|
|
||||||||||
|
•
Time To Chose: Candidates On The Election Day Ballot Time
To Choose: When
Queens voters go to the polls this Election Day, they will choose their
Statewide and local representatives from the following list of candidates
scheduled to be on the Nov. 5 ballot. Although this is a complete list of candidates, the actual ballot will list those running by party, and will include only the appropriate Congressional, Senate and Assembly districts for each area.
Key Behind
The Ballot
Proposal By
Angela Montefinise While
Queens residents are in the voting booth this Election Day, they will have
to decide whether to support a City Charter revision that will change the
City’s procedure for filling a sudden mayoral vacancy – a revision that
will also lessen the power of the Public Advocate. The
exact wording of the ballot proposal, which was introduced by Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and will be on the ballot on Nov. 5, is, “Should the Charter be
amended to require a special election in about 60 days after a mayoral
vacancy (in addition to the later general election to fill the vacancy) with
a runoff election if no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the vote,
and to make the Speaker of the Council responsible for presiding over
meetings of the City Council instead of the Public Advocate?” What
it means, according to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
is that the City must hold a special, non-partisan election within 60 days
of the mayor being forced to leave office, whether through death, injury or
resignation. If
no candidate gets 40 percent of the vote in the general election, there will
be a runoff election with the top two candidates. In
addition, although the Public Advocate will still be the Mayor’s first
successor and will still be in charge of the City before the special
election, he or she will not preside over the City Council during that time.
Instead, the Speaker of the Council will be in charge of that body. Current
Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum has publicly opposed the revision, holding
forums on the issue, and saying the public does not have enough information
to vote correctly. Spokesperson
Anat Jacobson said, “This is a blatant attempt by the Mayor to take power
away from the Public Advocate, who is supposed to protect the interest of
the people . . . This is being done in the middle of [Gotbaum’s] term, and
that’s not the best way to do things.” Still,
a mayoral spokesperson said the revision will make the government more
efficient and smooth, and said the Mayor encourages voters to “give it
serious thought.”
Election
2002 By Henry
Stern, former City ParkS Commissioner I testified before the City Council Select Committee on Charter Revision about the proposal by the McGuire Charter Revision Commission. These commissions, appointed by the Mayor, are usually referred to by the name of their chair, in this case former Police Commissioner (under Koch) Robert J. McGuire.
Following
are excerpts from my testimony: I
am currently president of New York Civic, a good government organization.
Before that, I spent forty years in New York City government,
including fifteen years as Commissioner of Parks & Recreation under
Mayors Koch and Giuliani and nine years as a City Councilmember at large
from Manhattan. I have watched
the work of a number of charter revision commissions, starting with the
Cahill Commission in 1961. The
proposal we have before us is a simple one: to require a mayoral election
within 60 days after a vacancy occurs. This is currently the rule for all
other elected offices in the City of New York – the Comptroller, Public
Advocate, the five Borough Presidents and all 5l Councilmembers.
Only one elected official in 59 is exempt, the most important one,
the place where a vacancy, or an interim placeholder, would have the most
negative effect on the government of the City of New York... The
last time this provision was used was in 1950, when Mayor William O’Dwyer,
facing serious integrity issues relating a police scandal in Brooklyn.
O’Dwyer was succeeded by Council President Vincent R. Impellitteri,
a former judge from Manhattan. A
previous non-elective succession occurred in 1932, when ethically challenged
Mayor James J. Walker, in the midst of hearings being held by Governor
Franklin D. Roosevelt on his removal, resigned on Sept. 1, and promptly
sailed for France. He was
succeeded by Acting Mayor John T. O’Brien. The
third example in this century occurred when Mayor William J. Gaynor, shot in
1910 by a discharged city employee, died on Sept.10, 1913 in Europe.
He was succeeded by Ardolph L. Kline, who served as Acting Mayor for
the balance of the year. In November, the reformer John Purroy Mitchel was elected
Mayor. By
remarkable historical coincidence, all three mayoral vacancies occurred in
early September, so the acting mayor served for a period of less than four
months. If the O’Dwyer and
Walker vacancies had occurred a while later in the year, the acting mayor
could have served for 15 months. The
part of the proposal which relieves the Public Advocate of presiding over
the Council simply removes a vestige of the days when that official was
Council President. In the
nine years that I served on the City Council, the Council President was not
always there to preside, and in any event had absolutely no authority in the
Council, the power being held by then Vice-Chairman and Majority Leader,
Thomas J. Cuite. From 1986 to 2001, Speaker Peter Vallone ruled the Council.
Several public advocates, although active officials and mayoral
candidates, were not relevant to the work of the Council. It
would be shameful if a non-elected Acting Mayor presided over New York for
15 months. The City should be managed by someone who the people have chosen
to be their mayor. It
was my very strong impression that in the 2001 campaign, the current Public
Advocate said she did not want to be mayor, and publicly expressed support
for a shorter transition. Presiding over the Council is the least of her
responsibilities, although she should remain an ex-officio member, with the
right to speak and introduce legislation. If
such a mayoral vacancy should occur, we should be a city that moves forward
with an elected mayor with a popular mandate, not a city dangling for over a
year with a lame duck caretaker. This amendment gives the people the right to select their mayor. I hope they approve it. Vote ‘No’ On Charter Changes By COUNCILMAN LEROY COMRIE The
City Charter is the template for the powers of government in our City and it
should not be treated like a “political toy.” Unfortunately, this is
what happened in the case of the proposals that will be on your ballot Nov.
5. They deal with charter changes, affecting the powers of the Public
Advocate – an executive office, which articulates the concerns of the
people and acts upon them.
The Charter change, suggested by the 2002 Charter Commission, would mandate that a special election be held within 60 days after a vacancy has occurred in the Office of the Mayor. This sounds good, but the process is more complicated and actually six elections could be held in one year (run-offs etc.) The
second change suggested would deprive the Public Advocate of the right to
preside over the City Council. This would weaken the image and powers of the
Public Advocate, which was established by the voters of New York City in
1989 to serve as the voice of the people and act as a strong partner in City
government. What
the Charter proposed in 1989 after years of deliberation, the 2002 Charter
Commission would remove through a confusing one-sided question developed
after only 44 days of deliberation. This
is not democracy – This is “instant” government – asking for
critical changes that actually should be reviewed by the City Council as the
legislative branch of government. I, therefore, request you will reject the
proposal that appears on your ballot. |
||||||||||
Site Design and Maintenance by Multi-Media Web Publishing |
