Citizens Union's Weak Argument For Padavan

First off I'd like to commend Citizens Union for endorsing Joe Addabbo against Serf Maltese. Maltese is part of the old establishment up in Albany that has done nothing for the likes of good government. However, Frank Padavan is a part of that broken system and should have also given a shove towards the door by CU. Instead of endorsing the progressively-minded Gennaro, they went with the status quo in the 11th Senate District.

From NYT Cityroom:

Mr. Padavan, a Republican who was first elected to the State Senate in 1972, was preferred by the organization over his Democratic challenger, City Councilman James F. Gennaro.

The organization said that it preferred Mr. Padavan “because of his long-held support for much of Citizens Union’s reform agenda and effective representation in Albany.”

Citizens Union, however, noted that Councilman Gennaro “is also an effective and well-liked Councilmember who could provide able representation in the Senate if he were elected.”; however, Citizens Union ultimately thought that a compelling enough case did not exist for it to no longer support Senator Padavan.

Since when has Senator Padavan supported the goals of Citizens Union? He may have given a nod to an independent redistricting commission but actions speak louder than words. Frank has been around for 36 years and how far has CU got in terms of reform with Padavan in office? Yeah, exactly my point. The Senate needs to be shaken up and Padavan is a giant rock in the way of change. Jim Gennaro of course had a response to this.

In response, Mr. Gennaro said that he considered it “surprising that Citizens Union would choose to endorse the Republican Frank Padavan, who has done nothing in his 36 years in office to challenge the Senate Republican Majority to push for the things that good government groups care about, like campaign finance reform, budget reform and legislative rules reform.”

He added: “My record of reform is clear, as demonstrated by my vote last week against the term limits extension bill in the City Council.”

Jim Gennaro has proven he deserves the endorsement and not just tepid praise. Dadey and CU went with a safe pick of an incumbent to give off a non-partisan look while Padavan is hardly a model of good government. The man names parks and schools after himself while in office in order to create his "institutional" character in the district. The state government would be much better served by Jim Gennaro in Northeast Queens, not the same old crap from Padavan.

Debate At Baruch, The Pros And Cons Of Term Limits

While the NYC Bar Association condemned the Mayor today for trying to overturn term limits by legislative fiat, the term limit debate itself is being revived across the city. Here at Baruch College, several esteemed citizens of New York have come together to talk about the current situation and the issue as a whole. The public forum was put together by Common Cause of New York, Citizens Union and NYPIRG. All three organizations are against the Mayor's way of doing things but the panelists are sitting in the room representing many different perspectives on the matter.

Professor Richard Briffault started things off and brings his "Professor of Legislation" at Columbia to the table, as well as his consultancy work to the Charter Revision nearly twenty years ago. He addresses many issues concerning term limits and that there are pros and cons to both sides of the matter.

Councilwoman Reyna spoke to how a legislator works within the system. As Chair of the Rules Committee, she's a powerful member on the Council and has been a strong advocate for the low to middle class constituents in her district (34th - Queens/Brooklyn). She says that the Mayor is using the Council as a "punching bag" to hammer this through even though he could have sought a referenda before 2008.

Randy Mastro went next and as Deputy Mayor under Giuliani, has a working knowledge of the city's Executive branch. He says whether or not you agree with term limits, the process matters and that this action by Bloomberg will be found to be illegal. He advocates for a public referendum that could be on the ballot by early 2009, long before candidates must petition to get on the ballot. Mastro is worried that Bloomberg's push for this legislation is being rushed with no good reason other than, what seems to be pure politics. He even goes as far to say that Bloomberg owes his own tenure as Mayor to term limits. Mastro is passionately against hizzoner's plan, but at least in the opening round he does not address the question of term limits sans Bloomberg.

Mitchell Moss is an Urban Policy Professor at NYU and says at the outset he'll address the issue. He's clearly against them, mentioning that only consultants and campaign fundraising benefits from term limits. Elected officials need time in office to learn how government works. Also that in special elections low turnouts produce motivated voters that can affect great change if certain groups are mobilized to do so. Due to that, he argues that the Council's determination to vote on the current term limit legislation is at least as representative as a referenda. As for the third point, he really didn't get to it, but his message was clear, we should get rid of term limits, period.

