July 24, 2003

AND THEY WONDER WHY WE ARE CYNICAL?

By James Eugene*

I recently read a piece in the Staten Island Advance on the Charter Revision Commission and its hearing on Staten Island regarding non-partisan elections. It depressed me. The Charter Revision Commission, if you do not already know, is a group of Mayoral appointed friends who are required to study various issues and decide upon changes to the City Charter.

Now most of you know that the City Charter is akin to the U.S. Constitution for New York City. But unlike the U.S. Constitution, the City Charter is a lengthy and detailed document that is the size of a book. It may need, at times, to be interpreted, but for the most part, it leaves little to the imagination.

Back in the late 1980's, there was a Charter Revision Commission designed to revamp City government. This Commission was necessitated by court rulings that the old Board of Estimate was unconstitutional because it violated the "one man, one vote" principle. Us old-timers remember that the Board of Estimate had significant power and the redistribution of those powers was not a trivial matter. The Commission was going to determine the relationships among the Mayor, City Council President (now the Public Advocate), Comptroller, Borough Presidents, and City Council. This was a serious and appropriate use of a Charter Revision Commission.

Starting with Mayor Prosecutor, the use of a Charter Revision Commission has been degraded, used for petty political purposes and with no chance for an opposing view to really be considered. In the 1990's, the City Council passed various laws that required a public referendum (the most ridiculous of which was a referendum on funding new stadiums for the Mets and Yankees baseball teams). Mayor Prosecutor did not like these referenda topics. Thus, Mayor Prosecutor looked for a legal loophole to remove such referenda from the ballot. The answer: form a Charter Revision Commission, pick a topic (any topic) and place that matter before the voters instead, because if a Charter Revision Commission places something before the voters, legally that topic must be voted on and the City Council topic must be removed. Thus, we had such momentous Charter topics as... as... as.... Come to think of it, I can't remember any of those great Mayor Prosecutor Charter reforms.

Now comes Mayor Billionaire. Having won his election as a Democrat... I mean Republican, he now seeks to eliminate party labels from elections, and he is using his Charter Revision Commission to address this issue. Of course, everyone believes this will help him with his re-election bid. Of course, there has been no great public outcry for non-partisan elections in New York City. And of course, everyone is worried that Mayor Billionaire will use his billions to try to convince New York City voters to approve this measure.

So where's my beef? First, I am tired of Charter Revision Commissions that are rigged from the start and have no real intention of listening to the other side. When the Commission was appointed, its chair, Frank Macchiorola, stated that non-partisan elections will be proposed by the Commission. The Commission is simply going through the motions of public hearings. A delay in the considering non-partisan elections is the best the opposition can hope for.

Second, doesn't anyone realize that rigged public hearings lessen the public's faith in the political process? When the public thinks that the process is rigged, then it loses faith in both the process and the political institutions involved. Why bother testifying? Why bother attempting to influence the Commission? Why try to participate in the political process period?

Third, without any public outcry for non-partisan elections, this appears as just another of the piques of Mayor Billionaire. Months ago, I wondered in a column if the fact that Mayor Billionaire is a billionaire skews the political process. At the time, I was wondering about a tilting of the process in a subtler manner. But in this instance, the tipping sensation is flagrant and obvious. I have reached the conclusion that the fact that New York City has a billionaire as Mayor does skew the political process and it is not healthy. And this is going to skew my vote in the next Mayoral election, because even if I think Mayor Billionaire is better than the alternative, I need to add into the mix that his billionaire status perverts the political process and that may tip my vote to his opponent. I am beginning to have major problems dealing with the Imperial Mayor Billionaire.

AND, GOVERNOR PATACUOMO, YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO THE CYNICISM.

Another prime example of the rigged political process was the MTA fare hike. Oh yes, we know that the Appellate Division reversed and sided with the MTA, but let's dig a little deeper.

Fact: the deficit was caused by an accounting maneuver by the MTA. Fact: the Governor was aware of the accounting maneuver. Fact: the Governor stated he saw no need for a fare increase during his reelection campaign when the financial condition of the MTA was well known to him. Fact: the Governor controls the MTA and its Board. Fact: the Governor did nothing to stop or limit the fare increase. Fact: the Governor claims to be against "job-killing taxes".

Now there were public hearings regarding the fare increase. And what good were they? The consensus was that in a worst-case scenario, the fare would increase to $2.00. And what happened? The fare was increased to $2.00. Of course, all this happened only after Governor Patacuomo was reelected.

I repeat the title of this piece: And they wonder why we are cynical?

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.