Relates to the appointment of members of the Battery Park city authority

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Brian Kavanagh says this is needed

The Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) is a public benefit corporation that owns and manages the 92-acres that comprise Battery Park City in Lower Manhattan. The BPCA's Board of Directors makes decisions that impact the residents and businesses of Battery Park City, such as manag- ing the Authority's assets and investments, and evaluating bids and awarding contracts for services for residents and visitors to the commu- nity. This bill would require majority representation of primary residents of Battery Park City on the BPCA Board. As required by Chapter 63 of the Laws of 2018 (57284/A8986 Kavanagh/Glick), enacted in connection with the first statutory requirement that board members be residents, all resident-members, along with all other board members, would have appro- priate experience to serve on the board and would be required to recuse themselves in the event of a conflict of interest. Increasing local representation would therefore include more resident voices in decisions that affect the community while ensuring the Board includes the neces- sary expertise and without resulting in decisions that raise conflicts of interest. In 2022, the legislature passed a bill similar to this one, but the Governor vetoed it (Veto Memo 37 of 2022), citing as a reason "this bill could give rise to increased conflicts of interest, which would impede the Board's ability to manage its business affairs in an orderly manner." However, as the veto memo acknowledges, the BPCA Board current- ly has two Battery Park City residents. To date, these members' tenure has not hindered the functioning of the Board. Residency in the community is not unique in raising potential conflicts of interest that must be protected against, as there are numerous other potential factors, such as business interests that could give rise to potential conflicts. On any well functioning board, all potential conflicts of interest must be identified and managed. With respect to the BPCA, this requirement is spelled out in statute with respect to residents and all Board members must comply with the BPCA's existing Conflicts of Interest Policy.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.