It’s becoming apparent that the mechanism for forcing a mayor of New York City from office in between elections does not work. As of now, only the governor can remove a mayor — there is no impeachment process built into the City Charter, and no possibility of holding a recall vote.
Give credit to two state legislators, State Sen. Jabari Brisport and Assemblyman Harvey Epstein, for trying to change this reality with a bill introduced last week. In the wake of last year’s indictment of Eric Adams, it was obvious that asking the governor, Kathy Hochul, to drag him from office wasn’t going to succeed. Hochul’s hesitation was defensible — a sitting governor removing another elected official who hasn’t been convicted of a crime is quite difficult — but it should not have come down to her.
Instead, the City Council should back the Brisport-Epstein bill, the state Legislature should pass it, and Hochul should sign it into law. It does the work of preserving the governor’s power while adding important guardrails in New York City, allowing duly elected officials here to guide the destiny of the municipal government.
The new legislation would allow the council to remove a mayor with a three-fourths majority vote. The removal process could only be triggered if the mayor had been provided with a copy of the charges against them and was given an opportunity to respond.
The three-fourths threshold is higher than the two-thirds needed for conviction in either the state Senate or U.S. Senate, but it’s a reasonable number because the council is a unicameral body. In Congress and the state Legislature, the lower house brings the charges and the upper house votes to convict.
Three-fourths of the 51 council members would be 38; this is a large number and ensures a mayor wouldn’t be removed frivolously. It also wouldn’t alter the governor’s ability to remove a mayor, which should please Hochul and any of her successors, since governors are loath to give up power.
Granting the council this ability would ensure the will of city voters is not ignored. Members are responsive to their constituents and would not be able to build much momentum against a mayor who was popular or hadn’t done anything to warrant such a proceeding.
Adams, at the time of his indictment, was entitled to his day in court. However, his groveling to Donald Trump and the DOJ’s shocking decision to drop the corruption charges entirely — showing that Adams, for the time being, is wholly beholden to the new president — raised serious questions about whether the mayor, with less than a year left on his first and likely only term, was fit to continue serving. Hochul didn’t want to make the choice to remove Adams. She proposed, instead, a series of “guardrails” on the mayor that went nowhere in Albany and the City Council.
Hochul hoped to empower the state inspector general by adding a deputy for city affairs. That position would have served as a liaison with the city’s Department of Investigation. She also proposed to amend the City Charter to add protections for the DOI commissioner to prevent mayors from removing that person without the approval of the inspector general.
It appears, at a minimum, that lawmakers viewed the proposals as granting even more power to Albany over New York City. It’s also not apparent Hochul put much political capital behind them. They came and they went.
The Brisport-Epstein legislation is the best compromise. Hochul and future governors keep their nuclear option. The City Council gets a crucial check on executive power. It’s a win for all involved.
Ross Barkan is a journalist and author in New York City.
