Advice to Mamdani’s committee from the last Department of Investigations commissioner
The final ballot measures released yesterday by Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Commission on Government Efficiency are a missed opportunity for the administration to be a nationwide leader in public integrity. Why? Because the Commission failed to include proposals for reform that would strengthen New York City’s oversight agency, the Department of Investigation. The DOI Commissioner, in her testimony on June 30th, had asked that the Commission’s proposals include an independent budget for DOI, more robust protection from termination for the agency’s commissioner and the codification of certain key DOI authorities, currently established by executive order. These asks were not new: In 2025, a Commission formed by then-City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams in the wake of the prosecution of Mayor Adams included these DOI-related proposals in its final report, but the Commission’s proposals were bumped by mayoral proposals and never reached the ballot.
The goal of COGE, according to its executive director, is to “build a government that can deliver services for New Yorkers more swiftly and effectively.” The commission’s final proposals focus on streamlining government processes, including by eliminating cumbersome approval requirements across multiple agencies, but they do not include measures to strengthen DOI. This is unfortunate because DOI should be viewed by the administration as a force-multiplier in the effort to build a more efficient government and should be structured and resourced with that role in mind. DOI (which I led from early 2022 to January of this year), showed remarkable independence, resilience and effectiveness in combating corruption at the highest levels of city government over the past four years. But the challenges of the last mayoral administration, as well as the federal government’s efforts to thwart independent oversight, make very clear that an oversight agency’s budget, key authorities and leader’s tenure should not be left solely to the discretion of the executive. COGE’s proposals should have sought to codify these critical components of DOI’s effectiveness and independence in the City Charter.
As an initial matter, DOI’s mission and COGE’s mission are fundamentally consistent: to ensure that city government serves its constituents as effectively and efficiently as possible. Indeed, making recommendations for policy and procedural change that seek to streamline processes while simultaneously complying with laws and policies is DOI’s bread and butter.
DOI has made such recommendations in critical areas such as New York City Housing Authority micro-purchase contracting, nonprofit contracting and the administration of the City’s Summer Youth Employment program. DOI’s recommendations, grounded in diligent and objective fact-finding inquiries, have a high rate of acceptance and implementation by City agencies. And DOI’s recommendations are of particular value because it acts independently of city government and makes its policy proposals based solely on the judgment and experience of its career staff, rather than partisan or political considerations.
Streamlined processes can increase corruption risks by concentrating approval authority in a more limited number of personnel.
Second, while streamlining government processes is critical to government efficiency, the anti-corruption oversight that DOI provides is equally critical. DOI’s continuing investigations and prosecutions of senior officials within the Adams administration make clear that government cannot serve its constituents effectively when senior officials use their authority to enrich themselves and to act in their personal interest as opposed to the public interest. DOI’s recent investigations and related prosecutions of senior agency and City Hall officials highlight “pay to play” schemes that allow individuals who pay bribes to jump approval lines, increasing wait time for those who play by the rules, and, as alleged, deliberate efforts to sabotage worthy public projects in exchange for personal gain.
DOI seeks to improve the functions of government by ensuring that those who abuse their authority at the expense of their constituents will be investigated and held accountable. After the past four years, it is well-established that the agency can conduct rigorous investigations that result in criminal charges and significant jail sentences. DOI’s work also serves as a deterrent to future misconduct, helping to maintain the effective government COGE seeks. In fact, deterrence is particularly important should COGE’s final proposals be codified in the City Charter, because streamlined processes can increase corruption risks by concentrating approval authority in a more limited number of personnel. These contemplated processes, while important drivers of efficiency, highlight the need to ensure that DOI can continue to provide robust oversight to counter that increased risk.
Third, at a time when inspectors general and the project of independent oversight are under significant stress at the federal level, strengthening DOI would have shown this administration’s commitment to independent oversight and its recognition that such oversight makes an important contribution to transparency, integrity and productivity in government.
At the appointment of DOI Commissioner Nadia I. Shihata in February of this year, Mamdani stated that “[t]here will be zero tolerance for self-enrichment or corruption in my City Hall” and rightly recognized that “words are not enough, they must be backed up by action.” Shihata, an extremely well-qualified and experienced former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, was to usher in a “new era of accountability, where we build a government New Yorkers can trust.” As Shihata stated in her testimony before COGE in support of these ballot proposals to strengthen DOI, these proposals “do just that.”
Unfortunately, to date this administration has yet to provide the agency with sufficient funding to fully fulfill its mission. While DOI — having lost over 100 employees over the past four years due to repeated cuts — thankfully avoided further budget reductions, the most recently adopted New York City budget provides only the bare minimum to stabilize the agency by maintaining its headcount as of the last fiscal year. Truly embracing independent oversight means increasing DOI’s funding so that it can conduct investigations in scope and scale necessary to prevent corruption that impacts the delivery of City services, identify and pursue additional cost savings and take additional steps to ensure the citizens of New York receive the services that they need. Proposing an independent budget for the agency set at an appropriate percentage of the City’s budget would have been an ideal way to do so.
That step, — along with a proposal to provide further protection from termination for the commissioner and to codify certain of DOI’s key authorities — is what’s required to truly prioritize independent oversight and accountability. It is disappointing that this Administration to date has failed to back its statements of support for accountability with action, but it is not too late. The mayor — and the City Council — will have other opportunities to convene Charter Revision Commissions. They should do so, and when they do, strengthening DOI should be at the top of the list. And in the meantime, City Hall should prioritize DOI’s needs in the next budget season.
