Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

Open Government

Beyond 311: Listening to New Yorkers


Taking the Public Pulse
--Gail Robinson
What Residents Can Tell Government
--Douglas Muzzio
The Web Site, 311, Surveys and Focus Groups
--Jeffrey Kay
Parents Grading Schools
--James Liebman
The Way in San Jose
--Brooke Myhre

From having worked inside government, I know there is a tendency to look at all the steps that take you from the beginning to the end, but not always at how consumers view what you do.

We already have methods to find out how consumer view what government does. There's voting. Another is 311, which provides us with a lot of information and a new way for citizens to be involved. And of course, there are citizen surveys.

Can surveys provide citizen input into broad strategic planning efforts and goal setting? Can the public help figure out what our goals are? What are we trying to accomplish as a city? What are our priorities?

There are different types of surveys. In the general citizen survey, you ask a statistically significant group of citizens what they think. User surveys, taken immediately after a citizen has used a service, ask what his or her experience was. With audience specific surveys, you try to understand how a particular community reacts to and appreciates a service.

Some places use independent pollsters to conduct the surveys. Sometimes city auditors or comptrollers do this. They can do this work by mail or by telephone. The information obtained may then be or may be included in a performance document, the equivalent of the New York City Mayor's Management Report.

Let's take a look at the kind of information we would have if we were to ask citizens what they think. Consider water. In New York, we have material such as notices of violations and warnings issued in the watershed, patrol hours for the police and water protection staff, whether waste treatment plants are meeting federal standards. Obviously these things should be measured, but they are not outcome oriented. In Austin, they ask, "Are you satisfied with your home's water pressure?"

In the section of the Mayor's Management Report on parks, you see parks rated exceptional for overall conditions, playground safety, drinking fountains, trees pruned. Other cities ask citizens, "What is your satisfaction with appearance of parks in your neighborhood," "How often are you there?"

And cultural affairs: The Mayor's Management Report lists payments made to the cultural institutions group and new capital projects initiated. But from the citizens' perspective you could have questions about overall satisfaction with cultural arts programs and whether people feel the city supports a diverse range of cultural programs.

Obviously, 311 was not founded as a citizens survey. It was founded to give citizens an easier interface with government. It is hard to argue that it hasn't, in many ways, been a success. Clearly it makes it easy for citizens to access city government. It improves the way they interact with government; they no longer have to call 27 numbers to figure out which agency or bureau handles a specific thing. And there is a lot of information that allows management to understand what is going on.

But does it also function as an indicator of how citizens feel about their government? It is representative of who picks up the phone – not necessarily of the broader population. And it's very hard to infer from it how people feel generally, about services.

So New York should think about how to add citizens as part of its performance management. Some kind of measure beyond 311, that reflects where the citizens are at, ought to be included in New York City's reporting.

Diana Fortuna is president of the www.cbcny.org Citizens Budget Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York City Council Stated Meeting -- July 19, 2006


Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.

By a vote of 44 to 5, the New York City Council approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to change the way the city handles its garbage in its stated meeting on July 19, 2006 -- a decision council members referred to as "historic" and "monumental." Under the plan, the city will move its trash to out-of-state landfills by barge and rail, rather than by trucks, as it does today. The version of the plan that the council approved was altered to lessen the environmental impact on neighborhoods that will have to play host to garbage facilities and to further encourage recycling.

The city's current system of garbage management has been criticized mainly because of its negative environmental impact. Over the next twenty years, the lifespan of the new plan, truck traffic is expected to be reduced by 3 million miles.

"By removing garbage from the city through barge and rail transport we will dramatically reduce the negative effects of truck traffic on our neighborhoods," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

New York City has been in a particularly difficult situation with regards to trash since 2001, when Mayor Rudolph Giuliani closed Staten Island's Fresh Kills landfill without a clear idea of how the city would function without it. Since then, city trucks have dumped garbage at facilities located mainly in low-income neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn. There, larger trucks pick it up and haul it out of state. Residents in such areas suffer from high rates of asthma and other health problems widely linked to the air pollution associated with such facilities.

Environmental advocates and representatives of the low-income neighborhoods praised the council's decision to address the current situation.

"Today is the single most important day for solid waste issues -- including air quality, and environmental justice impacts -- in the last decade since Mayor Giuliani announced the closure of Fresh Kills landfill," said Ramon Cruz of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that has been involved in negotiations.

The current situation has also been derided as being financially inefficient. The city expects the immediate financial impact of the new plan to actually raise the cost of handling garbage from about $77 a ton to about $107, but supporters of the plan believe it will be financially beneficial in the long term.

But garbage has always been a controversial issue in New York City, and negotiations between the council and the administration were "long and hard," according to Councilmember Michael McMahon, the chair of the council's committee of sanitation and solid waste management. The vote, originally scheduled for 1:30 p.m., was delayed for five hours as council members and representatives from the mayor's office hammered away at the final details.

