Hell's Kitchen: Charter Revision News 10/30/99

[kitchen]

Hell's Kitchen Online: Charter Revision News        10/30/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 2. Giuliani says he wants to make
permanent the changes he's wrought on this City. Do you really
want that? Rudy is expecting that you won't go to the polls. It's
time to Retire Rudy and Vote "NO" on Charter Revision 
(Ballot Question #2).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Latest Charter Revision News...

1. Charter Barrage (Gotham Gazatte)
2. Unions Blast Charter Changes (News)
3. Mayors Battle Over Charter (News)
4. A Faulty Charter Reform (Times Editorial)
5. Charter Revision Needs to be Defeated (Times)
6. How Not To Revise A City Charter (Voice)
7. 5% of Voters to Decide on Rudy's Referendum (Voice)
8. Charter Ballot War Heating Up (Post)
   
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER BARRAGE
Gotham Gazette, October 29, 1999

"Hi. This is Mayor Rudy Giuliani. I need your help to provide a safer
city for our kids. Please vote Yes on charter change, Ballot Question
Number Two, this coming Tuesday, November Second. The change would
establish gun-free safety zones around schools and require safety locks
on all guns. Let's make sure our schools are gun-free. Vote Yes on
charter change, Ballot Question Number Two, this coming Tuesday,
November Second. Thank you for your support." That's the message that
NYC voters started hearing over their phones yesterday. "Cynical and
misleading," said one good-government critic. The calls were paid for by
the Mayor's PAC, says Deputy Mayor Joseph Lhota. An undisclosed number
of voter households -- perhaps as many as two million -- had already
received a taxpayer-funded "educational" brochure whose largest elements
were a photograph of the Mayor and a headline saying "How Will Our City
Be Governed in the Next Century? YOU Decide." On the other side,
ex-Mayors Koch, Dinkins, and Beame pronounced the charter proposal a
"fraud" and recorded a radio commercial to be broadcast on news
stations. Council Speaker Vallone mailed his own taxpayer-funded
"educational" piece (on a par with the Mayor's for neutrality) to some
350,000 households. More important, probably, were the Vote No phone
banks being set up by labor unions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNIONS BLAST CHARTER CHANGES 
Daily News, October 27, 1999
By BILL FARRELL 

The Municipal Labor Committee, which represents 325,000 unionized city workers, has declared war
on the proposed changes in the City Charter on next week's ballot.

"Every one of the unions in the Municipal Labor Council is doing their part to educate their
members about these proposals and vote them down," said labor committee and United Federation of
Teachers President Randi Weingarten.

Weingarten noted that Charter revision calls for gun-free school zones, children's and immigrants'
rights, gun-lock legislation and health care reform. "These are issues we can all support and do
support."

She quickly added they are tied into one bundle of 14 parts, which also covers taxation, budget
and other government issues "that will tie the hands of future mayors and members of the City
Council."

She called the measure "a sneaky and cynical way to change city government in a low-turnout
election year. It's wrong for public policy to be set up this way.

"You should not dress up changes to the City Charter in things that are popular," said Weingarten.
"Who would be for guns in school? If you want to vote on issues, vote for each on their merits."

Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who chaired the Charter revision committee, disagrees.

"We do need gun-free schools, and the City Council has failed to act. The mayor has been trying
for three years to get gun safety-lock legislation passed," said Mastro.

He said that Charter revision would give permanent status to child service and some other city
employees.

"This is good for city workers," said Mastro. "You would think the MLC would be for it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYORS BATTLE OVER CHARTER 
Make phone calls, ad 
Daily News, October 29, 1999
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 

It's The Mayor vs. The Mayors. The political brawl over an obscure ballot question in next week's
election got personal yesterday, with Mayor Giuliani dialing up New Yorkers and urging them to
support the plan and a trio of former mayors taking the airwaves to oppose it.

"Vote yes on charter change," Giuliani says in a recorded phone message hitting homes around the
city. "I need your help."

The proposal — known as Ballot Question 2 — calls for 14 changes in the City Charter, from
establishing a gun-free safety zone around schools to placing restrictions on city spending. It
was drafted by a commission handpicked by the mayor.

But critics say the changes would lead to higher property taxes and tilt City Hall's balance of
power in Giuliani's favor.

