From the mayor's first talk of the commission two years ago, its potential workload has been compared to the 1989 charter revision commission that totally revamped city government.
And the 2010 commission adopted that sweeping ambition, scheduling hearings that considered term limits, a menu of ways to increase voter participation, a potential re-balancing of the powers of municipal officials, comprehensive changes to the city's mechanism for monitoring government ethics and a rethinking of how the city makes decisions about land use.
But the 1989 commission had a whole year to consider the proposals it put to the voters, and its work built on that of an earlier panel that existed from 1986 to 1988.
This year's commission chose a far smaller window. At its public hearings, many speakers implored the commission to take its time and put off any proposals until the 2011 or 2012 elections, rather than racing to finish before the 2010 vote. But the commission has been aiming to get a ballot proposal done for this year.
And when the current charter revision commission's staff published its preliminary recommendations earlier this month, it suggested a stripped-down list of ideas, arguing that those were the ones that the commission "has the time and resources to prepare for the ballot in November."
Monday night was the first chance for the public to weigh in on those recommendations, which commission chairman Matthew Goldstein has referred to as a "living document," subject to change. The theme of the testimony at Brooklyn College was that the staff's list of topics--term limits, instant runoff voting, easier ballot access and a smattering of administrative reorganizations--was far too narrow.
"While we support the idea of putting certain items on the ballot this year and naming other issues to be considered in 2012 by reconvening this commission or forming another, Citizens Union feels the current staff report is weighted too heavily toward deferral and too lightly on action," said Citizens Union executive director Dick Dadey. "Quite simply, we urge you to reach further and aim higher."
Citizens Union (CU) --given extraordinary access to the commission that included piping in a CU staffer's testimony via telephone--pressed for the commission to consider a system of voting that would eliminate party primaries. The union also wanted the commission to take up independent budgeting for the public advocate and borough president and changes to City Council discretionary funding and the practice of extra stipends (or "lulus") for favored members. While admitting that some land use topics are complex, CU thought some were no-brainers, like fixing loopholes in the 1989 "fair share" provision that allowed the city to circumvent mechanisms intended to spare certain neighborhoods from having to absorb a disproportionate number of waste stations, sewage plants and similar facilities.
