Frank Morano CRC-FINAL

8/9/2019 Frank Morano CRC-FINAL

1/27

A BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM:The collective testimonies, proposals and suggestions of

Frank Morano to the Charter Revision Commission

Enhancing Accountability and transparency in city government;

Empowering Voters and make New Yorks Civic Life More Participatory

June 24th, 2010

Frank Morano


2/27

(347) [email protected]

Introduction

As someone who has been proud to attend each Charter Revision Commission hearing

in every borough thus far, I want to begin simply by saying thank you. I know how hard

each of the Commissioners have worked, how much time youve put in, how much grief

youve taken (and will continue to take) from the public and that its all been for no

additional compensation, glory or fame. New Yorkers are rarely hesitant to vent their

frustrations or complaints about anything, but we often overlook the time, energy and

effort you put in to what can more often than not be a thankless job. Thank you. Your

work isnt going unappreciated and I think all New Yorkers owe you a sincere debt of

gratitude. On a personal note, in attending each hearing, listening to public input, taking

in the advice and suggestions from elected officials and community leaders, listening to

each of the commissioners and hearing from the experts at each of the expert forums, Ive

learned more about city government (as its currently constituted) than I couldve ever

imagined. I know too, that Im not alone. As Ive sat in the gallery, Ive repeatedly

heard New Yorkers say to one another, I didnt know that, thats a good idea or

Really? Is that really what happens?. If youve done nothing else, I think youve

dramatically enhanced the civic education of this city (perhaps I shouldnt be surprised

by this given the Chairmans background as an educator). Youve done much more

though.

Even if not a single question is put before the voters (which I sincerely hope will not

be the case), the work of this commission will have been a success. More so than any

Charter Commission since 1989, this commission has undertaken a thorough, complete

and substantive review of virtually every aspect of city government. While previous

commissions were very narrow in their scope (2002-3- non-partisan elections and

Mayoral succession; 2005 budget), this commission truly has taken the mandate of

reviewing the entire city charter to a new level. Every future Charter Revision

Commission thats empanelled going forward will be referring to the work that this

Commission has done as a foundation and a template for their own work going forward.

Just as Fritz Schwarz suggested you look at the process of charter revision as a

2


3/27

foundation rather than a house, I think you could also look at your work in this particular

instance as a foundation for all future foundations.

Chairman Matthew Goldstein has done what I believe is a masterful job throughout

the conduct of this process. For starters, the selections in terms of staff, etc. have

underscored the independence of this commission and taken the wind out of the sails of

critics who tried to portray this Commission as little more than a Mayoral task force. The

efforts to include public input have been the greatest Ive ever seen (particularly

incorporating new media like facebook). Having the commission hearings webcast (both

live and archived) have brought these hearings to anyone who has even a passing interest

and I think the use of technology has been superb. The diversity of locations (from

Harlem to the middle of Staten Island) and the willingness of the Commission to stay

until EVERY New Yorker has had their say has really achieved the goal of casting a

wide net and soliciting input from every New Yorker who cared to offer it. I believe his

stewardship of this process serves as a model for all future Chairs going forward.

Commissioner Stephen Fiala (who as the only representative of my home borough,

Staten Island, is naturally my favorite Commissioner) has said several times (most

recently at the June 16th panel on Public integrity), this commission wasnt necessitated

by a court decision (like the ones in the 1980s basically forcing New York City to rewrite

its entire playbook from scratch) but I believe the work done by this Commission and the

proposals you put forward are just as necessary and will have as serious an impact on our

city. The sad reality is that in the minds of New York City voters, government is

hopelessly dysfunctional, corrupt and incompetent. Cynicism and frustration are found in

endless supply amongst the electorate whereas optimism, hope and faith that our

government is out to protect the rights of taxpayers is in short supply. Because of many

factors including, but not limited to, the decision to overturn the will of the voters with

respect to term limits, the corruption scandals and criminal conduct involving scores of

government officials, the increasingly burdensome taxes that New Yorkers are forced to

bare and the very real sense that rank-and-file New Yorkers have no real voice in their

own city, doubt, suspicion and distrust is now the norm. Ironically, it seems that in the

days of Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed, New Yorkers werent as skeptical of their

government as they are today. In those days at least, government may have been corrupt,

3


4/27

but at least it seemed functional.these days that doesnt seem to be the case. Francis

Barrys book The Scandal of Reform does a masterful job detailing the history of

corruption in this city and the efforts of (so-called) reformers to remedy them. If you

havent read it already, I would humbly suggest that you pick up a copy right away.

I think the current City Charter is far too large and covers many areas of public life,

which would more properly be handled by amending the New York City administrative

code or doing other things that a functional legislature might view as within its domain.

That being said, Ive outlined a series of proposals that I think will serve the principles

and values that Chairman Goldstein laid out in the initial meeting of this commission,

those being:

- Improving the accountability and transparency of the workings of government

- Making government more efficient and effective

- Making civic life more participatory and representative

These are by no means the be all and end all of things that I believe need to change in

New York City government, Ive just sought to highlight a few key areas that I believe

the commission is likely to (and should) focus.

Process

Ive been attending Charter Revision Commission hearings since 2002 and been

following the Charter Revision process for far longer than that. Every year that there is a

charter revision commission it seems as if the arguments are the same: theres not enough

time, the commission isnt truly independent, there arent sufficient efforts at outreach

and to include public input and not enough people are participating. This year has been

no different.

Timing. Literally every meeting has heard from someone saying that this process

shouldnt be rushed and that there should be no question(s) placed on the ballot this year.

