Holden files formal complaints on NYC Council’s ‘overtly political’ ballot proposal messaging

It’s no secret that many City Council Democrats object to ballot proposals that originated from Mayor Eric Adams’ Charter Revision Commission. Those members, including Speaker Adrienne Adams, have argued that proposals 2 through 6 on the November ballot would give the executive branch even more power than it already has. They’ve also referred to their very appearance on November’s ballot as the result of the mayor’s rushed, politically driven Charter Revision Commission.

But one member of the City Council is crying foul about the Council’s strategy for opposing those ballot measures, filing formal complaints that the council is engaging in improper electioneering using city resources. The speaker’s office says the communications about the ballot measures is entirely above board, citing guidance from the Conflicts of Interest Board. 

Over the past couple weeks, voters around the city received mailers on official City Council letterhead explaining ballot proposals 2 through 6 and their origin in the mayor’s Charter Revision Commission. The mailers don’t instruct voters on how to vote, but include pointed language describing them as having “bypassed” the lawmaking process. Breakdowns of the individual proposals include more stark language, like “undermines public input” and “weakens budget transparency.” Similar language is found on a City Council website and in a mass email from the council.

The city charter prohibits public servants from using government funds or resources for communications that contain an electioneering message – with electioneering defined as including a “statement designed to urge the public to … support or oppose a particular referendum question.”

But the mailers and the website stop short of explicitly instructing New Yorkers how to vote. “My sense is they’re trying to squeak by – and they may be, because they don’t have the specific instruction to a voter of what to do,” said Reinvent Albany’s Rachael Fauss, of the council’s language not directing voters to cast their ballots one way or the other. 

The mailers, which Politico New York first reported on last month, came from the speaker’s office, as did the website and email. (Politico reported that council members were asked if they wanted their name and photo attached to mailers in their district – Council Members Chi Ossé, Julie Won and Shahana Hanif are among those who opted in.) “I don’t think that this is political,” Won said. “I am simply educating my constituents, which I have every right to do and it’s part of my job.”

Politico reported that several unnamed council members opted out of having their names and photos associated with the mailers that went out to voters, and Citizens Union’s director of public policy suggested to the outlet that the mailers go against the spirit of the city charter.

But at least one council member took his objection to the mailers further, filing official complaints over what he sees as crossing into electioneering. Council Member Bob Holden, a conservative Democrat who often aligns with Republicans and other members of the council’s Common Sense Caucus, filed two complaints over the body’s use of government resources to send the communications using what he called “overtly political” language about the ballot proposals, while promoting in more favorable language ballot proposal 1, the state-level Equal Rights Amendment that is unrelated to the mayor’s Charter Revision Commission.

In separate complaints filed in early October to the city Conflicts of Interest Board and the city Campaign Finance Board, Holden asked for both to investigate the council’s communications about the proposals. Addressing the Conflicts of Interest Board, Holden said that the communications were “concerning because they do not offer an unbiased, educational perspective on all the ballot proposals but instead appear to sway the public towards a specific outcome on those the City Council does not favor.”

While none of the council’s messaging directs voters to cast their ballots for or against the proposals, Holden called out certain phrases as biased, including language referring to the Charter Revision Commission as “hastily created” and stating that proposals would make “city government less responsive.”

In response, the City Council speaker’s office denied improper action and cited guidance from the Conflicts of Interest Board that appears to grant the council latitude. “The Council’s efforts to educate the public on Mayor Adams’ rushed Charter Revision Commission’s Ballot Proposals 2 – 6 is important to provide clarity about their policy implications for city government and democracy,” Council spokesperson Mandela Jones wrote in an email. “The highly misleading ballot language advanced by this rushed commission only makes it more essential that direct explanation of these proposals’ impacts is provided to the public.”

The guidance that the council said the Conflicts of Interest Board provided stated that ballot proposals from Charter Revision Commissions aren’t viewed as political campaigns, and so the use of city resources in debating them is appropriate. “Board Rules Section 1-13(b) prohibits the use of City resources for non-City purposes, including political campaign activity, but the public referendum on the proposals of the Charter Revision Commission is not a ‘political campaign,’ that is, it is not directed toward the success or failure of a candidate for election to public office nor is it the promotion of a political party,” the guidance read. “Rather, the proposals of the Charter Revision Commission are matters of City policy; just as is the case with matters of legislation or rulemaking, it is appropriate for City resources to be used in the course of debating these policy proposals or promoting one view or another about them.”

The Conflict of Interest Board does not disclose any details about guidance sought by public servants, but confirmed that the above is an accurate statement of the conflict of interest law. 

In his separate complaint to the Campaign Finance Board, Holden asked the body to investigate whether the council’s communications constitute an independent expenditure that requires reporting and disclosure, or breaches other rules about communications regarding ballot proposals.

In a statement, the Campaign Finance Board said that the city charter grants “narrow authority” to investigate and determine whether the use of government funds or resources by a candidate for office violates prohibitions against mass mailing. “Other issues regarding the use of government funds and resources do not fall within the jurisdiction of the CFB,” spokesperson Tim Hunter wrote.