I agree that “Comptroller” is an obscure name and should be done away with! That said, I do wonder if changing it to CFO would be confusing with respect to the Commissioner of the Finance Department? Could it even be that the Commissioner of the Finance Department has more claim to effectively being the CFO than the Comptroller does? What if the Comptroller was renamed to “City Auditor” (a title used in many cities around the country), rather than CFO, to avoid this confusion? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Regarding it being confusing: the status quo is "comptroller" versus "commissioner of finance," which is arguably already very confusing. I do not think "CFO" versus "commissioner of finance" is any more or less confusing, but it might be less confusing, since most people would at least know the CFO is the "more senior" position.
Regarding a true claim to CFO: the comptroller *is* the CFO, just like the mayor *is* the CEO of the Municipal Corporation of the City of New York. This name change just reflects that already extant reality. Otherwise, I do not think the finance commissioner has a claim to CFO, not least because they do not have the citywide purview that the Comptroller does, and they are not independently elected by the people of the city. The comptroller has audit, control, pension management, and financial advisory authority over all components of the city government; certifies city contracts; and more. The commissioner oversees the collection of taxes, property tax assessments, etc, but is (mostly) silo'd in one department. The Comptroller is also in the mayoral line of succession, and is, generally, a member of the "C suite."
Regarding Auditor: I think this is as boring as comptroller, but has worse connotations to most people (mostly because they vaguely know that an auditor monitors money, but know nothing about the comptroller).
So: CFO is more fitting for the magnitude, practice, and reality of the Comptroller (and, again, the Comptroller already is the CFO).
Amen!
I agree that “Comptroller” is an obscure name and should be done away with! That said, I do wonder if changing it to CFO would be confusing with respect to the Commissioner of the Finance Department? Could it even be that the Commissioner of the Finance Department has more claim to effectively being the CFO than the Comptroller does? What if the Comptroller was renamed to “City Auditor” (a title used in many cities around the country), rather than CFO, to avoid this confusion? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for reading! Some quick thoughts:
Regarding it being confusing: the status quo is "comptroller" versus "commissioner of finance," which is arguably already very confusing. I do not think "CFO" versus "commissioner of finance" is any more or less confusing, but it might be less confusing, since most people would at least know the CFO is the "more senior" position.
Regarding a true claim to CFO: the comptroller *is* the CFO, just like the mayor *is* the CEO of the Municipal Corporation of the City of New York. This name change just reflects that already extant reality. Otherwise, I do not think the finance commissioner has a claim to CFO, not least because they do not have the citywide purview that the Comptroller does, and they are not independently elected by the people of the city. The comptroller has audit, control, pension management, and financial advisory authority over all components of the city government; certifies city contracts; and more. The commissioner oversees the collection of taxes, property tax assessments, etc, but is (mostly) silo'd in one department. The Comptroller is also in the mayoral line of succession, and is, generally, a member of the "C suite."
Regarding Auditor: I think this is as boring as comptroller, but has worse connotations to most people (mostly because they vaguely know that an auditor monitors money, but know nothing about the comptroller).
So: CFO is more fitting for the magnitude, practice, and reality of the Comptroller (and, again, the Comptroller already is the CFO).