Showing posts with label nyc charter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nyc charter. Show all posts

Monday, June 28, 2010

Borough Presidents Can Introduce Laws -- They Just Don't by Kathleen Lucadamo - NY Daily News

Read original....

The oil giant's not the only BP playing defense.

The city's five BPs -- borough presidents -- argue what they need is MORE power, not banishment, as many have suggested.

So I looked at the one little-known power they have: The ability to introduce laws.

According to their respective offices, it has been used about a half dozen times in the last decade.

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall has done it twice in nine years. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has done it twice in five years. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. has done it once (the living wage bill) in two years.

Staten Island Borough President James Molinaro has never done it in nine years. And Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz has done "it once in the past year, and on one or two occasions earlier" during his nine-year tenure.

None of their laws have passed so far.

When the Charter Commission stripped the BPs of most authority in 1989, they gave them the ability to introduce laws in the City Council just as the mayor does.

The bill is introduced by a Councilmember "by the request of the borough president."

"We were trying to make players in the legislative process by giving them power to push an agenda," said Eric Lane, who headed that commission.

Now, the borough presidents disagree on its value.

"'By the request of the borough president?' What the hell does that mean?" said Molinaro, noting if the legislation is good, the Council members will want the credit for themselves.

"It's another weakness in the city charter," he said.

It makes more sense, he said, for him to negotiate with the three Staten Island Council members to make changes. Still, he acknowledged the larger boroughs don't have it as easy.

Stringer called it "a good weapon if it's not overused."

"It's a very effective way to weigh in on issues and work with local council members," he said.

Marshall, Diaz and Stringer said they'll be using it more in the future. The five BPs want broader powers including authority over agency bosses in their borough and an independent budget.

The latest charter revision is examining their role as well as a host of other issues but Lane suggests that their ability to introduce laws remain.

"Even if they don't use it, somebody will," he said.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Our Decision - Working Families Party Ad on Term Limits Very Effective...


STOP The POWER GRAB...


Public Advocate's Corner: We Need Public Hearings on Term Limits in All Five Borough...

Read original...

New Yorkers voted twice for term limits for elected officials. Now the Mayor wants to overturn the will of the voters by passing a power-grab law that would allow him to serve another 4 years.

This isn’t a debate about how good or bad a mayor Bloomberg has been; it’s about whether or not, in a democracy, it is okay to disregard people’s votes. At the very least, New Yorkers need a chance to weigh in on this decision.

I'm calling on the City Council Speaker and Councilmember Felder to prolong any council vote until public hearings can be held in all five boroughs. There is no reason to rush a vote on October 23rd when we could easily wait until more New Yorkers have had the chance to make their voice heard. Even the mayor's own Charter Revision Commission in 2003 scheduled public hearings in all five boroughs, all in the evening so that working New Yorkers could attend.

Currently, the City Council is planning on hosting two public hearings: Tomorrow October 16 at 1:00 pm Council Chambers at City Hall and Friday, October 17 at 10:00 am Committee Room at City Hall.

I encourage you to attend if you can. However, two public hearings held in Manhattan simply aren't enough, especially for New Yorkers who work 9-5.

Which is why I am co-sponsoring a public forum (with Councilmembers Letitia James and Bill de Blasio) this coming Sunday from 2:30 – 4:30 pm at the Lafayette Presbyterian Church, 85 South Oxford Street between Lafayette and Fulton.

First and foremost, I believe that it is undemocratic to undergo fundamental change in New York City government without extensive public input, so I urge you to attend this public forum and voice your opinion on term limits.

Brooklyn (Queens) Congressman Will Not Quit Mayor’s Race Even if Bloomberg Runs Again by Michael Barbaro - NYTimes.com

Read original...

Representative Anthony D. Weiner has opposed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for a third term. He is seen here at the Columbus Day parade. James Estrin/The New York Times

Representative Anthony D. Weiner was sitting in the back corner of a Starbucks in Lower Manhattan, a cellphone headset tethered to his ear, a set of talking points in front of him and 15 bloggers on the line waiting for his latest attack on the mayor’s plan to engineer a third term in office.

“The mayor said the days of Boss Tweed will forever be over, but, no, they’re back,” he declared, as he gestured for an aide to bring him a document.

Mr. Weiner — a combative, Brooklyn-born champion of the middle class — was considered the front-runner in next year’s mayoral race until the current occupant of that office, Michael R. Bloomberg, upended the city’s political world by challenging the city’s term-limits law so that he could run for re-election. Suddenly, a wide-open race for Mr. Weiner looked painfully crowded.