I couldnt disagree with this notion more. I would implore the commission to place at

least one (and hopefully more) proposals on the ballot this year. For starters, a question

should be placed on the ballot this year, because this is a year where voters will actually

show up! With elections for U.S. Senate, Governor, Congress and the state legislature in

4


5/27

every district in this city, theres likely to be a far higher turnout this year than next year

when turnout will be anemic. If the voters of this city are going to be making decisions

that will effect their futures for decades to come, dont you want the widest possible pool

of participants deciding their own fate? I think it would be incredibly short sighted not to

at least place proposals on the ballot this year regarding term limits and non-partisan

elections. The voters are familiar with these issues, have voted on them before, have

debated them around the water cooler and the kitchen table and in the case of these two

issues seen several previous charter revision commissions study them. Ive even heard

some elected officials say that to focus on federal, state and city issues at the ballot box

all in one election cycle would prove too confusing to the voters. I find this assertion

incredibly insulting to the voters of this city. With so much of the citys public policy

areas (including budget, education and public safety) being directly impacted by federal

and state policy, I think to have all of those choices in the same election cycle could

actually serve to enhance the civic debate at every level of government. Imagine voters

asking their state legislators about financial aid for New York City or asking candidates

for Congress how they would alter the Medicaid funding formula. In a very real sense it

makes it harder for some government officials to pass the buck to another layer of

government.

If the commission wants to further study more esoteric of wonky issues like budget

reform or decentralization, then I would encourage you to put the big-ticket items on the

ballot this year, ask the Mayor to re-appoint you in the hopes of putting additional

questions on the ballot next year, a year where only charter revision junkies are likely

to turn out.

The notion of their not being enough time for proper study, review and debate, is

totally fallacious in my view. The entire constitution of post WWII Japan (which still

largely serves as the framework of that nations government) was written in just a few

days. Even the U.S. Constitution (which many of those who have asked for more time

have compared the city charter to) was written in just four months.THATS LESS

TIME THAN THIS CURRENT CHARTER REVISION PROCESS!! New Yorkers

arent stupid; they can review proposals and make a decision about their position on it.

5


6/27

Theres plenty of time for interested parties on both sides of an issue to make their case to

the public and plenty of opportunity for interested parties to make their voices heard.

Attendance. The attendance at the vast majority of these hearings has been impressive.

Several times, Ive found myself in the standing room only section of the meeting room,

even though I arrived only a few minutes late. Still though, Ive heard some critics of

this years process try to compare the attendance at these hearings to the often larger

attendance at MTA and Rent guidelines hearings, to make whatever point they seek to

make (which is usually dont do anything). I would strongly urge you not to take these

criticisms to heart. The bottom line is that the city charter will never be a sexy issue.

People dont see the direct day-to-day impact on their daily lives of something like

ULURP reform or altering Community Boards that they might with an MTA fare hike.

In many ways, those issues are simpler and populist partisans are better able to galvanize

public input. I think you should be incredibly pleased with the public attendance (and

participation) at each of these hearings, while still seeking to build on it in your third

round of hearings.

Put each question on the ballot individually. As to how the questions should appear on

the ballot, I would urge the commission to put each and every proposal that you come up

with on the ballot as individual questions. I know that the 1999 Charter Commission put

all of its proposals into a single omnibus question encompassing all of the proposals,

rather than listing each on the ballot individually. I know that this is something that some

members of the Commission have discussed with the media and indicated they were

uncertain about. I would urge you to put each on the ballot to pass or fail on its own

merits, rather than lump less well known or less popular questions in with big-ticket or

very popular items. I know that this is an approach shared by former Parks

Commissioner Henry Stern and I think its a sound one. To do otherwise in my view,

would be a grave disservice to both the public and to all the great work done by the

commission and the commission staff.

Elected Officials speaking first. One practice I would encourage you to revisit though is

having all the elected officials speak before the public. I have a great deal of respect for

elected officials as well (some more than others), but I think if they were forced to wait

their turn on a first come, first serve basis like everyone else, they would have a better

6


7/27

appreciation for what the public really wants. Too often it seems as if elected officials

are just able to deliver their prepared remarks and leave, rarely hearing what actual

citizens believe. Additionally, make elected officials give precisely the same testimony

at multiple hearings, while members of the community where the hearing is being held

are forced to go home because theyve had to suffer through endless meandering by

politicians. Assemblyman Jim Brennan and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer

are the best examples of his but far from the only ones. Additionally, I think theres

absolutely no excuse for the practice of allowing the staffers of elected officials to speak

before the public. To suggest that the testimony of politicians or their staffers have more

merit than testimony from the public sends precisely the wrong message. I think perhaps

if elected officials were in the habit of being treated like everyone else, they wouldnt be

so quick to disregard the will of the public when it comes to things like overturning the

twice expressed will of the voters, as they did with term limits. I would suggest that

going forward, there be NO exceptions to the first-come, first-serve policy.

State Law recommendations. So much of the government of New York City is not found

in the city charter, but in state law. Several of the experts heard at the panels and several

members of the public offering testimony offered many common sense improvements to

government, which you will no doubt find is more appropriately within the purview of

the state legislature. To that end, I would encourage you to itemize a list of suggested

improvements to New York City government, which you dont have the power to put

before the voters yourselves and ask the state legislature to consider taking these matters

up. Who better than the sixteen of you whove spent the last several months researching

every aspect of city government to tell Albany how it could be better? This is something

that I dont believe any recent charter commission has taken the opportunity to do, but I

believe could have great long term impact not only on public policy in this city but on the

debate about municipal government as a whole.

