On Monday, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams appeared before the 'NYC Commission to Strengthen Local Democracy' Charter Revision Commission at a public hearing to discuss his proposed amendments to the charter in this cycle. At the hearing, he testified in favor of proposals which would help create transparency and accountability, including through strengthening the investigative powers of the Office of the Public Advocate.
“While the Charter is a living document that has grown and changed, just as our city has grown and changed, the language governing the Public Advocate’s abilities has not kept pace,” Public Advocate Williams noted, and proposed two recommendations related to the Public Advocate’s office – first, to grant the role full subpoena power, thus better allowing it to fulfill its duties as mandated and helping to avoid lengthy and expensive lawsuits to receive information which the city should readily share between governing partners. The Public Advocate also petitioned for Charter clarification that would codify greater standing to sue on behalf of the residents of New York City.
He pointed to recent controversies as evidence of the need for Charter clarification, that “The Governor recently acknowledged that in the current climate of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the citywide elected officials in NYC should have the ability to hire independent counsel and have standing to sue.”
These changes are essential, he argued, given the failures of administrations to comply with requests, noting the history of this issue “The Charter states that the Office of the Public Advocate 'shall have timely access to those records and documents of city agencies which the public advocate deems necessary to complete the investigations, inquiries and reviews.'” However, city agencies currently fail to comply with these requests to no consequence in the absence of a subpoena.”
As an official charged with ensuring government provides transparency and accountability, he also urged changes to strengthen other city oversight bodies. These include establishing that “The NYC Board of Corrections (BOC) should receive a minimum budget tied to 1% of the expense budget of the Department of Corrections.” Similarly, he called for the Civilian Complaint Review Board to receive 1% of the NYPD’s budget, as well as direct access to body-worn camera footage and allowing final approval of disciplinary authority decisions to rest with the CCRB, not just the NYPD Commissioner.
The Public Advocate's full statement as delivered is below and the hearing can be viewed here. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS TO THE NEW YORK CITY NYC COMMISSION TO STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY MAY 19, 2025
Peace and blessings, love and light to everyone. As mentioned, my name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I have the pleasure of serving as Public Advocate for the City of New York. Before I jump in, I want to thank all of you in this room – the Chair, Commission Members, and fellow New Yorkers – for your participation in this open, transparent, publicly noticed process to make government better and fairer.
The Office of the Public Advocate acts as a watchdog to ensure that City agencies are as efficient and effective as demanded by the people of New York as set forth in section 24 of the New York City Charter. The office also investigates and resolves constituent complaints relating to the services provided by these agencies.
As the second highest-ranking elected official in the City, however, my ability to fully serve New Yorkers can be undermined by the existing language in the Charter. While the Charter is a living document that has grown and changed, just as our city has grown and changed, the language governing the Public Advocate’s abilities has not kept pace. I ask the Commission to consider and solicit feedback concerning a mechanism through which the Public Advocate can require officials and agencies to answer questions posed by the Public Advocate, whether that mechanism be some form of subpoena power or otherwise.
To that end I make two recommendations respective to the Office of the Public Advocate. First is regarding subpoena power. As I raised in my statement to the 2019 Charter Commission, the Charter states that the Office of the Public Advocate “shall have timely access to those records and documents of city agencies which the public advocate deems necessary to complete the investigations, inquiries and reviews.” However, city agencies could fail to comply with these requests to no consequence in the absence of a subpoena, which would delay investigations that the Office of the Public Advocate are required to conduct. Giving the office full subpoena power would better allow the office to fulfill its duties as mandated by the existing Charter. This would avoid lengthy and expensive lawsuits to receive information the city should be sharing between agencies, the only current remedy. The Charter also allows that the Public Advocate may hold public hearings but is silent as to whether the Public Advocate may require witnesses to attend and testify at these hearings, a noticeable gap subpoena power would fill.
Additionally I’d like to call attention to the need regarding standing to sue. In 2019 I also gave testimony on an essential power for independence and to best represent the people of New York City not afforded to the Office of the Public Advocate- Standing to Sue. The Charter does not make clear Public Advocate’s standing to sue on behalf of the residents of New York City. Because the Law Department has determination over which officials with the Office of the Public Advocate independent from mayoral agencies. Clarifying the clear standing to sue would improve transparency and accountability in New York City. The Governor recently acknowledged that in the current climate of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the citywide elected officials in NYC should have the ability to hire independent counsel and have standing to sue.
I would also like to address ways the Charter can support external and independent review of our law enforcement bodies. Right now we are in the earliest stages of remediation tasked with addressing the administration’s inability to effectively manage ongoing violence in NYC Jails, but like Rikers, the court-led oversight will not last forever. We must look to the future. The NYC Board of Corrections (BOC) should receive a minimum budget tied to 1% of the expense budget of the Department of Corrections. This would allow for fulfillment of their charter mandated duty to perform oversight of the Department of Corrections and is consistent with recommendations from numerous entities including the American Bar Association. An investment into the BOC has serious benefits to the city that include averting financial risk from lawsuits whose causes can be identified and addressed earlier, independently identifying and substantiating DOC needs for funding, and allowing for better informed decisions relative to sentencing and facility policies.
Changing the composition of the Board of Corrections from majority mayoral appointments would also allow for independence between agencies.
The city’s other law enforcement oversight body, the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) is similarly understaffed. Setting a minimum budget for the Civilian Complaint Review Board tied to 1% of the expense budget of the New York City Police Department would correct this. As a workforce responsible for performing oversight for the largest police force in the nation it makes sense that their budget be tied proportionally as it is in other major cities like Chicago and Miami. Allowing for direct access to the CCRB for body-worn camera footage and other relevant materials would avoid delays and allow for timely decisions increasing public confidence in the process. Finally, allowing final approval of disciplinary authority decisions to rest with the CCRB and not just the NYPD Commissioner is crucial to ensure accountability for police misconduct, and should be considered as well. Thank you very much.
Back to press reports