Residents to the Charter Revision Commission: More Local Control

It's 357 pages and a document that few New Yorker's know much about but effects our lives
every day. The City Charter, our city's constitution, sets forth the structure of our local
government, salaries of public officials and things like term limits. Over the past few weeks the
residents of the five boroughs have had the opportunity to discuss what changes they would like
to see made to the Charter at numerous Charter Revision Commission hearings. (information can
be found at www.nvc.gov/charter)

On April 13`1' I attended a public hearing on the Charter in my home borough of Staten Island. It
was interesting to see so many people came out to a meeting that was set in a place few borough
residents could easily access and set at a time when most residents are just arriving home from
their long commutes. With that said, it is a great lead in to the theme of the night: local control.

Staten Island has been advocating for local control since the Verrazano Narrows Bridge was
opened in the 1960's. As our centralized government made decisions that negatively impacted
residents, more and more local officials called for control over borough matters. Things boiled
over in the 1990's with then Republican State Senator John Marchi, Republican Robert Straniere
and Republican Borough President Guy Molinari launching the secession movement, calling for
the creation of the City of Staten Island. The march was on back then for self-governance.
Overdevelopment was destroying our borough, the city's landfill, Fresh Kills, was becoming the
9th Wonder of the World, and Staten Islander's viewed themselves as a piggy bank for City Hall
- and their cries for help were falling on deaf ears in Manhattan. Eventually the question of
secession was put on the ballot and overwhelming Staten Island voted in favor of the measure. It
was only after Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Governor George Pataki took office that
Staten Island started to see positive changes - and officials willing to listen and act on the
concerns of residents - starting with the close of the Fresh Kills Landfill. So, like all good things,
the secession movement eventually came to an end.

Sorry to digress. Now back to Charter Revision. The Staten Island Advance, our hometown
paper, has been advocating, along with nearly every elected official, for more local control over
things like DOT decisions and land use matters. Both the paper and elected officials, including
Conservative James Molinaro, have been calling for the preservation of the Borough Presidents
office as well as giving them more power. While I would argue that the issue of local control
was born on Staten Island, it seems to be a recurring theme in places like the Bronx which was
recently dubbed "The Forgotten Borough" (hey, that's our title!). In Queens and Brooklyn,
residents there have said they want more control over local issues. The message is clear;
taxpayers feel government would work best if they controlled many decisions currently made by
City Hall. In every borough they have asked for key decisions on land use and other matters to
be decided by the Community Board or the Borough President, or at the very least, give them
more of a say.

While I'm no expert of the Charter, while running for Public Advocate last year, I announced
many initiatives that would change our Charter and, I believe, make our city function better. For
the past seven years I have worked in the trenches of government for an elected official in both
the City Council and State Senate. Over this period I served as Director of Land Use for the 5 1st
Council District and successfully managed many rezoning projects, navigating them through
ULURP and into law. What I submitted to the Commission are ten ideas I believe worth looking
at and discussing with New Yorker's.

Before I share my ideas - and certainly welcome criticism - I have to say the Charter is not a
Republican or Democratic document. With a City Council that is overwhelming controlled by
the Democrats and only recently have we been given (Republicans) a better chance at having our
voices heard because of the successes in Queens, I think we need to look at ways to be given the
chance of having a voice in city government. The best way is locally in my opinion.

n brief I asked the Commission to look at the following proposals:

