Mayor Eric Adams’ fast-moving push to amend the City Charter has sparked accusations of political opportunism, but the city’s most prominent fiscal watchdogs see it as a chance to tighten the rules that govern how New York spends money.
The city comptroller, Citizens Budget Commission and the Independent Budget Office all testified at Thursday’s hearing by the mayor’s Charter Revision Commission, which was devoted to the topic of “fiscal responsibility.” It is one of several overarching topics that Adams has asked the 13-member commission to focus on, along with improving public input on legislation that affects public safety.
The watchdogs’ ideas could significantly change how the city studies the cost of new laws and makes payments to nonprofit vendors — although it remains unclear if the charter commission, made up of loyalists to the mayor, will take up the suggestions.
The panel that Adams convened last month is seen by many as an attempt to block a separate effort by the City Council to increase its oversight powers of the mayor’s appointments — although City Hall has denied any such connection. By law, the two measures could not appear on the November ballot together. The mayor stacked the commission with his own friends and allies, and even the “fiscal responsibility” focus seems to mirror Adams’ objections to last year’s Council bill that expanded costly housing vouchers.
But even figures like Comptroller Brad Lander, an Adams adversary who has expressed doubts about the commission’s true purpose, say it presents a chance to improve the city’s hazy practices around budgeting and contracting. The commission must finalize a set of recommendations by Aug. 5 for them to appear on the November ballot and be approved or rejected by voters.
A few watchdogs presented overlapping ideas during Thursday’s public hearing at New York Law School. Both the Independent Budget Office and the Citizens Budget Commission argued for strengthening fiscal impact statements — analyses of how every new law will affect the city’s bottom-line, which the Council is already required to prepare before voting on any bill.
In practice, fiscal impact statements are often scarcely considered by lawmakers. The CBC pointed to the glaring example of last year’s Council bill that expanded low-income housing vouchers: Although the council’s own fiscal analysis showed the expansion would cost a staggering $10 billion over five years, the council passed the bill anyway just a day after publishing that finding, and issued a press release pointing to a different analysis by a nonprofit group claiming the bill would actually save the city $700 million. (The council is now locked in a legal battle with the Adams administration over his refusal to implement the law.)
“The charter should require impact statements be published earlier, so the council and the public have time to consider them,” CBC President Andrew Rein told the charter commission on Thursday. Rein suggested the charter could also require each fiscal impact statement to identify how a bill would be paid for, and potentially allow the city to not implement a policy if it has “major budget implications.”
Meanwhile, both IBO and Comptroller Lander honed in on the city’s chronically late payments to the nonprofits it contracts with for services like homeless shelters and childcare.
Small changes to the charter could let the city mandate that agencies “pay at least a substantial portion of any duly submitted invoice from a services contractor in good standing,” said Louisa Chafee, director of the IBO, at Thursday’s hearing.
Lander, for his part, said the charter could be amended to add timeframes for each stage of the procurement and contracting process, to hold both the city and vendors accountable.
And all the watchdogs agreed that something should be done to address the city’s “rainy day” fund, a reserve meant to guard against future emergencies that currently contains $2 billion. Both Lander and the CBC said the city should be required to put a certain amount of money into the fund every year, and also add some guardrails to stop mayors from dipping into the funds.
“At minimum, the charter should require mandatory deposits, withdrawals limited to a recession or severe emergency, and a target size,” said Rein, of the CBC.
Each of the fiscal watchdogs also presented ideas of their own: IBO proposed amending the charter to put a time limit on emergency contracts, which tend to be pricier than regularly-bid deals and have cost the city billions of dollars during the migrant crisis. When emergency contracts come up for renewal, they could face a new review by the mayor and comptroller to prevent them from being constantly extended, IBO said.
And Comptroller Lander suggested making city agencies more responsible for their spending by setting new multi-year savings targets for each department, and making agencies responsible for judgments and claims against them — potentially incentivizing agencies like the NYPD to refrain from misconduct that has resulted in frequent and costly payouts.
The mayor’s Charter Revision Commission is chaired by Carlo Scissura, head of the New York Building Congress and a lobbyist whom the mayor once considered appointing to lead the city’s Economic Development Corp. Other members include Ruben Diaz Jr., a lobbyist and former Bronx borough president; Jackie Rowe-Adams, an anti-gun violence advocate and vocal supporter of the mayor; and Max Rose, the former Staten Island Congressman-turned lobbyist.
The panel will host a second round of public meetings starting June 24.
Nick Garber , 2024-06-14 21:53:02
Source link