Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

CITY

City

WATCH: 15 Minutes with Public Advocate Candidate Devin Balkind


mnn balkin

Public Advocate candidate Devin Balkind talks with Ben Max on MNN (photo: @MNN59)


The race for New York City Public Advocate is one of the few elections on the ballot this fall, and it's only happening because former Public Advocate Letitia James was elected New York Attorney General, leading to a special election in February to replace her for the duration of this year, followed by an election this fall to see who will hold the citywide position for 2020 and 2021. Then-City Council Member Jumaane Williams, a Brooklyn Democrat like James, won the February election by a wide margin in a crowded field. He now seeks to hold the post against Republican challenger Joe Borelli, a City Council Member from Staten Island, and Libertarian Party nominee Devin Balkind, a civic technologist.

Borelli and Balkind each sat down with Gotham Gazette editor Ben Max on Manhattan Neighborhood Network for a 15-minute conversation about his platform and why he believes he should be the next public advocate. Watch the Balkind interview below; find the Borelli interview here. Early voting is ongoing through November 3; Election Day is November 5. Voters in New York City can vote in the public advocate race, a few other local elections, and the five charter revision questions on the back of the ballot.

***
by Ben Max, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.

Police Union Spends on Ads to Defeat Ballot Question 2


pba ie need help q2 2019

(photo: Police Benevolent Association Independent Expenditure Committee)


The city’s largest police union is spending significantly to defeat a ballot proposal that experts say will bolster the authority and performance of the civilian city agency tasked with investigating alleged misconduct and abuse of power by NYPD officers.

Voters are being presented five “yes” or “no” questions on the back of this fall’s ballot that propose 19 specific changes to the city charter. If approved by voters, Question 2 would enhance the operational capacity of the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the oversight agency, and make some cases of lying to its investigators a form of police misconduct under its jurisdiction.

The Police Benevolent Association, which represents 24,000 rank-and-file NYPD officers, has been vociferously opposing that question and, as of Tuesday afternoon, had reported roughly $127,000 in independent expenditures on communications to defeat it on the ballot.

According to independent expenditure disclosures reported to the city’s Campaign Finance Board, the PBA began spending on print ads and mass mailing last Monday. Over five days, the union spent $59,547.84 on print ads and another $68,083.32 on mass mailings.

The communications contain messages describing the CCRB as biased against police officers and the ballot question as a power grab by the civilian agency. They contain images of protestors or the apparent aftermath of violent crime.

The text on one ad reads: “Political extremists and cop-haters have been attacking police officers in the streets for years. Now, they’re doing it at the ballot box.” In large letters in the margins are the words, “If you stay home, they win.”

It is unclear exactly where the PBA campaign funding is coming from. By city law, donations to independent expenditure committees focused on ballot referenda -- unlike IEs supporting candidates -- do not have to publicly disclose their contributors, according to a New York City Campaign Finance Board spokesperson. But the spokesperson said that state law does require such reporting, but no disclosures have been published on the state Board of Elections website, where they should appear if filed.

The proposed amendments on the ballot were developed by a charter revision commission with commissioners appointed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, the New York City Council, Comptroller Scott Stringer, then-Public Advocate Letitia James, and the five borough presidents. Its job was to explore the city charter and propose reforms directly to voters that could not be easily accomplished through the city’s usual lawmaking process.

In addition to Question 2 related to the CCRB, the questions include amendments in four other areas: elections, ethics and governance, budget, and land use.

In addition to the provision on police lying, which has surfaced as the most controversial proposal, CCRB officials and police reform advocates say Question 2 would help the civilian agency achieve its mandate to investigate, substantiate, and prosecute complaints of misconduct and abuse of power by police officers. The proposed amendment would give the CCRB a guaranteed baseline in annual budget negotiations and would allow its Board members to delegate subpoena power to the executive director. It would also expand the size of the Board and slightly alter who makes appointments to it. And it would codify an agreement between the NYPD and CCRB requiring the police commissioner to provide justification when rejecting a CCRB disciplinary recommendation.

Gotham Gazette first reported that the PBA launched a campaign imploring its members and allies to vote “no” on Question 2 last week.

City Council Members Joe Borelli and Bob Holden will hold a rally with PBA President Pat Lynch and other law enforcement union leaders on Staten Island Thursday to urge the public to vote “no” on Question 2.

