New York Civic to Launch Public Referendum to Close "Grandfather" Loophole of Term Limits Law

Good Government Group to Join Councilman Ulrich, Charter Commissioner Cassino and a Coalition of Former City and State Officials to Close “Grandfather” Loophole That Exempts 34 Elected Officials from Two-Term Law

New York Civic, a nonpartisan good government group founded by former NYC Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern, will announce Monday morning on the steps of City Hall that it will pursue a public referendum to eliminate the controversial “grandfather” clause of the recently passed term limits ballot question, which delays the effective date of the law until 2021 and exempts 34 city incumbents from being restricted to two consecutive terms.

Joining New York Civic in undertaking this landmark public referendum will be a grassroots coalition of community leaders and activists, including Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens, who is one of the 34 elected officials the term limits loophole would benefit; Anthony Perez Cassino, one of the Charter Revision Commissioners who objected to the inclusion of the grandfathering clause in this year’s referendum; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform, former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman; and Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who will serve as legal counsel in pursing the public referendum, will also be present at the 10 a.m. press conference on November 22^nd.

“This referendum is not about term limits, it’s about respecting the will of the people,” explained Henry J. Stern, the founder and president of New York Civic. “It was bad enough that the City Council ignored the voters in 2008 to extend term limits for itself. It is outrageous that, after 74 percent of New Yorkers voted for two terms for the third time in a generation, 34 incumbents can still serve a third term because of a loophole snuck into the last referendum to benefit a handful of officeholders.”

“Although I supported the recently passed term limits referendum, I was very disappointed that the Charter Review Commission created this loophole for me and my colleagues,” stated Councilman Ulrich. “That’s why I am acting, contrary to my self-interest, to restore the trust of the voters who clearly intended for there to be two terms. This referendum will allow us to make things right again.”

"This campaign is about respecting the will of the people and ensuring that their votes count on term limits and their decision stands unless they vote for a change,” said former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit opposing the term limits extension in 2008. “Our local democracy still hasn't recovered from the harm done by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council two years ago to the true two-term limit that the voters twice imposed by referendum and that they have still not had the opportunity to restore. This campaign will finally afford them that opportunity."

Anthony Perez Cassino, one of three members of the Charter Commission to sign a minority report objecting to the grandfather clause, agrees with Councilman Ulrich’s concerns. “The Charter Revision Commission did the right thing by returning term limits to the ballot for the voters to decide, but we didn’t go as far as we needed to regain the trust of the public. Getting rid of the grandfather loophole is the only way to heal the wounds of 2008.”

City Charter: Queens Civic Congress - Says YES on Question 1 - No on Question 2

The Queens Civic Congress, a coalition of more than 120 major Queens neighborhood-based civic groups, hosted the first borough forum on Charter Revision in June 2010. Since then, QCC has participated in Commission hearings and spoken at town hall meetings across Queens. In September, at a public meeting, QCC delegates voted unanimously on the two major questions the Charter Revision Commission placed on the November ballot.

====================

On August 23, 2010 the New York City Charter Revision Commission (CCRC) adopted two questions to be placed on the citywide ballot this November 2. While CCRC considered the Queens civic community’s call for two-term term limits, several issues that civic leaders called on CCRC to include in its “top down” Charter revision were dismissed as “too complex.” For instance, CCRC ignored the Citizens Union’s support for non-partisan elections as “divisive.” The Commission also failed even to consider calls by civic organizations to enhance the powers of the Borough Presidents, Public Advocate, and Comptroller. It also chose to put aside calls for changes in land use regulation. At the end of a three month process, the Commission was able to produce only a convoluted question regarding term limits and an equally contorted question dealing with six unrelated issues, most of which could be addressed by City Council legislation.

