[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> going forward, no one is supposed to press today is chair already again. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you so much for joining our hearing today. Welcome to the fiscal 2027 preliminary budget hearing for the Committee on Oversight and Investigations. I'm Council Member Shekar Krishnan, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations, and today we will review the Department of Investigations or DOI's fiscal 2027 preliminary budget to understand the changes in department's budget and how it addresses the needs of the department and improves the way that New York City operates. I see this committee and its partnership with DOI to be a powerful tool in rooting out corruption and a way to hold anyone or anything accountable that takes advantage of New Yorkers. From taking on bad landlords to greedy corporations, to ensuring city agencies are fully are fulfilling their mission, to ensuring the corruption we saw over the last 4 years in City Hall never happens again. These are the tasks in front of us and with this committee. Together, we are working to restore trust in our government and prove to New Yorkers that our city fights for you and works for you. Over the Eric Adams administration, we saw troubling amounts of corruption and misuse of city resources. The Department and DOI's and FBI's and the other federal investigations into this administration resulted in 20 individuals with links to City Hall, including former Mayor Adams himself, being charged with bribery, conspiracy, and fraud. All while Mayor Adams was slashing the budget for the Department of Investigations at the same time. A budget whose purpose is to bring oversight to city government and hold bad actors accountable. Former Mayor Adams cut the workforce of DOI by 28% deeply limiting the department's ability to properly and comprehensively oversee city agencies and root out corruption. With the new era in City Hall, we are hoping to turn a page on this corruption and restore some of these budget actions in the coming plans. We must allow this department the resources it needs to provide comprehensive oversight of previous and current programs. I look forward to hearing about your budget requests from DOI and continuing our fruitful conversations with ongoing oversight hearings. But I know that we have a lot of work ahead of us. I look forward to hearing about the impact we can have together in rooting out corruption, waste, and fraud for New Yorkers. I also want to thank our Oversight and Investigations Committee staff for their hard work, our financial analyst Owen Katowsky, policy analyst Erica Cohen and Alex Yablonsky, committee counsel Nicole Catta, and the incredible Oversight and Investigations Division. I also want to thank Jack Story and all of our Isha Wright and everyone from our finance staff as well who have worked with us for to prepare us for today's hearing. And of course, I want to thank my staff, Chanel Martinez, Andre De Negracia, and Victoria Opperman for all their hard work leading up to today. And when our colleagues join, you will recognize them, too. And I'd like to welcome now Acting Commissioner Christopher Ryan and his leadership team. I'm now going to pass it back to our committee counsel for a few procedural items. Thank you very much, Chair. We will now hear testimony from the administration. We will hear from DOI Acting Commissioner Chris Ryan. Before we begin, I will administer the affirmation. Please raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to council member questions? Thank you. You may begin when ready. Good afternoon, Chair Krishnan and members of the Committee on Oversight and Investigations. My name is Christopher Ryan, and I'm the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Investigation. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about DOI's preliminary budget for fiscal year 2027. My testimony will focus on DOI's work over the past year, our preliminary budget and staffing, and our new needs requests that have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, and which are critical for DOI's continued operations. I will also outline the difficult cuts that we have been asked to implement for the executive budget. Before I begin, I would like to provide some brief but important background to give you a better understanding of how we operate and conduct investigations. DOI is is a unique oversight agency established more than 153 years ago to combat corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement in New York City government. The city charter establishes our jurisdiction and grants DOI the ability the authority to make any study or investigation which in the opinion of the commissioner may be in the best interest of the city. The mayor and the New York City Council also may direct the DOI commissioner to conduct investigations. Over the years mayors have strengthened DOI's authority through several mayoral executive orders, most notably in the in the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. Those executive orders give DOI the authority to access most city records, emails, and other documents without a subpoena, and to compel interviews of city employees and vendors. The executive orders also mandate that all city employees who become aware of suspected corruption or fraud must report it directly and promptly to DOI or risk discipline. DOI has the power to subpoena third parties, non-city employees, for documents and for testimony which DOI is authorized to take under oath. A mayoral executive order in the mid-1980s reorganized DOI to its current structure with inspectors general reporting to the DOI commissioner. This shift removed mayoral agency oversight of inspectors general and provided DOI with an important measure of independence, establishing DOI as the city agency responsible for combating city-related corruption. DOI's investigations and factual findings can lead to criminal prosecutions, disciplinary proceedings, and other administrative actions. Our staff has deep knowledge of government operations and its complexities, and the many ways that corruption can creep into city government, thereby undermining access to city services and siphoning precious public funds. Based on our investigations, DOI makes recommendations for policy and procedural reforms to city agencies to address corrupt to corruption vulnerabilities and prevent misconduct from reoccurring. DOI also issues public reports that have significant impact in New York City. These public reports discuss DOI's factual findings and our reasoning for the recommendations that we issued. In addition to criminal and disciplinary investigations, DOI investigates potential conflicts of interests that may result in referrals to conflicts of interest board, as well as claims of retaliation against employees of agencies and city contractors who report misconduct and are protected by the city's whistleblower law. DOI also provides other critical services to the city, including background investigations for certain city employees, vendor name checks for city-funded vendors, and integrity monitoring services for large city projects, and to rehabilitate needed vendors with integrity concerns. DOI's work saves the city money by preventing fraud, identifying waste, and receiving millions of dollars in asset forfeiture and restitution funds that are collected as a result of some of our investigations. DOI's investigations in calendar year 2025 have covered a broad range of areas, from strengthening the safety of young people in the city's care, protecting public funds, and tackling crimes that compromise New Yorkers' access to essential needs such as housing and wages. DOI issued 14 public reports and saved more than $5 million for the city through DOI's monitorship of the asylum seeker contracts. In addition, DOI investigations led to the collection of more than $6 million in financial recoveries to the city. DOI made 174 arrests, fielded nearly 13,000 complaints, provided corruption prevention training to more than 37,000 city employees and others through our digital learning module, webinars, and in-person lectures, and issued 113 policy and procedure recommendations to improve city operations and best practices. These are only some of the agency's accomplishments. The full list is cataloged in our year-end report which is issued last which was issued last month and is attached to your testimony. I want to take a moment to recognize the hardworking and dedicated staff at DOI