NYC Council Calls Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission a Sham for Trying to Block Voters’ Rights and Undermine Democracy with Rushed Changes to City’s Constitution in Final Report

New Yorkers are slated to vote on existing advice-and-consent ballot question in November, but commission could block their choice by rushing ballot proposals to undermine democratic oversight

New video explains advice-and-consent proposal

New York, NY - City Council Members united in calling out the Mayor's Charter Revision Commission for trying to block voters' rights and undermine local democracy by rushing the development of new proposals that disenfranchise New Yorkers from voting on an existing advice-and-consent ballot question in November. The elected representatives of districts throughout the city had urged the Mayor's Commission to instead use its full term to fulfill its responsibility, thoroughly reviewing the City Charter and developing proposals for the 2025 General Election with more extensive policy assessment and public engagement.

Council spokesperson, Julia Agos, issued the following statement in response to the Commission's final report being released: "This Mayor's sham Charter Revision Commission has done a disservice to New Yorkers by putting forward rushed proposals that block voters' rights while undermining democracy and oversight of the Mayor's administration. The lack of independence of the Mayor's Commission has made a mockery of what should be a serious process, with their last hearing consisting of commissioners asking testifiers how many votes the Mayor received in the election and inaccurately claiming it was millions. This final report mirrors the commission's rushed process with it issuing its final report less than 24 hours after this final hearing with hours of public testimony.

"The Mayor's commission has put forward proposals that impact the Council without engaging us as the entity affected, different from the Council's legislative process that the Mayor's Commission has consistently attacked. It has engaged in a legislative process and failed to meet even the most basic requirements for openness and transparency that would be a fraction of the Council's process. The Council urges this Commission and the Mayor's Administration to avert this unnecessary and obvious disenfranchisement of voters. Let New Yorkers decide on the existing advice-and-consent ballot question this year instead of continuing with this undemocratic sham."

The Council released a new video explaining the advice-and-consent proposal that New Yorkers will be able to vote on in November's General Election, deciding whether 20 additional agency commissioners should require confirmation by the Council. However, the Mayor's Charter Revision Commission had been rushing to develop new proposals that change the City's constitution for the 2024 General Election to block New Yorkers from exercising their democratic right to vote on the existing proposal.

Advice-and-consent is a well-established safeguard of democracy to ensure government prioritizes the public interest rather than those of individuals, which has long been used in many of the nation's cities and state governments, making New York City an outlier. Advice-and-consent can strengthen the city's government and representative democracy by ensuring that the appointments for agency commissioners are based on qualifications and the public's interests, rather than political loyalty or other motivations.

A Charter Revision Commission is a major process to change the City's constitution, which requires a full review of the City Charter and the development of proposals to improve government. It should provide extensive ways for the public to engage and a thorough review of proposals with stakeholders. This Mayor's Charter Revision Commission has operated on a rushed schedule of less than two months of meetings. However, the law that authorizes the Commission allows it to operate until November 2025, providing ample time to conduct a thorough constitutional review and develop thoughtful proposals. The City's last Charter Revision Commission in 2019 operated for nearly eight months to review the Charter and advance proposals to the ballot.

The advice-and-consent bill was introduced on May 23 and the Mayor's Charter Revision Commission held its first meeting on May 29. The law (Int. 908-A) was adopted after the Council passed it in a near-unanimous, bipartisan vote of 46-4 on June 6.

Testimony from New York City Council Members and staff is available here.

The following are excerpts from their testimony:

Speaker Adrienne Adams: "There is no sound reason to short-circuit this process and submit one or more questions to the voters before that time, which would be hurried and underdeveloped. A rushed process would only undermine the Commission's ability to successfully carry out its stated mission of reviewing the entire City Charter and put forward thoughtful proposals. I urge the Commission to avoid this detrimental outcome that would risk significant harm to good governance and democracy in New York City."

Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala: "A rushed process, like the one proceeding, inhibits the Commission's ability to successfully carry out its stated mission of reviewing the entire City Charter and putting forward thoughtful proposals. The Commission should avoid an outcome that would undermine good governance and democracy in New York City. It can do this by not rushing to introduce new ballot proposals for the 2024 General Election, and instead utilizing its entire term that runs well into 2025 to offer sound ballot proposals next year after taking the necessary time and efforts required of a constitutional process."

Majority Leader Amanda C. Farías: "Reviewing the New York City Charter is a significant task that requires adequate time for both the commission and the residents of our city. Currently, the Commission is pushing through the process in less than two months to meet the August 5th deadline for this year's General Election. This rush deprives New Yorkers of the opportunity to decide on expanding advice and consent for themselves and the City Council in the appointment process for 20 city agency commissioners. The City Council firmly calls for an honest and democratic process that includes feedback from a diverse group of New Yorkers across all five boroughs before the CRC submits its report."