Term Limits

Making Referenda binding. Obviously, much of the reason that your work has garnered

so much attention is because of what happened last year with term limits. Its been my

experience, that there are few who believe that what occurred last year was anything

short of an outrage. Primarily, Ive found this to be the case because the city council

7


8/27

overrode by legislative fiat, the will of the voters, which was made clear twice. I believe

that this was not only improper, but illegal, even if the courts disagreed with me. I think

it would go a long way towards reducing cynicism towards city government and restoring

faith in the city charter if you were to codify in the charter that the City Council be

prohibited from altering any question approved by city voters, without first returning to

them and seeking their consent to do so. It would seem like this is nothing less than

common sense, unfortunately this is something that seems to be in short supply among

NYC elected leaders. Please, once the voters speak, dont allow politicians to mute their

voices.

The Merits of term limits. Show me someone who thought they were irreplaceable andIll show you someone whose successor inevitably did a better job- Mayor Bloomberg,before he changed his position on term limits.

When people first seek to get involved in politics or run for public office, they have no

idea whats not possible. They approach government with the energy and fervor of a

wide-eyed high school civics student trying to win an essay contest. After years (or

decades) in elective office though, they often become overcome and overwhelmed with

the same sort of cynicism and frustration that their constituents know all too well. They

feel overwhelmed by the institutional barriers inherent in government and often seem to

view their public service as nothing more than a means to collecting a paycheck and

securing a generous pension. I recall talking with one Council member who had been in

office for several years and appeared to be at the end of his rope with pothole complaints

and double talking lobbyists. He said to me, Im done. The people beat me. Whatever

it is they want from me, I cant give them. If I was half the Councilman I was five years

ago, maybe I wouldnt feel this way, but after seeing what Ive seen and going through

what Ive gone through, Ive realized were always going to lose. I cant tell you how

sad that sentiment made me. Here was an immensely talented, incredibly brilliant elected

official, who was incredibly honest and very hard working, who had come to resent the

very people he was elected to serve. This person still serves in elective office today.

Term Limits provides government with several key benefits. For starters (at least once

every few election cycles), it produces competitive elections. Im of the belief that

8


9/27

competitive elections are a good thing. With multiple candidates seemingly willing to

crawl over glass to beg voters for their support, I think the public becomes the biggest

beneficiaries of that. Additionally, while there are no state legislative term limits, I think

we can potentially observe the indirect benefit of municipal term limits on state

legislative elections. With scores of city elected officials (who often still possess great

talents and great ambitions) faced with the prospect of not being able to serve the public

any longer, they will seek other means to do so, the most natural one being state

government. Council members and city wide elected officials have chosen to run for

state office, often against incumbents, giving a lethargic legislature what it fears most,

challenges from intelligent, well known candidates who already have a base of support

within their own districts. Had term limits not been altered, I believe that 2010 wouldve

seen a record number of longtime state legislative incumbents challenged and defeated.

Additionally, I think recent history has shown us that elected officials who enter into

office as a result of term limits are no more or less capable than their more experienced

predecessors. Is Mayor Bloomberg less able to handle the affairs of city government than

Mayor Giuliani (indeed his appointment of such a talented and intelligent charter revision

commission would seem to indicate the contrary)? If so, its not because of term limits. I

think the current members of the city council (who thought themselves so worthy of their

positions that they overrode the twice spoken will of the voters) would disagree with the

notion that theyre less capable than their more experienced predecessors. At the end of

the day, term limits provides us with new blood, fresh ideas, new opportunities, more

competitive elections less lethargic leadership, its no wonder why the public has

embraced them time and again.

I would urge you to put a question on the ballot giving voters the choice to restore term

limits of no more than eight years for all municipal elected officials.

Voter Participation

Proportional Representation. If theres one aspect of this commissions work that Im

disappointed in, its this one. In spite of detailed written and oral testimony from me and

others, the issue of restoring proportional representation hasnt seemed to be on your

radar screen at all. Not a single question was asked to a single expert witness on the

9


10/27

subject and there seems to be little hope of your putting a question on ballot that would

restore its implementation. However, I remain hopeful that you will consider doing so,

so allow me to reiterate the need for this critical reform and outline how it might work.

What is it?

In the current system we have 51 separate city council districts. In each of these

districts the parties select a candidate in the primaries all of whom face off in the general

election. The candidate who gets a plurality of votes wins. It doesnt matter whether this

candidate wins with 94% or 25% of the vote as long as they get one more vote than their

nearest competitor theyre elected. Under proportional representation, each borough

would be allocated a certain number of seats in proportion to its population. Perhaps

somewhere along the line of one council person for every 75,000 voters, which might

lead to three council members in a place like Staten island and a great deal more in

boroughs like Queens or Brooklyn. Then each voter would go to the polls and see all the

candidates on the ballot in their borough. Every voter would have an opportunity to vote

at every stage of the process. The voters simply rank candidates in order of their

preference, putting a one beside their first choice, a two beside their second choice and so

on. (chart below) To win under choice voting candidates need an exact number of votes

called a threshold, for example if we were electing ten seats candidates they would need

10% of the votes to win and the threshold would be approximately 10% of the total

number of votes cast. So in the voting booth all the voters have to do is rank 1, 2 and 3

and it is really that simple. its as easy as ONE, TWO AND THREE After counting first

choice votes candidates with the winning threshold are elected. To maximize the number

of voters who help elect someone, surplus ballots beyond the threshold are transferred to

that voters second choice and this continues in this precise method until all the seats are

filled.