====================

QUESTION 1

A Yes vote on this question would approve two-term term limits, but with a provision that the two-term limit not become effective until after the 2021 municipal elections. The Commission decided “in the interests of fairness,” it said, to give all city officials elected for the first time in 2005 or 2009 (including the Public Advocate, the Comptroller, the Bronx and Manhattan Borough Presidents and several Council members) the opportunity to serve three full terms. At no time in the months leading up to CCRC’s term limit proposal did anyone publicly mention or ask for a ten year delay before implementing term limits. The Commission ignored widespread public support for limiting changes in term limits to referenda and instead proposed to bar serving members of the Council from changing term limits. A NO vote on term limits would lock in the current three-term term limit law that the Council adopted in 2009 at the Mayor’s request. It would also allow the Mayor and Council to change term limits or eliminate them altogether.


The Queens Civic Congress reluctantly recommends a YES vote on Question One. QCC believes that despite postponing implementation of two-term term limits until 2021, the overriding concern for most New Yorkers is to restore the two-term limit, which they overwhelmingly voted for in two referendums, and according to recent polls continue to support. CCRC also overruled the public’s calls for referenda to change term limits and instead barred the Council from changing term limits for any elected official during that official’s term in office. A NO vote would present the Mayor and Council with a strong and possibly irresistible temptation to make the current three-term term limits permanent or to eliminate term limits altogether.

====================

QUESTION 2

The second question on the November 2 ballot combines several unrelated topics which appear to be “reformist”: New campaign spending disclosure requirements; a reduction in the number of petition signatures for candidates in municipal elections; the merger of the Voter Assistance Commission and the Campaign Finance Board; the strengthening of the Conflicts of Interest Law; and the inclusion of certain transportation and waste management facilities in the City’s siting map .

CCRC tucked two propositions that would hand more power to City Hall into the middle of its “reforms”: The merger of administrative tribunals and adjudications into an Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (centralizing more power for the office of the Mayor); creation of a new commission to review requirements for reports and advisory bodies, and waive the present requirements, subject to Council review, where the new commission finds the review of no continuing value (effectively limiting the Council’s oversight of mayoral agencies and increasing the Mayor’s power);.

The Queens Civic Council recommends a NO vote on Question Two. QCC believes that the Council, following public hearings could address most of these issues. QCC is concerned that the issue of administrative tribunals and that dealing with reports to the Council are, in fact, efforts by the Mayor to further centralize power in City Hall at the expense of public oversight and Council review.

A NO vote on Question 2 would send these unrelated “reformist” issues back to City Hall, which could submit legislation to the Council on each issue.

Queens Civic Congress - Statement of Principles for Charter Revision...

The Queens Civic Congress met at the Queens Farm on June 21 for the first and only borough-wide civic forum in the entire city on the City Charter Revision Commission.

Attached is a Statement of Charter Principles (see below) that QCC members agreed are key issues for the City Charter Revision Commission The Statement includes core issues addressed in the Queens Civic Congress Platform 2030 that member organizations adopted in 2009.

At the QCC forum, Queens civic leaders were clear in their demands for term limits, retention of the borough presidents and community boards--a message that the Commission heard.

Early on in the Charter Revision Commission's deliberations, the CCRC
decided to limit its proposals for this year's election.

 They decided to make term limits and voter participation major issues for the electorate this year.

And they decided to postpone consideration of complex land use issues and the structure of city agencies for future election cycles.

CCRC heard QCC and citizens who stood up for open, transparent city
government We will learn on August 2, when the Commission issues the
proposals for the November election whether the CCRC listened to us.

The final open meeting in Queens will take place at Queens Borough Hall on Wednesday July 28 at 6PM.

Meantime, please read the Principles and share them with your neighbors and friends.

QUEENS CIVIC CONGRESS

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES FOR CHARTER REVISION

Queens’s residents are passionately attached to their neighborhoods. Whether we live in Dutch Kill, Hawtree Creek or Maspeth, we want to be known by our neighborhoods’ names. We are the only New Yorkers who identify themselves by the place where we live and not by the borough. So it should come as no surprise that many of our neighborhoods have organized effective civic organizations—or that more than 110 of those civics have created a thriving coalition, Queens Civic Congress.

QCC members have adopted a response to the Mayor’s appointment of the City Charter Revision Commission, a Statement of Principles for Charter Revision that reflects the opinions of Queens’s civic leaders at QCC’s charter forum on June 21 and the QCC Platform (www.queensciviccongress.org), which the organization adopted in 2009.