1. End the "pocket veto" of the City Planning Commission as it relates to the certification of
ULURP applications, by setting a timeframe for certification and allowing the City
Council Land Use Committee to certify applications by a 2/3 vote if City Planning fails
to act.
2. Define the position of City Councilmember as "full time", ending all outside
employment.
3. Restructure the Board of Standards and Appeals giving the Public Advocate and the five
Borough Presidents one appointment each to the Board. Allow the City Council Land
Use Committee to overrule BSA decisions by a vote of 2/3.
4. Give the Chair of the Commission on Public Information and Communication (the Public
Advocate) subpoena power. Amend the Charter to mandate the Commission on Public
Information and Communication set a timeline for agencies to follow when answering
FOIL requests.
5. Eliminate the "Voter Assistance Commission" (VAC) and replace it with the "Civic
Involvement and Voter Improvement Commission" (CIVIC) which would carry on the
mission of the VAC but expand its role as a ballot access assistance center.
6. To better coordinate decision between agencies on the most local level, amend the
Charter to form the "Office of Coordination" under the Office of Operations and create
five new borough director positions to work on coordinating decisions/approvals/permits
between key agencies and the Borough Presidents office.
7. While it has failed in the past, examine the feasibility of holding non-partisan elections in
New York City for the positions of Public Advocate and Borough President.
8. Amend the Charter to reorder succession to the Mayor from Public Advocate to
Comptroller.
9. Suggest ways to amend the Charter to give the Office of Public Advocate either an
independent budget or a budget equal to that of the Speak of the Council.
10. Reform the appointment process to Community Boards by giving the Public Advocate
authority to appoint two members to each board, allow the Borough President to appoint
twenty-three members and hold non-partisan open elections for the remaining twenty-five
positions.

[these ideas are explained in detail at the end of this article]

This may look like a laundry list of ideas at first, but it is more than that. These proposals, along
with dozens of other proposals by people across the five boroughs, are ways to change
government and give the offices of Public Advocate, Borough President and Community Boards
more of a say in decisions currently made by City Hall and a fighting chance to give the outer
boroughs a seat at the table when decisions are made.

While I believe we do need more local control here on Staten Island and stand in unity with
many people in the other boroughs that feel the same way, I don't believe, in a city of 8-million
people spanning over five counties that a one size fits all solution is the best approach. What we
want in our borough (Staten Island) may not work in another borough (read Manhattan) - that is
just the reality of living in a city. That is why I believe engaging residents on the most local
level - at the community boards - and tying in the City Council, Borough Presidents and the
Public Advocate, is the best approach to ensuring that the voice of a local community is heard at
City Hall. Furthermore, better coordination within government, especially on the local level,
would ensure that agencies are working as efficiently as possible for each borough's needs.

There is a lot to debate here. We can start with the Public Advocate's office especially when
talking to Republicans, I'm sure. (I haven't even touched term limits!) But before you're quick to
say "eliminate the office", imagine a city where a non-partisan, independent office existed to
fight independently for the outer boroughs when it came to property tax hikes, land use
decisions, traffic solutions, etc. Imagine a city that had a voice in matters like cutting regulation
on small businesses or talking about an idea that improves a community, when no one else
listens. Have an open mind to this.

The deli down the block fighting city laws, the home owner paying a high water bill, the civic
president calling for preservation and the college student wondering why a common sense road
improvement isn't made in his town all have one thing in common - they know their
neighborhood problems best and they have ideas on how to make government work better. It's
no wonder why local control is the theme at Charter Revision hearings this year. That deli owner,
the homeowner, the civic president and that college student are fed up; they are screaming for
change and looking for someone to listen. They have the solutions, but have no way to get them
enacted. So as we debate the City Charter over the next few months, think of my proposals and
think of some ways government could function better where you live and if you had control.

Alex Zablocki
[Proposals]
Chapter 8: City Planning

Summary

Under the current Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), City Planning has the ability
to "pocket veto" any application filed at their agency by not acting to certify an application.

While City Planning has acted in good faith in the past, the ability by one agency to hold up
important land use items, such as redevelopment or rezoning projects, should be looked at
closely by the Charter Revision Commission.

In all five boroughs, community groups have filed rezoning applications, especially in the
boroughs of Queens and Staten Island, only to see these applications sit in City Planning for
years on end, while never being heard on by the public. Certification allows a ULURP
application to start the long and bureaucratic hearing process - it does not mean that the
application will become law.

