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.
