NYC councilmember says Adams tried to stop policing bill by horse-trading budget cuts. It failed.
Mayor Eric Adams told at least one member of the City Council he would restore cuts to their favorite programs if they agreed to vote against a police transparency bill the mayor and NYPD officials vigorously opposed, according to four people familiar with conversations in the Council.
Adams’ attempts to horse-trade using the budget, which he has unique leverage over as mayor, come while the city is battling a fiscal crisis. But his efforts had limited impact on the outcome: The Council overwhelmingly passed the legislation Wednesday in a 35-9 vote — a veto-proof majority.
The bill, authored by Public Advocate Jumaane Williams and introduced with a majority of councilmembers as cosponsors, requires police officers to report all their investigative interactions with civilians, including low-level encounters not previously required to be tracked.
One councilmember said, before the vote, Adams and other administration officials floated restoring cuts in an area important to the lawmaker in exchange for a no vote on the legislation. The councilmember spoke to Gothamist on the condition their name and details of the mayor’s offer not be disclosed because it was a private conversation.
Another Council source who also spoke on the condition of anonymity out of respect for private conversations with lawmakers said several councilmembers told the source they were approached by Adams, who offered them funding for their pet initiatives or inquired about what kind of funding they wanted.
In a statement Friday, Adams’ office denied the administration made any such offers to councilmembers.
“What you shared is inaccurate,” said mayoral spokesperson Charles Lutvak. “The mayor did not offer to a councilmember to restore any budget cuts in exchange for a vote on Intro 586-A.”
News of Adams personally reaching out to councilmembers was first reported Wednesday in the New York Daily News, which cited Manhattan Councilmember Erik Bottcher as among those the mayor contacted. Bottcher initially sponsored the “How Many Stops” Act, but surprised his colleagues when he withdrew his support of the legislation Monday.
On Friday, Bottcher’s chief of staff Carl Wilson denied to Gothamist that there was any quid pro quo involved in the councilmember’s decision to vote against the legislation but confirmed Bottcher spoke with Adams the day before the vote.
The mayor and Council have been locked in a bitter battle over recent budget cuts. In November, Adams ordered broad cuts to city services, including schools, libraries and police, and has repeatedly said more cuts are in store because of financial pressures the city faces from the migrant crisis, expiring federal pandemic aid and slowing tax revenue growth.
Councilmembers responded by holding an 11-hour hearing this month where some grilled budget officials over whether the cuts were necessary, pointing to recent revenue projections that were less dire than initially forecast. But as mayor, Adams retains significant control over spending reductions throughout the fiscal year and will propose the city’s next budget in the coming months.
Administration officials estimate the city faces a $7 billion budget deficit, but a recent report by the Independent Budget Office, the city’s fiscal watchdog, found a much smaller gap of $1.8 billion next year.
Adams faces heavy criticism over the cuts from lawmakers and residents alike, with a Quinnipiac poll earlier this month finding the spending reductions were a factor in his abysmal approval ratings — the lowest of any NYC mayor in the history of the poll.
The mayor has blamed the cuts on the federal government’s alleged failure to provide sufficient funding and policy responses to the migrant crisis.
“I have to go into the agencies and find the money because the law tells me, Eric, every two years you have to balance the budget,” Adams said Thursday during a town hall with older residents in Brooklyn. “So when you look at these cuts that everybody's running around saying, ‘Well, don't cut here, don't cut here.’”
Adams staunchly opposed the NYPD transparency legislation, saying it would burden officers with additional paperwork and undermine public safety. Supporters of the changes said they would curb biased policing and improve oversight.
Adams has 30 days from the Council’s vote to decide whether to veto the bill. Should he issue a veto, the Council can override it with a two-thirds majority.
The “How Many Stops” Act had broad support from criminal justice advocates, who said the new rules would check racially biased policing by requiring police to report demographic information about people they stop, including their perceived race and ethnicity. The NYPD has long faced accusations of racial bias but has said it’s taken steps in recent years to police communities more equitably.
Many LGBTQ advocates backed the legislation, pointing to an ugly history of police violence against members of their community. Bottcher, who dropped his support from the measures, is a member of the Council’s LGBTQ Caucus and represents Chelsea and Greenwich Village, home of the Stonewall Uprising that launched the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.
While Wednesday’s bill passed by a comfortable margin, Bottcher’s no vote puzzled many other councilmembers and political observers.
Asked about his conversations with Adams and whether the mayor offered him any incentive to change his mind, Bottcher sent Gothamist a statement saying he had “serious concerns” about the bill and had asked the Council to consider a pilot program first.
“My decision was informed by conversations with my NYCHA tenant leaders who strongly oppose this bill, District Attorneys Alvin Bragg and Darcel Clarke, and many other New Yorkers who think it’s a big gamble at a time when public safety is at the forefront of people’s minds,” the statement read.
“Any suggestion that horse trading was involved is categorically false,” it added. “I certainly would have benefited more by voting for the bill, especially as committee assignments are being decided at the Council, but I was elected to do what I think is right — not what benefits me politically.”
Allen Roskoff, a local gay rights activist, said he was disappointed by the councilmember’s vote.
“It is a gay issue, especially for LGBTQ people of color,” Roskoff told Gothamist. “I wish he had voted differently.”