While the application pre-certification process can take up to 6-months, no time frame is set in
the City Charter. Furthermore, while the City Charter does allow the Borough President or
applicant to appeal to the City Planning Commission to certify an application, there is no
guarantee that an application would be deemed complete and certified after filing an appeal.

The Charter Revision Commission should examine the ULURP closely and make
recommendations to close the pocket veto loophole that currently exists. This can be done by
giving the City Council Land Use Committee the authority to certify a ULURP application as
complete by a two-thirds vote, if all other avenues available are exhausted by an applicant.
Certification would start the public review process and would not mean that the application was
certain to become law.

Possible scenario:

Under Current Law

A community group in north-east Queens files a ULURP application to rezone a portion of their
neighborhood in reaction to overdevelopment. City Planning receives the application on July 1,
2010. City Planning fails to certify the application by January 1, 2011 (6-months). The applicant
and the borough president write to the City Planning Commission to ask for certification. On
July 1, 2011 City Planning has still not certified the application, even though the community
group believes the application is complete. The City Planning Commission has halted the
rezoning plan by not certifying the ULURP and allowing public hearing.

Under the Proposed Law

A community group in north-east Queens files a ULURP application to rezone a portion of their
neighborhood in reaction to overdevelopment. City Planning receives the application on July 1,
 2010. City Planning fails to certify the application by January 1, 2011 (6-months). The applicant
and the borough president write to the City Planning Commission to ask for certification. After
30 days, February 1, 2011, no response is given on certification by the City Planning
Commission. The applicant appeals to the City Council Land Use Committee Chairman to ask
for a hearing on certification. Within 30-days the City Council Land Use Committee holds a
public hearing on certification. The City Council Land Use Committee can vote to certify the
application and override the City Planning Commissions "pocket veto", by a two-thirds vote. On
March 1, 2011, after holding a public hearing and hearing testimony from the applicant,
community groups and the Department of City Planning, the City Council Land Use Committee
votes unanimously to certify the ULURP application as complete and start the ULRUP timeline.

Conclusion

By giving the City Council Land Use Committee the authority to deem an application as
complete, their two-thirds vote in the affirmative could end the City Planning pocket veto that
currently exists. This would allow development, redevelopment and rezoning projects to move
forward to public hearing in a timely manner.

Chapter 2: Council

Summary

Over the past few years, some Council Members have been embroiled in scandal due to outside
business activities. While the majority of City Council Members perform their duties ethically,
more needs to be done to discourage possible conflicting outside business activities.

Our elected officials should be in office to serve the people, not enrich themselves privately.
Many Council Members use their positions to further their law practices and use name
recognition and their power to financially benefit themselves. This is a practice that must stop.

While elected officials are required to file any possible conflicts with their position at the
Conflicts of Interest Board, I don't believe this goes far enough to ensuring that no conflicts exist
in the Council.

Council Members' position should be defined as "full time" which would immediately eliminate
the ability to engage in paid outside employment or other forms of activity. One exception that
could be given is teaching higher education, up to 20% of a Council Members salary. This would
allow full-time Council Members to teach at a university while not obtaining more than 20% of
their base Council salary.

The Charter Revision Commission should place a question on the ballot asking voters if they
think the position of City Council Member should be defined as "full time".

* * *
Chapter 27: Board of Standards and Appeals

Summary

Throughout New York City, developers file appeals to the Board of Standards and Appeals,
mostly on the grounds of a hardship, in order to circumvent the ULURP. While current law
allows this, the outcome isn't always favorable to the community. The Board of Standards and
Appeals (BSA) sides with developers over the community more often than not. While the BSA
acts based on the law, that doesn't mean there decisions are just. If an appeal is approved under
current law, the only recourse a community has is to file (a costly) "Article 78" in court to fight
the decision. The currently makeup of the BSA gives the Mayor sole control of this Board and
should be diversified.

