Power struggle between mayor and council plays out in Queens
/Members of the City’s Charter Revision Commission went back and forth with members of the City Council in Queens on Monday over the legitimacy of the process ordered by Mayor Eric Adams. Eagle photo by Ryan Schwach
By Ryan Schwach
When the City Charter Revision Commission began public hearings in June, they did so in a mostly empty room at Queens Borough Hall. Following the meeting, the commission, which was created by Mayor Eric Adams two weeks before their first meeting, vowed that it would do more to ensure New Yorkers showed up to future meetings to voice their thoughts on the effort to change the city’s governing document.
But at their final meeting on Monday, which was held inside the Queens Public Library’s Central branch in Jamaica, that promise appeared largely to be unfulfilled. Additionally, less than 24 hours after the conclusion of the meeting, the commission released its final proposed changes to the city’s charter, calling into question whether or not what was discussed at the meeting was considered for the final recommendations.
While there were fewer empty chairs at this week’s hearing, there remained few everyday New Yorkers there to give their thoughts on the city’s charter. Instead, Monday’s proceeding became a venue for the ongoing power struggle between the City Council and Mayor Eric Adams.
Around a dozen councilmembers, most of whom are members of the council’s Progressive Caucus, made the trip to Downtown Jamaica on Monday to protest the mayor’s City Charter Revision Commission, which they have painted as a blatant attempt to beef up mayoral powers at the expense of the city’s legislative body. One after one, the lawmakers told the commission that they believed the commission’s very existence came as an effort to undermine their ability to govern the city.
Testimony from the councilmembers – who spoke before anyone else – dominated the first 90 minutes of the approximately two-and-a-half-hour meeting, leaving the handful of other people who came to testify at the meeting frustrated.
The members – which included Queens representatives Selvena Brooks-Powers, Julie Won and Jennifer Gutierrez – laid out most of their arguments before the hearing around the corner in Downtown Jamaica.
The main argument from the councilmembers is that the existence of the commission’s proposals undermine their ability to put their own ballot measure in place this November.
Around a dozen City Councilmembers spoke before and during the Monday hearing, arguing that the charter revision process has been rushed and undermines their legislative authority. Eagle photo by Ryan Schwach
The proposal in question is known as the “advice and consent” bill, and would essentially give the council the ability to weigh in on a number of mayoral appointees.
Councilmembers maintain that the commission was created by the mayor in an effort to undermine their ability to put advice an consent – which was proposed before the commission was announced – on the ballot. Due to city law, city charter commissions’ ballot proposals trump ballot proposals introduced by the council.
Councilmembers also argued that the commission was hastily put together and will likely make changes to the charter without proper vetting.
“There is no good reason to hastily introduce and vote on a new proposal at this late stage,” said Brooks-Powers. “The revision process has a long lasting impact on the lives of every person in our city. Rushing this process undermines the thorough public engagement and proper review necessary for changes that will impact our city's government for years to come.”
Inside the hearing, the councilmembers went one by one repeating their opposition. Commission members challenged them, defending the mayor and exemplifying the power struggle between the two sides of City Hall.
At one point, commissioner Jackie Rowe-Adams, an outspoken supporter of the mayor, argued that it was the council who was undermining the mayor’s authority, incorrectly claiming that they were going against the “millions” of New Yorkers who voted for him.
A few dozen Queens residents and elected officials went to Queens Public Library’s Central Branch in Jamaica to testify on the city’s charter revision process on Monday evening. Eagle photo by Ryan Schwach
Commissioners also took personal affront to the councilmember’s statements, including a previous statement from Speaker Adrienne Adams where she called the entire commission “unserious.”
Once the public input did actually begin, it became clear to the commission that all those who had arrived to testify were going to speak about a topic not mentioned in the commission’s preliminary charter change recommendations released in June, despite that being the stated purpose of the meeting.
The group of New Yorkers who had shown up to testify all urged the commission to include a repeal of New York’s sanctuary city laws, which grants protections to migrants and discourages law enforcement from policing immigration law, in the charter.
The speakers argued that sanctuary city laws should be repealed, and that the influx of migrants have brought crime and public safety issues – complaints which are statistically unfounded.
Similar to the first meeting held in Queens, where the public’s input concerned flooding and the mayor’s efforts to rezone the city to build more housing, what the public had to say bore little relevance to the purpose of the commission, which on its face is intended to improve bureaucratic efficiency, not city policy.
However, none of that stopped the speakers, most of which were from the Queens neighborhoods of Howard Beach, Broad Channel and the Rockaway peninsula, and who were brought to the hearing on a bus by Republican Assembly candidate Tom Sullivan.
Sullivan was not present after reportedly getting stuck on an airplane.
Another Rockaway GOP candidate, Paul King, who is running for a second time to unseat Representative Gregory Meeks, was present, but walked out halfway through after the council’s testimonies ran long.