"Up until about 3 o'clock this afternoon I thought there would be no agreement," said McMahon.

The stickiest issues all dealt with how to reduce the environmental burden on specific neighborhoods.

For residential waste, the city is planning to open four "marine transfer stations" where trucks will dump garbage onto barges. Two are in Brooklyn, one in Manhattan, and one in Queens. The council strengthened language guaranteeing that these neighborhoods will see a reduction in the amount of waste handled at privately-run truck-based garbage facilities already operating there. The South Bronx is also guaranteed such a reduction, since it has been overburdened for years. A transfer station for commercial waste is also being planned at 59th Street and the Hudson River in Manhattan. The council added a commitment to look for alternative sites in Manhattan as well.

Another contentious issue concerned a facility in McMahon's district in Staten Island where garbage from the four marine transfer stations will be transfered from barges into containers. At the last minute, a cap was inserted limiting the amount of garbage that would move through that facility and the amount of time garbage could stay there.

The proposed reopening of a marine transfer station at East 91st Street will go forward. That site has been the focus of bitter fight last summer. Councilmember Jessica Lappin, who represents the district, voiced her strong displeasure as she voted against the plan.

"I find the reopening of that facility outrageous and unacceptable," she said, noting that it is located in a dense residential area. "I just don't see how you mitigate the impacts on this community."

Also voting no were Councilmembers Dan Garodnick, Gale Brewer, Oliver Koppell, and Domenic Recchia. The plan must still be approved by the state.

TOUGHER ON GUNS

The council also passed four bills aiming to curb gun violence. Two bills were passed unanimously. One, Intro 362., calls for those convicted of criminal possession of a weapon to enter a registry, the first of its kind in the country. The other, Intro 365, outlaws the possession of firearms that have been painted to look like toy guns.

The other two bills were approved by votes of 47 to 2. Republicans Dennis Gallagher and Andrew Lanza voted "no" on Intro 363, which requires gun dealers to physically inspect their inventory twice a year, and Intro 364, which would keep people from buying more than four handguns in a calendar year.

GAS PRICES

The Council also approved Intro 296, , which says that gas stations must keep their prices the same for a 24-hour period before they can change them again. The Department of Consumer Affairs that sends investigators out to monitor prices across the city would enforce the regulation. The measure was approved by a 43 to 6 vote, with Councilmembers Simcha Felder, Daniel Garodnick, Helen Sears, Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza, and James Oddo, voting no.

The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2006.

Reforming - and Not Reforming - the Budget Process


Each summer, State Assemblymember and Brooklyn Democratic party boss Vito Lopez throws a massive summer picnic, busing 4,000 senior citizens from Bushwick to Sunken Meadow State Park in Long Island for live music, dancing, and a steak and chicken dinner.

It is also one of the most important political gatherings of the year; elected officials from across the city and state come to shake hands, campaign, and have their photo taken with Lopez, who wears an apron while tending the barbeque.

Many members of the City Council, including Speaker Christine Quinn, owe their jobs at least in part to Lopez, so it was not surprising that when the City Council recently approved the city's $53 billion budget, they made sure to allocate $100,000 for the picnic.

Each year, in addition to the major initiatives in the budget, the City Council also hands out tens of millions of dollars in grants for various programs - senior centers, Little League teams, volunteer firefighter squads, religious groups, and community organizations. Most of the funding goes to worthy organizations doing important work in the city, but there are also items that many would see as "pork." (See the full list online - pdf format.)

This year, Speaker Christine Quinn promised to reform the way the council allocates such money, but critics still question how funding decisions are made and how they serve the personal interests of local politicians.

"Does the public have any idea of the amount of money being distributed, and how?" asked Rachel Leon of Common Cause.

The State Legislature and governor also dole out $200 million of these grants each year, and the process in Albany is even more secretive. This year, the Albany Times Union sued Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno because they refused to make the information public.

Does New York's budget pork need to be trimmed?

BRINGING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET DOLLARS HOME

The 51 City Council members, who each represent about 157,000 people, obtain money for their constituents and neighborhoods in several ways.

Each individual member can request grants - often called "member items" - ranging from about $1,000 to $100,000 for tenant associations, senior citizen programs, cultural groups, and youth and community organizations.

This year, member items included grants such as $5,000 for the Point Breezy Volunteer Fire Department, $8,500 for the Roosevelt Island Day Nursery, $4,000 for the Yorkville Common Food Pantry, $3,000 for the Contello Men's Club, $10,000 for the Doll and Toy Museum of New York City, $10,000 for the Guardian Angels, and $5,000 for a youth program at the Maranatha Baptist Church.

In total, more than one thousand organizations received some kind of municipal funding.

In addition, all 51 City Council members receive a sum of money - often called "discretionary funds" - to spend in their districts.