Problem

• The Community Boards and/or Borough Board only have the power to make
recommendations and hold meetings on appeals
• Often times, community recommendations are ignored by the Board of Standards and
Appeals or not implemented by the applicant
• The five-member Board of Standards and Appeals is solely controlled by the Mayor

Recommendation

• Amend the City Charter, Chapter 27, Section 659 to include "Subsection c" which would
give the Public Advocate one appointment and each of the five Borough Presidents one
appointment to the Board of Standards and Appeals
o These appointments would be unpaid
o This appointee would not be required to have a professional background as the
other five appointments require
o Appointees would carry one vote each on the Board
o Modeled after the City Planning Commission
• Amend the City Charter, Chapter 27, Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), requiring
the BSA to notify the Office of Public Advocate when any new application is filed
• Give the City Council Land Use Committee the authority to overrule a BSA decision if
application was land use related
o City Council Land Use Committee could only act if requested by the Community
Board the application was filed in, within 15-days
o City Council Land Use Committee would hold a hearing on the BSA decision
within 30-days of approval
o After holding a public hearing, the City Council Land Use Committee could vote
to overturn the BSA decision
■ To overturn the decision, the vote must total two-thirds in the affirmative
by Council members of the Land Use Committee
o Applicant could still file an Article 78 to overturn the City Council's decision
Conclusion

The Charter Revision Commission should recommend changes to the Board of'Standards and
A ppeals that would give more balance between the applicant and the community and place a
question on the ballot with regards to this issue. The ability to appeal some decisions without
having to file an A rticle 78 would empower local communities more in the process.

Chapter 47: Public Access to Meetings and Information

§ 1061. Commission on public information and communication

Chapter 2: Council
§ 24. Elections; term; vacancies (j)

Summary

The Commission on Public Information and Communication is unique in our Charter. While
currently very underutilized, it has in the past been attributed to bringing NYC online, among
other things. Chaired by the Public Advocate, this commission is mandated to meet at least once
a year.

Getting information from the city can be difficult, if not impossible. Mayor Michael Bloomberg
has done a tremendous job at opening up government and making information available online -
and he should be commended for that. Though a lot of information is available online, such as
statistics, residents, advocates and especially community groups often request information from
city agencies through a FOIL request and either don't receive a response, don't receive a timely
response or are forced to file an administrative appeal or make a second request for public
information.

The Charter Revision Commission should examine this commission closely and strengthen it by:

1. Giving it the authority to set a citywide FOIL timeline, to be abided by all agencies.
2. Give the Chair of the Commission on Public Information and Communication
subpoena power to obtain information from city agencies and the City Council, only to be used if
all other legal options were exhausted (except that of going to court)
a. Subpoena power can be given in Chapter 2: Council, § 24. Elections; term;
vacancies. Subsection j or Chapter 47: Public Access to Meetings and Information, § 1061.
Commission on public information and communication

Conclusion

A s stated in the City Charter, the Commission on Public Information and Communication shall:
 (1) undertake, by itself, or in cooperation with other entities, activities to educate the public
about the availability and potential usefulness of city produced or maintained information and
assist the public in obtaining access to such information;
(2) review (i) all city information policies, including but not limited to, policies regarding public
access to city produced or maintained information, particularly, computerized information; (ii)
the quality, structure, and costs to the public of such information; (iii) agency compliance with
the various notice, comment, and hearing provisions of the charter and other laws applicable to
city agencies; and (iv) the usefulness and availability of city documents, reports, and
publications;
(3) assist city agencies in facilitating public access to their meetings, transcripts, records, and
other information, and monitor agency compliance with the provisions of the charter, and other
laws which require such public access;
(4) hold at least one public hearing each year on city information policies and issue at least one
report each year with such recommendations as the commission deems advisable;
(5) on the request of any member of the public, elected official, or city agency, render advisory
opinions regarding the application of those provisions of the charter or other laws which require
public access to meetings, transcripts, records and other information. Such advisory opinions
shall be indexed by subject matter and maintained on a cumulative basis;
(6) make recommendations regarding: (i) the application of new communications technology to
improve public access to city produced or maintained information; (ii) the distribution of
information to the public about the purposes and locations of the city's service delivery facilities;
and (iii) programming for the municipal cable channels and broadcasting system.