In a radio commercial recorded yesterday, former Mayors Abe Beame, Ed Koch and David Dinkins
teamed up to label the proposal "bad government."

"It's undemocratic to combine 14 different proposals into one take-it-or-leave-it Charter
revision," Koch said.

"This is a partisan mayoral power grab," Dinkins chimed in.

Deputy Mayor Joseph Lhota said the phone calls were being financed by Giuliani's state political
committee, but he would not say how much was being spent, where the calls were being directed or
how long they would continue.

One proposal initially was aimed at derailing the mayoral ambitions of Public Advocate Mark Green,
who will replace Giuliani if he wins his expected Senate race and leaves for Washington. The
commission backed away from that proposal.

Green still opposes the plan, though, and held a press conference with others yesterday to
denounce the proposed "fleecing" of taxpayers, faulting the commission for spending public money
on two mailings that Green said improperly promoted the plan.

The vote — an all-14-or-nothing choice — is Tuesday and is coupled with other local elections,
including a hard-fought battle for the upper East Side City Council seat.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
A FAULTY CHARTER REFORM (Times Editorial)
New York Times, October 25, 1999

In politics, a dusting of sugar often disguises something far less appetizing. Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani's Charter Revision Commission recommendation, scheduled to appear on New York City
ballots on Nov. 2, offers just such a packet of debatable or even destructive changes softened by
a few sweet-sounding but unnecessary proposals.

Some of the most damaging changes listed in this ballot question disguise the harm that they would
do. One item appears to make it vastly more difficult to raise taxes by requiring approval by
two-thirds of the City Council instead of a simple majority. What the item does not say is that
property taxes are exempt. That means if a future mayor and City Council need extra funds to
balance the budget, they might be forced to raise property taxes, on commercial properties as well
as private homes.

Other items that sound like improvements, such as "gun free" school safety zones, should be
enacted through the normal legislative route by the City Council and the mayor. No matter how
lofty these items appear, the charter, once changed, cannot be easily amended to take care of
unintended consequences.

Moreover, the City Council has already signaled its intention to approve some of the better
suggestions on the Charter Commission's wish list. The Council passed legislation last week
requiring all gun owners to use trigger locks to prevent accidental shootings. A similar
requirement is part of the charter question on the ballot. Other charter proposals that should be
enacted through the normal legislative process include those simplifying procedures for awarding
city contracts, such as abolishing competitive bidding for city purchases under $100,000 instead
of the present $25,000.

In sum, this Charter Commission, like its predecessor in 1998, is a patchy, unnecessary piece of
work that has been a waste of the taxpayers' money. Spending even more on commission mailings to
voters and responses from the City Council and the Public Advocate's office simply adds to that
waste of public funds, since the city already puts out a Voter Guide to describe races and issues
in great detail. If the Mayor wants to change the charter for the better, his commission should
start now to ready a list of individual questions for the ballot in November 2000.

The crowning flaw of this very flawed package is the commission's decision to bundle all its ideas
into one question on the ballot. Even voters who would like to pick the better charter changes are
out of luck. The Mayor's commission offers all 14 changes or none. None is by far the wiser
choice. "No" is the right vote on the proposal recommended by the New York City Charter Revision
Commission on the ballot Nov. 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK TIMES SAYS "NO" OF CHARTER REVISION
New York Times, October 29, 1999

Ballot Proposal Two: As we have asserted before, these changes in the city charter need to be
defeated. Mayor Giuliani has put considerable energy into backing the charter revisions. But they
were hastily conceived with too little input from citizens and other officeholders. The measure
includes tricky language that would disrupt the balance between the mayor and City Council and
could force unnecessary increases in property taxes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOW NOT TO REVISE A CITY CHARTER
By Wista Jeanne Johnson
A Guide to Subverting the Process of Democracy 
Village Voice, October 27, 1999

Charter Revision is supposed to be a chance for all New Yorkers to shape the constitution of our
city. But few seem to be aware of the contents of the referendum on next Tuesday's ballot. Fewer
still are fully aware of the steps Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Charter Revision Commission, chaired by
Randy M. Mastro, former mayoral chief of staff, took to get us here. So in the interest of
spreading the gospel of democracy, here are a few lessons culled from the short history of the
Mastro commission. Let us hope future charter revision commissions avoid these tactics next time
around:

Packing the Charter Revision Committee with political cronies of the mayor.