who made these accomplishments happen through their deep commitment to DOI's mission and to New Yorkers. Their work is even more noteworthy when we recognize that it was achieved while simult simultaneously conducting numerous high-profile, labor-intensive investigations focused on a number of high-level city officials. Those investigations required a significant number of staff and resources, all while we faced continuous budget cuts and hiring and retention challenges. I'd like to highlight some of the criminal cases that DOI worked on in 2025. They included the indictment of former Mayor Adams' chief adviser and eight other co-defendants in an alleged federal federal bribery conspiracy case, excuse me, state bribery conspiracy case. The conviction on bribery, fraud, and or extortion offenses of all 70 employees of the New York City Housing Authority charged in a February 2024 sweep that touched almost 1/3 of NYCHA's 365 developments in each of the five boroughs. The sentencing of two former chiefs in the fire department to prison terms for providing expedited plan reviews and priority inspections in return for bribes. The guilty pleas of principals of a fire alarm maintenance company and their sentencing to prison time for a decades-long scheme to defraud multiple city agencies by overbilling those agencies using fabricated invoices with fraudulent fraudulently inflated prices and shell companies. The charging of youth development specialists with the city Administration of For Children Services with bringing in contraband to a juvenile center in Brooklyn, and separately, the sentencing of four former ACS youth development specialists for participating in contraband smuggling. The indictment of landlords on charges of allegedly harassing two older rent-regulated tenants in Chelsea resulting in these tenants frequently living without heat for extended periods each winter and other dangerous conditions. Two separate wage theft cases that resulted in guilty pleas and the return of stolen wages to victimized workers. The sentencing of a former fraud investigator with the Department of Homeless Services and another individual to prison for stealing homeless victims' identities to apply for unemployment benefits. The sentencing of a former employee with a New York City Employees' Retirement System to 1 to 3 years in prison for stealing pension checks valued at $624,000 from two retirees. An array of contraband smuggling investigations on Rikers Island that resulted in charges and in some cases convictions of corrections officers for their role in these crimes. And guilty pleas by a construction safety training school and its president for issuing certificates to workers without providing the required safety training. The company lost its security license and the president was sentenced to 1 year in jail, 100 hours of community service, and was ordered to forfeit $100,000. A total of 22 defendants associated with this case have pleaded guilty or been found guilty after trial. DOI's work goes beyond its criminal cases. In 2025, DOI established the Protest Response Oversight Unit which is overseeing the New York City Police Department's response to certain protests as agreed to in the city's settlement of a lawsuit over the policing during the summer of 2022 demonstrations during that summer. The work of that unit is already underway and it is and it is currently reviewing two protests selected by the plaintiffs. The protest at Brooklyn College in May 2025 and the protest at 26 Federal Plaza in June 2025. This past year, DOI restructured the Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD and filled positions that had remained vacant for too long. I'm pleased to share with this committee that in 2025, DOI hired nine new staff members for this unit and it currently operates with an active head count of 10. The budget provides sufficient funding for only two of the five open positions in this unit and DOI plans to hire for an additional inspect assistant inspector general position and the inspector general position, which we hope to fill once the new DOI commissioner arrives. The unit will soon issue two reports that are mandated by the council, its annual report and the fourth annual report regarding NYPD's compliance with the public oversight of surveillance technology known as the POST Act that will focus on the NYPD's use of facial recognition technology. These two reports join the 13 reports that the unit has produced since January 2022 despite the serious staffing challenges it faced during that time. DOI has been actively working to amend state law that currently precludes DOI from being able to meaningfully exercise independent oversight over ACS's handling of child abuse and neglect investigations or its operation of the city's juvenile detention facilities. DOI thanks Assembly member Andrew Hevesi and Senator Jabari Brisport for their attention to this critical issue and for carrying the legislation forward. And DOI has completed and closed all pending background investigations that were part of an nearly 6,500 case backlog identified in 2019 thereby completely eliminating that backlog. Let me turn to DOI's fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget which is 54.1 million. The total is comprised of 30.5 million for personal services and 23.6 million for other than personal services which is largely made up of non-discretionary expenditures such as our rental obligation and integrity monitorships. At the start of fiscal year 27 as it has as it has in previous years DOI anticipates receiving an additional 1.7 million dollars in intra-city funds from other agencies that support a portion of our staffing. The total fiscal year 27 budget will support an anticipated 451 employees 309 funded through DOI's budget and memoranda of understanding arrangements. The remaining 142 staff represent employees directly funded by other city agencies and public authorities including NYCHA and New York City Health and Hospitals. DOI has also made significant progress in reducing our vacancy rate which is the lowest it has been in recent years because we have ensured that open funded positions are immediately posted and that identifying potential candidates occurs swiftly. Currently DOI has an 11% vacancy rate for its budgeted head count significantly lower than in fiscal year 24 when our vacancy rate was about 17%. I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight how DOI's capacity has been reduced over the past five fiscal years particularly relative to the size of the city's workforce and the city's budget with which we remain tasked with overseeing. Just six fiscal years ago in fiscal year 2021 DOI's preliminary budget was 58.2 million dollars. This year DOI's preliminary budget is only 54.1 million. Even as both salaries and expenses have continued to rise. In fiscal year 2021 DOI had an active head count of 525 staff including both DOI funded and on-loan employees. This year DOI has an active head count of just 417. As of today there are 108 fewer DOI professionals conducting oversight of the city and its vendors even as the city's budgeted workforce has remained largely relatively stable and the preliminary budget has increased from 95.3 billion to 127 billion over the same period. Former Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber repeatedly testified over the past few years about the strain that these cuts have put on our agency and our existing staff to the detriment of the city and I reiterate that point today. For the fiscal year 27 executive budget the Office of of Management and Budget proposed an OTAPS peg of 664,000 in fiscal year 26 and 1.1 million in 20 fiscal year 27 and the and the out years. An OTAPS peg of this size is is not reasonable for DOI. DOI's city tax levy funds OTAPS budget totals 23.1 million in 26 and 23.6 million in fiscal year 27. That funding pays for DOI's 18.5 million dollar rental obligation and 4.4 million for two integrity monitorships. These are non-discretionary expenses that DOI has no ability to reduce. That leaves only approximately 200,000 dollars in discretionary OTAPS funding that could be used to satisfy the peg. DOI has requested repeatedly that its non-discretionary OTAPS funding be exempted from the peg but this request has not yet been approved. OMB is is also proposing a PS peg in the form of 50% vacancy reduction in fiscal year 26 and beyond and a one-time PS reduction of 478,000 in fiscal year 26. This would reduce DOI's budgeted head count by 13 lines at a time when we all are already struggling