Joseph Hof
Feb 19, 2025
The recommended process would contemplate the City's Inability Committee process, as well as statutory safeguards for Federal personnel, thus creating a defensible and meaningful process that shares Federal, State and City qualities
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2025, 5:15 PM ET
On February 18, 2025, the firm formally reached out to the City of New York to provide a recommendation regarding the possible framework for an inability committee and a structured process for the Chamber in Albany to explore the removal of a sitting Mayor of the City of the City of New York. The nonpartisan recommendation, which was solely focused on clearing up a seemingly ambiguous process, did not include any names, and was centered on ensuring that any such process should be legally sound and procedurally meaningful to all folks, especially the individual whose removal is proposed. To be clear, the recommendation was about the need for fine-tuning of the process, not about whether the Governor or City Council should commence the process.
Specifically, Joseph (Joe) Hof proposed that the removal process outlined in 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501–7543, particularly the procedural safeguards in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b), could serve as a valuable and well-established framework for structuring an Inability Committee approach. Joe further suggested that any hearing process initiated by the Chamber should be conducted by the designated Inability Committee members, as outlined under the City Charter, and adhere to the hearing procedures detailed in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(b). This approach would seem to ensure that the process would align with the spirit and intent of the State requirements, as reported in open source media, and the City Charter. The recommended process would also adhere to a legally defensible structure under City, State, and Federal law in anticipation of future legal challenges.
The fundamental objective behind Joe's recommendation is to establish clarity and prevent uncertainty in the event that this matter is formally addressed in the future. A well-defined process will enable those involved to proceed with confidence rather than first having to determine the appropriate procedural steps. This, in turn, eliminates unnecessary confusion and potential governance challenges.
Furthermore, Joe offered to serve in an advisory capacity to assist with the development and refinement of any process. However, to date, the firm has not received a response to Joe's offer for an invitation.
Hof also recognizes that the forthcoming stance of the Federal Judiciary—expected to be made clearer as soon as today—may provide further insight into the legal standing of the case against the Mayor. The key considerations, such as whether the case will be permitted to proceed or discharged, and if discharged, whether with or without prejudice, will likely serve as an important decision point for the incident at hand. However, irrespective of the outcome this week, Mr. Hof firmly believes that now is the time to take proactive steps toward establishing procedural clarity and good governance going forward.
To that end, Hof strongly urges both the City and State to establish a dedicated committee tasked with drafting a comprehensive guidance document that can serve as an authoritative reference for future cases of mayoral inability or removal proceedings. This is an opportunity to address existing ambiguities, streamline the process, and ensure that our governance structures remain both effective and accountable.
It is imperative that we seize this moment to strengthen our institutional framework, not just for the current situation but for the future stability of our city’s leadership. Hof remains committed to supporting this effort in any way necessary to uphold transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.
Joe Hof