Alex Zablocki NYC Charter Revision Proposal

8/9/2019 Alex Zablocki NYC Charter Revision Proposal

1/14

Residents to the Charter Revision Comm ission: More Local ControlIt's 357 pages and a document that few New Yorker's know much about but effects our livesevery day. The City Charter, our city's constitution, sets forth the structure of our localgovernment, salaries of public officials and things like term limits. Over the past few weeks theresidents of the five boroughs have had the opportunity to discuss what changes they would liketo see m ade to the Charter at num erous Charter Revision Commission hearings. (information canbe found at ww w.nvc.gov/charter)On April 13`1' I attended a public hearing on the Charter in my hom e borough of Staten Island. Itwas interesting to see so m any people came out to a m eeting that was set in a place few boroughresidents could easily access and set at a time when m ost residents are just arriving home fromtheir long commutes. With that said, it is a great lead in to the theme of the night: local control.Staten Island has been advoca ting for local control since the Verrazano N arrows Bridge wasopened in the 1960's. As our centralized government made decisions that negatively impactedresidents, more and more local officials called for control over borough matters. Things boiledover in the 1990's with then Republican State Senator John Marchi, Republican Robert Straniereand Republican Borough President Guy Molinari launching the secession movement, calling forthe creation of the City of Staten Island. The march was on back then for self-governance.Overdevelopment was destroying our borough, the city's landfill, Fresh Kills, was becoming the9th Wonder of the World, and Staten Islander's viewed themselves as a piggy bank for City Hall- and their cries for help were falling on deaf ears in Manhattan. Eventually the question ofsecession was put on the ballot and overwhelming Staten Island voted in favor of the measure. Itwas only after Republican Ma yor Rudy G iuliani and Governor George Pataki took office thatStaten Island started to see positive changes - and officials willing to listen and act on theconcerns of residents - starting with the close of the Fresh Kills Landfill. So, like all good things,the secession movement eventually came to an end.Sorry to digress. Now back to Charter Revision. The Staten Island Advance, our hometownpaper, has been advocating, along with nearly every elected official, for more local control overthings like DOT decisions and land use matters. Both the paper and elected officials, includingConservative James M olinaro, have been calling for the preservation of the Borough Presidentsoffice as well as giving them more power. While I would argue that the issue of local controlwas born on S taten Island, it seems to be a recurring theme in places like the Bronx w hich wasrecently dubbed "The Forgotten Borough" (hey, that's our title!). In Queens and Brooklyn,residents there have said they want more control over local issues. The message is clear;taxpayers feel government would w ork best if they controlled many decisions currently ma de byCity Hall. In every borough they have asked for key decisions on land use and other matters tobe decided by the Com munity Board or the Borough P resident, or at the very least, give themmore of a say.While I'm no expert of the Charter, while running for Public Advocate last year, I announcedmany initiatives that w ould change our Charter a nd, I believe, make our city function better. Forthe past seven years I have worked in the trenches of government for an elected official in boththe City Council and State Sena te. Over this period I served as Director of Land Use for the 5 1st


2/14

Council District and successfully managed many rezoning projects, navigating them throughULURP and into law. What I submitted to the Commission are ten ideas I believe worth lookingat and discussing with New Yorker's.Before I share my ideas - and certainly welcome criticism - I have to say the Charter is not aRepublican or Dem ocratic document. W ith a City Council that is overwhelming controlled bythe Dem ocrats and only recently have we been given (Republicans) a better chance at having ourvoices heard because of the successes in Queens, I think we need to look at ways to be given thechance of having a voice in city government. The best way is locally in my opinion.n brief I asked the Commission to look at the following proposals:

1. End the "pocket veto" of the City Planning Commission as it relates to the certification ofULURP applications, by setting a timeframe for certification and allowing the CityCouncil Land Use Comm ittee to certify applications by a 2/3 vote if City Planning fa ilsto act.2. Define the position of City Councilmember as "full time", ending all outsideemployment.3. Restructure the Board of Standards and A ppeals giving the Public Advocate and the fiveBorough Presidents one appointment each to the Board. Allow the City Council LandUse Com mittee to overrule BSA decisions by a vote of 2/3.4. Give the C hair of the Com mission on Public Information and C ommunication (the PublicAdvocate) subpoena power. Amend the Charter to mandate the Commission on PublicInformation and Comm unication set a timeline for agencies to follow when answeringFOIL requests.5. Eliminate the "Voter Assistance Commission" (VAC) and replace it with the "CivicInvolvement and Voter Improvement Commission" (CIVIC) which would carry on themission of the VAC but expand its role as a ballot access assistance center.6. To better coordinate decision between agencies on the most local level, amend theCharter to form the "Office of Coordination" under the Office of Operations and createfive new borough director positions to work on coordinating decisions/approvals/permitsbetween key age ncies and the Borough Presidents office.7. While it has failed in the past, examine the feasibility of holding non-partisan elections inNew York City for the positions of Public Advocate and Borough P resident.8. Amend the Charter to reorder succession to the Mayor from P ublic Advocate toComptroller.9. Suggest ways to am end the Charter to give the O ffice of Public Advocate either anindependent budget or a budget equal to that of the Speak of the Council.

10. Reform the appointment process to Community Boards by giving the Public Advocateauthority to appoint two members to each board, allow the Borough President to appointtwenty-three members and hold non-partisan open elections for the remaining twenty-fivepositions.

[these ideas are explained in detail at the end of this article]


3/14

This may look like a laundry list of ideas at first, but it is more than that. These proposals, alongwith dozens of other proposals by people across the five boroughs, are ways to changegovernment and give the offices of Public Advocate, Borough President and Comm unity Boardsmore of a say in decisions currently made by City Hall and a fighting chance to give the outerboroughs a seat at the table when decisions are made.While I believe we do need more local control here on Staten Island and stand in unity withmany people in the other boroughs that feel the same way, I don't believe, in a city of 8-millionpeople spanning over five counties that a one size fits all solution is the best approach. What wewant in our borough (Staten Island) may not work in another borough (read Manhattan) - that isjust the reality of living in a city. That is why I believe engaging residents on the most locallevel - at the com munity boards - and tying in the City Council, Borough Presidents and thePublic Advocate, is the best approach to ensuring that the voice of a local community is heard atCity Hall. Furthermore, better coordination within government, especially on the local level,would ensure that agencies are working as efficiently as possible for each borough's needs.There is a lot to debate here. We can start with the Public Advocate's office especially whentalking to Republicans, I'm sure. (I haven't even touched term limits!) But before you're quick tosay "eliminate the office", imagine a city where a non-partisan, independent office existed tofight independently for the outer boroughs when it came to property tax hikes, land usedecisions, traffic solutions, etc. Imagine a city that had a voice in matters like cutting regulationon small businesses or talking about an idea that improves a community, when no one elselistens. Have an open m ind to this.The deli down the block fighting city laws, the home owner paying a high water bill, the civicpresident calling for preservation and the college student wondering why a c ommon sense roadimprovement isn't made in his town all have one thing in common - they know theirneighborhood problems best and they have ideas on how to make government work better. It'sno wonder why local control is the theme at Charter Revision hearings this year. That deli owner,the homeow ner, the civic president and that college student are fed up; they a re screaming forchange and looking for someone to listen. They have the solutions, but have no way to get themenacted. So as w e debate the C ity Charter over the next few m onths, think of my proposals andthink of some w ays government c ould function better where you live and if you had control.Alex Zablocki