This Commission could be empowered to create a FOIL timeline and guideline to be abided by
citywide agencies. By giving the Chair (Public A dvocate) subpoena power, it would give the
public another avenue to gel information they desire and help the Public A dvocate when auditing
city services, as mandated by the Charter. Subpoena power can be given to the Public A dvocate
within the section for this Commission or under the authority of the Public A dvocate in Chapter
2 of the City Charter.

Chapter 46: Elections and Voter Assistance

§ 1054. Voter assistance commission

Summary

As per the Voter Assistance Commission (VAC) website:

A ccording to the New Y ork City Charter, the role of the V oter A ssistance Commission (V A C) is
to encourage and facilitate voter registration and voting by all eligible United States citizens
residing in New Y ork City. V A C is strictly nonpartisan, and does not promote any candidate for
elected office, political party, or political agenda.

FA Cs mission is to increase participation in the democratic process. To achieve this goal, V A C

monitors voter registration and voting in New Y ork City. V A C also works with Mayoral
agencies, private groups and individuals, and community-based organizations to promote voter
registration and voter participation. V A C is comprised of f16 Commissioners and its day-to-day
operations are managed by the Coordinator.

The VAC has been a part of the electoral process in New York City. While the VAC can't be
faulted for voter complacency and lack of participation, one must question the need for a
commission with the sole function to "encourage and facilitate voter registration and voting by
all eligible ", especially when goals aren't being me. Secondly, two key appointments to the
VAC have remained vacant for at least one-year: the Brooklyn and Bronx representatives,
appointed by the City Council.

Evidence by the fact that voter turnout has actually decreased over the last election cycle is a
sign that the VAC is not living up to its full potential and should be revamped. While NYC is in
need of services that VAC could provide, a new VAC could also encourage residents to run for
office, thus getting more people involved in the electoral process at the grassroots level.

Loss in General Election Votes %

NYC Voter Roles Registration Cast Turnout
2004 4,494,421 2,459,652 55%
2005 4,383,276 111,145 1,315,360 30%
2006 4,417,722 -34,446 1,349,491 31%
2007 4,169,176 248,546 0%
2008 4,614,932 -445,756 2,641,669 57%
2009 4,462,657 152,275 1,178,057 26%
2010 4,470,683 -8,026 0%

2009 Democratic Primary (Mayor)

Democratic Votes
Voters Cast % Turnout
3,057,021 330,659 11%
2009 Democratic Run-off (Public Advocate)
3,057,021 233,206 8%

Proposal

The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if the "Voter Assistance Commission"
should be eliminated and if "CIVIC: Civic Involvement and Voting Improvement Commission"
should replace it.

While CIVIC would mimic the same structure and mission as the VAC, CIVIC would also be
charter mandated to get more voters involved in the political process and assist candidates in
running for office. Evidence by the fact that candidates continue to get thrown off the ballot due
to technical errors and antiquated election laws, CIVIC could be a one-stop shop for potential
candidates of elected office.

CIVIC should be Charter mandated to form a task force to analyze election laws and make
recommendations to the State Legislature to reform election laws and improve ballot access.
CIVIC should also be Charter mandated to coordinate with the Campaign Finance Board and the
Board of Elections in a non-partisan manner to publish a guide on running for office in New
York City, much like the voter guide the VAC currently publishes.

* * *

Chapter 1: Mayor
§ 15. Office of Operations

umma y

Many agencies affect our lives in many ways; City Planning amends the zoning resolution,
Buildings enforces zoning laws, Environmental Protection ensures water flows to homes and
sewers are working, Design and Construction builds some of the infrastructure that keeps our
city moving forward and Transportation ensures our roads are safe and makes improvements to
transportation services citywide. All of these agencies have something in common: they all must
work together to accomplish a goal.

Unfortunately, in a city like ours, agencies don't always work as efficiently as they should.
Agencies that approve one project don't always talk to another agency to see how that decision
may affect their project, and so on.