“It's a public hearing, to hear from the public….and the elected officials came there with an agenda and locked us out,” said King. “They spent more than 90 minutes talking about what they want..right or wrong.”
On Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours removed from the Queens hearing, the commission released their final recommendations for potential budget proposals.
Of the 16 proposals, which were split into five categories between Clean Streets, Fiscal Responsibility, Public Safety, Capital Planning and Minority and Women Owned Business enterprises, none of them were discussed at Monday’s meeting, and none of what was actually discussed included. The turnaround now brings into question the entire purpose of the final – or even the first – Queens meeting, which had none of what was discussed included in the proposals.
The CRC on Tuesday told the Eagle that the topics discussed on Monday had already been discussed at previous hearings, and that the meeting provided an opportunity for the commissioners to inform how they vote on the final proposals.
In response, the City Council on Tuesday called the entire commission an “undemocratic sham.”
“This Mayor’s sham Charter Revision Commission has done a disservice to New Yorkers by putting forward rushed proposals that block voters' rights while undermining democracy and oversight of the Mayor's administration,” sokesperson Julia Agos said. “The lack of independence of the Mayor's Commission has made a mockery of what should be a serious process, with their last hearing consisting of commissioners asking testifiers how many votes the Mayor received in the election and inaccurately claiming it was millions. This final report mirrors the commission’s rushed process with it issuing its final report less than 24 hours after this final hearing with hours of public testimony.”
City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said that there was “no sound reason to short-circuit this process and submit one or more questions to the voters before that time, which would be hurried and underdeveloped.”
Mayor Eric Adams, who launched the Charter Revision Commission in May, has repeatedly defended the process and has denied it has anything to do with undermining the City Council. Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office
“A rushed process would only undermine the Commission’s ability to successfully carry out its stated mission of reviewing the entire City Charter and put forward thoughtful proposals,” she added. “I urge the Commission to avoid this detrimental outcome that would risk significant harm to good governance and democracy in New York City.”
Even conservatives on the council, who hoped the commission would at least be used to put an end to New York City’s status as a sanctuary city on the ballot, are now questioning the entire process.
"The Charter Revision Commission missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to correct the failures of sanctuary city laws,” said Queens Councilmember Bob Holden. “They scheduled hearings when regular New Yorkers couldn't attend and ignored hundreds of written pleas for repeal.”
“Not including this on the ballot is a colossal failure,” the Western Queens legislator added. “This was nothing but a dog and pony show."
Sanctuary city laws were mentioned in the 123-page report the CRC published on Tuesday. The commission said they did not believe it would be “appropriate” to include it on the ballot due to challenges of the ongoing migrant influx, and the repeated legislative and judicial expansions of the law in the last two decades.
A number of the proposals included in the final report would grant the mayor more authority when it comes to a number of battles he’s had with the council over the first two and a half years of his mayoralty.
Among them was a proposal that would put more requirements on the council when introducing public safety laws, and would require the council to notify the mayor and the public 50 days before they intend to vote on a public safety bill so additional hearings could be held.
Earlier this year, the mayor vetoed a bill from the council known as the No More Stops Act, as well as a bill that aimed to ban solitary confinement in the city’s jails. Adams claimed that both bills were introduced without input or insight from the NYPD and Department of Correction respectively, and that both would put law enforcement at risk.
The council went on to overturn both of the mayor’s vetoes.
Despite the questionable influence the public had on the commission’s final report, the mayor and the charter review commission have defended their turnouts, and have touted that the CRC has received testimony from over 700 New Yorkers in-person and virtually, and accepted 2,000 written statements – 700 New Yorkers represents only about 0.008 percent of the city’s population.
“From a commission perspective, the hearings have been very successful,” said spokesperson Frank Dwyer. “All meetings were open to the public, live streamed, and 10 of the 12 hearings - in all five boroughs – were held in the evening to accommodate as many New Yorkers as possible. Language translation services and American Sign Language interpreters were available, and each meeting was held in an accessible space. The public was alerted to CRC public meetings through legal notices, media outreach — including through ethnic and community media — and by utilizing messages through organizations with large distribution lists, including community boards and elected officials.”
At his “off-topic” press conference on Tuesday, Mayor Eric Adams also defended the CRC’s efforts.
“We're doing the right thing,” he said. “People came and shared their opinions, and now this independent body of people is going to give us their recommendations, we're going to move forward.”
Adams, as well as his Chief Counsel Lisa Zornberg, pushed back on the councilmember’s assertions that the process was rushed.
“There have been multiple charter revision commissions that took place in a shorter time than this one,” said Zornberg, who was in the audience in Queens on Monday night. “Mayor Bloomberg did one in 2002, the start to finish – 38 days. There were three others between 1998 and 2001 all under 60 days or under 50 days. So, I really don't think that whether something's rushed is the right word.”
The CRC will vote on the final proposals in Brooklyn on Thursday. The proposals that are approved will be on the ballot in November.