This year, each member received a total of $340,464, of which $151,714 must be spent on programs for youth and $108,750 must be spent on programs for the elderly. Members can allocate the remaining $80,000 as they wish.

The argument for giving City Council members a substantial role in allocating money in their districts is that they know the community's needs. (For an explanation of how the council has been allocated money in the past, see the article Community Development or Political Pork?)

But the City Council is often criticized - even by some of its own members - for loading down the budget with too many pet projects.

"There is so much pork you can almost hear it oink," said former Bronx Councilmember Madeline Provenzano in response to last year's budget.

The process has also been criticized.

In the past, council members had to submit their specific budget requests to the speaker and make the argument that their projects were worthy. The speaker would then decide which items to include in negotiations with the mayor. Politics often came into play, with the speaker rewarding members who were loyal and punishing those who were not.

"There was no rhyme or reason to what got on the list," said Councilmember David Weprin, who also chairs the finance committee.

THE COUNCIL'S EFFORTS AT REFORM

This year, Speaker Christine Quinn, who in her first term has looked to overhaul some of the council practices, tried to reign in the council's budget process.

Under a new policy, each major council spending request had to have the support of at least 10 council members from at least three boroughs. This forced individual members to build a certain amount of consensus for their projects.

"The fact that a member had an idea and put it forward does not mean that it will get carried as a priority nor does it mean it will get into the budget," Quinn said in June.

Councilmember Weprin said that compared to the past council initiatives were more thoroughly vetted by members and by the council's finance staff.

After some initial complaints, most of the council members say they now prefer the new procedure.

"It made council members say 'yes' to some and 'no' to others," said Bronx Councilmember James Vacca, who was not in office last year, but as the head of a community board was familiar with the past process. "I'm not saying that I got all the money I asked for... but on the whole it was significant progress."

And for the first time, the City Council put the list of all of the organizations or programs that receive city funding - known as "Schedule C" - online for the public to read.

Still even with the reforms, the end result is not radically different.

Overall, the effort did not reduce the amount of spending in the budget. This year's $52.9 billion budget is the largest in city history, and the council added about $233 million to what the mayor proposed, which is about similar to previous years.

It is impossible to compare how many "member items" were doled out in total compared with the past, since the budget documents do not add up the initiatives.

And the process is still far from transparent.

All of the budget decisions still happen behind closed doors. Records do not say which member requested the funding. And there is little information on how the grant will be spent.

In an effort to create a more transparent budget process, Councilmember Hiram Monserrate recently said he would introduce a bill that will require future budgets to include the name and district of council members requesting funds as well as the amount contributed to each organization.

"[We must] ensure a new transparency law is in place before we find ourselves in yet another flawed budget process,” said Monserrate.

And this year, council members did not even know exactly what they were voting on until they were handed the budget documents at nearly 1 o'clock in the morning, just minutes before the vote.

"We still have a long way to go to make it a more open process," said Queens Councilmember Tony Avella.

ALBANY'S SLUSH FUNDS

As is often the case when comparing city and state government, Albany makes City Hall look good. The State Legislature has an even more secretive and dysfunctional way of dealing with member items.

Each year, Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon hand out $170 million in member items. The governor also gets a $30 million pot of money to pass out as he sees fit. But unlike the City Council, the State Legislature does not provide a list of how the money is spent. Even the State Comptroller, who has the power to audit state contracts and other finances, does not have the authority see the list.

In an effort to learn how this $200 million in taxpayer money is spent each year, the Times Union of Albany has spent months trying to get the records using the New York's Freedom of Information Law. When both Bruno and Silver refused, the newspaper filed a lawsuit to force them to produce the information. The Albany District Attorney David Soares even began an investigation into the matter.

After many months, the Times Union did get a hold of some member item records from the past - including some that raised suspicions.

In 2004 and 2005, records showed that Assemblymember Vito Lopez funneled $700,000 in member items to the same senior center that sponsors his annual picnic, with no explanation of how the money would be spent.

During the same time period, one of the largest recipients of member item funds was the North Bronx Westchester Neighborhood Restoration Association, which received $1.4 million even though its founder, State Senator Guy Velella was found guilty of accepting bribes and sentenced to a year in prison.

"It's a total waste of money," State Senator Jeff Klein, who now holds the seat, told the Times Union.

In response to the scrutiny, the State Senate has posted some information about member items on its Web site, but many of the grants are for unspecific organizations at undisclosed locations. E.J. McMahon, a budget watchdog for the Manhattan Institute, called the list of member items "almost worse than nothing."

"Were they ever to become completely public, the files would surely yield many more conflicts of interest and cases in which state funds are being quietly funneled to friends, families, and contributors," the New York Times editorial board recently wrote. "That is to be expected when so much money is handed out in the dark."

Alexander Perkins and Shoshana Schwartz also contributed to this article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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