10


11/27

11


12/27

Why? Whats wrong with the current system??

Now why we do need to do this? Well let me explain a few problems with the current

system of electing City Council members as I see it:

For starters in the current system two many voters dont get to participate. In all but a

few council districts in this city, one party dominates the district. In most districts thats

the Democratic party but in one district thats the Republican party. If you dont get to

vote in this party primary youre essentially left out of the only stage of the process that

matters. That means if youre a Republican and you live in a heavily Democratic district

or youre an independent voter-someone whos not enrolled in any party, you are paying

taxes to administer an election that you dont get to participate in and is essentially

decided long before youll ever get to vote. Now its bad enough that many voters dont

get to participate in the only stage of the process that matters but even voters who are

eligible and vote in that partys primary often see the actual impact of their vote

minimized by party bosses who control almost every stage of the process from ballot

access to distributing ballots to counting the votes.

One of the many other problems with the way we elect council members now is that

because these districts are tiny, council members are concerned not with issues of

borough wide importance but by and large local parochial issues. In addition to this

shortsightedness with respect to policymaking, this also leads to distribution of member

items of which the city council member has almost sole discretion to nonprofit groups or

charities that might have a lot of political clout in one neighborhood. Through the slush

fund scandal weve seen exactly how dangerous that can be. I can assure you as a Staten

Islander, voters in Tottenville are just as upset as voters are in Saint George about traffic,

about tolls, about taxes and about the Fresh Kills landfill. Under Proportional

Representation, we would have three pit-bulls fighting for Staten Island, rather than three

members who are concerned largely with their own backyards.

12


13/27

One of the many other problems with our current system is that it doesnt encourage

voters to vote for the candidate they like most, it encourages them to pick winners. For

instance, I worked on two campaigns for nonpartisan special elections in New York City

in which there were multiple candidates in both of those elections. I encountered literally

hundreds of voters that told me they would not be voting for the candidate they liked the

most because they feared it would only lead to the election of the candidate they liked the

least. This is the so called spoiler effect. With proportional representation voters get the

opportunity to vote for the candidate they like best without fear of splitting votes from the

candidate they might prefer more than others.

Another problem with the current system is that it promotes the election of radical

members because the election is decided largely by the democratic primary, those that

come out to vote are often the most partisan, militant left wingers the city has, many of

whom put whats best for their party or their narrow, ideological agenda ahead of whats

best for the city. Because this is who votes in the primary and because the primary is all

but decisive as to who gets elected we end up with a crop of elected officials that

represent the most extreme ends of the political spectrum. This is not a group which

lends itself to consensus building or finding non-ideological ways to administer city

government. If everyone had an opportunity to vote in every stage of the process,

chances are candidates would have to appeal to a broader constituency.

Although there are many other problems with the current system, the last one that Ill

mention here is that its not really reflective of the voters wishes. Lets take a look at the

current system. In theory you could have one party, let say the republicans get 49% of the

vote in all 51 city council districts. So with essentially half the city supporting how

republicans want to administer city government, how many votes would they then get in

the City Council? What percentage of the power would they get in the City Council?

Zero! You may think that Im being silly using that sort of an example, but thats actually

not that far off from what we have now. In 2001 for instance, which is the last year that

we had a whole new crop of Council members because of term limits, the republicans

received about 31% of the vote in City Council elections across the city, now what

13


14/27

percentage of the seats did they then get in the city council? 8%!!! So even though they

got 31% of the vote, they only got 8% of the power. Thats not that far off from my 49%

to zero example.

Advantages of PR?

So what are the advantages of proportional representation? One, it completely

eliminates the so called spoiler effect. No longer will any voter in New York City ever

get told that their vote for one candidate over another is a wasted vote. This would lead

to voters truly voting for the candidate that best articulates their vision for NY.

Second, and this cant be understated in this time of fiscal catastrophe, is it completely

saves the cost of a second election. No primary election and then a general, no primary

and then run often then a general its just one election. And, that election is more

reflective of a voters wishes than the current system that we have now. So we have a

chance, as taxpayers to save literally millions of dollars by having elections for City

Council decided in one election rather than two.

The next biggest advantage of proportional representation and this might even be the

most important one as far as Im concerned is it includes every voter at every stage of the

process. Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians and vegetarians. they all

get to vote and theyll have an equal say which is how it should be, not the system we

have now where if youre not a member of one party or another you get treated for all

intents and purposes as a second class citizen.

Now be cause thered be a much more diverse group of a political ideologies

represented in the City Council this will also go a long way towards promoting consensus

building. For example, right now if the speaker the City Council wanted to ignore the

five republicans on the City Council, she could just ignore them without fear of seriously

jeopardizing the coalition she needs to have in place to govern. However if there were

ten republicans or eight republicans, three greens, two working families parties members

14


15/27

and for independents, the speaker would seriously need to listen to the members that were

elected by their constituents rather than holding this giant pot of money which she can

use to reward allies or punish dissent, as is the current case.

With all these great reasons to support proportional representation, you might wonder

why in the world did New York City get rid of it. Well, the actual reason is because

Tammany Hall was beginning to lose control of New York City government. I think that

was a good thing. I think most of us would probably agree that was a good thing but the

reason they gave the voters of New York City at the time, through code language,

smacking of red-baiting and race-baiting was very different. Party bosses convinced the

voters that if we kept proportional representation, more black City Council members

would get elected and more communists would get elected. Two Communists did get

elected, yes, but you know what they were elected by the voters and I think just as you

saw from 1937 to 1949, you will again see proportional representation providing fair

representation to both racial and ethnic minorities, as well as to political minorities who

have since 1949 been unrepresented in New York City government.