Scheduling public hearings and Charter Revision Committee deliberations in August during peak
vacation time.

Quashing meaningful public debate by allowing only three minutes per person for citizen and expert
testimony.

Throwing in attention-grabbing amendments (establishing gun-free school safety zones and requiring
safety-locking devices) alongside more complex issues (creating an emergency fund with surplus
monies or merging two city health departments) that beg for reasoned, prolonged public debate.

Using the charter revision process to push through an issue previously and appropriately
considered by the City Council.

Marketing 14 unrelated amendments in seven areas (budget, civil rights, elections, government
reorganization, immigrant affairs, procurement, and public safety) as one jumbo-size referendum
for easier voter consumption.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIVE PERCENT SOLUTION
Will Rudy Giuliani and Randy Mastro have the last laugh on November 2?
Fraction of Voters to Decide on Rudy's Referendum 
Village Voice, October 27, 1999
BY ANDY HUMM

On November 2, every registered voter in New York will have the power to decide whether our mayor
will have his way in refashioning the city charter—our local constitution—in his image. Just as
last week's City Hall Park rally for the home team featured a huge banner reminding us that 'Mayor
Rudy Giuliani Salutes the New York Yankees,' every voting booth should have one that says 'Charter
Revision: A Rudolph W. Giuliani Production." That characterization is not just being made by
opponents of the 14 proposals that have been lumped into one ballot measure, but by the mayor
himself.

"If you like what I've done for New York City," Giuliani writes in the nonpartisan voter guide
that voters should have received from the Campaign Finance Board, "vote 'yes' on November 2nd and
make these reforms permanent."

Charter Revision Commission chair Randy Mastro adds that this is "a referendum on preserving the
successes the city has had in recent years and not going back to the failed policies of the past."

Giuliani is counting on his personal popularity among the handful of New Yorkers who will go to
the polls in this off-off year election and the attraction of a laundry list of changes that
begins with "'gun-free' school safety zones" and safety locks for all firearms. The proposal is
also sweetened with clauses about making the Human Rights Commission—an agency Giuliani once
wanted to eliminate entirely—a charter agency; "simplifying" procedures for awarding contracts;
making the Administration for Children's Services an "independent agency"; "protecting immigrant
rights" to access city services; and requiring "executive coordination" to "prevent domestic
violence."

Deeper in the proposal is a clause that would require the City Council to muster a two-thirds
supermajority to pass any tax increase or new tax and a four-fifths vote to override a mayoral
veto on a tax issue. (Property taxes are exempted, lest the referendum alarm Giuliani's core
constituency.) The proposal would also limit spending increases "generally to the rate of
inflation" and mandate that 50 percent of all surpluses be put in a fund to pay down the city's
debt.

"Of the 14 items in the proposal, two are constitutional and the others public relations gestures
that have no place in charter revision," says Conn Nugent of Citizens Union, the
102-year-old-civic group that endorsed the mayor for reelection in 1997 ('fact for which I have
received unbounded grief," he adds). The group's chair, attorney Ogden Lewis, calls the fiscal
terms "imprudent and unnecessary." Indeed, adds Nugent, the only people coming out for the
proposal are "those that want to be on the right side of the mayor."

Those folks include, most prominently, borough presidents Guy Molinari of Staten Island and Claire
Shulman of Queens, as well as conservative councilmembers Noach Dear, Martin Golden, and James
Oddo.

The opponents of this charter revision package include Public Advocate Mark Green, Comptroller
Alan Hevesi, Council Speaker Peter Vallone, borough presidents Fernando Ferrer (Bronx) and C.
Virginia Fields (Manhattan), Ruth Messinger, congressmember Jerry Nadler, most council members,
District Council 37, the United Federation of Teachers, and virtually every good-government group
alive (and some that have come back to life on this issue): Citizen Action, Citizens Union, Common
Cause, NYC Americans for Democratic Action, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG),
People for the American Way, and the Women's City Club of New York.

Some of that opposition is due, says Neal Rosenstein, the Government Reform Coordinator of NYPIRG,
to the fact that the proposed changes "could dramatically effect the balance of power" in city
government, taking away much of the power gained by the City Council in the 1989 charter reform
process.