Majority Whip Selvena N. Brooks-Powers: "I urge the Mayor's Commission to uphold the democratic process and allow New Yorkers to vote on the existing advice-and-consent proposal that voters are set to decide in the 2024 General Election. Let us ensure that any proposed changes to the City Charter are well-considered and beneficial for the future governance of New York City by utilizing the full term for thorough and meaningful review. The Mayor's Commission should focus on producing thoughtful proposals for consideration in the 2025 General Election, and let voters decide on the existing advice-and-consent proposal this year."

Council Member Sandy Nurse, Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus: "It is deeply concerning that the motivation to start this Commission is because Mayor Eric Adams does not want New Yorkers to vote on an existing proposal that the Council passed this year. The New York City Council is elected by millions of voters to legislate on their behalf for a better city and a better government. Any effort to thwart the democratic process of New Yorkers voting on this proposal in November is an attempt to rob the voters of this city of their right to decide. This move undermines our local democracy at a time when we are fighting nationally to keep it."

Council Member Crystal Hudson,Co-Chair of the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus: "There's no need to rush. This Commission has the authorization to operate until Election Day 2025, when, notably, voters who are currently focused on a history-making presidential election, not the nuts and bolts of New York City government. Voters are already widely aware of advice and consent because my colleagues and I have spent months discussing it and fielding concerns. But any new proposal is one proposal too many. Next year, voters will be in a better position to decide on a number of new charter revision suggestions as they'll be focused on selecting who is best to run the city they call home. More time means more community input, better ideas, and more support."

Council Member Shahana Hanif, Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus: "I urge the Commission not to include proposals amending the Council's ability to legislate public safety or laws the Council has passed to protect immigrant families. The Commission should instead follow the recommendations outlined by Speaker Adrienne Adams in her testimony, including permitting the public to vote on Intro. 908-2024, which would expand the Council's advice and consent powers."

Council Member Lincoln Restler,Chair of the Committee on Governmental Operations, State & Federal Legislation: "This Commission first met on May 29, 2024 - just over two months before final ballot language must be submitted. No other Charter Revision Commission in recent history has ever operated on such an accelerated timeline. Further, this Commission has conducted only twelve public hearings and forums - short of the 15 that were conducted in 2018 or the 30+ hearings conducted by the 1989 Commission. The initial round of hearings was also announced with little notice or publication, leading to sparsely attended sessions, and the last round of hearings is being held only two weeks before final ballot language is due. Public engagement is critical to the charter revision process, and it is clear that this hastily convened commission is not seeking real public feedback."

Council Member Shaun Abreu: "Of course, we all know the real reason this commission is scrambling: to keep Advice and Consent off the ballot. But Advice and Consent is Democracy 101. It's one of our most basic tools for holding our government accountable, and it's used in DC and Albany and already in our city for select positions. If we want a transparent, effective, and responsible government-a government that gives New Yorkers a voice in the affairs of their city-we will reject this half-hearted attempt at a Charter Revision and put Advice and Consent on the ballot this November."

Council Member Alexa Avilés: "I encourage the Commission to engage in a serious interrogation of the ways we can improve our governing doctrine by ensuring any proposals/recommendations are thoroughly vetted with sound data and evidence. I must note, the administration is interested in more public review of public safety legislation but did very little public outreach for this much more significant project of reviewing our City Charter. That contradiction is glaring and speaks more to the real petty motivation than actually doing right by New Yorkers."

Council Member Chris Banks: "It is our democratic right, and the right of all New Yorkers, to have a say in who we appoint to lead key agencies and help shape the future of our city. We must ensure accountability and transparency in this process. I strongly support the principles of checks and balances, which is why I believe we should move forward with placing this charter revision on the ballot. Let us respect the will of the voters."

Council Member Gale Brewer: "I strongly believe that a Charter Revision Commission (CRC) should be a serious constitutional process that provides legitimate ways to improve government policy through significant review and public engagement. Recent CRCs, especially the one in 1989 and the one that I sponsored in 2018-2019, have taken their time to promote democracy by meaningfully engaging the public in the process. This CRC is rushing to alter the city's constitution in less than two months."

Council Member Carmen De La Rosa: "Public engagement is of the utmost importance, and we risk undermining the democratic process with rushed actions. Thus, we should take advantage of the opportunity to directly involve the public prior to and during voting for the expansion of advice-and-consent oversight and the overall revisions. The Commission should take as much time as granted until the next election year to fully revise, hold public town halls and hearings, and educate New Yorkers on the charter and ramifications of the changes proposed, but not deny the voters the opportunity to express their opinions at the ballot box regarding advice-and-consent."