with insufficient head count. DOI has similarly requested an exemption from the PS peg but to date that request has not been approved. In discretionary OTAPS funding that I just referenced DOI's entire city tax levy funded budget goes to support staff salaries rent and contracted integrity monitorships for two citywide projects. In advance of the release of the 27 fiscal year 27 preliminary budget DOI submitted a new needs request to OMB. Only one of our requests was funded in the budget namely 600,000 dollars for DOI's lease obligations. Let me outline some of our high priority requests which remain unfunded. In July 2025 the city passed resolution number 560-A directing DOI to ascertain the knowledge mayoral administrations had about environmental toxins produced by the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and to support a report to the council by July 2027. As the council was considering this resolution DOI explained that given the volume and scope of such an examination DOI would need funding to hire a team of investigators, attorneys and experts to properly conduct the investigation. To that end DOI has requested 3 million dollars in funding in FY27 to hire an outside firm with the essential expertise that DOI will manage. Based on the responses we received to our request for information DOI now estimates that the cost of the overall investigation will total between 4 and 5 million dollars and we will be submitting a revised request to OMB. DOI requested 1.1 million in new baselined PS funding to support 17 additional head count. The new head count is needed to allow DOI to add specialized staff to its ranks specifically auditors, data analysts and background investigators. This funding also includes the hiring of seven entry-level investigators to better support our current investigative squads and 130,000 dollars to hire two operational support staff in our procurement and budget offices. DOI has worked hard to recruit and retain its staff, particularly during the budgetary cuts over recent fiscal years in which the city's two-for-one hiring freeze created a severe burden on the staff. To accomplish this critical staffing effort, DOI leveraged existing vacancy funding to revise the salary structure for our investigative titles, which experienced some of the highest attrition rates in the agency's recent history, and which established a viable path for young investigators who desired promotional opportunities within the agency. As a result, 14 positions were defunded, and DOI has requested that those positions, totaling 1.4 million dollars, be restored. DOI has requested a little over 1 million to cover ongoing maintenance and technical support that has increased significantly from fiscal year 2024, and to continue the process of updating and replacing aging technology. In past years, DOI has leveraged state and federal asset forfeiture to supplement our needs in this area, but at the current rate of spending, forfeiture reserves are projected to be depleted by fiscal year 2028. Let me provide some background on how we receive forfeiture funding and the legal rules for using it. Forfeiture funding is intended to supplement DOI's resources and expand its investigative capacities, not to pay for ordinary expenditures that should be appropriately funded by the city. DOI receives forfeiture from its criminal investigations. Both federal and state laws provide for the seizure of assets that are connected to criminal activity and the subsequent sharing of those funds with the investigative agencies responsible for the investigations. Forfeiture funds must be used to support legitimate law enforcement activities. The majority of our forfeiture funds come from the federal prosecute from come from federal prosecutions, and there are very strict uh Department of Justice guidelines on how forfeiture funds can be used and for what purposes. The DOJ guidelines require that forfeiture funds supplement, not supplant, DOI budget. This means that city that the city cannot reduce DOI's budget due to the ability of forfeiture funds. Investigations do not always result in forfeiture funding to DOI, and there is no way to predict how much forfeiture DOI will receive in any given year. I want to take a moment to say that it has been an honor to serve as DOI's acting commissioner. Um and while that honor sits with me, um I want to certainly um uh note the DOI staff here. We have uh we have held the fort down, I think admirably, as a team over the course of the last um several weeks, and um everyone at DOI is looking forward to the arrival of our new commissioner, uh under whose leadership we will continue to provide the independent oversight that has been the hallmark of DOI's work as DOI as New York City's Inspector General. Uh thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, Commissioner, for your testimony. I want to recognize that we've been joined by our finance chair and and committee member, Council member Linda Lee, and also Council member Sandra Ung. Uh first, before getting started, Commissioner, I want to thank you for all your service uh to our city, the work that you've done. I've been aware of your work um over these years, too, even as the as the first deputy commissioner, as well, and now um as the acting commissioner uh of this agency, too. Uh it's very much appreciated. These are very turbulent times, and DOI played a leading role um in ensuring that the city rooted out um corruption um and moved forward. Uh and on a personal note, uh you knew me 20 years ago when I was a first-year law school intern in the Manhattan DA's office. So, it's been an honor to at least, for the last couple hearings, uh be in this role together uh years later. Comes full circle. So, thank you for all your service to this city, um and uh best wishes on your next endeavor, as well. Thank you. Uh I want to get started by You give a lot of information here um you know, just just about the state of the budget and where we are right now. But I want to zoom out for a minute and just I highlight a few key things that you mentioned. In the last in fiscal year 2025, the department received 14,435 complaints, um which led to 1,515 active investigations and 782 referrals for civil and administrative action and criminal prosecution. Uh does that does those numbers sound correct to you in terms of the work and uh scale of complaints and investigations you all did? Yes. And you also mentioned um I think uh in the beginning of your testimony, too, uh the amount of work that DOI had done on criminal cases from uh the uh indictment of former Mayor Adams' chief advisor and any other co-defendants, 17 employees at NYCHA, ACS, FDNY, and why um various levels of fraud um and other landlords that were indicted for harassing rent-regulated tenants, uh just to name a few. Um is that a correct summary of all the the the work that you had done? It it it was it it was a a sampling of the work we have done. Um goes obviously well beyond beyond that, but those are those are matters that we we thought we would highlight. And in this year's preliminary preliminary budget, uh the current proposal is despite all of that work, 54 million in this preliminary budget, right? Correct. And as you mentioned, that is going back for the last five years, a 4 million dollar decline um in the uh budget, if I have that right, in the preliminary budget for for DOI, as well. Is that right? >> Correct. And about five years ago, you all had a staff of 525, and now you all have a staff of 417, which, as you mentioned, 108 fewer staff doing oversight over the last five years. Is that right? >> Correct. And that is despite the fact that um expenses and salaries have risen, uh and even more so, despite the fact that the city budget workforce has remained stable, and in fact, the budget has gone up from 95 billion to 127 billion. Is that right? >> Correct. So, budget's gone up, uh workforce has remained stable, yet during that time, DOI's resources and budget have drastically been reduced. Is that right? >> Correct. And that is also during a time where you all were not only doing a number of different uh investigations and complaints, but where you all were investigating and bringing forward uh and recommending for charges uh criminal activity occurring at the highest levels of City Hall. Is that correct? Correct. Which ultimately um led to a uh change in leadership at City Hall, as well, and a number of uh federal and state indictments that came out as a result of that work, too, from DOI. Is that right? >> Yes. So, that is