Today, members of the City Council choose their next speaker. Picking who leads the city’s legislative body is among the most important decisions this Council, with 21 new members, will make.
But as crucial to the city as whether Melissa Mark-Viverito or Dan Garodnick is selected is the deeply unfortunate way the competition for this crucial role has unfolded — and under what rules this vital branch of local government will now function.
This race has been influenced intensely, from the get-go, by outsiders. Political party chairs, unions, the business community — and, most aggressively, the new mayor — are all vying to sway the Council’s choice. These hard-pressure tactics threaten to diminish the power of the speaker and the Council as a whole.
Both finalists for speaker are reform-minded legislators who are likely to be capable leaders. Supported by de Blasio, Mark-Viverito has championed efforts to open up the Council. Garodnick, the underdog now backed by Bronx and Queens county leaders, has led rules-reform efforts from his first day as a councilmember in 2006.
Both have pledged to make sweeping changes to empower rank-and-file members. Reforms are likely to include fairer distribution of discretionary funding, greater power to committee chairs to select their staffs and set their agendas and an independent bill drafting unit that allows members to introduce their own bills.
These reforms, which build upon changes advanced by Citizens Union in 2006 and first implemented by then-Speaker Christine Quinn, are a good start. But they don’t go far enough. Further crucial fixes must be put in place.
First, the number of committees should be reduced from 46 to no more than 20. The House of Representatives in Congress — which, at 435 members, has eight times as many members as our City Council — has fewer than half as many committees at 21.
Fewer committees will allow members to focus on key issues and gain in-depth issue expertise, resulting in better oversight of city agencies and more meaningful legislation.
Second, lulus must be abolished. The large number of committees exists in part so that nearly every city councilmember can receive a taxpayer funded committee chair stipend or lulu.
This is nothing more than a bump, averaging about $12,000, on top of a base annual salary of $112,500.
Third, member items — tax dollars awarded at members’ discretion to community groups and causes — must be distributed more equitably.
Fourth, and most crucially, individual members must be given more genuine independence — the right way.
Each of the three speakers since the city charter change of 1989 has successively helped make the council a more effective legislature. Some question whether further decentralizing power to members at the expense of the speaker will result in a weaker Council, which is already disadvantaged in terms of authority to that of the mayor.
No doubt, finding the right power interplay between the speaker and individual members is a delicate balancing act. But when done right, it would strengthen the Council precisely because members will play a more meaningful role in the institution. And as the people’s body, the Council must act together as a needed counterweight to a powerful mayor.
There’s a tremendous amount riding on this vote. Councilmembers should listen to all who have an opinion about who should be the next speaker — business leaders, political leaders, union leaders and the new mayor.
But ultimately, individual councilmembers must make this decision in the interest of an independent Council.
It would be unfortunate if, even as would-be speakers talk about strengthening the Council through democratic rules reform, the institution’s next leader feels he or she owes his or her election to outside interests rather than to the members.
Dadey is executive director and Camarda is director of public policy at Citizens Union .
