PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause New York, on Charter Revision Commission
0:34:02
·
4 min
Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause New York, provided testimony on the proposed Charter Revision Commission. She expressed appreciation for the serious effort to create a meaningful commission and outlined several recommendations to strengthen the bill.
Key points:
- Concerns about the size of the commission (17 members seen as too large)
- Suggestion for more equal distribution of appointments
- Emphasis on independence, including potentially allowing the commission to choose its own chair
- Recommendations for enhanced public participation and transparency, including multiple rounds of public hearings
- Advocacy for plain language in ballot proposals to improve public understanding
Susan Lerner
0:34:02
Thank you.
0:34:04
We pretty much agree with the recommendations of Citizens Union, so I'm not going to repeat what Ben went over.
0:34:14
And we are concerned about a couple of areas.
0:34:16
1, I do want to say we are very grateful for to for the seriousness of this effort, we are genuinely tired of seeing charter revision commissions used as political footballs.
0:34:27
It happened in the Giuliani administration.
0:34:29
It happened in the Bloomberg administration.
0:34:31
It happened in the De Blasio administration.
0:34:33
And now we live through it in the Adams Administration.
0:34:36
And that is, as Professor Lane pointed out, not what a charter revision commission is supposed to be about.
0:34:42
So we're very grateful for this effort and grateful for this opportunity to make some suggestions for what we hope would be strengthening the bill.
0:34:50
We do have some concerns about the size of the commission.
0:34:53
17th seems quite large and we agree with Citizens Union that we would like to see a more equal distribution.
0:35:01
We've raised questions contrary to what Professor Lane pointed out, questioning whether the commission itself ought to be able to choose its chair.
0:35:10
Because we are interested in a thoughtful and independent public discussion of how to strengthen and improve our democracy and be sure that our city government has the requisite checks and balances and goes into the details that former speaker Quinn talked about in terms of budgeting support for necessary agencies and services so that they they too are not subject to politics and all of a sudden, the libraries are closed on Sundays.
0:35:38
So independence is important to us.
0:35:41
And we do recognize the utility of allowing elected and appointed officials to be on the commission and to be employees, but we suggest there'd be a cap.
0:35:53
Because, again, going to the question of independence, and having a staff whose loyalty is 1st and foremost to the charter revision process and not to whomever appointed them.
0:36:03
And we are particularly concerned about public participation and transparency.
0:36:09
And we have no problem with are really being clearer in the bill regarding the number of public hearings that have to be held.
0:36:17
In our experience, what is most productive for a commission, is to hold hearings before they make any initial determinations here from the public.
0:36:27
But once they've released a report to have another round of hearings, and then once they've got their final conclusions before they actually vote on the final proposals, that they hear yet again from the public.
0:36:42
Because you will see our experience with redistricting and charter revision commissions is the more specific information that's provided to the public, the more response you get.
0:36:52
From the public when they have something very specific to respond to.
0:36:56
So adding in those 3 levels as a minimum, the commission can always do more is to us important.
0:37:04
We wanna be sure that public outreach is truly embedded in this process, ensuring that ethnic media and others are part of the outreach program, and that the website that's set up will receive comments.
0:37:19
And importantly, I think we are seeing right now with the proposals that are on the ballot that the language that is presented to the voters is extremely important.
0:37:30
And we are the strong advocates for plain language.
0:37:35
We help to draft and pass the plain language requirement in state law, which the state board of elections ignored, and we suggest to you that directing the commission to work out the language that will be on the ballot so that it is no more complex than an 8th or 9th grade reading level and that the question is presented to the public in terms of the impact and not the legal mechanism will go a far way towards assuring the public as they know what they're voting on and the likelihood that they will approve what the commission suggests.
0:38:07
So thank you.
