Two propositions on November’s ballot will seek to change the City Charter to incorporate some of the accounting practices adopted as a result of the city’s 1975 fiscal crisis and to establish a uniform code of ethics for the administrative tribunals that adjudicate parking tickets, building code violations, and other non-criminal matters.

The referendums were the product of more than a year’s work by the Charter Revision Commission, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg. The mayor steered the commission toward three broad issues, including the fiscal question, the administrative law code, and a third initiative that would eliminate useless government reports and improve data collecting efficiency. The commission considered those and other questions and decided on the first two.

The fiscal proposition seeks to make permanent some of the accounting mechanisms instituted in the 1975 state Fiscal Emergency Act. Those practices, nearly universally accepted as prudent, include requirements for an annual balanced budget and a four-year plan presented annually by the mayor and modified on a quarterly basis.

The ballot item also aims to impose additional restrictions generally limiting the duration and amount of short-term debt, and the application of generally accepted auditing standards to the city’s annual audit.

The chairwoman of the commission, Ester Fuchs, a Columbia University professor and mayoral policy adviser, said the measures were in part to address potential problems stemming from the scheduled expiration in 2008 of portions of the Fiscal Emergency Act.

Although the changes are considered a no-brainer by most, there is some question over whether the state Financial Control Board, one of the fiscal-oversight mechanisms established in the act, will “sunset” in 2008. Ms. Fuchs said a “drafting error” in 2003 state legislation on the act would probably be corrected in Albany, opening the door for a potential debate over the amount of state control over the city’s budget and the role of the Financial Control Board.

In its deliberations, the commission considered integrating the state Financial Control Board into the city’s apparatus, but decided it could not legally do so and the prerogative belonged to the state Legislature.

If and when the future of the control board is debated, most likely in Albany, there are those who will want to wrest fiscal oversight from the state and restore it to the city. They say New York’s financial accountability and transparency have matured since 1975, when the city government owned no computers and Mayor Beame reportedly could not say how many employees were on the city’s payroll.

“There is a strong view the city has spent a long time in a control period,” Ms. Fuchs said.

The state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, a former city comptroller who supports the fiscal-charter changes, said in a telephone interview with The New York Sun that current law dictates that the Financial Control Board will stay in place until 2033, when bonds issued by the state’s Municipal Assistance Corporation that were refinanced in 2003 expire.

Mr. Hevesi discouraged any attempt to give the city more fiscal control by eliminating the state’s control board, even though he said New York City’s finances are now managed better than those of any other American city.

He praised Mr. Bloomberg’s business acumen, but he warned, “You don’t who the next mayor is.”

The Charter Commission’s other ballot initiative, establishing a uniform ethics code for administrative tribunals, seeks to improve the coordination of multiple city agencies’ tribunals. Ms. Fuchs said those tribunals were characterized as “potentially problematic” and were “not coordinated well.”

The commission considered whether citizens’ rights are being properly represented in the tribunals, since the judges need not be lawyers and the bodies are currently responsible only for observing citywide rules on conflicts of interest.

Previously, voters rejected a proposed charter revision to establish a coordinator for these tribunals. This time the commission asked the mayor to issue an executive order to establish a coordinator – no order has yet been issued – and instead proposed a question addressing the ethics issue.

The City Council speaker, Gifford Miller, said he opposes both initiatives, suggesting in a statement that the issues would be better addressed through the normal legislative process of the council, and that the commission should have focused more on “serious challenges,” such as reducing class sizes.

The New York Public Interest Research Group, which normally recommends blanket rejection of charter-revision referendums, will not oppose these measures, according to a lawyer for the organization, Gene Russianoff.

Mr. Russianoff said this commission, unlike its predecessors, did not rush the screening process on referendums and made an effort to collaborate with the city’s civic groups.