As I mentioned though, its my belief that you wont see scores of extremists getting

elected, because every voter including general election voters who are generally far more

moderate than primary voters get to participate, you will see much more moderate and

sober candidates for public office getting elected. This is a good thing for New York

City.

Perhaps the most exciting aspect of this though, is that it will lead to competitive

elections. Too often it seems as if aside from when theres an open seat, there are no

competitive elections for City Council in this city. No one wants to challenge an

incumbent. No one wants to defy the party bosses and no one wants to go through the

Herculean task of running for office against an all but certain winner. This system (PR)

makes it so that youre not running against an incumbent; it makes it so that youre

running for City Council! Youll have more candidates running from a diverse

background and it will lead to more compatible elections. Im of the belief that

15


16/27

competitive elections will lead to more voter choice and then whoever emerges, will be a

better council member for it. Lets have proportional representation. Lets have

competitive elections and lets have voter choice.

The last thing that Ill mention in terms of an advantage for proportional

representation is that it does away with the silly redistricting and gerrymandering process

that we go through every ten years. Every single special interest, every racial or ethnic

group, every political party, and every politician, wants the City Council lines redrawn to

benefit them, their political party, their ethnic group, their friends, etc. This proposal

does away with the politicization of that process. This makes it so that Staten Island is

Staten Island, Brooklyn is Brooklyn, Manhattan is Manhattan. No longer will a partisan

redistricting commission carve up half a block here or there that might have a

constituency thats favorable to you and carve out a half a block there, which might have

a political party thats not to your registration advantage. Now you have to reach out to

everybody and the voters are going to get to choose their elected officials and gone will

be the days of elected officials choosing their own constituents.

So I hope youll strongly consider putting this proposal on the ballot. I think this is one

of the most fundamental reforms New York City can adopt a hope youll join me in

fighting for it.

Non-Partisan Elections. Barring the re-implementation of Proportional Representation, I

hope the Commission will put the question of non-partisan elections on the ballot once

again, for all of the reasons referenced above. I think a proposal similar to the 2003

proposal would be fine and in this political climate, believe it would pass. I would

suggest at least two alterations to the 2003 proposal.

a) the option to put your party label- The 2003 proposal included a provision that

would allow candidates to put on the ballot the party in which they were registered

with. I think this is a huge mistake. For starters, by only allowing candidates to

put this single piece of information on the ballot (and not education, beliefs,

16


17/27

experience, background, etc.) were implicitly telling the voters that this is the

single piece of information that should matter most to voters. Its not. Lets not

put more emphasis on this one aspect of a candidates profile than any other. If a

candidates registration is something that he wants known, believe me, its not

something that hell have a hard time communicating to his constituents. Lets not

advertise it for him at the publics expense. Second, allowing this practice creates

a false impression to voters. Theres nothing to stop a militant right winger or

radical leftist from both registering as Democrats. Democrats in that district might

then wrongly assume that because there is a Democratic label next to a candidates

name, that the candidate represents the same values that they do, when thats not

the case. Charles Barron and Peter Vallone are both registered in the same party,

but their ideologies couldnt be farther apart. Mike Bloomberg and Tom Delay

were both enrolled in the same party, but their politics couldnt be more

diametrically opposed. Why create this false impression to voters? Let people run

as people and let candidates communicate whatever information they think is

important to the voters in their district.

b) Replace the run-off with instant run-off voting. The 2003 proposal wouldve

called for the first two candidates to face off against one another in a run-off.

Were in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Why force the taxpayers to pay for a second

election when theres no need to? With a system of instant runoff voting (IRV),

voters rank their choices in order of preference. If one candidate gets a majority

then hes elected. Case closed. If no candidate gets a majority, then the candidate

with the least number of first choice votes is eliminated and all of that candidates

votes would go to those voters second choice. This system is just as

representative as run-off voting and far less expensive. Additionally, it does away

with the wasted vote stigma, in which voters fear voting for the candidate they

truly support so as not to split the vote with another candidate. As I did in 2003, I

would urge the commission to adopt IRV for all non-partisan elections.

Petitioning and ballot access. In every City Council district in this city, you need only

900 signatures to run for City Council as a Democrat. In some cases, this can mean that

17


18/27

you need as little as 1% or even less of the active registrants in that district to sign your

petition. In each of these districts though, to run as an Independence Party candidate,

Working Families candidate and Conservative candidate (and in most instances this also

applies to Republicans), you need 5% of the registrants to sign your petition to get on the

ballot. So, even in areas like Manhattan or the Bronx, where collecting Democratic

petitions is usually as easy as standing on a street corner, you need a markedly lower

threshold for signatures than you do running as the candidate of a minor party. If you run

for office as an independent (with a small i) or the candidate of any independent body,

you need THREE TIMES the number of signatures as someone running as a Democrat or

