Press Room

With the Charter Revision Commission set to vote on its proposals later today, the New York Daily News has published an op-ed from Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams opposing the revisions, entitled 'A mayoral mea culpa in the City Charter.' In the piece, the Public Advocate condemns the proposal which would change the process of enacting public safety legislation, recognizing it as a reaction to the mayor's opposition to How Many Stops Act, his failure to successfully prevent the bill from becoming law, and his attempt to rewrite the rules to his own benefit and the city's detriment.

"A charter revision is supposed to be significant, serious, and designed to last for the long-term," writes Public Advocate Williams. "This one is barely designed to last for a news cycle. The mayor seems to believe the most important issue facing the city is his own backward-looking failure to adequately bully Council members and scare the public into opposing a basic transparency bill, one he pledged to support during his mayoral campaign." 

Public Advocate Williams highlights the many problems with the proposed changes to the legislative process, which would require additional barriers to passing legislation related to law enforcement, first pointing out that despite the mayor's misinformation, there was an extensive process involved in passing the legislation, noting it is "Ludicrous to suggest that a bill introduced two years prior to passage, and concepts introduced a decade prior, are rushed... The administration’s failure to pay attention or refusal to honestly engage until the 11th hour are not things we can fix with a charter revision."

He asks "As most New Yorkers know, public safety is all-encompassing, involving areas such as housing, health care, education, and economic development. Is the administration suggesting that any legislation touching these issues should be subject to a new process? Is it suggesting that only bills the police unions pay attention to should face this scrutiny? Or is it simply putting forward an ill-conceived proposal to address a political problem for the mayor?"

The full piece is available online here, and text is below. 

A mayoral mea culpa in the City Charter

The How Many Stops Act — a bill to bring basic transparency to NYPD interactions with the public — began its implementation on July 1 after a long campaign by the mayor to mislead the public about the bill, veto it, and be overridden after months of spreading misinformation. But rather than give New Yorkers the confidence that City Hall will faithfully execute the laws, the mayor is trying to rewrite the rules.

Mayor Adams’ Charter Revision Commission, launched in response to the City Council writing basic checks and balances into law, is advancing a bizarre proposal — that “public safety legislation” be subject to a different process than all other bills. It cites the How Many Stops Act as justification, baselessly asserting that there was not ample opportunity for input from the public or stakeholders in the standard process for legislating, notwithstanding the two-year process that took place.

A charter revision is supposed to be significant, serious, and designed to last for the long-term. This one is barely designed to last for a news cycle. The mayor seems to believe the most important issue facing the city is his own backward-looking failure to adequately bully Council members and scare the public into opposing a basic transparency bill, one he pledged to support during his mayoral campaign.

I understand the danger of hastily enacted, poorly thought-out government actions — this commission certainly shines a spotlight on that. But it is ludicrous to suggest that a bill introduced two years prior to passage, and concepts introduced a decade prior, are rushed. That a bill which goes through the normal legislative process is rushed. That there was not ample time for the administration and public to weigh in on the law and its implications.

The administration’s failure to pay attention or refusal to honestly engage until the 11th hour are not things we can fix with a charter revision.

Beneath the obvious and alarming motivations for these suggestions, there are deeper causes for concern about the administration’s governing philosophies. The charter proposal is aimed at legislation impacting public safety — and seems to equate that solely with law enforcement.

A narrow lens on public safety is short-sighted and ineffective. As most New Yorkers know, public safety is all-encompassing, involving areas such as housing, health care, education, and economic development. Is the administration suggesting that any legislation touching these issues should be subject to a new process? Is it suggesting that only bills the police unions pay attention to should face this scrutiny? Or is it simply putting forward an ill-conceived proposal to address a political problem for the mayor?

The charter proposal reassures that the requirement could be “made waivable when necessary,” which raises the question of what this administration deems necessary. When is urgency required? It’s clearly not when documented abuses of stop, question and frisk are on the rise, or individuals in mental health crises are killed by law enforcement.

The mayor has no issue acting rapidly or unilaterally when it comes to things he views as politically advantageous — say, convening a charter commission in the first place. Yet when policies pass which he dislikes, he’ll find every opportunity to slow them down — even now, he’s attempting to block the solitary confinement ban overwhelmingly enacted by the Council six months ago. He wants the authority to act unilaterally or dictatorially on policies he supports, and erect barriers and constraints on his perceived opponents.

Our politics are already being harmed enough by executives who struggle to move past losses, who attempt to consolidate power and diminish the legislature. That ideology is evident here, from public safety to the attempt to block the Council expanded “advice and consent” responsibilities.

There are real questions a charter commission could grapple with, especially one made up of many respectable, accomplished people appointed to this panel. But instead, the mayor has sent this commission hurtling toward foregone conclusions to advance his agenda. A hurried process of poorly promoted hearings has ensured that the mayor’s voice is the loudest echoed in these proposals. This transparent tactic is aimed at the immediate, but its implications could impact decades of governance.

If these proposals make the ballot, the mayor will likely promote them with the same kind of public misinformation campaign he waged against the How Many Stops Act.

New Yorkers should stand against this effort to minimize the City Council, maximize mayoral priorities, and turn short-term political goals into permanent processes.

