Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Commissioners weigh voter sentiment, potential for confusion, and strategic value of an even-year election ballot question
1:12:28
·
161 sec
The debate over proposing even-year elections continues, with commissioners considering the potential impact of a "no" vote on state legislative efforts and the risk of creating voter confusion if the commission's proposal is misaligned with eventual state action.
Chair Richard R. Buery Jr. emphasizes the value of public deliberation and allowing voters to express their preferences, while Commissioner Kathryn Wylde advocates for clear and unambiguous recommendations.
Commissioner Carl Weisbrod, though supportive of the policy, voices concern over practical implementation challenges, and Commissioner Sharon Greenberger views a current proposal as a proactive measure to ensure future voter participation.
- Commissioner Savino suggests a negative vote from NYC could deter state legislators from pursuing the constitutional amendment.
- Chair Buery sees the discussion and potential vote as a valuable exercise in civic engagement, not a waste of time.
- Commissioner Wylde prioritizes clarity in the commission's final recommendations to avoid confusing voters.
- Commissioner Weisbrod fears that a premature or poorly aligned local proposal could lead to complications or become effectively nullified by state decisions.
- Commissioner Greenberger frames a current ballot initiative as an "insurance policy" to enable higher voter turnout in the future.
Grace C. Bonilla
1:12:28
I don't
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:12:28
think it's a waste of time.
1:12:29
I mean, to the extent this is a live issue, and and it's one of the issues that clearly there's a difference of opinion on.
1:12:34
I think it's very helpful to air that out as we you know, the good news, we don't have to decide this today.
1:12:39
We have ongoing hearings.
1:12:40
I think we've heard I mean, I have a different point of view, but I definitely under I mean, I I understand and respect the alternative one.
1:12:47
I don't think it's unreasonable.
1:12:50
And so I think we have to continue out of the commission to mull it over over the next, month and a half to yeah.
1:13:58
My only thing, Carl, like, I wouldn't describe it as meaningless.
1:14:00
Like, I I I appre
1:14:04
I understand.
1:14:05
But I I appreciate the point that it may not be wise Right.
1:14:08
For all the factors that
1:14:10
described, and particularly in the context where I think you wanna be, we don't wanna throw 40 things at the voters.
1:14:17
Right?
1:14:18
So I I think there's a there's a Right.
1:14:19
So I do I do agree with the sentiment.
1:14:21
Yeah.
1:14:22
I my my my point of view is that it is not meaningless.
1:14:26
It's, because it's something that we all value articulating it, having New York City voters both express their point of view and do their job because ultimately, they'll have to do it anyway.
1:14:35
If not, I would say it's not meaningless, but I I appreciate it.
Kathryn Wylde
1:12:55
Clear one way or the other.
1:12:58
I just don't I want our process and our ultimate recommendations to be clean as possible.
1:13:04
Yeah.
1:13:05
And this is based on our discussion as well.
1:13:08
Merky.
1:13:08
Very confusing.
1:13:11
You know?
1:13:18
I
Carl Weisbrod
1:13:11
And and just just for the record, I just would like to say, personally, I'm in favor of moving to even Yeah.
1:13:17
No.
1:13:17
Intellectual.
1:13:18
Yeah.
1:13:18
Yeah.
1:13:18
just think I I I just think
1:13:22
real challenge here of potentially creating more confusion rather than less?
1:13:28
And to Diane's point, you know, if the if the voters if we put something on the ballot now and the voters reject it, you know Yes.
1:13:39
So so be it.
1:13:41
But if if if if we put something on the ballot and it becomes meaningless because whatever the legislature does puts conditions that we might not be aware of on what this is.
1:13:56
It's gonna require another charter commission anyway.
1:14:02
I mean, actually Meaningless is too strong.
1:14:10
you
1:14:39
No.
1:14:39
I take that meaningless.
1:14:41
No.
Sharon Greenberger
1:13:22
can I just add
1:14:41
And I just wanna add.
1:14:42
I'm sorry.
1:14:42
Go ahead.
1:14:42
Go ahead.
1:14:43
I just wanna add the reason that we're talking about this, don't let's not forget, is because of low voter turnout.
1:14:48
Right.
1:14:48
And we think this will make a difference.
1:14:50
Let's so for me, the reason to pursue it now is it's almost an insurance policy for the future, which is to say, how can we drive participation going forward knowing that there's a multistep process, but at least acknowledging that there's a problem we must fix structurally.
Lisette Nieves
1:15:04
There's a there's a problem, but it's also an efficiency issue as well.