Republican. Is this fair? In my view, the answer is clearly no. I would encourage the

commission to explore offering an alternative method for getting on the ballot other than

petitioning. For instance, what about a filing fee of 1% of the salary for the office youre

seeking. In a year with many candidates running for office, this could provide some

welcome relief to city coffers, as opposed to the current costly and wasteful process of

administering petitioning and the challenges to individual candidate petitions. At a time

when the city is facing a fiscal crisis of epic proportions, wouldnt this be a better way of

putting candidates on the ballot? I, understand that the state election law specifically

mentions the 900 number as a signature requirement and that the Charter Commission

may not be able to reduce either that number or the percentage without a change in state

law. If thats the case, I would urge the commission to make it easier in other ways. For

instance, perhaps that 900 number could apply to candidates running in non-partisan

special elections, just as it does in party primaries. This 900 number could also apply to

candidates running as independents or the candidates of independent bodies. Because

any registered voter is eligible to sign these petitions and any registered voter is eligible

to collect them, this would make petitioning far less onerous for candidates, volunteers

and voters alike, thereby achieving Chairman Goldsteins stated objective of making

civic life more participatory. Lastly, if the commission does choose to adopt my

proposal, reinstituting Proportional Representation, I would encourage you not to raise

the 900 signature limit, thus enlarging the pool of voters eligible to sign the petition.

18


19/27

Make the referendum process easier. Currently, the power of the voters to amend public

policy themselves is very narrow in this city and this state. I would encourage you to

look at steps that can be taken to allow the voters to amend any city law through Initiative

and Referendum, rather than just charter revisions. Its a common sense step which

would dramatically enhance the voters desire to participate. I think this would also go a

long way towards reducing cynicism.

Government Structure

Community Board Structure and Composition. Currently, the Borough Presidents have

complete and final say over who is appointed to the Community Board. This often leads

to many boards being comprised of yes men to the Borough President and his agenda.

While, there can be no doubt that the Borough Presidents play a crucial role in land use

issues and in representing the conscience of their community, it could be argued that the

City Council members from that individual district (although as Ive stated time and

again, I believe the City Council would be better served if the Single Member District

Plurality- SMDP model were replaced with Proportional Representation in borough wide

districts) has a better sense of whats going on in that individual community than the

Borough President has. It could also be argued (as it has by Senate Majority Leader

Pedro Espada and former Republican candidate for Public Advocate Alex Zablocki, etc.)

that its the voters themselves rather than any politician that has the best sense of who

should speak for their community on local issues. Im most sympathetic to this line of

thinking, as Ive always been of the belief that we should err on the side of giving voters

greater choice. However, Im reminded of the testimony of former Parks Commissioner

Henry Stern, of New York Civic, who has far greater expertise in city government than I

could ever hope to attain. In contrasting the successes of Community Boards with the

failures of the Community School Boards, he indicated that it was precisely because the

CBs were appointed and the CSBs were elected, that the former has had far greater

success than the latter. Im still of the belief that the voters might be entitled to some say

in Community Board composition though, and I would love to see the Commission

examine a hybrid approach in which the Borough Presidents would be able to appoint a

third of the members, the individual Council Members (should you choose to retain the

19


20/27

SMDP model) would get to appoint a third (without approval by the Borough President

as all their picks most currently be subject to) and the public would get to elect a third.

This would diversify the makeup the Community Boards and provide that a multitude of

voices from every sector of the community are heard.

Full-Time Council. I was once with one Council member as he was struggling to reach

another Council member to discuss either some committee work or issues pertinent to

their borough delegation. After several failed attempts to reach his colleague, he finally

did and said Where have you been? Ive been trying to reach you all day, to which his

colleague replied, Hey. I gotta pay the bills. The latter member had been in court all

day because hes an attorney in private practice. There are currently several council

members who earn more money from their outside job than they do from their job as a

council member. If their employer is paying them more than the public is, whose interest

do they really have first and foremost on their mind? I think the answer is clear. This

creates the appearance of impropriety if nothing more and just doesnt smell right.

Currently, council members earn over one hundred thousand dollars a year. Thats

certainly no princely sum, but its more than most state and municipal legislators around

the country earn, and its a salary that you can certainly get by on. If the current

members of the city council cant find a way to live on $112,000 per year, Im sure the

public can find others who will. I would urge you to consider making the council a full-

time position.

The Public Advocates office and Mayoral succession. What function does the Public

Advocates job really serve? I think if it were abolished tomorrow, most New Yorkers

wouldnt even know the difference (aside from maybe the money wed be saving that

could be used to pay police officers, firemen or teachers). Its a total waste and serves

only to act as a bully pulpit for ambitious politicians. I would urge the Commission to

put a question on the ballot abolishing this office and give the ability to cast tie-breaking

votes in the City Council to another citywide elected official, the comptroller and give the

ability to succeed the Mayor (temporarily before a special election) to a Deputy Mayor of

the Mayors choosing. What is the real benefit of keeping it? I cant figure it out and I

20


21/27

became more convinced of the need to do away with it after hearing the testimony of

Frank Macchiarola before the commission.

A cost estimate for all legislation. One of the ideas that Commissioner Fiala put forward,

which I thought had a lot of merit particularly in this era of fiscal austerity was to have

the city council explain exactly how its going to offset the costs for all proposed

legislation, rather than leave it to the Mayor to figure it out afterwards. This sort of

Revenue Impact Estimate would force individual legislators to act responsibly before

proposing popular legislation, which theyll never have to worry about paying for. As

Councilman Fiala put it, if left unchecked, a legislature would spend not only every last

dime but the unearned dimes of my grandchildren. In a similar vein, I really like

Councilman Oddos proposal of requiring the Independent Budget Office to conduct a

cost estimate of every council bill, rather than leaving it to the council itself to estimate

costs. These are the sorts of budget related questions which I think it might do the

commission well to study over the course of the next year and place on the ballot next

year.

