So far, the race for Manhattan borough president hasn’t seen much to get excited about. The dozen or so Democratic candidates — as everyone knows, there’s no way a Republican will win this seat — have so far been defined by what geographic area they represent and their ethnicity. The question so far has been, Who can stretch their support beyond their base?
But Scott Stringer, an Upper West Side assemblymember, has taken a step to distinguish himself in this crowded field, at least in our eyes, by issuing a thorough and insightful report on Manhattan’s community boards.
Community boards are critical as forums for community issues and as an important advisory body on issues from zoning, landmarking and traffic to sidewalk cafes. Yet, the boards have some serious flaws, some of which have come to light under the tenure of the current borough president, Virginia Fields.
Stringer has highlighted some of the pressing problems facing these volunteer boards, one of the most important being the laxity of enforcement of conflict of interest regulations. His report cites as a primary example the situation at Greenwich Village’s Community Board 2, where Bob Rinaolo, a bar owner, was allowed to chair the board’s Business Committee, which gives recommendations on liquor license applications, despite a ruling by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. After much delay, Rinaolo finally did step down as committee chairperson, but for the months that this dragged on, the community, and most of the board, were kept in the dark. Stringer would require full disclosure by board chairpersons and committee chairpersons on possible conflicts.
Stringer’s report highlights other troublesome areas, such as board vacancies being allowed to exist too long — sometimes impacting board elections — and, generally, the highly political nature of board appointments and removals. Many are still shaking their heads over Fields’s removal of two upstanding community activists, Tobi Bergman and Jo Hamilton, from Board 2 for apparently nothing to do with community board issues; and for Fields’s sacking of an effective leader and chairperson of Community Board 1, Madelyn Wils.
Stringer says, if elected, he’ll never make ad hoc removals and never remove members before they finish their full terms. Stringer would set up a committee to advise him on appointments. He would have community board staff performance reviewed by his advisory committee. We think the idea of staff review would be healthy for the boards. Stringer is calling for each board to hire a planner. This last idea is ambitious, but how will it be funded?
Stringer’s report unearths useful information, such as the fact that Community Board 12 (Washington Heights/Inwood) gets the least amount of funding while serving the largest population, while Board 8 (Upper East Side) receives $100,000 more in its allocations from the city. Similarly, Board 2 represents fewer people than Board 3, yet Board 2 gets more money from the city.
Stringer has opened up a fertile debate on an important subject, and one of the few areas where the B.P. has real responsibility.