So now Mr. Weiner is transforming his candidacy into a full-throated populist crusade against the billionaire Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal for a third term, hurling his thin frame in front a political locomotive roaring down the tracks.

In the process, Mr. Weiner said he had found his voice — and purpose — in the 2009 election for mayor: defending New York City’s ordinary, working people against the self-interested, back-room deals of its most powerful.

He has quickly become the most prominent and relentless of the mayor’s grass-roots opponents, who accuse Mr. Bloomberg and his wealthy friends in the business world of trying to circumvent the will of New York’s voters, who backed term limits twice, in 1993 and 1996.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner has become a fixture on the steps of City Hall, opposing Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for a third term. James Estrin/The New York Times

Mr. Weiner, 43, has held a blizzard of press conferences and rallies, becoming a fixture on the steps of City Hall over the last two weeks. He has set up a Web site, LetNYCVote.com, that encourages city residents to testify against the mayor’s plan at a public hearing at City Hall on Thursday. And he has posted videos on his Facebook.com profile accusing Mr. Bloomberg and his allies on the City Council of “trying to take away your chance to vote.”

To Mr. Weiner, fighting Mr. Bloomberg on term limits is the capstone of a decade-long battle on behalf of the city’s vast, overlooked middle. “This issue is another classic example of the powerful and moneyed elite ignoring the idea that are a lot of other people in the city who should be part of our civic conversation,” he said.

“So I have embraced this fight, not only because obviously I have a lot at stake, but because it’s so much about my single animating vision of the city.”

The odds appear to be stacked against him. Mr. Bloomberg is convinced that he has enough support in the Council to pass legislation that would allow him and dozens of other elected officials to serve 12 consecutive years, rather than eight.

If the legislation passes, Mr. Bloomberg is expected to spend about $80 million in his re-election campaign — $20 million of it dedicated to attacking Mr. Weiner, according to people familiar with the plan.

By contrast, Mr. Weiner has raised $5 million for his campaign, according to the latest city records. Even with matching funds from the city, his campaign spending is expected to pale in comparison to that of Mr. Bloomberg, whose fortune is — or at least was recently — estimated at $15 billion.

In a lengthy interview this week, Mr. Weiner said that he “understands the prodigious influence of wealth,” but that he will not back down, even if Mr. Bloomberg prevails in rewriting the term-limits law and enters the 2009 race.

“Look, I am running for mayor, and I fully expect to be the next mayor of this city,” he said. Mr. Weiner, a five-term representative, ran an unsuccessful race against Mr. Bloomberg for mayor in 2005. A Bloomberg re-election campaign “”would certainly be a different race,” he said, but “I still don’t think its going to happen.”

“It’s so offensive to just the entire way that the checks and balances of government are supposed to work and the way that things go down in New York,” he said.

Mr. Weiner is banking on a backlash against the mayor, which could work in his favor if the race boils down to the two candidates.

Mark Green, who ran against Mr. Bloomberg in 2001, said the mayor’s third-term aspirations “will either bury or boost Weiner. But it’s a little too early to know whether Bloomberg’s maneuver will trigger a big public outcry or a little one. It could be big.”

Since he learned that Mr. Bloomberg would try to run again — a headline flashed across his BlackBerry on Sept. 30, nearly knocking him off his feet, he recalled — Mr. Weiner has thrown himself into the debate.

He and his staff have been researching whether the legislation before the Council might violate federal voting-rights laws or city conflict-of-interest statutes, reaching out to experts on New York City election law, like Randy Mastro, a former deputy mayor, and Richard Emery, who is also a civil rights lawyer.

Among their discoveries: the City Council held nine public hearings before passing legislation on horse carriages, but will hold just two before voting on whether to change term limits.

Mr. Weiner has attended rallies and press conferences with Letitia James and Bill de Blasio, council members who oppose the extension and are instead calling for a public referendum on whether to alter term limits. (Mr. Weiner himself still opposes term limits, and voted against them in 1993 and 1996.)

His push lacks the gloss of Mr. Bloomberg’s campaigns. In videos high on outrage but low on production value, he stands in front of City Hall, jacket off and sleeves rolled up, attacking Mr. Bloomberg’s strategy. “This is your building,” he says, pointing to the office he hopes to occupy.

He said it is working. He was still in skates after his weekly hockey game this week when a member of the opposing team told him to “keep up the fight,” he said, and an office worker in Manhattan called out to him, “They’re not going to get away with this!”

The campaign is vintage Weiner, who is known for outresearching, outpoliticking and out-fund-raising his opponents, first as a council member, then in Congress. And it also bears his trademark self-certainty. He predicted that come Election Day 2009 , Mr. Bloomberg “would find himself voting for me.”

