Commission catalogues other potential charter changes, flags several high-priority items for further work

The Charter Review Commission compiled and reviewed a list of additional issues raised by subcommittees on Jan. 15, and commissioners identified several items that may require more research and drafting before they are considered for ballot or council action.

Pamela Boyd, a member of the Charter Review Commission, summarized the list, noting that some items are likely text corrections while others would be more significant governance changes that might require analytic work or a referendum. The list covered a wide range of proposals: instituting a city manager/CAO role, converting the comptroller from an elected to an appointed position, changing council composition to a hybrid ward/at-large model, imposing term limits, reinstating an inspector general or strengthening ethics oversight, requiring mandatory referenda for in-term pay increases for elected officials, and a resign-to-run rule for local offices.

Commissioners agreed these items merit additional study rather than immediate placement on a ballot. Several subcommittees — including the group that produced the “purple team” list — will reconvene to prepare issue-review templates and draft language. Some commissioners said certain items (for example, language to require that interim pay increases for elected officials be subject to a mandatory referendum rather than the state’s permissive referendum process) would likely trigger legal review because New York state’s home-rule and referendum rules can limit municipal discretion.

Staff and commissioners committed to gather comparative examples and legal research: Brian (staff) and other members will check how other municipalities handle resign-to-run provisions and whether mandatory referendum treatment for in-term pay increases for elected officials is permissible under state law. Commissioners also asked staff to get input from the National Civic League and to circulate subcommittee write-ups ahead of the March 19 meeting.

No formal votes were taken. The commission set an expectation that higher-priority items will be accompanied by issue-review templates and legal analysis before the full commission considers whether to place them on a ballot or recommend council action.