4/14

[Proposals]Chapter 8: City PlanningSummary

Under the current Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), City Planning has the abilityto "pocket veto" any application filed at their agency by not acting to certify an application.While City Planning has acted in good faith in the past, the ability by one agency to hold upimportant land use items, such as redevelopment or rezoning projects, should be looked atclosely by the Charter Revision Com mission.In all five boroughs, community groups have filed rezoning applications, especially in theboroughs of Queens and Staten Island, only to see these applications sit in City Planning foryears on end, while never being heard on by the public. Certification allows a ULURPapplication to start the long and bureaucratic hearing process - it does not mean that theapplication will become law.While the application pre-certification process can take up to 6-months, no time frame is set inthe City Charter. Furthermore, while the City Charter does allow the Borough President orapplicant to appeal to the City Planning Commission to certify an application, there is noguarantee that an application would be deem ed com plete and certified after filing an a ppeal.The Charter Revision Commission should examine the ULURP closely and makerecommendations to close the pocket veto loophole that currently exists. This can be done bygiving the City Council Land Use Comm ittee the authority to certify a ULUR P application ascomplete by a two-thirds vote, if all other avenues available are exhausted by an applicant.Certification would start the public review process and would not m ean that the application wascertain to becom e law.Possible scenario:Under Current LawA community group in north-east Queens files a ULURP application to rezone a portion of theirneighborhood in reaction to overdevelopment. City Planning receives the application on July 1,2010. City Planning fails to certify the application by January 1, 2011 (6-months). The applicantand the borough president write to the City Planning Commission to ask for certification. OnJuly 1, 2011 City Planning has still not certified the application, even though the communitygroup believes the application is complete. The City Planning Commission has halted therezoning plan by not certifying the ULURP and allowing public hearing.Under the Proposed LawA com munity group in north-east Queens files a ULU RP application to rezone a portion of theirneighborhood in reaction to overdevelopment. City Planning receives the application on July 1,


5/14

2010. City Planning fails to certify the application by January 1, 2011 (6-months). The applicantand the borough president write to the City Planning Commission to ask for certification. After30 days, February 1, 2011, no response is given on certification by the City PlanningCommission. The applicant appeals to the City Council Land Use Committee Chairman to askfor a hearing on certification. Within 30-days the City Council Land Use Committee holds apublic hearing on certification. The City Council Land Use Committee can vote to certify theapplication and override the City Planning Commissions "pocket veto", by a two-thirds vote. OnMarch 1, 2011, after holding a public hearing and hearing testimony from the applicant,community groups and the Department of City Planning, the City Council Land Use Committeevotes unanimously to certify the ULURP application as complete and start the ULRUP timeline.ConclusionBy giving the City Council Land Use Committee the authority to deem an application ascomplete, their two-thirds vote in the affirmative could end the City Planning pocket veto thatcurrently exists. This would allow development, redevelopment and rezoning projects to moveforward to public hearing in a timely manner.

Chapter 2: CouncilSummaryOver the past few years, some Council Members have been embroiled in scandal due to outsidebusiness activities. While the majority of City Council Members perform their duties ethically,more needs to be done to discourage possible conflicting outside business activities.Our elected officials should be in office to serve the people, not enrich themselves privately.Many Council Members use their positions to further their law practices and use namerecognition and their power to financially benefit themselves. This is a practice that must stop.While elected officials are required to file any possible conflicts with their position at theConflicts of Interest Board, I don't believe this goes far enough to ensuring that no conflicts existin the Council.Council Members' position should be defined as "full time" which would immediately eliminatethe ability to engage in paid outside employment or other forms of activity. One exception thatcould be given is teaching higher education, up to 20% of a Council Members salary. This wouldallow full-time Council Members to teach at a university while not obtaining more than 20% oftheir base Council salary.The Charter Revision Commission should place a question on the ballot asking voters if theythink the position of City Council Member should be defined as "full time".

* * *


6/14

Chapter 27: Board of Standards and AppealsSummaryThroughout New Y ork City, developers file appeals to the Board of Standards and Appeals,mostly on the grounds of a hardship, in order to circumvent the ULURP. While current lawallows this, the outcome isn't always favorable to the community. The Board of Standards andAppeals (BSA) sides with developers over the comm unity more often than not. While the BSAacts based on the law, that doesn't mean there decisions are just. If an appeal is approved undercurrent law, the only recourse a community has is to file (a costly) "Article 78" in court to fightthe decision. The currently makeup of the B SA gives the M ayor sole control of this Board andshould be diversified.Problem

The Com munity Boards and/or Borough Board only have the power to makerecomme ndations and hold meetings on appeals Often times, comm unity recommendations are ignored by the Board of Standards andAppeals or not implemented by the a pplicant The five-member B oard of Standards and Appeals is solely controlled by the M ayor