Borelli, who is the Republican nominee for public advocate, recently told Gotham Gazette that while he opposes Question 2 and will be voting against it, he sees favorably the provision to bring suspected false police statements under CCRB jurisdiction.

“If that was a stand-alone bill I’d probably support that,” he said in an interview earlier this month. “Because what is the point of having a court if you can’t validate a statement people make while they are swearing...before it. That to me is not a problem.”

With its 24,000 members, the PBA campaign could be particularly impactful in what is expected to be a low turnout election. The digital ads appear to have first been posted on the website and on the PBA’s social media accounts last Monday, and posters have been reportedly up in precincts for the last month, according to the Daily News. It is unclear who the recipients of the mailers have been.

In response to the PBA ads, the CCRB published a fact sheet on its website aimed at dispelling what it called “myth” being promoted by the police officers union.

Each PBA ad includes a disclaimer noting it was paid for by the Police Benevolent Association Independent Expenditure Committee, which is not required on material promoting ballot referenda, according to a Campaign Finance Board official. Unlike independent expenditures for candidates, committees promoting a vote on ballot referenda are also not required to disclose contributors. In this case, the PBA has not reported any of its contributors.

By comparison, the only other independent expenditures reported to the Campaign Finance Board for this fall’s election were made by Committee for Ranked Choice Voting NYC, backed by a coalition of election reformers and elected officials who support a new voting method for some city elections, contained in Question 1. The group has spent roughly $447,000 in support of Question 1, and has disclosed the sources of approximately $83,000 in contributions.

No independent expenditures in support of Question 2 have been reported to the Campaign Finance Board. Voters can cast their ballots during the current early voting period through November 3, or on Election Day, November 5.

[READ: There are NYPD Oversight Measures on the Ballot - How Significant are They?]

***
by Ethan Geringer-Sameth, reporter, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.

Note: this article has been updated with additional information and clarification around city and state disclosure requirements for spending by IEs related to ballot referenda.

De Blasio Dodges Questions About His Stance on Ballot Proposals


first day voting

Mayor de Blasio & First Lady McCray vote (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)


Mayor Bill de Blasio is dodging questions about his position on a series of ballot referenda that propose changes to city elections and governance. In two interviews Friday and Monday, the mayor avoided giving any specifics when asked repeatedly to discuss the proposed amendments to the city charter, all of which impact city services and administration, and he refused to say how he voted on them.

The ballot this year has five “yes” or “no” questions containing 19 distinct changes to the city’s core body of laws, which voters have the opportunity to approve or reject in the final stage of a unique amendment process in New York City. The proposals were placed on the ballot by a commission created by City Council legislation and appointed by a spread of city elected officials, including the mayor. The goal was to identify areas of reform in the charter that could not be easily addressed through the typical legislative process, and put them directly to voters.

De Blasio cast his ballot in Brooklyn on Saturday, the first day of the new nine-day period of early voting. (Registered voters have until November 3 to vote early; Election Day is on November 5.) Along with just a few candidate races, the ballot contains significant potential reforms, including to how some elections are run, how police oversight is carried out, how budgeting is done, and more.

“On the 19 separate questions, I’m not going to get into parsing what I feel on each one. I can give you a broad answer which is my team, my administration fully participated in this commission,” de Blasio said during his usual Friday morning interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, inaccurately describing the ballot proposals, which come in five questions.

The 15-member charter revision commission was designed to give no one entity a majority of appointments. Council Speaker Corey Johnson and de Blasio each selected four commissioners, with one appointee made by each of the comptroller, public advocate, and five borough presidents (Johnson selected the chair from his appointees).

When pressed by Lehrer to give more details on how he feels about -- and would vote on -- the potentially impactful provisions, de Blasio repeated his stance about the charter revision process while evading questions about how he intended to vote.

“I am comfortable with the overall result of this commission and my main point to people is I think they did good work and I think everyone should vote,” he said.

He maintained his posture about the charter revision process and questions when asked again by Errol Louis on NY1’s Inside City Hall Monday evening. Having voted over the weekend, he wanted to keep his ballot secret. “I have a blanket rule, I mean obviously everyone’s vote is personal, and I respect that in everyone else,” de Blasio said.

