Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
In-depth debate among commissioners on the timing and wisdom of a ballot proposal for even-year elections
1:01:34
·
5 min
A significant portion of the discussion centers on whether the NYC Charter Revision Commission should propose a ballot question to move local elections to even years, given that this change also requires a multi-year state constitutional amendment process with an uncertain outcome.
Commissioner Kathryn Wylde and Carl Weisbrod express concerns about voter confusion and the proposal's potential prematurity if state legislative action is unclear or results in a different framework.
Chair Richard R. Buery Jr. and Executive Director Alec Schierenbeck argue that a local vote is a necessary step, sends a strong signal of NYC voters' preference, and prepares the city to act quickly if the state enables the change.
- Wylde questions the utility of a local vote now, as the state process will take until at least 2028 and legislative intent is not yet firm.
- Weisbrod worries about potential conflicts if the commission's proposal differs from eventual state action, and notes that similar past proposals failed to win voter support.
- Buery advocates for NYC voters to express their will and for the city to take proactive steps.
- Schierenbeck clarifies that local action is a required component for the change and that waiting for state clarity isn't feasible within the commission's timeline for the November ballot.
- The earliest a state constitutional amendment on this could reach voters is 2028.
Kathryn Wylde
1:01:34
If the legislature passes the authorization to go through the process for the state council?
Diane Savino
1:01:40
We may or may not.
1:01:41
We don't so the And
Kathryn Wylde
1:01:44
they're either gonna do it Right.
1:01:45
Before the June, or they're not.
Diane Savino
1:01:47
Right.
1:01:47
But the amendment that was passed last year, Alex, is irrelevant now because that was an old assembly didn't pass it.
1:01:54
So both houses would have to pass one
Grace C. Bonilla
1:01:55
No.
Diane Savino
1:01:55
I I this year or next year, and then again in 2020
Alec Schierenbeck
1:01:59
Yeah.
1:01:59
This is the point I was going to make.
Kathryn Wylde
1:02:02
To be does that
Diane Savino
1:02:05
move forward
Kathryn Wylde
1:02:07
if the legislature decides both houses not to take it up?
1:02:11
That seems
Sharon Greenberger
1:02:13
sort of like an exercise.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:02:15
Think if I could help and, Alec, maybe just direct to you, I I think it's not possible for the state to resolve the question in the time frame that
Lisette Nieves
1:02:23
we're discussing.
Sharon Greenberger
1:02:23
They can't even do that.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:02:24
And so I think my
Kathryn Wylde
1:02:27
To it is possible for them to indicate whether they're going to make an attempt to resolve it.
1:02:33
Both houses passing it.
1:02:35
If both houses refuse to pass it before the June when they will go home to run-in the elections, then what's the point putting it on this charter agreement?
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:02:47
So I think my point is that because if I understand the rules correctly, it would take two successive votes.
Sharon Greenberger
1:02:53
Right.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:02:53
It's actually not possible to resolve that.
1:02:55
It's I've so what I would suggest so this is my, obviously, my opinion, and we'll have to discuss it.
1:03:01
It is a strong signal, an important signal for this body to ask the voters of New York City what their preference is.
1:03:08
I think if we can resolve that I I would not recommend that we wait.
1:03:12
In fact, if we couldn't wait, then we'd be deferring we'd be kicking the can down the road to another, Charter Revision Commission.
1:03:20
I would
Kathryn Wylde
1:03:21
Regardless, we can't do anything for two years.
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:03:24
Well And that We we can, though.
Kathryn Wylde
1:03:26
Oh, I mean,
Richard R. Buery Jr.
1:03:26
we can and the city voters can.
1:03:28
Right?
Kathryn Wylde
1:03:29
The voters in New York City are 25, 20 six.
1:03:33
I mean It won't be affecting them.
1:03:34
Right.
1:03:35
Yeah.
1:03:35
We don't earliest.
1:03:37
Everything else we're talking about is within our power.
1:03:41
Mhmm.
1:03:42
This one is outside our power, which I honestly didn't feel
Alec Schierenbeck
1:03:45
I would just frame it a little differently, Kathy, which is that local action is necessary but insufficient to make this change.
Kathryn Wylde
1:03:53
But the action is necessary as well.
Alec Schierenbeck
1:03:56
Well, absolutely.
1:03:57
And can I just say there will be no situation where this commission can have clarity about whether a state constitutional amendment is going to go to voters Right?
1:04:06
By the time it completes its action.
1:04:09
If it intends to put a question please let me finish.
1:04:11
If it's going to complete its, work for this November.
1:04:15
Now, this legislature there's no difference between this legislature voting on this constitutional amendment this year or So they could very well wait for next, because then they're gonna have to go to a whole new legislature convened in 2027, and then place it again.
1:04:29
The earliest this could go on about is 2028.
1:04:31
So I guess I would say this is a very valid question, whether this this complication should prevent the commission to act, but it would be a mistake to expect clarity this June.
1:04:41
Right.
Kathryn Wylde
1:04:41
I I get it.
1:04:42
I'm just saying that in one case, we've had them refuse to act on it, which suggests they may not act on it.
1:04:51
They might not.
1:04:52
We're putting an item on the ballot that's that's different from everything else.
1:04:57
That may or may never happen.
1:04:58
I no control.
1:05:00
I would
Alec Schierenbeck
1:05:00
have to say no control.
1:05:01
I just I I mean, it's very it's it's very important to say that there is a material reason to place a question on the ballot, because local action under state law is necessary to effectuate this change, and because the amendment presently before the the state legislature would require subsequent or prior local action.
1:05:22
But I think it's just important that I clarify that for the record, and that's what I'm saying.
Kathryn Wylde
1:05:25
No.
1:05:26
I think I think we get that.
1:05:27
The question is whether or not, with all the all the things we have that we wanna see on the ballot, there's kinda one story.
1:05:37
Voters up or down.
1:05:39
This will make a difference.
Diane Savino
1:05:40
I I It may never come to pass.
Carl Weisbrod
1:05:42
Can I just say I've I've no?
1:05:44
I don't know if this is where Kathy's going with this, but I I'm wary about this.
1:05:48
And I'm wary because it whatever we do could create more confusion rather than less.
1:05:57
We don't know what the legislature ultimately is going to do, what conditions they might put on it.
1:06:04
We might recommend even year elections corresponding to gubernatorial elections or corresponding to presidential elections.
1:06:13
The legislature, if it moves forward, could do something entirely different.
1:06:18
And to me, I understand what you're saying, Richard, about demonstrating to the legislature the sentiment of New York voters because in the past, Charter Commission resolutions regarding this issue have not gotten the support of New York voters.
1:06:38
But, to me, I think that there's a danger in in moving forward with this before we know the direction in which the legislature's going.