QUESTION
How is there a dramatic increase in summons with a smaller increase in revenue?
3:17:25
·
78 sec
Chief Administrative Law Judge Asim Rehman attributes part of the revenue disparity to the varying rates of summonses found in violation.
- The discussion centers on a 60% increase in summonses and a 66% increase in trials since the mayor's tenure but only a 27% increase in revenue.
- Rehman speculates that a decrease in the rate of summonses being found in violation could contribute to the revenue disparity.
- A key factor is whether these summonses result in violations that warrant fines.
- The answer is incomplete as Council Member Lincoln Restler interrupts before further explanation.
Lincoln Restler
3:17:25
I'd like to just return back to another item that customer member Brewer asked about is revenue, and appreciate very much the back and forth that you all just had.
3:17:34
But, you know, when I look at the numbers, we're talking about 60% increase in summons, 66% increase in trials since the mayor took office, but only a 27% increase in revenue.
3:17:46
And so that's a major disparity in terms of the amount of new revenue coming in relative to the significant amount of additional enforcement action that you're all responsible for adjudicating.
3:17:59
So what do you attribute to this severe disparity?
Asim Rehman
3:18:04
Well, I'd be speculating, but there's there's 2 factors.
3:18:09
The first is the action rule question of what percentage of those summonses have been sustained in violation.
3:18:18
Because if there's an increase in issuance of summonses, but there's a decrease in the rate of they're being found in violation.
3:18:26
Well, then there's not gonna be a basis on which to collect the pin That's the first issue.
3:18:32
I don't know sitting here today if there's been major fluctuations in the changes of in violation findings.
3:18:41
So that's that's the
Lincoln Restler
3:18:43
excuse me.