Recommendation Amend the City Charter, Chapter 27, Section 659 to include "Subsection c" which wouldgive the Public Advocate one appointment and each of the five Borough Presidents oneappointment to the Board of Standards and A ppeals

o These appointments would be unpaido This appointee would not be required to have a professional background as theother five appointments requireo Appointees would carry one vote each on the Boardo Modeled after the C ity Planning Com mission

Amend the City Charter, Chapter 27, Board of Standards and A ppeals (BSA), requiringthe BSA to notify the Office of Public Advocate w hen any new application is filed Give the City Council Land Use Committee the authority to overrule a BSA decision ifapplication was land use related

o City Council Land Use Com mittee could only act if requested by the C ommunityBoard the application was filed in, within 15-dayso City Council Land Use Com mittee would hold a hearing on the BSA decisionwithin 30-days of approvalo After holding a public hearing, the City Council Land Use Com mittee could voteto overturn the BSA decision

To overturn the decision, the vote must total two-thirds in the affirmativeby Council members of the Land Use Comm itteeo Applicant could still file an Article 78 to overturn the City Council's decision


7/14

ConclusionThe Charter Revision Commission should recommend changes to the Board of'Standards andA ppeals that would give more balance between the applicant and the community and place aquestion on the ballot with regards to this issue. The ability to appeal some decisions withouthaving to file an Article 78 would empower local comm unities more in the process.

Chapter 47: Public Access to Meetings and Information 1061. Commission on public information and communicationChapter 2: Council 24. Elections; term; vacancies (j)SummaryThe Commission on Public Information and Communication is unique in our Charter. Whilecurrently very underutilized, it has in the past been attributed to bringing NYC online, amongother things. Chaired by the Public Advocate, this commission is mandated to m eet at least oncea year.Getting information from the city can be difficult, if not impossible. Mayor Michael Bloomberghas done a tremendous job at opening up government and making information available online -and he should be commended for that. Though a lot of information is available online, such asstatistics, residents, advocates and especially community groups often request information fromcity agencies through a FOIL request and either don't receive a response, don't receive a timelyresponse or are forced to file an administrative appeal or make a second request for publicinformation.The Charter Revision Commission should examine this comm ission closely and strengthen it by:

1. Giving it the authority to set a citywide FOIL timeline, to be abided by all agencies.2. Give the Chair of the Com mission on Public Information and Comm unicationsubpoena power to obtain information from city agencies and the City Council, only to be used ifall other legal options were exhausted (except that of going to court)a. Subpoena power ca n be given in Chapter 2: Council, 24. Elections; term;vacancies. Subsection j or Chapter 47: Public Access to Mee tings and Information, 1061.Comm ission on public information and com municationConclusionA s stated in the City Charter, the Commission on Public Information and Communication shall:


8/14

(1) undertake, by itself, or in cooperation with other entities, activities to educate the publicabout the availability and potential usefulness of city produced or maintained information andassist the public in obtaining access to such information;(2) review (i) all city information policies, including but not limited to, policies regarding publicaccess to city produced or maintained information, particularly, computerized information; (ii)the quality, structure, and costs to the public of such information; (iii) agency compliance withthe various notice, comment, and hearing provisions of the charter and other laws applicable tocity agencies; and (iv) the usefulness and availability of city documents, reports, andpublications;(3) assist city agencies in facilitating public access to their meetings, transcripts, records, andother information, and monitor agency compliance with the provisions of the charter, and otherlaws which require such public access;(4 ) hold at least one public hearing each year on city information policies and issue at least onereport each year with such recommendations as the commission deems advisable;(5 ) on the request of any m em ber of the public, elected official, or city agency, render advisoryopinions regarding the application of those provisions of the charter or other laws which requirepublic access to meetings, transcripts, records and other information. Such advisory opinionsshall be indexed by subject matter and maintained on a cumulative basis;(6) make recommendations regarding: (i) the application of new communications technology toimprove public access to city produced or maintained information; (ii) the distribution ofinformation to the public about the purposes and locations of the city's service delivery facilities;and (iii) programm ing for the municipal cable channels and broadcasting system .This C om m ission could be em pow ered to create a FOIL tim eline and guideline to be abided bycitywide agencies. By giving the Chair (Public Advocate) subpoena power, it would give thepublic another avenue to gel information they desire and help the Public Advocate when auditingcity services, as mandated by the Charter. Subpoena power can be given to the Public Advocatew ithin the section for this Com m ission or under the authority of the Public A dvocate in Chapter2 of the City Charter.