The Queens Civic Congress strongly recommends that the Charter Revision Commission limit the questions it presents to the public in November 2010 to major policy issues that have engaged the public’s interest. The Commission should defer consideration of more complex issues like land use to 2011. Community boards, civic organizations and many New Yorkers are on hiatus for the summer and not available to consider or contribute to the Charter discussion that will take place over the coming weeks.

QCC also urges the Commission to place major proposals on the ballot separately.

TERM LIMITS

New Yorkers have voted twice in favor of term limits only to have their vote overturned by a City Council and Mayor who knew “better” than the voters.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends two-term limits for citywide officials and the Council.

QCC strongly recommends that the Commission include an “ironclad “provision requiring any future changes in term limits be made only by referendum.

NON PARTISAN ELECTIONS

Queens Civic Congress wants voters to be able to recognize the values and priorities of candidates, which they can best do when they know a candidate’s party affiliation. QCC is concerned that extremely wealthy individuals could buy election—which some New Yorkers would argue that we have already experienced.

Voters rejected non-partisan elections. When will supporters of non-partisan elections understand that NO means NO?

QCC recommends that the CCRC reject suggestions for non-partisan elections.

GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

Voters declared their support for the Office of Public Advocate in 2005. Why keep asking? The recent series of hearings demonstrated continued support for the Office of Public Advocate. QCC agrees. .

BOROUGH PRESIDENTS COUNT: BOROUGH PRESIDENTS SOMETIMES DO KNOW BEST

Mayors have been trying to curb the borough presidents’ limited authority since the 1989 City Charter eliminated the Board of Estimate. Over the past eight years, City Hall has reduced the Borough Presidents’ operating funds only to have the Council restore funding. In recent years, the Mayor has cut staffing funds for the Borough Presidents until most of them have less than half what they had in 2001. The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the Commission provide the Borough Presidents with sufficient funding so that they can carry out their responsibilities under the Charter.

Year after year the Mayor has cut the borough presidents’ discretionary funding which they use to supplement agency funding for youth and senior programs and essential local programs. The Queens Borough President, for example, has sponsored community based planning resulting in the rezoning of more than forty neighborhoods; sponsored more than twenty senior center programs; worked tirelessly with south Queens communities to obtain critical infrastructure; and established educational, cultural and recreation programs for the borough’s diverse immigrant communities.

City Hall’ s formula for base lining funding for Queens cultural institutions and libraries fails to reflect the Borough’s population or special needs

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the Commission establish a funding formula that will provide for the equitable distribution amongst the boroughs of funds for libraries and cultural institutions.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the CCRC provide that the five borough presidents receive 50% of the City Council’s budget to be distributed on an equal per capita basis so that the Borough Presidents can continue to support programs and services their constituents require.

COMMUNITY BOARDS SPEAK FOR NEIGHBORHOODS

Community boards are neighborhoods’ first—and often the only—voice at City Hall. The community boards track service delivery; articulate local funding needs and are a key element in defining local development needs and aspirations.

QCC recommends base lining Community Board funding.

QCC recommends providing support for local planning through the Borough President’s office.

CITY AGENCIES

QCC recommends that CCRC divide the Department of Buildings into two entities-one responsible for issuing permits and a second to be responsible for

enforcing the building code, safety requirements and the Zoning Resolution.

THE CITY COUNCIL

QCC recommends that members of the City Council serve full time.

QCC recommends that salary increases for Council members shall not become effective for one full term.

QCC recommends that funding be apportioned equally to each Council district.

LAND USE

ULURP

Developers and so-called “free marketers” love to hate ULURP and its companion CEQR. Their model city is a place devoid of human scale.

Three decades and more of holding back the tide of uncontrolled development tells us that ULURP is key to a democratic city. Without the means to control and regulate development, New York would soon be unlivable.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that ULURP retained.

QCC further recommends that additional actions be subject to ULURP—including legislative review:

• 
  
  
  Zoning text amendments
• 
  
  
  Transfer of air rights
• 
  
  
  Lot mergers

QCC recommends that Community Benefit Agreements be subject to public review and legislative oversight.

