PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Potential areas for future charter revision examination
0:26:24
·
3 min
Professor Lane concludes his testimony by discussing areas he believed would be subject to further examination after the 1989 commission's work. He also provides some final thoughts on the proposed new charter revision commission.
- Lane mentions the power of borough presidents as an area he expected would be reexamined, given the concerns about diminishing their role
- He briefly touches on land use issues, suggesting that the council's role in this area could have been more restricted
- Lane expresses support for the structure of the proposed new commission as outlined in the bill
- He emphasizes the importance of giving the commission adequate time and holding multiple hearings, while acknowledging that the extensive process of the 1989 commission (140 hearings) is unlikely to be replicated
Professor Eric Lane
0:26:24
We were lucky.
0:26:26
We were lucky that Claire speaking about so many representatives from Queen's that are there as as Speaker Adams referred to.
0:26:35
We were lucky that Claire Schulman with her staff leader, Nick Gariff now federal judge Nick Gariff's were very supportive of our work after they made us give them a number of things and compromises every night.
0:26:51
But I would say about that This is a political act in one sense because anything that gets done has to be approved by a but the staff has approved by a commission and then has to be approved by the public in a referendum.
0:27:07
So there are politics in this, and the commission that doesn't want to win the doesn't wanna win the vote ultimately is not doing a good job.
0:27:18
You don't do all this work.
0:27:19
To lose.
0:27:19
And that means, like, in everything, there will be politics involved, and that means there will be compromises involved.
0:27:28
And I think that's a positive thing, not a negative thing.
0:27:32
I remember a time And this was just the last story that I'll stop.
0:27:35
We went up to 2 things.
0:27:38
1, I never thought I thought we weren't tough enough on the council, on land use.
0:27:44
I didn't want I wanted this a mechanism that would stop them from having individuals be able to review and veto individual members.
0:27:53
Veto things I think that's very bad for government.
0:27:56
I didn't win that battle, but I didn't win that battle because Jean Motion Off who was in the lobby is for to pick up the name of the organization.
0:28:04
Nice.
0:28:04
And Yep.
0:28:06
Why was
Lincoln Restler
0:28:06
it?
0:28:07
It was it was Nyeberg.
Professor Eric Lane
0:28:09
Nyeberg.
0:28:10
And Ruth Messenger had spent hours sort of beating up on us.
0:28:17
And finally, we made a compromise with them.
0:28:19
And but the biggest one compromise that you really, I think, get a kick out is we went up to the New York Times because when you do a referendum of of the of a commission like this.
0:28:29
How do you need to get the New York Times editorial support?
0:28:32
And then you need to because particularly Manhattan, I'm not sure how influential it is other places.
0:28:39
If they were to say no to permission refer you know, it's very hard to win.
0:28:43
Since lots of people are taking their judgment on that.
0:28:49
So we went up to the New York Times, and we said, here we are.
0:28:54
But Schwartz and I, here we are.
0:28:55
Here's our final proposals.
0:28:57
Here's our books of proposals.
0:29:01
And I figured it was the editor the editor of the editor of the editor of the editor of the but he looked at us, and he said, well, why are you here?
0:29:07
You gave us our piece, which was a land use compromise that we made.
0:29:12
So, you know, even in New York Times, it was a bargaining effort here.
0:29:17
Anyway, that's that's my comments.
0:29:20
I'd be happy to answer any questions that anybody has, but I I think this is really my answer off my answer off for this because I think it's a really good start the way the bill itself lays out the way the members will be changed and and the way that speaker Adams has spoken about really giving a time and holding hearings.
0:29:39
You can't do what we did.
0:29:40
I mean, we did a 140 hearings.
0:29:42
Nobody's gonna do that again.
0:29:44
You know, but I really think this is a looks like the beginning of a very good and if the 35 years needed ever.
0:29:52
That's it.
0:29:53
Thank you for the opportunity