Chapter 46: E lections and V oter Assistance 1054. Voter a ssistance com missionSummaryAs per the Voter Assistance Comm ission (VAC) w ebsite:A ccording to the New Y ork C ity Charter, the role of the V oter A ssistance Comm ission (V A C) isto encourage and facilitate voter registration and voting by all eligible United States citizensresiding in N ew Y ork City. V A C is strictly nonpartisan, and does not promote any candidate forelected office, political party, or political agenda.FA Cs mission is to increase participation in the democratic process. To achieve this goal, VA Cmonitors voter registration and voting in New Y ork City. VA C also works with Mayoral


9/14

agencies, private groups and individuals, and community-based organizations to promote voterregistration and voter participation. VA C is comprised of f16 Commissioners and its day-to-dayoperations are m anaged by the Coordinator.The VAC has been a part of the electoral process in New York City. While the VAC can't befaulted for voter complacency and lack of participation, one must question the need for acommission with the sole function to "encourage and facilitate voter registration and voting byall eligible ", especially when goals aren't being me. Secondly, two key appointments to theVAC have remained vacant for at least one-year: the Brooklyn and B ronx representatives,appointed by the City Council.Evidence by the fact that voter turnout has actually decreased over the last election cycle is asign that the VAC is not living up to its full potential and should be revamped. While NYC is inneed of services that VAC could provide, a new VAC could also encourage residents to run foroffice, thus getting more people involved in the electoral process at the grassroots level.

Loss in General Election Votes %NYC Voter Roles Registration Cast Turnout2004 4,494,421 2,459,652 55%2005 4,383,276 111,145 1,315,360 30%2006 4,417,722 -34,446 1,349,491 31%2007 4,169,176 248,546 0%2008 4,614,932 -445,756 2,641,669 57%2009 4,462,657 152,275 1,178,057 26%2010 4,470,683 -8,026 0%

2009 Democratic Primary (Mayor)Democratic VotesVoters Cast % Turnout3,057,021 330,659 11%2009 Democratic Run-off (Public Advocate)

3,057,021 233,206 8%ProposalThe Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if the "Voter Assistance Commission"should be eliminated and if "CIVIC: C ivic Involvement and Voting Improvement Commission"should replace it.While CIVIC would mimic the same structure and mission as the VAC, CIVIC w ould also becharter mandated to get more voters involved in the political process and assist candidates inrunning for office. Evidence by the fact that candidates continue to get thrown off the ballot dueto technical errors and antiquated election laws, CIVIC could be a one-stop shop for potentialcandidates of elected office.CIVIC should be Charter mandated to form a task force to analyze election laws and m akerecomme ndations to the State Legislature to reform election laws and improve ballot access.CIVIC should also be Charter mandated to coordinate with the Campaign Finance Board and the


10/14

Board of Elections in a non-partisan manner to publish a guide on running for office in NewYork City, much like the voter guide the VAC currently publishes.* * *

Chapter 1: Mayor 15. Office of Op erationsumma y

Many agencies affect our lives in many w ays; City Planning amends the zoning resolution,Buildings enforces zoning laws, Environmental Protection ensures water flows to homes andsewers are w orking, Design and Construction builds some of the infrastructure that keeps ourcity moving forward and Transportation ensures our roads are safe and m akes improvements totransportation services citywide. All of these agencies have something in common: they all mustwork together to accomplish a goal.Unfortunately, in a city like ours, agencies don't always work as efficiently as they should.Agencies that approve one project don't always talk to another agency to see how that decisionmay a ffect their project, and so on.While a m echanism is in place to allow city agencies to talk and coordinate with one anotherthrough the Mayor's Office of Operations, its current structure isn't setup in a way to allow thisCharter mandated Mayoral agency to see its full potential.Problem