really what stuns me today. I You know, Commissioner, uh do you believe that an agency with a mission as important as the Department of Investigation to root out corruption at every level of government, do you believe that the budget of an agency like that should be subject to the whims of City Hall, uh to the whims of um uh and the results of investigations that you all uh undertake? Do you believe that that should have any bearing on the budget you all receive as DOI? No. I believe it was last year DOI worked with uh and made and certainly made a proposal in the um the charter revision um um process to come up with a way to prevent exactly what you're what you're describing. And what we uh what we proposed was pegging DOI's budget as a percentage of the city budget um to remove even the appearance that a uh that an administration would be intentionally defunding the oversight agency. Um and so, if DOI's budget was pegged in a particular way, then I think we recommended a percentage of the city budget at 0.06%. Um when the if the budget rose, so would DOI's budget. If the budget was reduced um so would so would ours. But it would remove any ability or even the the the appearance that our budget was being manipulated for um in order to reduce the ability of the agency to conduct oversight. We had made that proposal. Um It's it's it's a it's a certainly sound It is a sound methodology that is used by other cities, um and we talked to some of our colleagues Excuse [clears throat] me, in um in other cities who operated under that same that same regimen. And so, we we made that recommendation last year. So, you all proposed, as part of the Charter Revision Commission, uh funding and basing the funding of the important agency and this agency's important work based on a percentage of the city budget. >> Correct. And that was done to protect the independence of the Department of Investigations, right? Correct. And that independence is a critical element of DOI's work because you are examining and investigating corruption at every level of city government from any city employee to the top of City Hall. Is that correct? >> Yes. What happened to that proposal that you all had put forward? So, we're understanding that our our proposal is within one of the two kind of competing charter revision um sets of proposals as that stand now. Whether or not ours will be will be adopted we I don't think we we we know that. Mhm. So, a proposal as important as this has been so to speak lost in the sauce of the dueling charter revision commissions, one put forth by former Mayor Adams. Is that right? >> Correct. You know what really stuns me about this is given the importance of DOI's mission and mandate, given the crucial role that DOI played in the investigation and federal charges that ultimately led to the indictment of former Mayor Adams, given the importance of DOI's independence to do that work, to see the budget slashed over these years, to see the staffing slashed over these years is just shocking. And it raises serious questions in my mind about the hollowing out of this agency by a prior administration that that themselves were the subject of federal state sprawling federal and state investigations that DOI was a part of. I don't believe any agency should be subject to the whims of politics that way, but an agency with such an important independent mandate like DOI's to see it subjected to political games the way that it has been the last 4 years is frankly part of the problem and part of what we need to address moving forward with this new administration and with this new era in city government. My question is to what extent um do you what extent to the extent you can reveal, what were the conversations like with Department of Investigations and the prior administration when it came to funding for DOI, whether it's with OMB or the mayor's office? How did those conversations go when it came to hiring, budget modifications or interagency coordination? I'm sure you all I was there for your testimony for prior budget hearings. To the extent you can you can disclose, what were the outcomes of those discussions with City Hall? Where did they go? Were you all we know what happened in the in the budget itself and the resources you got and didn't get, but was DOI making its case to City Hall as to the importance of these resources? Unquestionably DOI was was repeatedly at every opportunity making its case with with the prior administration particularly through OMB and and and through City Hall. Um All the proposals, everything that that was included in my testimony today, the facts, the figures, the downward trend, we we we made our case at every opportunity that we had with the last administration. And what was the reaction reaction that you received? Um the request we we had we had some um some positive responses on particularized, you know, particularized requests, but generally speaking the the largest ticket items that we had had requested that would really have the most significant structural impact on the on the agency in terms of hiring and salary and retention were were were not were were were not acted on by the administration and and we were repeatedly subject to to pegs and reductions and um and and the cost cutting that puts us in the position we are in now. Which is shocking to me because we have not seen since the days of Tammany Hall the level of corruption we saw at City Hall over the last 4 years. And you all are tasked with investigating and rooting out that corruption which you did very commendably. Do you all feel that when the budgets get cut this way, when you see a such a reduction in staffing and a $4 million decline in your budget over the last 4 years, does that hamper your ability to conduct the anti-corruption and other investigations that you all do at the Department of Investigation? As I said in my testimony, we certainly it certainly has has negatively impacted our ability to do to do everything that we want to do. I will say that DOI the staff at DOI is committed to this mission and has has There's always there things that we would want to do but that that that we have been you know, they are reducing our ability to do so. However, um we continue to do day-to-day the important work and make do with what we with what we can. So, the mission is there, the staff is is dedicated to the work. Um it would be but I I I wouldn't it would be um disingenuous to say that it has not impacted our our day-to-day ability to do the work which just simply causes us to triage I think more and to and to decide, you know, where can we dedicate the scarce resources that we have to to deliver you know, the most meaningful impact for for the city. So, there's there's there's a it's it's certainly it's a balancing act and a and a prioritization which I think we've been very effective in doing. We certainly we certainly needed to do the large-scale labor-intensive, you know, high-profile cases last year. I think the city needed us to do that and while keeping the day-to-day work going. It was asking a lot of staff. Staff were were asked for to do a lot more with a lot less and a lot fewer of them. So, it's been it has it has been a challenge but the the the the staff is admirably dedicated to the work that we do. Which, you know, as you pointed out at the end and that's the key. You all have done a lot more with a lot less and and very commendably so, may I add, but you know, it is very surprising to see that the this preliminary budget only proposes $54 million for an agency with such a broad and critical mandate across the city. I have a few more questions and I'm going to turn it over to our finance chair to ask some questions as well. Um so, I the my first question is um you know, the since the start of the Adams administration, the department's budgeted headcount has been reduced by 28% and we know the impact that has and you testified to it as well. Can you point to a time when you felt the department's funding was at an optimal level? I don't think we can necessarily point to a particular point in in time, but I when the opportunity to rethink our budget and and we did this under under Commissioner Strauber's leadership last year, we we did a really deep dive deliberate assessment because we knew we would be asking in the charter revision context for something durable. And so, we took an extraordinary deep dive and really analyzed unit by unit within DOI what we would need without asking we we we remember this is still government. So, we were not asking for you know, for for