By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Anat Jacobson, a skilled press rep who has worked for a string of my friends, called me the other day. As Public Advocate Betsy Gottbaum’s flak, Anat is now taking issue with the Mayor’s Charter Revision steps to decimate the office of Public Advocate (PA).

Now this writer has thought the rush to judgment by the Mayor — who incidentally receives nothing but top marks from this corner — was foolish. He has two other shots at placing items on the ballot before he has to appear there himself. So why not move slowly and carefully before changing the City Charter — or rather, putting the change to a vote of the people?

It seems that Bloomberg is no fan of Gottbaum. Furthermore, since the last major Charter revision when the Council was enlarged and empowered, the value of the office of Public Advocate has been in dispute.

I watched the impressive network of then City Council President Andy Stein lobby to retain the office which became public advocate. Had it not been for the influence of Andy’s friends and family, Betsy likely would not have an office from which to lobby. Likewise, Andy’s successor, Mark Green, might have found obscurity much earlier in his career.

The public advocate’s position has long been hanging by a string. In structure, it is not replicated elsewhere. In function, it is not essential. The PA presides over the Council, is the people’s ombudsman and fills in if the Mayor dies — until a special election can be held.

Sure we can do away with it. We’ll sacrifice a bit of the “watchdog” role that perhaps keeps the Mayor honest occasionally — whoever he is. We’ll save a little bit of money — but not all that much from cutting an office that has already been gutted financially. We’ll sacrifice a little bit of tradition — who the hell cares? We’ll have the Speaker preside over the Council — he rules it anyway. We’ll give up the role of the “people’s ombudsman” — perhaps a value worth thinking about.

Giving up the Public Advocate is not a revolutionary idea. But why the rush to judgment? The Mayor wants it done and he wants the line of Mayoral succession changed.

Anat emailed me the wording to appear on the ballot this November:

“Shall 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% 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?”

And friends, this is all you’ll get! The paragraph above and perhaps an article or a column or two like this.

You’ll have to walk into the voting booth in less than a month and decipher the language above. And if you can really figure it out — and on its face, I’m not certain if the intent is to make the Speaker the presiding officer immediately or upon a mayoral vacancy — although I think I know. It seems to me this might be a “language sneak” to permanently change the power of presiding over the Council from the PA to the Speaker without really making it clear.

There have been other distasteful attempts at language deception — most memorably when the last Council in 1996 tried to overturn term limits making a “no“ vote mean “yes.”

Now I’m not voicing strong feelings on the Public Advocate thing. However, I find myself again yelling that the politicians are changing the rules, affecting the guys presently in office and are sure not giving the people the information needed to make an intelligent decision.

The Mayor gets two more bites of the apple before he runs again. He should allow the charter revision idea to ripen and age rather than risk spoiling the flavor of his administration’s pie.

With all the talk about war and patriotism causing this 60’s liberal a bit of discomfort, I called my old friend – much older friend – Trib founder Gary Ackerman and asked if he had a copy of the piece about “Being An American” that ran in the Trib in the early 70’s. The Congressman informed me that it first ran in the Castle, a Queens College paper which he edited when we both attended that fine institution. Gary said he’d dig into the back of his desk and find a copy. Moments later, “Home Of The Brave,” came across on the fax machine with “When I was one and twenty, Ack” scribbled on the top. Written more than a couple of years ago, it’s my favorite piece by Gary.

The Curious Mail Box: Pataki v. McCall

Last week, Not4Publication shared my analysis on the New York State Governor’s race. I explained that short of Tom Golisano, so effectively hurting George Pataki so that Carl McCall would become competitive, the voters had no reason to throw out a popular incumbent. My column, caused considerable response and, unlike the usual barrage, no one was yelling at and disagreeing with me.

Although the comments received didn’t all welcome a Pataki victory, they all merely added mortar to the Pataki fortress I had constructed.

My longtime friend Jerry Kaniuk — we attended Queens College together — emailed a note agreeing with the column but objecting to my omission of the McCall “letters of recommendation” which according to Jerry: the bad taste letters count and will hurt McCall as much as anything else.

Jerry, I’m not sure they will still be an issue in November. But since I penned last week’s column, former Queens Beep Claire Shulman and former NYS Guv Hugh Carey have jumped on the Dems for Pataki bandwagon. The letters plus more Dems for Pataki – count the first 10 days of October as Pataki’s. Not good news for McCall who is already miles behind. And let’s not forget about the incredible disparity in their warchests. Pataki has gazillions more than McCall.

Another Dem, longtime friend, Brooklyn Councilman Lew Fidler – an accomplished political stategist in his own right – reacts:

“The McCall camp can hope for Golisano. Ultimately, unless McCall commits a major gaffe, I predict the Golisano number will be less than 5 percent. First, people like to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, so unless Golisano breaks the glass ceiling to the point that his poll numbers put him in that category, his final vote will melt away. Of his voters, some will come from disaffecteds, and from those that might have voted for another minor party candidate. Also, some undoubtedly will come from McCall’s pocket. Ultimately, the hurt to Pataki from Golisano will be minimal. Even the value of his constant attack on Pataki is somewhat blunted by its shrill tone.

Having endorsed Carl McCall last year, I hope I am wrong…the only way for McCall to beat Pataki, is to make the campaign about real issues on which the Democrats have an advantage: education, health care and the state of the economy.

The question is: will voters allow that to happen, or are we going to be treated to another few weeks of who wrote what letter recommending whom on what stationery?

That’s the way I see it from my little cross-section of multi-ethnic southern Brooklyn.

Councilman Lew (Fidler)

PS You can save this and see how right I am later. :)”

Lew, We’ll print it and let everyone see that even loyal Dems like you can occasionally see clearly.

The Guv Race Scorecard