Procurement. One question that the 2003 commission placed on the ballot, which I think

is certainly worthy of revisiting is simplifying the procurement process, particularly

making it easier for individual agencies to make purchases themselves rather than go

through the PPB. Commissioner Crowell wrote eloquently on all the aspect of the

proposed charter changes in 2003 and its my hope that hell be equally vocal this year. I

think the defeat of this proposal in 2003 was less of a judgment based on the merits of

this proposal, but more of a reflection of low voter turnout, lack of voter education on this

question and the coat-tail effect of the defeat of another high profile proposition.

The Borough Presidents. I think Commissioner Scissura has spoken eloquently about the

awkwardness of Borough Presidents going hat-in-hand to their council delegation to beg

for funding. This seems totally out of whack for an independently elected official. I

think the proposal to allow the Borough Presidents to have independent budgets is a

sound one. I also think that Councilman Oddos proposal to give Borough Presidents a

hand in picking agency commissioners is worthy of consideration. This could take many

forms including allowing them to submit several names to the agency commissioners for

21


22/27

review. At the end of the day, Staten Islanders know a lot more about the transit and

infrastructure needs of their community than a Manhattan based bureaucrat. I also think

little value could be served by abolishing the office of the Borough President. Presently,

theres no voice for voters at the borough level. This is critically important. I also think

that the ceremonial and cheer-leading aspects of the BP job are important. The

borough bully pulpit is something thats been shown time and again to have a great

impact on the lives of city residents. In my view, Guy Molinari (of Staten Island) and

Marty Markowitz (of Brooklyn) have set the standard for what a post Board of Estimate

Borough President should be. Its my hope that once these offices are enhanced, the next

generation of Borough Presidents can achieve even greater results for borough residents

than these distinguished public servants.

The Mayors impoundment power. I think Speaker Quinn and Council member Brewer

outlined brilliantly in their report the need to reform the current impoundment practices.

As Fritz Schwartz pointed out in his testimony to you, New York City has a strong

mayoralty and for all the reasons he laid out, I think thats a good thing. However,

theres still a legislature, which has law-making and budgetary authority and to diminish

their already (in comparison to the Mayor) insignificant power would be unwise, but

thats exactly whats occurred as a de facto result of the Mayor deciding what to spend

money in. In 1998, when the council passed its own budget over the Mayors veto, the

Mayor simply refused to implement many aspects of it. This left groups struggling to

patch together a means of survival in the absence of funds that they were not only

counting on, but that had been allocated. In short, it was a disaster. As a city thats

waiting anxiously for Albany to pass a budget to find out how much state aid we can

expect, we know better than anyone the perils of not getting promised funds. Why would

we do that within our own city? As the Speaker points out in her report, the Mayor

should be able to retain these powers, but they should be mandated for use only for

financial reasons, not for political or policy implementing purposes. I would love to see

the Commission do something about altering this formula. I think this is another area that

could do well to have another year of study.

Public Integrity

22


23/27

Publicly funded legal bills. I was disgusted two years ago during the slush fund scandal

as the city council hired high priced attorneys in private practice, to guide individual

members through the perils of a criminal investigation. If Im under criminal

investigation at my job, I dont have the luxury of having my employer pay for it, why

should council members? In my view, they shouldnt. I think this is yet another perk of

public office that elected officials have taken for themselves and in my view, it needs to

end. If public officials know theyre going to be paying their own legal bills, perhaps

theyll think twice before engaging in questionably legal or ethically murky conduct.

Regardless, I shouldnt be paying for them. There are attorneys on the central staff of the

counsel, who should be able to handle the legal work involved in issues that involve the

institution as a whole, barring that, the taxpayers just cant afford to continue paying for

the criminal conduct of politicians.

Member-Items, Discretionary Spending and Non-Profits. I think if we learned anything

from the slush fund scandal, the indictment of Councilman Seabrook, the indictment of

Councilman Stewarts aides and the indictment of Councilman Martinez, its that the

system needs to be reformed. As some have proposed, I think the idea of eliminating

member items (or discretionary spending) over which members have almost dictatorial

control, with little or no oversight deserves to be explored. Barring that though, there are

two common sense reforms, which I think should be enshrined in the city charter with

respect to discretionary spending for non-profits. First and foremost, you should not be

able to serve simultaneously as a member of the City Council and the head (or officer) of

a non-profit group that seeks public funding. To me, this is a no-brainer. I would like to

see this ban extend to family members of council members, staff members of council

members and family members of council members.

A slightly less overt form of influence peddling is also common place though.

Employees of non-profit groups routinely make campaign contributions to the very same

council members who fund their non-profits. These contributions are then matched 6-1

by the public. I think this might put pressure on those affiliated with particular non-profit

groups to contribute to candidates in the hopes that they will keep that member-item

money coming to their groups. I also think it provides special access to donors who are

affiliated with certain groups as opposed to non-profits who dont have any campaign

23


24/27

contributors associated with it. At the very least, it gives the appearance of impropriety,

which could be just as devastating towards damaging public confidence in the system as

actual impropriety. I would urge the commission to prohibit council members from

accepting money from any non-profit employee, working for a group that this particular

member is funding. This is the same rational that led to the Mayor and good government

groups seeking to reign in contributions to politicians from those who do business with

the city. Donors should not be able to use their private finances to achieve public gain

and council members shouldnt be able to use the public treasury to ensure their political

survival.