anything that we thought was was extravagant, but we did a an analysis unit by unit of what we would need to really optimize our our the performance of our squad and that is where we came to that pegging of the budget idea at 0.066%. If that would be in our collective assessment a an optimal an optimal point. I believe it would bring our budget into the something like 72 million or so and bring our headcount into the high sixes or the low sevens inclusive of of on loans from other agencies, but that would be that would be a a a really optimal an optimal situation without it being asking more than than than we would than we would credibly be able to ask from the city. >> Right. And how many cities or can you name a few of them have adopted this model of tying the DOI their DOI budgets to the city budget? We spent a lot of time speaking with our colleagues in Chicago, um who uh have been operating under this um um regimen for a very long time. There's also a an extraordinarily um an extraordinarily productive and insightful office that we've has been very generous, you know, with their with their time. And we we talk to each other in the Inspector General world. Um and so, but um that the one that comes to mind was Chicago. They've operated under under this and they were very helpful in walking us through kind of thinking how to pick the right number. Obviously, it's a charter revision, so we wanted to get this right. And and I think we believe we got the the the the the a a reasonable proper uh number. Um and I'm sure I'm sure we spoke with we may spoke with Los Angeles as well, but I I actually don't remember that right now. Yeah. And uh the and so and then just you mentioned before that would bring the overall head count to to high 600s, low 700s, right? Which would be an optimal amount. Uh Commissioner Strauber mentioned at a prior budget hearing the department couldn't perform proactive investigations due to head count restrictions. Is that still the case? And is this optimal budget that you've testified to what you need to proactively stop fraud and waste? I mean, I think it's it's clear to everybody that we've got to make sure we stop, you know, bad actors and bad behavior before it actually happens. Um so, what is the status of these proactive investigations? Yeah, so I so what I think Commissioner the point Commissioner Strauber was was was making is that we have to balance our proactive work and our uh complaint-driven work. The the 13,000 complaints um that come in every year, DOI looks at them. We look at every one um and make some determination whether it's probably whether it's something that um we can refer to another city agency, whether it's something that really falls within the purview of DOI. But we do that work obviously every day. We are engaged in proactive investigations all the time. Um and so, it is not necessarily an either-or, but it is a balancing uh a balancing act. I believe that is what uh Commissioner Strauber was was describing um um when she testified and goes back to I think my my prior comments. There is a there is a triaging um of of opportunities. DOI has all sorts of opportunities to do lots of um very um productive, impactful work. We want our work to be as impactful as possible. And if it's a matter of doing a proactive investigation, we want to do the most impactful ones that help, you know, agencies perform better, services to be delivered more effectively by the city, and have um and have them, you know, uh again, the also the psychological impact both in for city employees that DOI is here. Our numbers are down, but we are still here and we are still actively working with agencies on issues of corruption. Um but also to let the public know that uh that DOI is still actively doing our our job. Everyone is has has the We're you know, every city agency's operating under constraints, but um we want to pick the proactive work that is that is the most um that the is the most impactful. And I think we've I think we've been able to to do that. And just a couple more questions from from our side um from my side at least for a bit. Um you've testified about the asset forfeiture um funding that you all use, which to me what was very shocking about that, you know, from prior budget hearings is how much you all rely on asset forfeiture funds to fund important needs of the department. Um and you know, as you mentioned before, you know, federal guidelines also emphasize that, you know you um asset forfeiture funds cannot supplant um any core funding from the from the city and and for operations. They can only supplement. But it seems to me that you all have been using it um for any new needs that come up. Um and in particular uh from one uh case where over time obviously those funds will uh diminish. So, I just want to get a better sense of how much funding has the department had to use utilize from the asset forfeiture funds over the years? Um and how much baseline OTPS funding does the department need added in the next fiscal year so you don't have to utilize asset forfeiture funds? Give me one moment. So, going back uh I'll just give you a a sampling of of of some years. Going back to fiscal year 23, um our forfeiture spend and it's a combination of uh Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, and state forfeiture. Our forfeiture spend in fiscal year 23 was 1.37 million. In 24, that rose to 3.62 million. In fiscal year 25, uh we were uh our expenditure was 6.9 million. 6.97 million. Um in 26, our all our obligations, our current obligations, uh that for [snorts] which we have dedicated forfeiture is 7.3 million. And we believe we have about another two our our our our um forecast would be that should rise by two um 9.9 million or another 2.6 million additionally in 2026 in order to um in order to fund our operations. So, to your question is what we would need from from city tax levy to to fill that gap, those are Essentially, those are are the numbers. So, Commissioner, can I just um pause on that for a minute? So, from FY23, 1.37 million drawn from forfeiture. And then FY26, currently 7.3 million, but likely ending up at about 9.9 million by the end. So, 1.3 to 9. That's a 8.6 million dollar increase um over the last several years in drawing down on the asset forfeiture funds. Is that right? Correct. And that's obviously a result of the budget declining uh and you all needing to pull that money from somewhere um to be able to Is it to sustain operations or is it to for new for new needs as well? It it it is it is I I would and and I can check with my colleagues. I would categorize it as um as sustaining operations in the sense I mean, I'll give you just one example. Um we our um case management system. We had DOI had a a uh a uh antiquated case management system, which was not able to function properly or adequately for the for the internal needs with the um with the changes in discovery law that we saw over the last few years, and I think other agencies have dealt with as well uh as well. We needed a system that would allow us to be able to manage internal data in a way that would allow us to um both be most the most to be more productive internally, but also to be able to comply with with state um um the compliance of of discovery. And so, um we use forfeiture for that. I it it's it's both a new need, but I would consider that a, you know, kind of more of an internal maintenance. We're not asking We're not looking for something in addition to what we had. We were replacing something that was not that was old and not working with something that was new and um and and modern and more effective in our um uh for our for our internal needs, but it was wasn't, you know, it it it was it was the replace was a um an internal maintenance need. >> Right. With new needs, but to sustain core operations. Yeah, that makes right. Um have other cities' department investigations, I mean, you all are talking to other IG offices, um even law enforcement agencies, have you seen that much reliance on asset forfeiture funds to fund that level of um you know, new needs, but to sustain core operations? I I don't know specifically the answer to that. It's something we would certainly be able to to um find out and get um and get back to um uh the committee on. My suspicion is I mean, New York is is is unique. And the reason why we have the forfeiture fund we have largely emanates from the City Time case, which was a long time ago. Um and uh but only came in was only released within the you know, several years ago. But for that particular case, we would not