that an item raises concerns about the "security of the city or its citizens." In that case, the public won't even be told about the contract.
I have a number of questions about this security provision: How will the mayor determine if the information will be detrimental to the security of the city? How would "security" be defined? How is the council supposed to do oversight on security-related purchases?
Another article in the question would eliminate a provision requiring contractors to provide a report on business practices, such as collective bargaining agreements, to ensure that contractors meet all laws. I fear that this would give too much power to the commissioners and not enough assurance that the companies the city does business with are following local, state, and federal laws.
Finally, the charter commission and the mayor have not done enough to education voters about these ballot proposals.
Perhaps the mayor thinks that voters will not pay much attention. But the wool is being pulled over the voters' eyes. Recently, the City Council held a public hearing where we invited the chairman of the mayor's charter commission, Frank Macchiarola, and commissioners to come and answer questions regarding contracting issues for the public. They did not come.
At the hearing, I read a series of questions that I would have asked the chairman, the commissioners, their counsel, or anyone from the mayor's office. But no one came, so I read the questions to an empty chair with a sign with the commissioner's name on it.
In my opinion, the charter commission is avoiding public discussion and debate on this issue. It is the City Council's responsibility to hold oversight hearings. But we need to ask why did the commission not come, and why won't they answer these questions for the public.
Councilmember Robert Jackson represents district 7 in Washington Heights and is the chairman of the City Council contracting committee.
# # #
• Vote Yes on 4: The Business of Government by Anthony Crowell
• Guide to New York City's 2003 Ballot Proposals
The Department of Education's TV and radio stations known as WNYE are reportedly up for sale. WNYC-FM is going to buy the radio station (WNYE-FM 91.5) and WNET-Channel 13 may buy the TV station (Channel 25), according to the Times.
The deal has been a "secret" to the people of New York. As Joyce Purnick of the New York Times reported, " There has been no announcement, no competitive bidding, no comment from the agency conducting the negotiations, the Economic Development Corporation." This is troubling because it contradicts Bloomberg's promise of greater transparency.
Before these deals are signed and sealed, some in government are urging the city to conduct an open review of WNYE and its potential buyers. City Councilmember Gale Brewer believes that WNYE could be a valuable asset in the future, if the city keeps it.
WNYC and WNET--both public broadcasters--may seem like the best possible buyers. WNYC features well-known non-commercial radio broadcasts from National Public Radio such as "Morning Edition" and " Fresh Air" in addition to its own programming. And Brian Lehrer's morning call-in show has always been one of my favorites. Similarly, Channel 13 offers a range of quality shows such as Sesame Street and Charlie Rose.
With these wholesome offerings, one might find it hard to object to the sale, especially in times of deep budget cuts. However, a more extensive public evaluation is still necessary.
SPECTRUM: MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
WNYE hold the license to a vital public resource: spectrum. More commonly referred to as "radio waves" or "airwaves," the electromagnetic spectrum is used for a variety of things. These include cell phones, satellite communications, radio, broadcast TV and wireless Internet access to name just a few. According to Times columnist William Safire, " [Spectrum is] the most valuable natural resource of the information age."
Since spectrum is invisible, it is difficult to grasp its worth. The New America Foundation's "Citizen's Guide to the Airwaves" (in pdf format) offers a graphical representation. The total value of all US spectrum is estimated to be $771 billion. But, the Federal Communications Commission is using what is now widely regarded as an inefficient way to regulate access to the airwaves. "[Spectrum is] being managed wastefully and inequitably, and what's at stake is the future of technologies that can enable the tremendous economic and social potential of anywhere, anytime access to high-speed data networking," writes the New America Foundation's Michael Calabrese in The Atlantic Monthly.
This is because spectrum regulations were created as a result of radio interference almost one hundred years ago. In the 1920's, crossed signals often led to crashes on the high seas because ships could not contact one another or call for emergency response. These problems led to the passage of the Communications Act of 1934.
However, new technologies render the current system defunct. Some advocates in Washington are pushing for spectrum privatization while others are arguing that the resource should be treated as a "commons," much like our current highway system.
Adam Theirer of the libertarian Cato Institute writes, "There exists today overwhelming intellectual support for an alternative system of spectrum governance based upon the free market principles of flexible use, property rights and freedom of contract." In reality, new FCC regulation will most likely be a combination of both.
Groups like NYCwireless, are working to gain access to unused and wasted TV broadcast spectrum. If the FCC allows more spectrum to be used without a license-microwaves, TV remotes and pacemakers all do this-then it could be used to support free Internet access. According to NYCwireless' Dustin Goodwin, "[This] will be critical to changing the way the poor of this city gain access to the communication services."
POSSIBILITIES FOR WNYE
So, should the city go ahead with its plan to sell WNYE? Experts disagree on the potential value of these stations for future education programming or other projects.
According to Bob Miller, "The sale would be a big mistake." This is because WNYE's TV station could be used to broadcast five to twelve channels digitally. However, in recent years, lack of city funds prevented the station from shining, digitally that is.
Miller's company Viacel uses a technology that can digitally broadcast to small portable devices. Such technology could turn WNYE into a great resource for delivering educational content to all New Yorkers, not only those enrolled in public schools.
Everything from homework assignments to videos could be sent to students on their laptops, personal digital assistants or cell phones. Many of these devices are starting to come with digital receivers which would allow them to get the broadcasts. This could be used along with the Internet to facilitate learning beyond the doors of the classroom.
Viacel's technology, while popular overseas in Europe, Russia, Australia and Hong Kong, is different from the digital broadcasting standard used in the U.S. The company has been granted a waiver to use the technology by the Federal Communications Commission.
But, Goodwin of NYCWireless sees less value in holding onto WNYE for a different reason. He says, "[channel 25] would not be enough to be useful for wide scale wireless community network deployment." This is because channel 25 is only 6 megahertz wide. A wireless network requires a channel that is 22 megahertz wide--the wider the channel the more information can be transmitted.
While current FCC regulations prevent using a broadcast channel as a wireless network, it is possible the city could request a waiver to use WNYE's spectrum for this purpose.
So, maybe we shouldn't be mourning WNYE's loss just yet. Instead, the city might want to take a good hard look at what it owns with an eye towards the technologies that might make it a lot more valuable to the Department of Education in the future.
Laura Forlano is a doctoral student studying communication technology policy at Columbia University.