NYC Conflicts of Interest Board declines to clarify electioneering rules

The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board rejected a request from several good government groups urging the board to come up with new, clear rules banning the use of city time and resources for promoting or advocating against ballot questions. 

Members of COIB voted against a request from Citizens Union, Reinvent Albany and New York Public Interest Research Group during a hearing in Lower Manhattan Wednesday morning, arguing that public authorities’ advocacy for or against ballot initiatives is not a de facto conflict of interest – and as such, the board has no power to prevent it from happening.

The three watchdog groups initially petitioned COIB in late January, urging the board to act after the City Council and Adams administration poured millions into dueling public education campaigns around two sets of ballot proposal questions, first in the lead up to the November 2024 election and then again one year later. The anticorruption groups’ central argument was that those efforts at times violated the City Charter’s longstanding prohibition on elected officials and public servants using government funds, time or resources for political activity – including public communication “designed to urge the public to … support or oppose a particular referendum question.” 

To avoid future issues, they urged COIB to develop clear rules defining prohibited “political activity” using city time, resources and funds ahead of the 2026 general election – and to implement new guidance that bars advocacy for or against ballot initiatives even if they don’t explicitly tell New Yorkers how to vote. 

In declining the groups’ petition, COIB argued that elected officials and city agencies aren’t automatically engaging in illegal electioneering anytime they encourage people to vote for or against a ballot proposal. While doing so could constitute a conflict of interest in some cases, most of the time it’s no different than spending public resources on promoting legislation or any other city policy.

“A public servant’s use of city resources as part of their city job to advocate for or against a ballot initiative does not, by itself, constitute a ‘private interest,’” COIB Chair Milton Williams Jr. wrote in a letter sent to Citizens Union, Reinvent Albany and New York Public Interest Research Group the day after the board’s vote. “The circumstances are no different from where a public servant, as part of their city duties, uses city resources to advocate for legislation, rulemaking, or policy whether that advocacy is to the mayor’s office, the City Council or the public.” 

At the Wednesday meeting, COIB acknowledged that the City Charter could – and perhaps should – more clearly define whether public officials can use city resources to advocate for or against ballot proposals and how violations should be enforced. But COIB does not have any enforcement power even in flagrant violations, according to the board. District attorneys are the only ones with this ability and as it stands, there is little to no precedent for them using it. 

Ben Weinberg, director of public policy for Citizens Union, expressed disappointment in the board’s decision, describing it as a very narrow interpretation of the City Charter. While the good government group stands by its initial arguments that public officials should not use city resources to influence the results of a ballot referendum, they plan to explore other ways to stop the practice. 

“As the Board itself acknowledged this week, there is an enforcement gap, but it declined to take any steps to close it,” Citizens Union Executive Director Grace Rauh said in a statement. “We encourage the City Council to advance appropriate legislation to address this misuse of government resources and look forward to working with them to ensure public dollars aren't spent on illegal electioneering.”