OATH warns day‑fines pilot would disrupt hearings, urges narrower design and voluntary participation

The administrative justice coordinator in the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice told the Council’s Committee on Governmental Operations that a proposed day‑fines pilot for administrative hearings — Intro 551 — could disrupt OATH operations unless it is carefully scoped, optional for respondents and coordinated with the Department of Finance and enforcement agencies.

“Requiring Oath to adopt a day fines pilot program along the line specified in the intro would wreak operational havoc on Oath,” David Golden said, testifying on behalf of the mayor’s office. He described OATH as a “complex agency that annually processes over 1,000,000 civil summonses” and cautioned that verifying income as part of penalty determination would likely force a two‑step hearing process, extensive IT reprogramming, new rulemaking and additional staff and training.

Why it matters: Intro 551 — a council bill expected to create a pilot requiring penalties tied to respondents’ daily disposable income — is meant to address fairness concerns in civil fines and increase payment rates. OATH’s testimony focused on operational feasibility, procedural fairness, and the need to avoid unintended increases in defaults or unequal treatment.

Key points from testimony and discussion

- Scope and existing law: Golden noted that the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) of 2016 moved some low‑level offenses to OATH and provides alternatives such as educational modules; Local Law 80 of 2021 reduced penalties for many summons types. He recommended that CJRA‑covered offenses be excluded explicitly from any day‑fine pilot.

- Operational impacts: OATH officials warned that income verification at hearings could require two hearings — one for liability and another for penalty setting — increasing hearing volume and processing time. Golden also said that many existing systems are “already antiquated” and that the pilot would require substantial IT changes.

- Voluntariness and privacy: Golden argued participation in an income‑based pilot should be voluntary; respondents should not be required to disclose income to contest a summons, and people who simply wish to pay a penalty without contesting should not be forced into the income process.

- Collections and revenue uncertainty: Committee members noted the city has substantial outstanding civil fine debt. Chair Lincoln Ressler observed earlier in the hearing that “last year, OATH processed 1,105,000 summons,” and Council Member Gail Brewer cited an IBO estimate of about $2.1 billion in unpaid fines across some agencies. Golden directed the committee to an annual Department of Finance report due each November for the most recent official figures and said previous city studies had analyzed uncollectible debt and other drivers of low collection rates.

Recommendations and next steps

Golden recommended that enforcement agencies, the Department of Finance and OATH jointly design any pilot, and that OATH should not be assigned the lead role in designing penalties. He said OATH can report outcomes of hearings and support data collection but should not be responsible for setting penalty schedules or evaluating the pilot’s policy success.

Council members pressed on implementation detail and asked what resources OATH would need to run a pilot. Golden said the agency could provide a cost estimate but warned the pilot would require "substantial additional technology" and training and that a badly scoped pilot could increase defaults and appeals.

Ending

Legislators framed the bill as an equity measure intended to increase payment rates and fairness. OATH and the mayor’s administrative justice office urged a narrowly tailored, voluntary pilot that avoids including CJRA matters and that is designed with DOF and enforcement agencies to avoid operational disruption.