Allow Party Chairs to serve in government. Currently county chairmen of political

parties are barred from serving as Borough Presidents or Council members. I think this

prohibition is silly and discriminatory towards minor parties. In practice, I think it does

little to serve its intended goal of prohibiting conflicts-of-interest, because if a party

leader achieves a position in elective office, they merely install a hand picked partisan

puppet to do their bidding. For instance, in Staten Island, no one disputes the fact that

Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro yields total and complete control over the

Conservative Party in that borough. So what does preventing him from actually being

county chairman actually accomplish? In my view, it only serves to deceive the voters.

Additionally, for county chairs other than Democrats who somehow achieve elective

office in New York City, there often isnt a lot of talent to draw upon from within their

own parties. A GOP, Independence of Conservative County Chairmanship can often be

as time consuming, pain-staking and thankless a task as serving on the charter revision

commission (if not more so). To discourage bright, reform minded minor party chairs

from seeking elective office does a disservice to the public. Should these folks get

elected, to deprive them of the ability to serve in a party leadership function does a

disservice to the members of that party. I would suggest that County leaders be permitted

to serve openly and the voters can decide for themselves whether thats too much of a

conflict for their liking.

Pensions for criminal politicos. While it may have been a bit unorthodox, I think having

Kristin Davis, aka the Manhattan Madam testify on this issue gave a lot of perspective

24


25/27

on it. She of course provided prostitutes for former Governor Eliot Spitzer and went to

jail for her crimes. Yesterday, how did each of them spend their day? Kristin Davis went

to her probation officer and Eliot Spitzer got a primetime TV show on CNN. Spitzer also

gets to continue to enjoy his lavish public pension, while Ms. Davis had all of her assets

seized by authorities. I realize that Spitzer was a state official, but to me the principle is

the same. There have been scores of municipal elected officials whove left office in

disgrace, why should the taxpayers be forced to subsidize their retirement? I would urge

you to consider making a criminal misdemeanor or felony conviction grounds for losing

your pension. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, so many corrupt politicians are

nothing more than prostitutes, theyre only less honest about it.

Land-UseIn Staten Island, we know first hand about the perils of overdevelopment andirresponsible planning, so while Im no expert, there are a few common sense reformsthat I think would go a long way towards streamlining the land-use process.

Consolidate the Department of City Planning and the Department of Buildings into asingle agency. This was another idea first introduced by Councilman Oddo and I think itmakes all the sense in the world. To do so would serve the commissions stated principleof increasing transparency and enhancing accountability. In my view, such aconsolidation is logical and as Oddo points out would make the people who write thezoning rules the same people who enforce them.

Remove rulings on scope from the City Planning Commission and allow the City Councilto do it. This was something initially proposed by Councilman Ignizio, but echoed byseveral other council members around the city. I think its very sound in both a theoreticaland practical sense. In a theoretical sense, we elect a legislature (which is empoweredwith land-use authority); they are accountable to the voters. If we, the voters dont agreewith the decisions the legislatures makes, we can throw them out. If we dont like thedecisions the City Planning commission makes, were virtually powerless to alter it. In apractical sense, the individual members know their communities far better thanbureaucrats do. At the end of the day, I believe this will lead to better land use decisionsand more accountable public officials.

Give Borough Presidents a full vote each on the Franchise Concession ReviewCommittee rather than have them share a vote on issues pertaining to multiple boroughs.This is another common sense proposal that comes out of the Speakers report. I thinkthis would further the notion of local control and I cant see a single reason not to do it.

Other:

25


26/27

As I mentioned, I do hope the Mayor re-appoints you for another year. Look at what

youve been able to achieve and how far the debate about municipal government as

already advanced. Regardless of your re-appointment though, Id like you to consider a

novel approach which I think would have a positive impact on generations of munipal

government. At the conclusion of this commissions work (whether that happens this

year or next year), what if you were to voluntarily continue to meet, perhaps each month

or so and continue to hold hearings and solicit public input and do all of the things youre

presently doing even though you wouldnt have the ability to place questions directly on

the ballot. You could serve as a sort of City Government Recommendation Commission

and annually make recommendations (with the same stated goals of enhanced civic

participation and government accountability) for charter changes, changes in state law

and changed in the administrative code. I think there would be no shortage of private

donors willing to subsidize the fairly low staffing and administrative costs of such a

venture and the value this would bring to city government would be incalculably high.

Going forward, perhaps this Recommendation Commission would even choose to put

questions on the ballot through the petition process. I think with a group like you looking

out for New Yorkers, theyd feel far more reassured than just having politicians do it. If

some Commissioners choose not to participate, theres no reason you couldnt choose to

add other distinguished persons to fill their place like former Commission Chairs Ester

Fuchs or Randy Mastro. I think this would have the potential to create a dynamic, on-

going conversation about how best to govern New York City.

I hope that even after coming up with the drafts of the proposals you wish to put on the

ballot, youll keep an open mind throughout the next round of hearings just as you have

until this point and not hesitate to add additional ballot proposals or alter the drafts of

what you come up with if a compelling case can be made to do so.

Im sorry to have made this so lengthy, but believe it or not, I did seek to make it pithy.

I know you have literally thousands of pages of documents to work through and I didnt

want to add to it. However, I do hope youve gotten something out of this. Ive really

enjoyed the last few months and in many ways feel as if Ive been through this process

26


27/27

with you. In many respects, I feel as if were all somehow part of the charter revision

family and I look forward to participating in future hearings.

Frank Morano CRC-FINAL

Documents