Now Councilman Fidler gets his five minutes. He starts off addressing the fiscal crisis and how this is more important than term limits (I agree). He takes pride in opposing Bloomberg repeatedly and even endorsing Freddy Ferrer. He is sick of the billionaire's involvement in this and how the debate was presented by the Mayor. However, he's been against term limits throughout and will vote to change the charter by a Council vote regardless. Term limits give too much power to lobbyists, bureaucrats and staff members. "This isn't Poli Sci 101, this is the real world," says Fidler. As passionately as Randy Mastro is against the change, Fidler is for it. The Councilman then smacked Mastro's arguments and brought up his advocacy for pay raises to counter the Conflicts of Interest Board petition against the current legislation.

Esmeralda Simmons rounds out the panel. Her experience as a civil rights and a voting rights attorney leads her to believe that Bloomberg is using the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protest a special election is "baloney." Ultimately the Justice Department rules on this but her faith in the current Administration (on the Federal level) isn't so strong in meting out a fair decision. She is most ashamed about this being a controlled act. She does not want the voters to be duped and does not believe the Mayor is being truthful about the process. She prefers a referenda over the Council's vote but in a perfect world a general election should ask this question.

Now back to the questions. Councilman Bill de Blasio stood up and addressed the members of the panel, praising all of them. He is a well known opponent of Bloomberg's legislation but says it is a "democracy question." He "honestly feels that our democracy is threatened" due to the Mayor's extreme power and ability to undermine public debate on the issue. Ultimately Bloomberg's wealth gives him immense power in an election against those who aren't billionaires.

Gene Russianoff asks the second question about why this is such an important issue. Councilman Fidler says this is a political question and that those who have the most to gain or lose are speaking with greatest volume. Funny enough, as Fidler mentions this, a member of the audience shouted out that the Councilman's term is up next year (makes you wonder about what Fidler has to lose, eh?). Moss backs him up and adds that it isn't like 2001 in that people can vote to re-elect Bloomberg and not keep him longer like Giuliani had wanted. Mastro is still shocked at the speed of the legislation going into the Council and again reaffirms the will of the voters. Councilwoman Reyna favors legislative action and seems to go off from her "undecided" stance, claiming that the people can decide things in next year's election. Fidler follows her up with more theater. Simmons then wonders if any of the Councilmembers have polled their district to see how the public feels.

Finally a new question is segmented in, Gene and Susan ask why can't the people have more of a say? Fidler quotes a poll that people want term limits rescinded for Bloomberg and he's only gotten 24 calls about the matter. He doesn't legislate by poll and that's that, even though he mentions lots of numbers. Mastro then follows up by saying that people are generally opposed to career politicians and institutions but no so much the individuals that fill those seats. He counters that legislative responsibility is also about being willing to respond to your constituents and that it has happened before where the Council asked the people to vote on an issue.

Now Susan Lerner turns it over to the audience's questions, only thirty-five minutes after the schedule says it'll start.

The first guy is against term limits, but against Bloomberg's plan and disappointed in the Council not being able to reframe the debate and that he wants an education debate and not a soundbite tidal wave financed by billionaires like Bloomberg, Lauder and (most likely) Golisano. Reyna whines about the situation and everyone tells her to propose a bill to change the debate and then Fidler breaks in to continue his pro-term limit theater. Professor Briffault calls for more time so that the issue can be better studied and digested by the people.

Council candidate Yetta (inaudible) for the 3rd District gets up next and wonders how the current Council rationalizes their vote when most New Yorkers are in favor of keeping term limits. Moss goes back to the argument that the Council has the power to change the charter regardless of previous referenda as well as the fact that seventy-five people showed up for this forum.

PDA and DFNYC member Scott (inaudible) rails on Quinn and says that we as voters have no representation, so will they vote against Quinn if she is re-elected to a third term to Speaker again. Reyna promptly gives him a "no."

Many questioners will follow but I wonder if the debate over term limits got anywhere tonight. A lot of words were said but mostly about the current situation and not the philosophical question on having term limits. Fidler answered that best, saying no, no, no. Most of the panel was against term limits but solidly opposed to what Bloomberg was doing. One thing that wasn't answered was about the good things of term limits. Does it help democracy or not? The power of incumbency was rarely addressed by the panel and perhaps a sit down with Professor Briffault would answer that better. The theater was certainly great and I loved de Blasio's entrance in the middle of it. If the fireworks here were any indication of what will go down at the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday, then that will be an even greater show.

