A wave of complaints has swirled around the New York City Council, as we read about millions of dollars going to phantom organizations, secret transfers of public funds from one group to another, and wholesale abuse by a few nonprofits of tax dollars.

Take the case of Councilman Stewart’s staff where there is alleged embezzlement of council appropriated funds without any monitoring of the groups involved. Mr. Stewart’s former chief of staff, Asquith Reid, and his assistant, Joycinth Anderson, have been indicted on embezzlement for stealing at least $145,000 of public funds appropriated at Mr. Stewart’s request to a charity named after Mr. Reid’s deceased daughter, the Donna Reid Memorial Education Fund. The city had appropriated $365,000 to the fund at the request of Mr. Stewart. Roughly $31,000 of the stolen money allegedly was sent by wire transfer to Jamaica.

Insult was added to injury when a large group of council members from the Black, Asian, and Latino caucus gathered to honor the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. They issued a proclamation lauding his government, which is allied with Hugo Chaves of Venezuela.

We view with alarm the misuse of funds and the political vagaries of some members as the Council purports to speak for the people of New York on foreign policies.

The Council’s budget is $55 million, the members’ salaries have risen to $112,500, not counting lulus of $10,000 for committee chairs, with enough new committees and task forces created so almost every Democrat can chair one.

There are no restrictions or limits on outside income, earned or unearned, and full-time service, or even half-time service, is not required of the 51 Council members.

All this makes us wonder whether the basic tasks of the Council — adopting local laws, setting property tax rates, changing street names, approving the budget, and overseeing city agencies — could not be performed more efficiently and responsibly elsewhere.

There is a need for a local legislative body for the city of New York; Otherwise we would live under mayoral dictatorship. Decisions on major issues like the West Side stadium and congestion pricing are made in Albany.

The Board of Estimate was born in 1898, at the time of the consolidation of the boroughs of New York. The board consisted of three city wide elected officials — the mayor, the comptroller, the five borough presidents, and the president of the Board of Aldermen, the original City Council. Originally, Brooklyn and Manhattan, the two most populous boroughs, had two votes each and the other three, Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island had one vote each.

The Board of Aldermen’s name was changed to the City Council in 1938. Except for its first 10 years under proportional representation, most of its members have been undistinguished.

For many years, the Board of Estimate functioned as the board of directors for the city of New York. It consisted of eight men, and met in a stately chamber on the second floor of City Hall, now used as Mayor Bloomberg’s bullpen. It held public meetings in that large room, and then retreated across the hall to meet privately.

The Board of Estimate foundered in the 1980s over the constitutional issue of “one person, one vote.” The Supreme Court ruled that legislative bodies required districts of approximately equal size. New York’s boroughs differed greatly in population — Brooklyn had more than six times as many people as Staten Island in 1980. Thus, the board was doomed.

There were other ways, though, to comply with the court’s decision, including weighted voting. The borough president of Brooklyn would have six votes compared with one for the borough president of Staten Island. This would keep the board alive.

The Charter Commission, a body of mayoral appointee who recommend city charter changes to the public who approves or rejects the changes in a referendum, chose not to follow that path. Instead, the commission abolished the Board of Estimate, and transferred its powers to the City Council. So now the Council was in charge of approving budgets and deciding land use instead of the Board of Estimate. The Council has held these powers for 18 years. It is time to consider whether a revamped Board of Estimate could be a useful instrument.

The new Board of Estimate, which might be named the City Senate, would have some but not all the powers of the old board. Its members, three city-wide officials and five borough presidents, would review the mayor’s proposed budget and would examine city contracts which now are hidden away in the office of procurement.

Years ago, citizens testified before elected officials on multi-million dollar transactions based on sole-source agreements. Public review has all but disappeared as procurement is reviewed primarily by mayoral appointees, virtually an anonymous group.

The board also would have the power to review the discretionary items placed in the budget by individual council members, which have been used wisely, foolishly, and/or corruptly. Public hearings should be held on each allocation.

Some believe that the City Council is an expensive public nuisance, but I do not share that view. It is important to have local representation in a city whose population is heading toward nine million. The problem occurs in a lack of oversight of kickbacks, do-nothing groups, irresponsible allocations, and nepotism.

A responsible City Council would participate meaningfully in the government of New York City. But dishing out millions to political favorites is unacceptable.

A revamped Board of Estimate could combine responsibility with the increased local representation the Council provides. It also would provide realistic access to the mayor and give greater importance to the five boroughs and their needs.

Let’s think about it.

Mr. Stern, president of New York Civic, was New York City’s parks commissioner under Mayors Koch and Giuliani.