When zoning is changed by the City Council and recorded by the Departm ent of CityPlanning, the D epartment of B uildings is not always kept awa re of the pending changesjust prior to a change becoming law The D epartment of Transportation paving schedule is not always coordinate withupcoming sewer projects, parks projects or public utilities, such as Verizon or NationalGrid work

o Streets are paved and then torn up weeks later for work scheduled before thepaving job Developers will present site plans to one agency (i.e. DEP or DC P) and then present adifferent plan to other agencies (i.e. DOT or DO B) to get approvals/permits

Recommendation Amend the City Charter, under the section for Office of O perations, to include five newpositions to serve under the Agency Head, which would serve an "Office ofCoordination" within Operations

o Each appointment, to be made by the Director, will serve as a "boroughcoordinator" working on coordinating decisions between a gencies and theBorough Presidents officeo Each of the five boroughs would get one appointment


11/14

Charter Mandate that the Office of O perations coordinate any a pproval process (i.e ofpermits) that falls over multiple agencies, especially when it pertains to new development Charter Mandate the Office of O perations work with major public utility companies onfuture projects

Real Life Example:On Staten Island, the Civic Association of the Sandy G round area submitted a rezoningapplication, along with Senator Andrew J. Lanza, in July, 2009. After certification by CityPlanning and working through the ULURP, City Council voted to approve the rezoning changeon February 3, 2010.On the m orning of February 3, 2010, a developer in the rezoning area state above applied andreceived a permit to build houses that did not comply with the new zoning, The Department ofBuildings issued the permits to build, which were as of right in the morning but excepted tochange in the afternoon, as the City Council voted to amend the zoning m ap.The developer continued to work at their site, pouring foundations and framing houses that werenot in compliance with the zoning map.On March 29, 2010, the Department of Buildings issued a "Stop Work Order" for the entiredevelopment (see DOB Violation # 032910Z03WO10) for non-compliance of the zoning map.

In this case, the developer did not complete the foundation work intime to com ply to the new z one. If the Departm ent of B uildings hadcoordinated with City Planning, the issue could have been resolvedw hen a perm it was sought on the morning of the z oning change.ConclusionLocally, any community would have a better pulse on the different projects and/or initiativestaking place at one given time. This is nearly impossible to coordinate on a citywide level. TheOffice of Operations should be expanded to include five borough positions to help facilitatecoord ination between key agencies. Coordinating between agencies that approve projects andissue permits will lead to a more efficient city and prevent unnecessary work beingperformedover and over again. It w ill also protect pr ivate developers from cross -agency problems andprotect the public from projects and developments that are "snuck in " by unscrupulousdevelopers. The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if they believe we need thesechanges and if an Office of Coordination is needed at the Office of Operations.

Non-Partisan E lectionsIn the past, the Charter R evision Com mission has presented voters with the question about non-partisan elections. While this idea has failed in years past, I think it deserves another look.


12/14

Two offices in city government would be perfect starting points to try non-partisan elections:Public Advocate and Borough President. In both of these offices, the office holder has no voteon legislation and is in office to serve the public in an independent manner from the Mayor andCity Council. Often referred to as "figure heads", no party can define a good advocate orexecutive. Non-partisan elections for these offices may spur m ore competition and allow morechoice for voters, while leveling the playing field for candidates in a non-majority party.The C harter Revision Comm ission should ask voters if they would support non-partisan electionsfor the office of Public Advocate and Borough President and, if successful, try this new way ofvoting in the 2013 general elections.

Chapter 1: Mayor 10. SuccessionI recomme nd the Charter Revision Comm ission suggest that the order of succession to theMayor, in Section 10, subsection a and b of the City Charter, be am ended to place theComptroller before Public Advocate.Both the Public Advocate and Comptroller are citywide elected officials and w hile throughouthistory, the leader of the Council has succeeded the Mayor, the duties of the Public Advocate(modeled after the President of the Council) have changed greatly.If a Mayor w as unable to serve a full term, New Y ork City would be in better hands, for theperiod of time that the Mayor w as not in office to a point in time w hen a special was held, withthe Com ptroller serving as M ayor. The Com ptroller has a better understanding of New YorkCity's finances - probably one of the most important duties as executive, especially during timeof turmoil.The C harter Revision Com mission should ask voters if they w ould like to see the Charter revisedto change the order of Mayoral succession to Com ptroller, from Public Advocate.