The five ballot questions cover general categories, each outlining more granular measures. Voters can weigh-in on charter changes to the city’s elections, Civilian Complaint Review Board, ethics and governance, budget, and land use.

De Blasio was asked directly about his positions on Questions 1 and 2, which have received the vast majority of public attention on the ballot proposals.

Question 1 on the ballot asks voters if they support for primary and special elections a system of ranked-choice voting, a balloting method that lets voters list candidates by preference rather selecting one in an all-or-nothing fashion. It would eliminate costly party primary run-off elections and help show broader support for the winner of crowded primaries and special elections. That proposed change has the backing of a coalition of election reform advocates and elected officials who have been promoting a “yes” vote on the question since September. There is no evident organized opposition to the proposal.

When asked directly by Louis, de Blasio expressed interest in ranked-choice voting but raised questions about what impact it would have on political participation and representation.

“We do know an advantage is it doesn’t require a runoff and therefore saves money and saves time and energy, and it’s true that a lot of those runoffs have been lower turnout,” the mayor said Monday. (De Blasio, himself, won a runoff for the Democratic nomination for public advocate in 2009.)

“I don’t think it’s 100 percent clear what it will yield but I’m certainly hopeful about it,” he added, giving an inkling of support.

Question 2, related to strengthening the police oversight function of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, has emerged as the most controversial piece of the proposed charter revisions. Among other things, the amendment would allow the CCRB to examine officers suspected of giving false testimony while under investigation for misconduct. If those suspicions are substantiated the agency could then bring charges in an administrative trial setting.

The CCRB recently led the high-profile prosecution of Daniel Pantaleo, the officer who placed Eric Garner in a deadly chokehold on Staten Island in 2014. The prosecution and conviction in an NYPD administrative trial led Police Commissioner James O’Neill to dismiss Pantaleo from the force in August.

CCRB officials say Question 2, if passed by voters, would also streamline the civilian agency’s operations by giving the executive director subpoena power and providing a baseline for its annual budget. Other provisions in Question 2 would codify existing practices, expand the number of appointments to the board and slightly alter who makes them (currently all the Board members go through the mayor).

The proposal has raised the ire of the Police Benevolent Association, the city’s largest law enforcement union, which last week launched a campaign urging its members and allies to vote “no.” The PBA on its website and in posts to social media has described Question 2 as a “power grab” by an agency with a “rampant anti-police bias.” In response, the CCRB released a “fact sheet” aimed at debunking what it describes as “myth” propagated by the police officers union.

Both Lehrer and Louis directly asked the mayor about his position on Question 2. In both instances he refused to discuss any particulars on the proposal and responded generally about the charter revision process.

“Because it’s 19 different subset questions I’m going to stay broad but say, yeah, we participated. In the end, again, I think the broad product of that charter commission was good. I think a lot of good work went into it. But again I’m not going to get into parsing on each of the questions,” he told Louis Monday.

Despite the mayor taking no public position, Gotham Gazette reported in June that administration representatives sought to secretly influence the charter revision commissioners in an attempt to kill the controversial proposal to allow the CCRB to pursue officers found to be lying to misconduct investigators.

De Blasio was not specifically asked about Questions 3, 4, and 5, which include an extended moratorium on former elected officials lobbying city government; a provision allowing the city to create a “rainy day” savings fund; and changes to the land use review process.

On October 17, nine days before the start of early voting, administration spokesperson Will Baskin-Gerwitz told Gotham Gazette, “Mayor de Blasio continues to review the Charter revision questions that will be on the ballot.”

Other top elected officials who appointed members of the 2019 Charter Revision Commission have taken positions on the proposals, mostly in response to Gotham Gazette inquiries: Comptroller Scott Stringer and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer both said they support all five ballot questions. Johnson and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams support Question 1 (ranked-choice voting) but have not expressed opinions on the others. Public Advocate Jumaane Williams also said he supports all five questions, though he did not make an appointment to the commission (that was his predecessor, Letitia James).

Meanwhile, James, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., and Staten Island Borough President James Oddo did not respond to Gotham Gazette inquiries about their positions on the proposals. Queens Borough President Melinda Katz declined to comment.

***
by Ethan Geringer-Sameth, reporter, Gotham Gazette
     

Read more by this writer.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years