NEW YORK:  New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams testified before the St. Louis Board of Aldermen today as the legislature considers a bill to establish a similar position in their city. In his remarks, he emphasized the importance of an elected, independent ombudsman in city government, speaking to his own experience in the role and offering recommendations for a new office in St. Louis. “There is the stature of the office as a City-wide level elected,” argued Public Advocate Williams after speaking to several recent achievements by his office and outlining the history and powers of the role. “This facilitates the full force of the bully pulpit to bring a voice to the voters that cannot be ignored by the administration nor any other level of government.” The Public Advocate acknowledged some of the challenges of the office, including budget and staff limitations, and urged that a newly created position address these areas from the outset. He reiterated the importance of the role as a counterbalance to other executives. Board Bill 71, legislation from Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez, would put a proposed charter amendment before St. Louis voters to create a position of public advocate and office of public advocacy.  Should the City of St. Louis move forward in creating the position, Public Advocate Williams recommended that:

• The operational budget of the office must be appropriately sized and comparable to the city-wide office holder; 
• The Charter Commission should delineate in the Charter the percentage of the budget that will be allocated to the Public Advocate; and
• The Public Advocate should have the power to subpoena records, as well as witnesses.

Watch the Public Advocate’s full testimony and dialogue with the St. Louis Board of Aldermen here. 

“I commend the Speaker, Council Members Nurse and Rivera, and the entire City Council for taking this action to protect New Yorkers and ensure the administration complies with our laws – even ones the mayor opposes. Ending the harm of isolation is a moral and legal imperative. 

“The administration clearly has the resources to implement Local Law 42. Instead, they’re using those resources to try to preserve the status quo on Rikers. I had hoped that when the Council overrode the mayor’s veto with more votes than the bill was originally passed by, the mayor would work to implement the law and improve conditions on Rikers. There is still an opportunity for the administration to act in good faith, but the Council’s vote today provides a safeguard and path to enact that a policy overwhelmingly approved by lawmakers is carried out in city jails.”

NEW YORK: At a hearing this afternoon on a lawsuit filed on behalf of bus riders by Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams and the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 100, State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron issued a Temporary Restraining Order to restore recent cuts made to bus services in several boroughs. The dramatic reductions in service initiated by the MTA last week must now be reversed as the case moves forward.

This suit, which highlights the cost-cutting measures undertaken by the MTA since the last-minute “pause” of congestion pricing, is the first in a series to be filed in coordination with a coalition of transit riders, disabled commuters, and environmental advocates as part of a legal effort initiated by Comptroller Brad Lander. 

“This is a moment of victory in a much larger and longer movement,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams after the hearing. “Because of this order, New Yorkers will see buses back on the streets, resuming the routes that people rely on. The cuts in this case show the real, personal consequences of the Governor and MTA’s cancellation of congestion pricing and the revenue it would have raised. They need to be transparent about that impact, and about any cuts they make. In this instance, the MTA acted without adequate notice or process, and I am grateful that while the case moves forward, we have been able to mitigate this harm. I thank the TWU and all who are leading on this case and in the overall fight to get the funding we need for our city’s public transit.”

The lawsuit, filed yesterday in conjunction with TWU Local 100 and New York City transit riders, aims to establish injunctive relief from non-emergency, long-term reduction of bus service throughout the city. Roopdai Julie Davis, an 82-year-old resident of Kensington and daily bus rider, joined the suit as representative of the many New Yorkers who will suffer as a result of these cuts, particularly amid the dangers of a heat wave.

Cuts to service began without public notice on or about Friday, July 12. The New York State Public Authorities Law requires the MTA to give 30 days notice of any non-emergency bus service reduction to the NYC Mayor and Council. The MTA failed to provide such notice and allow for a public hearing by the Council on the cuts, also required by law, seemingly in its haste to account for the revenue lost by pausing congestion pricing. 

The next court date in this case will be September 24, with the Temporary Restraining Order in place and service cuts reversed in the interim.  

"Ten years ago this afternoon, Eric Garner was killed by Officer Daniel Pantaleo on a Staten Island street corner and on camera. In remembering Eric’s death, we honor his life as a father, son, husband, and a beloved member of our New York community whose life was needlessly taken by law enforcement.

"His last words, ‘I can’t breathe,' have become a rallying cry for justice, accountability, and reform, a refrain echoed in the wake of George Floyd’s death six years later, one which still resounds today. We should use this moment of reflection to examine the progress made since 2014 as well as the ongoing injustices we continue to face and fight. 

"Yesterday Mayor Adams said he hoped there would be ‘no Eric Garner situation’ under his administration. But just months ago, Win Rozario was killed by the NYPD, and justice was denied to the family of Kawaski Trawick. At the start of this year, the mayor vetoed our law which can help prevent encounters like Eric Garner’s from escalating, and attempted to convince the public that police transparency makes people less safe. These ‘situations’ will continue to happen as the city not only attempts to prevent better policing, but retreats from the progress of the last decade.

"I want to offer continued condolences and gratitude to Gwen Carr and the Garner family, who have turned their pain into purpose. They have shown immense strength and resilience in the face of profound loss, and I’m proud to be alongside them in the movement for lasting change and true justice. We cannot wait another day, let alone a decade, to make the changes that will prevent future tragedies."

"I am glad to see a budget agreement on time, and with many important initiatives intact. I thank the Council and the Speaker in particular, in partnership with advocates, for their relentless efforts to not only secure capital investment in key initiatives such as affordable housing, but to oppose austerity and preserve vital programs. Nowhere is this more clear than in our libraries and cultural institutions, and I am grateful that the final budget deal restores crucial funding in these areas. 

"At the same time, we should not let relief at undoing the administration’s unnecessary and high-profile cuts to libraries obscure the reality: there are still other unnecessary, less-visible cuts in this budget, and these will have an impact far beyond the fiscal year. I will continue to review the details of the budget deal for a wide range of agencies and issues.

"Finally, it should be clear that announcing services will be slashed, then reversing course months later, is not a sign of strong administrative management; it’s playing politics with programs that people depend on. We need to lead with fiscal and moral responsibility, consider the human cost of cuts, and move forward as strong stewards of not just the city’s finances, but the city’s people."