have the forfeiture that we have. So, it's possible that other cities have similar um have similar forfeiture experiences, but like unless unless you unless there is a case like that um so, I would largely think the answer would be no, but I could certainly confirm that and get back to the council. And my final question is just, you know, you mentioned the City Town case that was um where a lot of the asset forfeiture funds are coming from. How much is left in that fund and at the rate you all are drawing down, when would that um fund be depleted? So, at our current rate of spend Sorry. I can hear you. Oh, at at the current rate of spend um we would um we would deplete that reserve in two to four years. Two to four years? >> Correct, yes. And what's the how much is left in that fund and what's the The DOI uh received 32 million from that and we and there's 20 million um left. >> Mhm. And when did you receive that? So, we received that in 2022. Um that 32 million that is now in in in the current year 20 um uh 20 million. But as you can see by the rate of spend it's it's simply not sustainable. Mhm. Mhm. And lastly, if you all did peg or not peg, but tie your agency's budget to the city budget um or saw an increase in the agency budget in other ways, you would not need to draw down at that asset forfeiture fund at that at that rate, right? Co- correct. We not at that rate. I mean, forfeiture funds need to be spent. They can't be squirreled away. Um and so, there is an obligation to spend them, but this is this is unusual. Um so, yes, if we were if we were to were to receive receive the proper the proper the the adequate funding um that rate of spend would would uh change dramatically. Thank you. I'm going to turn over now to our finance chair ask questions. Hi, good afternoon. Good afternoon. So, really quick question on just the chief savings officers cuz I know every agency's being asked to do this. Um so, uh have you identified someone actually within the agency to be the chief savings officer? We have. We have a wonderful chief savings officers. Uh she is here today, Deputy Commissioner uh Caitlin Simmons is our um head of all things operations and heads up finance and she is our our chief savings officer. Awesome. Nice to meet you. Um >> [clears throat] >> Uh what was what Well, I think the target reductions for FY26 and 27 are the same I'm assuming rate, which is 1.5% for FY26 and then 2.5% for FY27. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Okay. And have you identified I know the reports are technically due Friday, but have you identified any areas in where savings can be found? Um and has the administration looked to decrease or eliminate any units for savings? One moment. Do you have that? Oh, thank you. So, yes, um DOI has been asked to find 1.5% in savings in 2026 and 2.5 in fiscal year 27 and the out years. We have been struggling to identify areas for cuts. Um Again, as as as I as I said in my testimony, we are not a programmatic Right. >> agency. We are people, equipment. That's [snorts] really what we what we um what we have um and to to um to cut. Uh we're already very lean. We don't have excessive spending. Uh any cuts um will impact DOI's ability to fulfill its mission. It's just there's no there's no getting around that. We will do everything we can to do you know, effectively um perform our mission as best as possible, but um any cuts will reduce our ability um to do that and to determine where best to focus our remaining um resources. We will continue that that triaging to um uh of of of resources. Our three primary drivers of our budget are salaries, rent, and the two integrity monitorships. Um None of which we have the ability to cut if we wanted to. Right. Uh Well, that was my follow-up question. So, are you subject to the vacancy reductions and are there any positions that are exempt? We are subject to the vacancy reduction and the answer as to exemption is no. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Uh Council member Ung, do you have any questions? Uh going back to a few different um areas to to look at. Um well, my first question is Oh, sorry, going back to the asset forfeiture. Uh you have mentioned that there are statutory requirements to draw down over the funds over time. They can't just sit there. So, what are the statutory timelines for that? I mean, when are you required or legally obligated to to draw down on it? What rate? How does that work? I my understanding is there is no predetermined rate of spend that is required by by DOJ, Treasury, or the state. Um I there there they're there to help agencies, you know, supplement budgets. So, it would be um we would want to use forfeiture to enhance our the services that we deliver to the city to work more cooperatively with um or more more proactively with agencies. There's a lot we can do with forfeiture. Um so, we would certainly be be be spending them. Um but there is no particular particular duration by which they have to be spent or any or any rate of spend that's that's required. But we would certainly want to use them to enhance our oversight of of city agencies. And going back to the reports that you all issue, how many mandated and unmandated reports has the department issued in the last year? How does that compare to previous years? One moment. I have that right here. Do you have that? One moment. Ah thank So, in 2025, DOI DOI issued 14 reports. Two of those were mandated. Um just to give you some kind of a comparison. In 2024, we did 15 reports, five were mandated. In 2023, we did nine um and three were mandated. And in 2022, we did four. So um we're we're doing we're we're averaging in recent years about 14 15 reports a year. Well, presumably with less staff and less resources, that's more uh more burdensome on the existing staff to to keep up that pace. It it it's harder to do. We have staff who are the subject matter experts who are finding themselves in the field more to try to get them now to like come in, sit and actually write a, you know, an investigative report. It's doable. We're doing it. We will continue to do it. Um and we are, you know, moving resources around in order to make sure that that that we fulfill that obligation to the city, but absolutely correct. It is it is it is increasingly difficult to do. And the and I think our reports tend to be really really impactful and really meaningful and are designed to um to speak not only to policy makers, but to the public to let them know, you know, um how their city agencies that perform that provide services to them are are performing and um and ways that in and we we know ways that DOI, you know, im- improves city services. I think it's very important for the public to see that. Again, we'll keep we'll keep doing it. It's going to become increasingly harder to do at that rate. Um and what to the extent you can disclose, what reports are you working on now? So we What I can share publicly is we our um the Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD is currently working on its annual report. And we are also working on um the POST Act report, which um which this year will be focusing on the NYPD's use of uh facial recognition technology, which is I think something that's widely of interest to individuals in the public and and policy makers. We're also working on our annual anti-corruption report, which will look at the auditing capabilities of city agencies. And we're also working on a report that will detail the challenges that we have in exercising independent oversight of of ACS because of certain state laws that restrict our ability to access their records, as well as the restrictive manner in which the state's office of children and family services exercises its limited discretionary authority to to approve our access to records. Finally, our protest response oversight unit is working on the first of their reports that they will be releasing this spring. Thank you. And I want to go through a couple different areas that you testified to before about the the work you're all doing and how the budget impacts that. So you mentioned or you know, we've heard a bit about the vendor integrity unit that DOI has that oversees the monitorship program, DEP projects, and vendor name checks for contracts over 250,000. What is the budget and head count for this unit? Is it fully staffed? So yes. So um One moment. So the current head count of vendor integrity is 18. It's split between three areas. One is the um the inspector general for vendor integrity and who who has three staff members here in the city