The Office of Public Advocate: BudgetWh ile not specifically mentioned in the City Charter, the budget of the Public Advocate isdecided upon by the Mayor and City Council. As the de facto watchdog over Mayoral agencies,it is disingenuous to continue to allow the Public Advocate's budget to be decided by the veryoffice they are mandated to watch over.The Charter Re vision Comm ission should suggest ways to amend the Charter to give the Officeof Public Advocate either:

1. A budget set independent of the M ayor or City Council


13/14

2. A budget equal to that of the S peaker of the City CouncilThe Public Advocate cannot be held back from fulfilling its Charter mandated duties because ofradical budget changes. The Charter Re vision Com mission should ask voters if the C hartershould be amended to give the O ffice of Public Advocate a n independent budget.

Chapter 70: City Government in the Community 2800. Community boards.SummaryChapter 70 of the City Charter relates to City Government in the Community. Governing on thelocal level has always benefited the residents of our city. Across the five boroughs, Com munityBoards have played an important role in framing public policy, land use decisions and ensuringthat each and eve ry comm unity is heard by City Hall.Under the current Charter, each of the 59 Community Boards can have up to 50 m embers. Eachof those mem bers are appointed by the borough president of the borough the Community Boardlies within and at least 50% of Com munity Board appointments must come from the C ouncilMem ber that serves that Community Board.While this system has worked in the past, it can be improved greatly to give more pow er to thecomm unity itself and not elected officials. I personally know of people who have w anted to serveon a Com munity Board only to be turned down by a Borough P resident for appointment.I recomm end the C harter Revision Com mission look into the following changes of the CityCharter and this related chapter to improve the effectiveness of C ommunity Boards:1. Of the 50 me mbers allowed to serve on a Comm unity Board, 23 can be appointed by theBorough President

a. Council Members can ma ke recomm endations to a Borough President onappointments but this would not be binding2. Give the Public Advocate the pow er to appoint two members to each of the 59Comm unity Boards citywidea. The Public Advocate should be Charter m andated to consult with BoroughPresidents on these appointments, but would not be bound by thoseconsultations /recommendations3. The rema ining 25 open positions on the Comm unity Board can be filled by any resident

of a C ommunity Board by collecting the sam e am ount of petition signatures required tobe a City Council candidate, as per election lawa. Petitions to be placed on the Comm unity Board in which you would have toreside in, would be similar to the process of joining County Committeeb. Petitions would be filed at the Board of Elections, pursuant with current electionlaw


14/14

i. If a candidate is unopposed (by the certification by the Board of Electionsof 25 candidates or less), those candidates become m embers of theComm unity Board on Primary Day, as set by the Board of Electionsc. If, by a date set by the Board of Elections, more than 25 petitions are filed bycandidates for a Comm unity Board, an election would be held on primary dayi. Voters would pick the best 25 candidates out of all candidates for theirCommunity Boardd. If less than 25 candidates file petitions to be on the Comm unity Board, the Boardof Elections will notify the Mayor's Community Affairs Unit and the BoroughPresident that Comm unity Board resides ine. Within 30-days of notification by the Board of Elections, the Borough Presidentwould be free to fill, by appointment, the remaining open slots of that CommunityBoard.

ConclusionWhile these recommendations may not take shape in one Charter Revision Commission term,they should be looked at over the next few years. Empowering local residents to get involved intheir community at the most local level will foster excitement for government and create a wholenew generation of leaders. Our Community Boards could be a vehicle towards greatergrassroots activism, independence from elected officials and having more local input on issuesthat matter to a community. By allowing the Public Advocate to have two appointments on eachboard, citywide, will bet ter link the advocate 's office to the local community.

Documents

Alex Zablocki NYC Charter Revision Proposal