Mr. Weiner has reserved his most stinging criticism for the mayor and the speaker of the Council, Christine C. Quinn, who has endorsed Mr. Bloomberg’s term-limits plan. He calls the agreement “the mother of al back-room deals.”

“Never again can the speaker and the mayor talk about their desire to reform government, talk about their desire to get back room deals out of City Hall,” he said.

But he has been careful to not pick a fight with the city’s business titans, at least by name. Many, like Jerry Speyer, the real estate developer who urged Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term, were major donors to the Weiner campaign. And Mr. Weiner said that he needed their backing to be an effective mayor.

“These people are important elements of how we are going to run a successful city,” he said. “I am not running against them. But there is a whole other city out there that sometimes I think those folks don’t realize we need to address.”

He said he understood why those business leaders might want to support Mr. Bloomberg. “It’s not wrong for people to want Mike Bloomberg to have a third term.

That’s fine,” he said. But with the mayor rushing to change the term-limits law through legislation, rather than a referendum, he said, “we are not having that argument. And that’s what’s truly troubling to me.”

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Voters Spoke on Terms Limits Twice - Let 'em Speak Again, Says Queens Civic Congress' Corey Bearak Guest Columnist - NY Daily News

Read original...

Let the voters decide term limits, declares the Queens Civic Congress (QCC), the borough-wide coalition of civic and condo, cooperative, tenant and other community organizations, which last month unanimously adopted a resolution that will be included in its CIVIC 2030 platform.

Unlike the closed-door deliberations that resulted in pending City Council legislation to unilaterally extend the terms of all Council members, the five borough presidents, the public advocate, the controller and the mayor, QCC's resolution followed a summer's worth of discussion in the Queens civic movement.

In August, QCC's executive committee - its members either current or former presidents of neighborhood civics - proposed a position that QCC circulated by regular mail and e-mail and posted on its www.queensciviccongress.org Web site for consideration on Sept. 15.

QCC member civics, in open discussion with media present, unanimously adopted a resolution that, "calls on ALL public officials and those who aspire to public office to commit to the use of referendum to attempt any change in the City Charter enacted in that matter, and state that position publicly."

Why? What makes this so important? The public already voted consistently - two separate times - on this issue. First, voters opted to enact term limits. Second, voters rejected its repeal. As a matter of good public policy and basic democracy, any change in term limits, from its revocation to its extension or its reduction must only be enacted by the same process that led to its 1993 enactment - voter referendum.

Also important, the second time term limits went to a vote in 1996, the City Council, populated by office holders who would have kept their posts by legislative enactment, placed the referendum on the ballot. These Council members clearly recognized the need to "Let the voters decide."

Interestingly, this time around, the term limits discussion at City Hall developed so that the opportunity to place the issue before voters by next month lapsed. The mayor asserts a claim of not enough time to put this issue before the voters. He argues against voter involvement as a "luxury" we cannot afford. Simply not true. Good government remains a necessity, never a luxury.

While the time has expired to place an initiative on this November's ballot, plenty of time remains to place a referendum before the voters in a special election following a Charter Revision Commission proposed by City Council legislation or by local law.

In his State of the City Address last winter, the mayor committed to appoint a Charter Revision Commission that could have considered term limits and any other possible municipal governance reform. To date, that commitment to appoint a Charter commission remains unfulfilled by City Hall. That process would have easily allowed for a term limits change to be proposed early last month and placed on November's ballot. Putting term limits on next month's ballot would have also coincided with the presidential election, which attracts the largest voter turnout.

Simply put, QCC opposes any plan to change term limits except through a public referendum. If City Hall and the City Council seek to repeal or modify terms limits, anything other than a voter referendum smacks of illegitimacy. Legitimacy and confidence in government depend on politicians recognizing the public will. Any failure to recognize two public referendums would reduce the city government to, in my predecessor's words, a junta.

QCC invites concerned organizations and citizens to join in support of our "Let the Voters Decide" campaign for Democracy in New York. QCC's Web site will list supporters.

Queens Civic Congress also urges New Yorkers to call 311 with this simple and direct message to City Hall - "Let the voters decide term limits."

Corey Bearak, an attorney and public affairs consultant, serves as president of the Queens Civic Congress.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Vallone Family Tries to Come to Terms with Term Limits by Frank Lombardi - NY Daily News

Former Council Speaker Peter Vallone (l.) and his two sons, Peter (standing) and Paul.
Photo: Pace for News

Read original...

If anyone is biting his nails over term limits, it's the Vallone clan of Queens.

There's the father, Peter Vallone Sr., who was City Council speaker until 2001, when municipal officeholders were first limited to two consecutive four-year terms.