LOCAL PLANNING

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the Borough Presidents have resources to provide planning assistance to community boards.

BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS

BSA for years has been the maker of ad hoc zoning regulations. Communities around the city have secured comprehensive zoning reforms of their neighborhoods only to see their efforts canceled by BSA decisions.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends expanding the BSA to include six appointees of the Mayor and five appointees of the Borough Presidents.

QCC recommends that a super-majority be required to override decisions where the Borough President and community board reject a variance application.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends making BSA decisions on variances subject to City Council review.

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

QCC recommends that a super majority be required to override decisions where both the community board (s) and the Borough President have agreed on a land use issue.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

QCC recommends that the Landmarks Commission establish an appeals process to the City Council.

CITY AGENCIES

BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT

At least five mayors have tried, without success, to reform the Department of Buildings.

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the agency be divided into separate entities-- that promote development and those that enforce the Building Code and Zoning Resolution. QCC recommends using the sheriffs as inspectors to enforce building code and zoning rules.

QCC strongly recommends that the Department of Buildings be required to refer projects needing interpretation of the Zoning Resolution to the Department of City Planning for review and sign off.

PARKS

The Queens Civic Congress recommends that the Franchise and Concessions Committee be reorganized into a commission with five members appointed by the borough presidents and six by the mayor. QCC recommends that the Commission establish criteria for major concessions.

NYC Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing in Queens...

The New York City Charter Revision Commission will hold a series of public meetings and hearings across the five boroughs throughout July and August 2010 to discuss and receive public input on the Preliminary Staff Report and Recommendations to the Chair of the Charter Commission, as well as other aspects of the Commission’s work. 

The Preliminary Staff Report can be found on the Commission’s website at www.nyc.gov/charter. Each issue forum is open to the public and will be streamed live via webcast through the website.

Individuals requesting sign language interpreters for the hearing should contact the Charter Revision Commission through the Commission website at nyc.gov/charter by selecting “Contact the Commission” by emailing the Commission at commission@charter.nyc.gov, or by calling (212) 442-1500.

Wednesday July 28th, 2010

Place: Queen Borough Hall, 120-55 Queens Blvd, Kew Gardens

Time: 6 pm

City Officials, Civil Rights Leaders, and Grassroots Organizations Rally Against Nonpartisan Elections...

Click here to view these pictures larger

A growing coalition of city officials, civil rights leaders, civic groups and grassroots organizations rallied today near City Hall against a controversial proposal to make New York City elections nonpartisan, a move soundly rejected by New York City voters in 2003.

The groups say nonpartisan elections have been shown to suppress voter turnout, deny voters critical information about candidates, privilege well-known and wealthy candidates and make it harder for minority candidates to compete in elections. The rally is being held on the same day that the Charter Revision Commission is holding a hearing on voter participation issues, including nonpartisan elections.

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said: “Nonpartisan elections undermine our democracy. They create a political system that is dominated by wealth, suppresses voter turnout and makes it harder for minority candidates to compete. Our broad coalition will fight to stop nonpartisan elections and preserve the diversity and integrity of our City’s democracy.”

“Voters want to know where candidates stand,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn. “Party affiliations are important because they clearly tell voters where candidates stand on many social and fiscal issues that matter to our city’s electorate.”

Former Comptroller Bill Thompson said: “New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly in 2003 that knowing a candidates party is important to them and helped them identify the candidates’ core values and beliefs. Knowing your elected officials beliefs matter and the Charter Commission should listen to the voters of New York City and reject nonpartisan elections.”

“So-called minorities have been a majority in New York City for decades, but we've still had only one Mayor of-color, and the first majority minority City Council was elected just 6 months ago,” said Hazel Dukes President of the NAACP New York State Conference. “We've made tremendous racial progress in this city, but non-partisan elections threatens to undo those gains. The Charter Commission should listen to the voters of New York City and reject this bad idea.”

“Adopting nonpartisan elections would be rolling the dice with the city's democracy," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. “This proposal risks reversing decades of gains by minorities in city government at a moment when New York is more diverse than ever before.”