and um the inspector general manages all of the city's monitorships, of which I believe there are probably about 10 operating right now. Those include some of the big ticket items like the borough-based jail monitorship, which we are engaged in currently, the asylum seeker monitorship from the last couple years, which was obviously a wide-ranging enterprise. We also do we also have the VENDEX unit, which uh runs name checks and on on city vendors. We also have and which is probably lesser known, we have seven staff members in um I'll call it upstate New York because I'm from Queens, so everything is upstate, but they're up in up they're up in near Poughkeepsie. And they operate the watershed. So we have investigators largely capital construction funded by DEP, but we have an entire staff up there doing operational work to protect the watershed and the New York City drinking water, which is something that's that's interesting. They are they are largely fully staffed. We have a couple openings, but I think we're in the process of onboarding at least one or two, so we're we're we're very close to being fully fully staffed. And um could this unit investigate and provide oversight into the varying contract costs that agencies have for similar services? What would the unit need to perform its duty or do you feel like it's sufficiently staffed at this point? It would be it would be very difficult um for this unit to to perform that function. During the pendency of the asylum seeker monitorship, we worked this unit worked very closely with the assigned monitor in real real-time monitoring of contracts across city agencies and we actually did a did I think a a remarkable job of communicating you know contract costs, you know, per unit costs that were uh by contract, by agency. So the agencies could see you know, we're spending more for this and you're spending less less for this to be able to to look at their contract costs. To do that on our own, we did we did that with KPMG as an exterior as an outside monitor. For DOI to replicate that, we certainly could. It would require it would require funding for the appropriate personnel with the appropriate training. And you testified a bit before too, but for the 9/11 investigation mandate, what are the budget requests for that? The the the the final budget request will be 4 to 5 million. And for NYPD OIG, the preliminary plan includes 1.7 million and 17 positions in FY27. Is this sufficient funding to provide oversight to the NYPD? What are the challenges in hiring and retaining an inspector general for this position? So we think it's we think the funding is is appropriate. We have we've got to a staffing level um we had the opportunity to hire up new staff as I said earlier sometime mid last year. We have a terrific staff. They are well underway in in their work. So I think they're I I think their current staffing given the the the systemic work that they're doing is is appropriate. In terms of identifying and and onboarding an inspector general, you know, we've certainly um been been exploring that. It's something we very much wanted to do with with the new commissioner. And when it comes to housing investigations, you know, I've got a particular interest in them too as a former tenant's lawyer and looking at the ways in which DOI can play a role in ensuring that tenants have robust protections and bad landlords are held accountable as you all are doing. The administration recently announced a 2.1 million dollar settlement with a landlord who was responsible for terrible housing conditions and this I would think would signal a larger push by the administration to hold landlords accountable. What is the staffing for squads number three and number seven? I know these are the the squads that oversee DOB and HPD at squad three and squad seven oversees NYCHA. So what is their current staffing? So squad three, which oversees HPD buildings, has a staff of 16. Squad seven, which oversees NYCHA, has a staff of 51. And how does squad three play a role in in investigating hazardous conditions and tenant harassment for city-funded projects? So we have the IG for for squad three is a subject matter expert who has long-standing relationships with within both Department of Buildings and Housing and Preservation and Development. Um is really knowledgeable about this about this area and very you know, innovative in in in thinking about ways to use limited staff to have the most to have the most impact. Um Um they do they they're they're in in addition to their and I um I won't say it's new, but I think it's probably the best in a long time, um our relationship with the DA's offices. Um both the IG and and and the executive staff were constantly in contact with our partners at the at the five DA's offices talking about these issues um and looking for opportunities to work to work together. Everything we do the tenant harassment field, we we share very early and often both ways with the DA's offices. It's it's uh it's a very cooperative and collaborative relationship that I really I um both brought really effective cases, but brought cases quicker. Um anytime you have an allegation that a tenant is being harassed, time is of the essence, unlike other investigations where you might give more time. That's something we want to act on very very quickly and the DAs the DAs have been great. That squad also responds to building collapses, fires along with DOB staff. Anything the DOB staff is you know, we see on on New York one something happening that fire and DOB are out at, DOI has staff members responding as well. And are any squads in desperate need of additional staff or resources? I don't know how we define desperate. Every squad is significant has significantly fewer individuals than it did at you know, three or four or five years ago. Um Uh we we we we need we need more staff. There's we are we are we are a people agency as I've said two or three times already. We are run by people. We do not We are lean. We don't have extravagant spending on anything beyond people, vehicles, computers, those and and rent. Those are the things that we that we need. If we have more people, DOI can continue to do the job that the city expects it to do. And of course, you're also moving around inspectors between squads, too, right? As as needs arise. We are Investigators, sorry. We're surely We're surely moving staff depending on the needs of any project. You know, it's it's it's all hands on deck all the time. And when it comes to the protest settlement monitor unit, the council had pushed for in the last budget approximately 600,000 to be included to create that unit with five staff. Have you hired for all these positions and do you feel that five positions are enough to conduct the oversight that this unit is responsible for doing? Yes, we've hired one inspector general, two investigative attorneys, I believe that's their their their title, and two investigators. They are a remarkably um experienced, highly skilled group. They've done a tremendous job to date and I I think that's I think they are adequately funded and staffed. And how is the staffing for squad one that oversees the Department of Probation? Squad one's total staffing stands at 24 and that's a combination of um of DOI staff and on loan from staff from DOC. Got it. Okay. And recently the department referred over a case investigating the former commissioner. Um are there Can you talk a bit with public detail about that was a that was a referral that was made from you all over to city authorities, I believe, to the DA's office or I may be misremembering that or or maybe not, but if you can to the extent you can publicly disclose the substance of that referral and who it was made to. I can't. Um are there other pending cases the department is looking into? I'm I'm Are there other pending cases the department is looking into? I I I I I I I Concerning the Department of Probation. Oh, um Also, if you can >> Also also not something I can I can talk about. To the extent you can disclose this, will there be a report on the findings that you all from your investigations? Depend Whenever we do an investigation, depending on what the outcome is, one of the options is to do a is to do a report. Yes. Whether what the what the outcome for for anything relating to the Department of Probation, it would be too early to know where what's what the ultimate outcome would be. Got it. Thank you. And according to the FY25 mayor's management report, the average time to complete investigation took 251 days, which is 20% and 20% increase