Led by East Side Democrat Gifford Miller, the Council convened a Select Committee for Charter
Reform that not only opposed this proposal, but called for amending the state's Municipal Home
Rule Law to "prevent mayors from using charter revision commissions to upset the system of checks
and balances and to circumvent the normal legislative process."

The original quarry in this whole enterprise, convened by former deputy mayor Randy Mastro and a
host of mayoral cronies in late June, was Giuliani nemesis Mark Green. If Rudy beats Hillary for
the open U.S. Senate seat next year, he does not want Green to finish his term. That "personal
vendetta," as Green calls it, did get some public attention for charter revision. "We outdebated
him and he retreated," Green says. "The whole proposal has gone from being obnoxious to
offensive." He has helped organize a grassroots campaign called "No on 2" to defeat the proposal,
hoping that the public has "Giuliani fatigue and is weary of government by enemies list."

The clause on mayoral succession now calls for a system to begin in 2002 that lets the public
advocate succeed to the mayoralty within 60 days, then requires a special election with no party
labels—and a run-off if nobody gets 40 percent of the vote. It also strips the public advocate of
not just the power to break ties in the City Council, but removes him or her from presiding over
Council meetings.

Predictions on the outcome of Tuesday's vote are little more than feelings. "There's no way to
predict or poll when there's only a 5 to 10 percent turnout of eligible adults," says Green.

NYPIRG's Rosenstein is "gloomy" and thinks Giuliani will have his way because of the "clever"
wording of the proposal and the lack of organized forces against it. Citizens Union's Nugent
"would have said it would fail two weeks ago," but feels that even the Campaign Finance Board's
official mailing "confers legitimacy on the pro side" and is worried about the lack of union
involvement and what he calls "radio silence" from Comptroller Hevesi and other leaders.

According to Andy Inglesby, assistant political director of District Council 37, the union's new
leadership has been phone banking against the proposal since September, will have twice mailed to
its members and retirees urging a no vote, and will send 400 volunteers to leaflet polling places
on election day in coordination with the UFT and Central labor councilmembers.

Barbara Rochman, public policy VP of the Women's City Club, is more hopeful than optimistic that
the proposal will be defeated. Her appeal to voters? "Show that you're smarter than you've been
given credit for and vote no."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER BALLOT WAR HEATING UP 
New York Post, October 24, 1999
By DAVID SEIFMAN 

THE battle over revamping the City Charter isn't getting much public attention, but all hell's
breaking loose as the warring sides try to gain an edge in a little-noticed Nov. 2 election.

Randy Mastro, chairman of the mayor's Charter Revision Commission, said his panel will mail an
"educational" brochure about the hotly contested ballot proposals to every city household.

"There may be more than one," he added, declining to elaborate.

By law, government funds can't be used to support or oppose the 13 proposals.

Critics charge Mastro is doing the bidding of Mayor Giuliani, who has promised to push the
proposals "very very heavily," and they suspect the taxpayer-funded brochures are aimed at
eliciting a "yes" vote.

The proposals include the establishment of "gun-free" zones around schools, new rules for mayoral
succession and different regulations for enacting most tax increases.

"I think this is a huge ripoff of the taxpayers,' said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public
Interest Research Group.

He pointed out that the Campaign Finance Board has already mailed guides to every registered
voter, providing detailed "pro" and "con" statements from 54 individuals.

The cost of that effort: about $1.5 million.

Russianoff was equally critical of the City Council, which opposes the proposals and is doing a
taxpayer-funded mailing to about 500,000 "likely voters," also supposedly "educational."

The CFB mailing has provoked a separate controversy.

"Pro" statements submitted by Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew and three commissioners were rejected
because the board said it is illegal for agency heads to use government resources to advocate for
or against a ballot proposition.

"Anyone who believes the Campaign Finance Board is impartial lives in Oz," said Deputy Mayor Joe
Lhota.

That drew this response from CFB spokesman Ian Michaels:

"The board has an 11-year record of impartiality. Through five citywide voter guides on ballot
proposals, we have never received a complaint about the impartiality of the voter guide."

A coalition of municipal unions, Public Advocate Mark Green and Manhattan Borough President
Virginia Fields are also joining the opposition effort with mailings of their own.

With only 10 percent of the city's registered voters expected to go to the polls, it's anyone's
guess how this one will turn out. *