“Simply put, political parties give voters an idea of the beliefs of candidates,” said Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. “To increase voter turnout, we should be looking for ways to make it easier for voters to know where candidates stand, not more difficult. I’m a proud Democrat, and when I say that, I know it means something to people. The reality is, doing away with party affiliation gives unfair advantage to those who can buy the most name-recognition. The party system—be it two parties, three, or even more—is the best way for the electorate to form like-minded communities and to figure out which candidates share their civic goals.”

“The question of nonpartisan elections was already placed before the voters of this City in 2003, and it was soundly rejected by a two-to-one margin. The Charter Revision Commission should not waste its time rehashing old business, especially unpopular ideas that have the potential to disenfranchise African-American and Latino voters. The voters have already sent a crystal clear message that they do not want nonpartisan elections, and asking them again would only waste time and resources that could be put to better use,” said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.

Susan Lerner, Executive Director, Director of Common Cause said, “Study after study reveals that nonpartisan elections actually decrease voter turnout and disadvantage minority and working class voters. If we truly want to increase civic participation, the Commission should look into changing the time of the municipal election to the fall when federal elections are held and instituting a Vote by Mail system. The Commission should be looking to put more information on the ballot, rather than less.”

Dan Cantor, Working Families Party Executive Director said: “Voters know nonpartisan elections weakens our democracy and gives another leg up to wealthy candidates who can outspend the competition. That’s why they’ve resoundingly rejected the idea, and why the Charter Commission should too.”

“Nonpartisan elections will further disengage low-wage communities of color from the political process,” said Hector Figueroa, 32BJ Secretary-Treasurer. “We should be focusing on strategies to reach out to these communities, not to turn them away.”

Public Advocate De Blasio Calls on Charter Revision Commission to Focus Only on Term Limits in 2010

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio today held a press conference before the Charter Revision Commission’s hearing on term limits calling on the Commission to only place questions regarding term limits on the 2010 ballot, and to reserve action on all other issues until 2012. The Public Advocate also called on the Commission to reject consideration of nonpartisan elections for this year's ballot.

“This year’s charter revision process should have one priority: Giving New Yorkers the final say on term limits,” said Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. “Like term limits, nonpartisan elections present profound consequences for our Democratic process, but unlike term limits this issue has not been exhaustively debated for the last two years. I personally believe that nonpartisan elections create a system of politics dominated by wealth and that an issue with such severe consequences should not be put on the ballot without a substantive, thorough, and public process.”

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also released a comprehensive charter revision proposal that would enhance government transparency and accountability, foster a new level of civic engagement, and help restore the balance of power at City Hall.

A fully copy of the Public Advocate’s proposal is attached. Some of the Public Advocate’s specific Charter reform proposals include:

• Increasing disclosure by making more government operations and decision-making available online including capital and discretionary funding requests, Requests For Proposals, Community Benefits Agreements, the responsiveness of City agencies to Freedom of Information Law requests, lobbyists visits, and other aspects of City government;

• Establishing independent budgets for the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB), the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the Comptroller, Borough Presidents, District Attorneys, Community Boards and the Public Advocate and giving the CCRB independent prosecutorial power;

• Instituting reforms such as same-day voter registration and electronic voter registration to encourage broader participation in municipal elections;

• Making the Public Advocate Coordinator of Citywide Civic Engagement as an expansion on the office’s constituent services and organizing work;

• Reforming the City’s enforcement of ballot access laws by providing legal assistance to candidates during the petition process;

• Expanding the Board of Standards and Appeals, which currently only holds Mayoral appointees, to include members appointed by the Public Advocate and the five borough presidents, similar the model of the City Planning Commission;

• Granting subpoena power to the Public Advocate’s office to strengthen its oversight role and empowering the office to track compliance with Community Benefits Agreements;

• Creating a new Department of Inspection to oversee and monitor all building inspections conducted by the Department of Buildings; and

• Strengthening Community Boards by creating a Community Board Resource Center (CBRC) in each borough with at least one full-time staff member, who would serve as the borough's Director of Urban Planning.

At the Charter Revision Commission’s hearing on term limits, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also submitted signatures from 4,000 New Yorkers calling for the charter revision process to be as open and democratic as possible.