And there are his two sons: Peter Vallone Jr., who took over his father's Astoria seat and faces term limits next year, and Paul Vallone, now running for a different Council seat in Queens.

"It makes for some very interesting family conversations," said Peter Vallone Jr., 47.

Mayor Bloomberg triggered the storm in June when he raised the specter of reversing his once-staunch opposition to changing term limits. He has yet to rule out supporting a Council-imposed third-term option.

The elder Vallone, 73, has been pushing behind the scenes for an extension - not to help his sons, he insisted, but because "it's what's good for the city."

"I've always said it's an abomination," he said of term limits. "It prevents long-term planning for the city."

Now an influential lawyer and lobbyist, the father said he has been recruiting "a group of people who care about the city" to support a third-term extension. He wouldn't name names.

He was in the Council for 27 years and was succeeded by his son in the 22nd District in Astoria.

For 15 of those years, he led the Council, starting in 1986 as majority leader and then as speaker after the title was changed in 1990.

The elder Vallone said he would prefer extending term limits by another referendum but that "there's not enough time."

Like several others, Peter Vallone Jr.'s political strategy is up in the air. He opposes term limits but won't say how he would vote on an extension bill.

"I will deal with whatever comes," he said. "But I'm looking forward to my next stage in public service."

Paul Vallone, 41, is less tossed. His first bid for elected office is being waged in the 19th District of Bayside/Whitestone, where incumbent Tony Avella has announced plans for a mayoral run.

Paul Vallone faces several rivals for Avella's seat, including civic leader Jerry Iannece of Bayside Hills, who considers the son an Astoria carpetbagger trading on his family name.

"You don't inherit a seat, you earn it," Iannece said.

Paul Vallone retorted that he's "very proud to be a Vallone" and is looking forward to the campaign.

A lawyer, like his father and two brothers - a third Vallone son, Perry, 45, lives out of the fray in New Jersey - Paul Vallone is also listed as a lobbyist at his father's lobbying firm of Constantinople & Vallone.

flombardi@nydailynews.com

Monday, July 14, 2008

Possible City Charter Overhaul Sparks Anxiety by Grace Rauh - The New York Sun

Read original...

Mayor Bloomberg's plan to permanently change the structure of local government is prompting anxiety among public officials and community leaders.

There is talk in political circles that a commission to be appointed by the mayor to perform a top-to-bottom review of the city charter would seek to curtail the authority of borough presidents and the public advocate, or do away with their positions altogether. Officials say they also are hearing that the commission may attempt to restructure the charter to remove community boards from the often contentious approval process for development projects.

Mr. Bloomberg has signaled that he would like to leave the city with a more modern, streamlined, and efficient local government, an accomplishment that could be realized through a charter revision commission.

Exactly how he goes about trying to save money, rid the government of redundancies, and update what he considers antiquated regulations is fueling the concern.

"I don't know if it is going to be a political fight or our own mini version of a constitutional convention," the president of Manhattan, Scott Stringer, said.

If the charter revision commission tries to gut the office of borough president, the public advocate, or community boards, Mr. Stringer said he will be ready to go to battle.

"I will spend the next two years fighting to have a diversified government with different opinions," he said.

The charter revision talk is intensifying as Mr. Bloomberg moves deeper into his final term in office and the window to tackle complex questions about the structure and makeup of city government shrinks.

A spokesman for the mayor, Stuart Loeser, declined to comment on the commission and would not say when it might begin and who would be appointed.

The mayor announced in January his intention to appoint a commission, but nearly six months later no appointments have been made and the $354,000 set aside in last year's budget for the commission went unspent. More than $1.4 million has been set aside for a commission to use this year, and another $354,000 is on the books for next year.

Signaling that the new commission would be different from recent ones, the mayor said during his State of the City address that it had been 20 years since the city had taken a comprehensive look at its structure and operations and that it was time to do it again.

There has been speculation that Mr. Bloomberg might try through the charter commission to overturn term limits or extend them to three terms from two. A survey reportedly conducted by the mayor earlier this year found that New Yorkers are opposed to changing term limits.

One of the key obstacles to any proposals to diminish or do away with the offices of borough presidents and the public advocate would likely be members of the City Council, many of whom are campaigning and raising money for those seats in 2009.

But some officials argued that cutting the position of public advocate might not garner the same opposition.

"I don't think the public advocate's position is desperately needed by New Yorkers," Council Member John Liu, a possible candidate for public advocate or comptroller, said.

Mr. Liu added that he does not think the city government is in need of a radical overhaul.

"It is a distraction from the real issues," he said.