NYC Charter Revision Commission proposals: explained

Update July 26: This post was updated to reflect last-minute changes made to the Charter Revision Commission’s public safety proposals on July 25. 

The battle for space on the November ballot is likely nearing its conclusion. 

After releasing a final report earlier this week, Mayor Eric Adams’ Charter Revision Commission seems poised to approve five proposals during a final public meeting Thursday. While two of the initiatives proposed for the November ballot would grant City Hall more power over how the City Council crafts legislation, members are upset about a lot more than just that.

Adams formed the commission to review and craft proposals to change the city’s governing document on May 21 – a process the 13-member panel has carried out over the past nine weeks while holding a number of public hearings across the five boroughs. The City Council meanwhile has accused the Adams administration of rushing to develop the new proposals in order to block the chamber’s “advice and consent” measure from the November ballot. The legislation, passed by the City Council in June, would expand member authority to approve or deny mayoral appointments if approved by voters. Thanks to a legal quirk, the commission’s ballot proposals – two of which would hinder the City Council’s power – will very likely push the City Council’s own attempt to dilute the Adams administrations’ power off of the November ballot. The mayor has denied that the proposals are politically motivated.

Here’s a rundown of what the charter commission’s five ballot proposals are, how they would change existing law and just how pissed the City Council is about it. 

PUBLIC SAFETY

What is the proposal?

The proposal would create additional requirements for how the City Council considers laws that pertain to the public safety operations of three different agencies – the New York City Police Department, the Department of Correction and the Fire Department. It would also give the mayor the authority to hold his own public hearings on proposed legislation.

What would this actually change?

Initially, a fair amount – probably the most of any of the proposed ballot initiatives. But just before the Charter Revision Commission’s vote on Thursday, they watered this proposal down significantly. The version the Commission approved on Thursday would require the City Council to give 30 days’ public notice before votes on issues pertaining to public safety. During that time, the mayor could also hold hearings on the proposed laws.

Under the initial version, the City Council would have been forced to wait 45 days – up from the current three – before they could hold a hearing on proposed public safety legislation from the time the measure is announced to the public. (A City Council spokesperson noted that hearing dates tend to already be on the calendar for days or weeks before they happen.) The amendment would also have allowed impacted agencies to file a statement with the City Council, which would detail how the agency believes the proposed legislation would impact public safety. The City Council would then be required to include the statement in the public legislative record no less than five days before the vote. The version of this proposal that the commission approved included no mentions of public impact statements.

How pissed is the City Council? 

Pissed! “I'm trying to collect my thoughts because I'm so angry about it,” Council Member Julie Won said earlier this week. The changes to the proposals didn’t bring any signs of gratitude from the council either. “The Commission’s last-minute amended proposals with no notice exemplifies the extreme hypocrisy of this rushed, anti-democratic process,” a spokesperson said. 

Many members felt the Adams administration was pushing the proposal in direct response to the City Council’s passage of legislation requiring more police reporting on lower-level investigative encounters and banning solitary confinement in city jails. Adams strongly opposed both measures, but members overrode his vetoes of both in January. Indeed, both of these bills were mentioned in the commission’s report as examples of proposals that would have benefited from greater deliberation and public input. One of the most alarming aspects of the proposal though, according to a spokesperson for the City Council, is that the Adams administration wants to give themselves legislative power to hold hearings on bills separate from the council.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

What is the proposal?

The proposal would change how the city assesses the fiscal impact of proposed laws, giving the Adams administration more say on the cost associated with proposed legislation. It would also alter some budget deadlines. 

What would this actually change?

The City Council would be required to publish fiscal impact statements before they hold a hearing on proposed legislation, release another updated analysis before the final vote, and publish both the City Council’s financial estimates and an estimate from the mayor’s Office of Management and Budget. Regarding the latter, the City Council would be required to give the mayor a notice of eight days before holding a public hearing or a full vote on a proposed law so OMB has time to provide its own financial estimate. Fiscal impact statements are currently published just before the City Council votes on a proposed piece of legislation. For example, the City Council passed legislation to expand rental voucher access last year only one day after publishing documents projecting the measure would cost $10 billion – a measure the Adams administration has clashed with the City Council over. 

How pissed is the City Council?

Angry. City Council Finance Committee Chair Justin Brannan said he finds the proposed fiscal amendments particularly concerning. “Requiring the Mayor’s Office of Management and Budget to submit estimates for every single bill before we can hold a public hearing will grind government to a halt,” he said in a statement. “I promise you New Yorkers don’t want to codify OMB supremacy.”

CLEAN STREETS

What is the proposal?

This proposal would expand and codify the authority of the city Department of Sanitation to clean city-owned property, enforce regulations on street vending and regulate how New Yorkers set out their trash. This comes as the city pursues the exciting innovation of garbage bins.

What would this actually change?

While the Department of Sanitation currently has the authority to clean some city-owned property, the current charter has a few gaps, meaning that the department is not expressly charged with the cleaning of center medians or perimeters of city-owned property, for example, according to the commission’s report. This proposal would close those gaps. The proposal would also formally extend the department’s authority to enforce street vending to not just streets and sidewalks, but other areas, like parks, where the NYPD and Parks Enforcement Officers also have authority to issue street vending summonses. Finally, as the city makes a push for trash bins, the proposal would clarify in the charter that the Department of Sanitation has the authority to enforce that push.

How pissed is the City Council?

Apparently not very. Council leaders have yet to weigh in on this proposal. Unlike the previous two, it doesn’t seem to directly impact the council’s legislative process.

CAPITAL PLANNING 

What is the proposal?

Under one of the commission’s less flashy proposals, the city would be required to publish more information about the repair needs and state of its infrastructure and facilities in its annual Statement of Needs report. It would also formally require the city to take information about the conditions of its facilities into account during its capital planning process. 

What would this actually change?

The proposal would formalize a few additional steps in the city’s annual capital planning process. It would require the annual statement of needs – a rundown of proposals to build, expand, reduce or close city facilities – to include information about their conditions. It would also formalize that information and several other criteria are considered in the city’s biannual Ten-Year Capital Strategy. The proposal would also push back the due date of the Ten-Year Capital Strategy to coincide with the release of the preliminary city budget in January.

How pissed is the City Council?

Council members have not yet been as vocal about this proposal. But Comptroller Brad Lander, who is credited in the commission’s report for making a recommendation that led to this proposal, blasted it in a statement on Wednesday. “Proposal #4 is meaningless, does not advance transparency, and fails to improve the City’s capital planning process in any way,” Lander said. “Requiring the Citywide Statement of Needs to include additional detail on facility condition is meaningless for capital budget planning purposes – since these are in fact the projects that the City has already decided need to be improved and to invest funds to do so.”

MWBES AND MODERNIZATION OF CITY OPERATIONS

What is the proposal?

A bit of a jumble of different charter changes, this proposal would codify the position of the chief business diversity officer, authorize the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment to issue film permits, and streamline two city boards that are responsible for reviewing municipal records.

What would this actually change?

The role of chief business diversity officer – created by Mayor Eric Adams through executive order last year and currently held by Michael Garner – would be codified in the charter under this proposal, but wouldn’t be hugely changed. This proposal would also clarify that employees of the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment can issue film permits – a function currently served by the commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment under the authority of the Department of Small Business Services. Finally, the proposal would combine two advisory boards in the city charter that deal with municipal archives. Frank Dwyer, a spokesperson for the Charter Review Commission, said that the consolidation of these boards “should have no effect on staff levels.”

How pissed is the City Council?

Not a peep from council leaders on this proposal yet. Like the previous two, it doesn’t seem to directly impact the council’s work.