Council Member James F. Gennaro:"The Mayor's Charter Revision Commission should undertake a serious and thorough review of the entire City Charter and adequately engage the public - not rush through the process in less than two months just to meet the August 5 deadline to submit questions for this year's General Election. Recent Charter Revision Commissions have taken their time over several months to promote reform by meaningfully engaging the public in the process, but Mayor Adams' Commission has rushed to alter the City's Charter in less than two months. The effect of the latter would be to block voters from deciding on an existing proposal to expand advice and consent."

Council Member Jennifer Gutiérrez: "The actions of the Mayor's Commission reflect a troubling disregard for the checks and balances that protect our city's governance. By pushing through these changes without proper public input, the Commission is effectively eroding the democratic safeguards designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure accountability."

Council Member Shekar Krishnan: "I am proud to be the first Indian-American elected to the New York City Council and everyday I strive to ensure that the diverse communities of my district are heard and represented when reviewing legislation or negotiating the budget. That is why I am troubled by the commission's efforts to undermine the will of the communities I represent by using its power to hastily submit ballot proposals and delay voters from deciding whether they want to expand the advice and consent process for commissioners of mayoral agencies."

Council Member Linda Lee: "The Mayor's Charter Commission attempts to hastily fast-track this process by not allowing its full-term into 2025 to allow for public consideration on proposals that should be further fleshed out. At worst, this Charter Commission denies voters the opportunity to exercise their right to vote on an existing proposal to expand advice-and-consent, which would otherwise be on the 2024 November Election ballot. This would potentially undermine our democratic process, at the expense of thoughtful public engagement. This is a blatant attempt to undermine and speed up the process, at the expense of thoughtful public engagement."

Council Member Pierina Sanchez: "I ask that the Commission take two steps in the immediate future. First, slow its process and commit to a robust engagement process over the next year to give our communities ample time to make their voices heard and put forward their own proposals before a 2025 referendum. Second, allow New Yorkers to vote on the Council's proposal to expand advice-and-consent this fall."

Council Member Althea V. Stevens: "Accelerating this operation interferes with democratic principles as well as community trust, thus, highlighting the critical need for thoughtful deliberation and participation from residents. We must uphold transparency and responsiveness to competently address the changing needs and outlook of our diverse city."

Council Member Julie Won: "'Advice and Consent' is crucial for safeguarding democracy. Without it, the power of a government goes unchecked in the hands of one person or entity. City agency commissioners play a critical role in ensuring New Yorkers receive their city services as efficiently as possible. Advice and consent ensures commissioners are scrutinized in the public eye and approved based solely on their qualifications and dedication to serving the public. Following this bill's passage, Council Members, myself included, shared information about the proposal with their constituencies and informed them it would be on their ballot this fall."

Jeffrey Baker, Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislation and Policy, New York City Council: "Part of the reason the Council's legislative process has drawn any attention is because it is open and transparent. That fact invites criticism. But most of the decisions that the Mayor and city agencies make daily affecting operations and policy require no public process at all. No fiscal impact statements are required, no public input is solicited, and no explanations are given. And because there is no public process for these decisions, our attention is focused on fine tuning the public process of one branch of city government that actually has one. Frequently, the only meaningful debate on the Mayor's public policy decisions occurs at the Council, at oversight hearings, or while considering legislation. Weakening the Council's ability to impact policy through legislation only empowers the office of the Mayor to set policy with no input whatsoever.

"Furthermore, when the Council is considering a bill that affects the operation of city government we always engage with the agencies or entities that we are regulating. We welcome the expression of legal, fiscal, logistical, and operational concerns. And we make amendments where we can without sacrificing the policy vision of the Council.

"As I testify today, we are three days away from what will likely be your final vote to approve ballot measures that may directly impact the operations of the New York City Council. And which may have serious implications to how public policy is formed in New York City. And as of today, no one knows what those measures will be. No one has been given an opportunity to meaningfully comment on them. And no one will have an opportunity to improve them through debate and public discourse. Least of all the entity you are seeking to regulate.

"If this Charter Commission is legitimately concerned about the ability of stakeholders to provide input during the legislative process, then it must recognize that it is currently engaged in a legislative process, and it is failing to meet even the most basic requirements for openness and transparency."

Jason Otaño, General Counsel of the New York City Council: "The importance of an independent legislative branch was emphasized in the 1989 Charter Revision. In reality, the Council as we currently know it did not exist before then. It was that Charter revision that realigned the City government's power structure to make the Council a more powerful, more representative co-equal counterpart to the Mayor to fulfill a key American principle: that a legislature serves as a check and balance to the executive branch."

###

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.