Ah, well my battery is in the red and it is time for dinner outside this very spacious conference room at Baruch.

Bloomberg Tries To Cut Ethics Requirements For Public Officials

Just when the climate in Albany and down here in the City couldn't be more corrupt, Mayor Bloomberg is taking a stab at making it easier to hide personal information for public officials. Ethical scandals haven't just been occurring in Albany but down here in New York City as well. Quinn had her slush funds exposed not too long ago, Dennis Gallagher was found to be a scumbag and our last Mayor was Rudy Giuliani, so enough said. If anything these men and women who are elected to represent us should be willing to or made to disclose anything and everything that is pertinent to the way they govern and what things or people might influence them in one way or another. So why is Bloomberg going in exactly the opposite direction?

From The NY Times:

Among the proposed changes, public servants would no longer have to provide dollar amounts or ranges on outside income. In addition, they would need to report only gifts (worth at least $50) they received from people who did business with the city, not all gifts larger than $1,000, as is the current law.

Also slated to come off the disclosure form are investments worth between $1,000 and $10,000 and real estate holdings located more than a quarter-mile outside the city limits.

Among the planned additions to the forms is the disclosure of relatives who hold city jobs, a question intended to discourage nepotism.

Of those generally required to submit disclosure reports, most are elected officials, candidates for public office, policy makers, purchasing agents and other high-level public servants.

The bill was meant to reduce the paperload for volunteers, but this ends up giving politcians cover in so many ways. While there are some good things in there, the bill is still flawed and good government groups were the first to react to this news.

Still, the proposed changes are causing ripples among groups that promote transparency in government and are not convinced that less is more. Several said they were concerned that the changes had not been widely discussed before becoming part of the legislation. “It seems to me whenever there’s a shrinkage of information, the public should be concerned,” said Norman Siegel, a longtime civil rights advocate who is running for public advocate next year.

Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a watchdog group, said: “I wouldn’t want the disclosure forms changed in a way that would limit or diminish information that has been previously required. In fact, there may be good reasons to increase the disclosure requirements as opposed to loosening.”

Less is definitely not more in this case and Bloomberg should be well aware of that. The fact that the bill was partially hidden by an effort to help city volunteers is rather distasteful. Actually, it almost tastes as sour as the Mayor's subtle influence in the term limits battle that is now being discussed across the city. Like in that debate, this seems like another attempt by the Mayor and his minions in order to hold on to more power at the public's expense.

Paterson Patronizes NY Reform Efforts

Wow, there's only nine more days left on the New York legislative calendar! It is already June....where'd the year go? Well, it was full of scandal, that's for sure...forget all the local NYC stuff, we had the Spitzer debacle, Diane Gordon's illegalities, trooper-gate and so on. So with all of this craziness, you'd think this might be a good year for campaign finance reform and opening up the business of Albany to those that send legislators up there. Wrong.

Of course David Paterson was supposed to champion our cause of reform. He was all for it as a State Senator. So what has he done? He issued a press release in lieu of reform groups showing up in Albany yesterday. If you were one that took the time to go up, down or across New York to work for a more open state government, how would you feel?

From The NY Times:

“These issues are not new to the governor; the role of governor may be, but he now needs to stand up and act like a governor,” said Dick Dadey, the executive director of Citizens Union, who lamented that the legislative session was coming to “an abysmal end” with “no real progress on reform.”

Blair Horner, the legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group, said of the governor, “It’s his job to get things done.

“The people of New York don’t send elected officials to Albany to hang out. They send them here to solve problems.”

He added, “If this were a report card, the report card would be an F.”

The news conference comes as the governor continues to struggle to pull his administration together and form his own agenda, leaving the legislative session to wind down with what critics have said are precious few accomplishments.

The order for state agencies to observe gay marriages consummated in other statesm but beyond that I can;t think of much he has done in his first year. Sure, he's new to the Governor's Mansion, but certainly not to Albany. Shame on Paterson for not doing more to clean up a state government that is known for its corruption and cronyism.