While a mechanism is in place to allow city agencies to talk and coordinate with one another
through the Mayor's Office of Operations, its current structure isn't setup in a way to allow this
Charter mandated Mayoral agency to see its full potential.

Problem

• When zoning is changed by the City Council and recorded by the Department of City
Planning, the Department of Buildings is not always kept aware of the pending changes
just prior to a change becoming law
• The Department of Transportation paving schedule is not always coordinate with
upcoming sewer projects, parks projects or public utilities, such as Verizon or National
Grid work
o Streets are paved and then torn up weeks later for work scheduled before the
paving job
• Developers will present site plans to one agency (i.e. DEP or DCP) and then present a
different plan to other agencies (i.e. DOT or DOB) to get approvals/permits

Recommendation
• Amend the City Charter, under the section for Office of Operations, to include five new
positions to serve under the Agency Head, which would serve an "Office of
Coordination" within Operations
o Each appointment, to be made by the Director, will serve as a "borough
coordinator" working on coordinating decisions between agencies and the
Borough Presidents office
o Each of the five boroughs would get one appointment
 • Charter Mandate that the Office of Operations coordinate any approval process (i.e of
permits) that falls over multiple agencies, especially when it pertains to new development
• Charter Mandate the Office of Operations work with major public utility companies on
future projects

Real Life Example:

On Staten Island, the Civic Association of the Sandy Ground area submitted a rezoning
application, along with Senator Andrew J. Lanza, in July, 2009. After certification by City
Planning and working through the ULURP, City Council voted to approve the rezoning change
on February 3, 2010.

On the morning of February 3, 2010, a developer in the rezoning area state above applied and
received a permit to build houses that did not comply with the new zoning, The Department of
Buildings issued the permits to build, which were as of right in the morning but excepted to
change in the afternoon, as the City Council voted to amend the zoning map.

The developer continued to work at their site, pouring foundations and framing houses that were
not in compliance with the zoning map.

On March 29, 2010, the Department of Buildings issued a "Stop Work Order" for the entire
development (see DOB Violation # 032910Z03WO10) for non-compliance of the zoning map.

In this case, the developer did not complete the foundation work in
time to comply to the new zone. If the Department of Buildings had
coordinated with City Planning, the issue could have been resolved
when a permit was sought on the morning of the zoning change.

Conclusion

Locally, any community would have a better pulse on the different projects and/or initiatives
taking place at one given time. This is nearly impossible to coordinate on a citywide level. The
Office of Operations should be expanded to include five borough positions to help facilitate
coordination between key agencies. Coordinating between agencies that approve projects and
issue permits will lead to a more efficient city and prevent unnecessary work being performed
over and over again. It will also protect private developers from cross -agency problems and
protect the public from projects and developments that are "snuck in " by unscrupulous
developers. The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if they believe we need these
changes and if an Office of Coordination is needed at the Office of Operations.

Non-Partisan Elections

In the past, the Charter Revision Commission has presented voters with the question about non-
partisan elections. While this idea has failed in years past, I think it deserves another look.
Two offices in city government would be perfect starting points to try non-partisan elections:
Public Advocate and Borough President. In both of these offices, the office holder has no vote
on legislation and is in office to serve the public in an independent manner from the Mayor and
City Council. Often referred to as "figure heads", no party can define a good advocate or
executive. Non-partisan elections for these offices may spur more competition and allow more
choice for voters, while leveling the playing field for candidates in a non-majority party.

The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if they would support non-partisan elections
for the office of Public Advocate and Borough President and, if successful, try this new way of
voting in the 2013 general elections.

Chapter 1: Mayor
§ 10. Succession

I recommend the Charter Revision Commission suggest that the order of succession to the
Mayor, in Section 10, subsection a and b of the City Charter, be amended to place the
Comptroller before Public Advocate.