from the four-year average between 2021 2021 and 2024 of 208 days. So it's gone up by about 43 days. The department target for this indicator is 180 days. Could you tell us a little bit more about what may be causing this increase? I I I think everything that we have talked about today has is is is responsible or for the source of that of that continued uh There is no Certainly there Certainly there is manpower. Certainly there is resources. I think also when you have, you know, 180 is the goal. Not all cases fall with fall within the that being a reasonable expectation, particularly long-term investigations of high-ranking officials in city government. Um Those tend to skew the the the time frame. So I I would suspect that that is also the investigations that have been public over the last over the last year and a half or two are very much not something that that the 180-day kind of is is even a is even a reasonable thought about. Sure. Well, those are all the questions we had, Commissioner. You know, I think one of the big things we see today is we appreciate all that DOI has done uh so much and more that DOI has done with far less. But as we stated and began this hearing by commenting on I do strongly believe that you all deserve and need the resources commensurate with the critical work that you are all doing when it comes to transparency and accountability in government. So we'll keep pushing for that on our on our end and we I think it's critical to see the differences in this new budget as well given what's transpired over the last four years. But I want to thank you all for your work. Thank the staff of DOI as well and appreciate your leadership, too. Thank you. Now we are going to call up public testimony. I'm now going to open up the hearing for public testimony. I remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding and that the quorum shall be observed at all times. As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recordings or photography is allowed from the witness table. Members of the public may not present audio or video recordings of testimony but may submit transcripts to the sergeant for inclusion in the hearing record. If you wish to speak at today's hearing, which is the oversight hearing topic, the DOI's fiscal 2020 2027 preliminary budget, you'll have two minutes to speak. If you have a written statement or additional written testimony, you can submit that for the record. Please provide a copy of that testimony to the sergeant-at-arms. You can also email it as well. For in-person panelists, please come up to the table once your name has been called. I'll call our first witness and our only witness now, Ben Weinberg from Citizens Union. I have to go out. It's easier for me. Okay, that's good. Great, thank you. Here we go. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair. Um and congratulations on your appointment to this important committee. My name is Ben Weinberg and I'm the director of public policy at Citizens Union. We are a non-partisan good government group working [snorts] to ensure honest and accountable government, fair and open elections, and a civically engaged public. We are here to urge the to council to provide increased funding in fiscal 27 for the city's ethics and anti-corruption watchdogs beyond the levels proposed in the mayor's preliminary budget. That includes both the DOI, which is the subject of today's hearing, but also the Conflicts of Interest Board, another watchdog agency that does not receive a dedicated budget oversight hearing. Both these agencies experienced cuts, hiring freezes, and attrition. We've heard a commissioner discuss that. And the mayor's preliminary budget keeps their funding more or less flat, but the need to ensure a clean and ethical government has has not remained flat. If anything, it has grown in the wake of the misconduct that marked the previous administration. And these agencies played a crucial role in these investigations and when as was mentioned here, when pursuing sensitive matters involving City Hall, they have faced delays in authority to fill these vacancies. The former DOI commissioner has suggested in at least one interview that requests for support received limited response as investigations involving City Hall became public. And chair, if I may, I just want to take a step back and and and take a look of where we are. You alluded to this earlier. We are at the other end of really one of the more corrupt administrations we have seen. We at Citizens Union have published a report January of last year that took a look at the number of senior officials senior City Hall officials that they were either indicted or resigned under investigation related to corruption and found that that was >> [music] >> the number of those officials was twice as much as in the four prior mayoral administrations combined, right? One of those mayors served 12 years. So as we to hear from the acting DOI commissioner here about these sharp PEG cuts both to the OTPS and PS is quite remarkable. If we are if we do want to show the people of New York that we are turning the page on the corruption of the last administration, that this is a new era, you know, how can we seriously do that if we are not turning the page on the budget policy as it relates to the main anti-corruption watchdog in our city. We really urge the council to to address that. And as was mentioned here last year, the Charter Revision Commission appointed by the council recognized the risks of underfunding these agencies and recommended in its final report protected budget levels for both the DOI and the COIB. And the agency's current budget requests are much more modest than those levels, the levels that were recommended. Um we supported the DOI's request for 17 new full-time positions to assist with investigation, background checks, and operations. And as was mentioned, even with those additions, staffing would remain well below 2020 levels. Um while their workload has increased, the number of complaints has increased, um and the strain on their operations is reflected in the MMR as we have as as you would mention, investigations are taking longer to complete, background checks are taking longer to complete. Um I will also mention again, um we would do want to raise the COIB budget, although this is not the appropriate committee, but this is kind of related to oversight and investigation, and the COIB does not receive its own budget request. Their headcount dropped from 26 in 2022 to 20 today. They do have approval to fill two vacancies. Um the proposed mayor budget also keeps their budget effectively flat at 2.86 million. This is the same level they had prior to the Adams administration, but as we know, with inflation, with the growth of of city budget and and personnel, um that means that that budget has um the factor has been reduced. Um so we recommend restoring the COIB to at least 26 staff members and provided with adequate funding to retain experienced staff. It's a very small agency, and every position matters in such an agency. Um finally, this was mentioned here both by the um commissioner and by you, chair, we strongly support establishing charter protected minimum budgets for um both the DOI and the COIB, and we have testified numerous times with the um charter commission last year and worked with them to devise some of the language around that proposal. This would ensure their independence and stability over time. Um and we we really want to urge the council to advance these reforms, and they can be advanced either by the same uh commission to strengthen local democracy. It is on pause um because of Mayor Adams's kind of last-minute commission, but if that commission um dies one way or another, and there's legislation in Albany actually trying to um prevent it from uh from um being able to put a question on about, then that commission will have a a clear path to the ballot. Um and if a future commission established by Mayor Mumdani is run, then we would recommend uh pushing for those reforms in that commission. Uh thank you for the time. I know I'm I'm my time and um um uh I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it, and I I appreciate hearing Citizens Union's perspective uh on these important issues, and and couldn't agree more with many of them, too. So, thank you for your testimony. That will conclude our budget hearing. I want to thank everyone for coming, um and thank you for your testimony, uh and we will continue the process of negotiating this budget. Thanks, everybody. Hearing is now ended.