Written Testimony of “A Coalition of New York City
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comments of the Partnership for New York City to the New York City Charter Revision Commission Thank you, Chair Benjamin and members of the committee, for the opportunity to comment on changes to the New York City Charter related to ranked choice voting. The Partnership for New York City represents the city’s business leaders and largest private sector employers. We work together with government, labor and the nonprofit sector to maintain the city’s position as the pre-eminent global center of commerce, innovation and economic opportunity. The Partnership urges the Commission to include ranked choice voting for all city primaries and special elections in the ballot questions to be submitted to the voters in November 2019. The cost of administering elections and the public funding of candidates mean that all taxpayers, including the business community, have an interest in ensuring the city’s election system is fair and achieves the goal of electing officials who represent their constituents. The city spends a considerable amount of money supporting elections. In 2017, the year of the last mayoral election, the city spent $17.7 million in public payments to candidates and nearly $30 million to administer the election. More recently, the city provided $7.2 million in matching funds to 11 candidates for the Public Advocate special election. Despite all of this funding, the outcome of city elections is not necessarily a true reflection of the will of the majority of the electorate. New York City often has very low voter turnout, particularly for primaries and local offices. For example, only 12% of active voters participated in the primaries in 2017. Local candidates often win without a majority – the successful candidate in the recent special election for Public Advocate won with approximately 35% of the vote. As a result, candidates may rely on a relatively narrow spectrum of the electorate to give them a plurality rather than striving to win the support of a broad constituency. Ranked choice voting pushes a candidate to try to reach beyond their base in order to attract more voters. The result is elections where the winners more truly represent their districts. Election of office holders with a broad constituency is likely to inspire larger voter turnout. We are hopeful that this system will improve the civility of campaigns. Finally, ranked choice voting may also save the city money. At a minimum, it would avoid expensive run-off elections like the 2013 Democratic primary run-off for Public Advocate which cost more than $11 million. Ranked choice voting has already been successfully implemented internationally (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland and Scotland), in the state of Maine and in other U.S. localities (e.g., San Francisco, Minneapolis and Santa Fe). We hope you will allow New York City voters to choose ranked choice voting in November. This is a good first step toward electoral reforms that are needed in New York. May 20, 2019 New York City Charter Revision Commission 250 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Dear New York City Charter Revision Commissioners: I am the President of the National Association for the Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) and I write to submit testimony as part of the 2019 Charter Revision Commission’s May hearings. NACOLE is a nonprofit organization that brings together individuals and agencies working to establish or improve law enforcement oversight in the United States. NACOLE welcomes people and organizations committed to fair and professional law enforcement that is responsive to community needs. NACOLE represents approximately 70 civilian oversight agencies of all types across the United States and about 1,000 individuals who work in civilian oversight as staff, board members, and other capacities. In addition, while carrying out our mission to enhance fair and professional law enforcement that is responsive to community needs, NACOLE provides member support and resources to new and existing oversight agencies. As I testified at your March 7, 2019 hearing on police accountability, my philosophy around civilian oversight is that law enforcement agencies and community members have the same goal: peaceful and just communities. Where that falls short, civilian oversight is necessary. For civilian oversight to be successful, it must be within an agency that has independence, a sufficient budget, and appropriate access. The best practice to ensure independence and a sufficient budget is to peg the law enforcement oversight agency’s budget to the larger agency it is meant to monitor. In the wake of the police killing of Laquan McDonald in 2014, Chicago ensured its police oversight body receives this sustained, protected funding. Miami’s City Charter also requires a Civilian Investigative panel that receives no less than 1% of the city’s Police Department budget. New York City now has the opportunity to adopt this critical funding structure for its exceptional law enforcement oversight agencies. P.O. Box 87227 ⬧ Tucson, Arizona 85754 ⬧ (317)721-8133 E-mail: [email protected] ⬧ Website: www.nacole.org I write to urge the Commission to endorse the staff recommendation to extend budget protections to the City’s law enforcement oversight agencies. Through our national lens, I can tell you that the Board of Correction is one of few top oversight agencies in the country and are leaders in the growing movement for civilian oversight of correctional institutions. They are leaders in both thought and practice for strong and effective independent oversight. Independent budgets are necessary to solidify the independence of these agencies, strengthen their ability to meet their community and legislative mandates, and, ultimately, improve our communities and the police and corrections departments therein. I truly appreciated the opportunity to testify before you and hope that you find this additional testimony helpful. Should you have questions or wish to consult with NACOLE on this matter please feel free to contact me directly by phone or email at (617)254-8331 or [email protected]. Kind regards, Brian Corr President Thank you for this opportunity to share our perspectives here. My name is Chris Olmsted, and on April 1st I began working as an Investigator at the Civilian Complaint Review Board. I finished training this past Monday. I do not speak on behalf of the CCRB, in this or any other capacity. My views here are my own, and don’t necessarily reflect those of the CCRB. I come before you as a member of the public because I have an uncommon perspective, the view from my desk. I hope in sharing it to support the need for and benefits of advancing the proposal to make the CCRB’s budget proportional to that of the NYPD. As a new hire, I am an Investigator – Level 1, assigned to an Investigative Squad. Investigators are designated as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, those with the experience and demonstrated investigative abilities to receive the most complex of cases. One level three investigator has been assigned as my mentor – let me use this platform to say, he’s doing a great job. Still, as I have been learning about my new role, I have been worried. Recently, my mentor had 24 cases. The level three at the desk next to mine had 20. To put that in perspective for you, I once heard an investigator fantasize about a case docket somewhere near 10. In the month I’ve worked at the CCRB, I’ve seen every member of my squad put in overtime. My level 2 and 3 colleagues are often in the office when I arrive, and they are often still there when I leave. I have heard Level 2s and 3s across the agency describe nights and Sundays in the office. In my experience, every two weeks, and often more frequently, Investigators catch an average of 3 cases per person. For further perspective, several level 3 investigators have told me this week that when they request body-worn-camera footage from the NYPD, they wait an average of three months to receive it. An investigator could catch 18 new cases while waiting on crucial evidence for one. The preliminary staff report does not include the CCRB’s request for direct access to body-worn- camera footage, but I cannot overstate the positive effect that access would have on their work. But I digress. Since 2017 the NYPD has equipped thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of members of service with body-worn-cameras. That is an excellent step forward, but as far as I can tell, the resources available to the CCRB have yet to be adjusted to reflect the effects more body-worn-camera footage have on investigations; footage is key evidence, and I’m told it takes hours to review, let alone transcribe and analyze. The same can be said for the Right to Know Act, effective since October, 2018. The CCRB is responsible for investigating alleged violations of the act, but it appears from my desk that legislative consideration has yet to be given to what resources we need to do so. This past month, my experience as an employee has convinced me as a taxpayer that the CCRB is worth the investment. The CCRB is asking for their budget to be set at 1% of the NYPD’s. In that light it is a small ask, but that change would more than triple their budget, providing better, faster investigations, benefitting civilians and officers alike. I submit that the people of New York City deserve to vote on this issue. It is a measure I would support, whether I worked there or not. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thriving Communities Coalition Proposal for Comprehensive Planning Requirements 1.