Both the Public Advocate and Comptroller are citywide elected officials and while throughout
history, the leader of the Council has succeeded the Mayor, the duties of the Public Advocate
(modeled after the President of the Council) have changed greatly.

If a Mayor was unable to serve a full term, New York City would be in better hands, for the
period of time that the Mayor was not in office to a point in time when a special was held, with
the Comptroller serving as Mayor. The Comptroller has a better understanding of New York
City's finances - probably one of the most important duties as executive, especially during time
of turmoil.

The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if they would like to see the Charter revised
to change the order of Mayoral succession to Comptroller, from Public Advocate.

The Office of Public Advocate: Budget

While not specifically mentioned in the City Charter, the budget of the Public Advocate is
decided upon by the Mayor and City Council. As the de facto watchdog over Mayoral agencies,
it is disingenuous to continue to allow the Public Advocate's budget to be decided by the very
office they are mandated to watch over.

The Charter Revision Commission should suggest ways to amend the Charter to give the Office
of Public Advocate either:

1. A budget set independent of the Mayor or City Council

 2. A budget equal to that of the Speaker of the City Council

The Public Advocate cannot be held back from fulfilling its Charter mandated duties because of
radical budget changes. The Charter Revision Commission should ask voters if the Charter
should be amended to give the Office of Public Advocate an independent budget.

Chapter 70: City Government in the Community

§ 2800. Community boards.

Summary

Chapter 70 of the City Charter relates to City Government in the Community. Governing on the
local level has always benefited the residents of our city. Across the five boroughs, Community
Boards have played an important role in framing public policy, land use decisions and ensuring
that each and every community is heard by City Hall.

Under the current Charter, each of the 59 Community Boards can have up to 50 members. Each
of those members are appointed by the borough president of the borough the Community Board
lies within and at least 50% of Community Board appointments must come from the Council
Member that serves that Community Board.

While this system has worked in the past, it can be improved greatly to give more power to the
community itself and not elected officials. I personally know of people who have wanted to serve
on a Community Board only to be turned down by a Borough President for appointment.

I recommend the Charter Revision Commission look into the following changes of the City
Charter and this related chapter to improve the effectiveness of Community Boards:
1. Of the 50 members allowed to serve on a Community Board, 23 can be appointed by the
Borough President
a. Council Members can make recommendations to a Borough President on
appointments but this would not be binding
2. Give the Public Advocate the power to appoint two members to each of the 59
Community Boards citywide
a. The Public Advocate should be Charter mandated to consult with Borough
Presidents on these appointments, but would not be bound by those
consultations/recommendations
3. The remaining 25 open positions on the Community Board can be filled by any resident
of a Community Board by collecting the same amount of petition signatures required to
be a City Council candidate, as per election law
a. Petitions to be placed on the Community Board in which you would have to
reside in, would be similar to the process of joining County Committee
b. Petitions would be filed at the Board of Elections, pursuant with current election
law
 i. If a candidate is unopposed (by the certification by the Board of Elections
of 25 candidates or less), those candidates become members of the
Community Board on Primary Day, as set by the Board of Elections
c. If, by a date set by the Board of Elections, more than 25 petitions are filed by
candidates for a Community Board, an election would be held on primary day
i. Voters would pick the best 25 candidates out of all candidates for their
Community Board
d. If less than 25 candidates file petitions to be on the Community Board, the Board
of Elections will notify the Mayor's Community Affairs Unit and the Borough
President that Community Board resides in
e. Within 30-days of notification by the Board of Elections, the Borough President
would be free to fill, by appointment, the remaining open slots of that Community
Board.

Conclusion

W hile these recommendations may not take shape in one Charter Revision Commission term,
they should be looked at over the next few years. Empowering local residents to get involved in
their community at the most local level will foster excitement for government and create a whole
new generation of leaders. Our Community Boards could be a vehicle towards greater
grassroots activism, independence from elected officials and having more local input on issues
that matter to a community. By allowing the Public Advocate to have two appointments on each
board, citywide, will better link the advocate 's office to the local community.