Bloomberg Move
Boosts Non-Partisan Election Issue

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Some of my columns are spontaneous.

Some ferment. They sit in my head — week after week — and age and take shape. They have a life of their own because everything is not crystal clear to me. Sooner or later something happens. Sometimes the idea just fades away and dies; sometimes the situation around the idea changes; at other times, I sit down and start typing (keyboarding is the appropriate term today) and see where it takes me.

This column – the first of what I assume will be several on a proposal to change the City Charter to hold non-partisan elections – arrived here through a sudden change in situation and in all sincerity, I don’t know where it’s going.

Unlike most of my subjects, my vision is not crystallized on whether New York City should hold elections for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council members in the present traditional partisan manner or adopt a non-partisan election where party primaries would play no role.

Up until last week, I could have told you where and why this column would end up — the conclusion was simple. Any proposal to modify elections to benefit someone presently running for office should be rejected. And although non-partisan elections might have been an idea whose time had come, it was a plan introduced by a Republican Mayor, which would improve his chances of reelection in a Democratic city.

Initially, I was intrigued by the idea — change to our tired system can be good — and wanted to study it, but rejected it without study because the Mayor who initiated the proposal and process stood to gain from it. The concept of changing election rules to benefit one’s self is inherently an undemocratic outrage.

Now don’t get me wrong. I was – and still am – one of the Mike Bloomberg fans still left in the game. In a disastrous economic situation that was not of his creation, I believe he has steered the City ship of state quite well. I believe this political novice has played the game skillfully and above all has sought the best solutions for our city immune from the pressures of special interests and political parties that all too often corrupt or dilute.

I know I am in a minority at the moment. I also believe that the majority judgment is unduly influenced by the economics of the moment and has not considered the refreshing and positive changes Mayor Mike has brought to our government and City. I hope the economy improves and Mike can be judged by his overall performance.

Now all that being said, I was not ready to consider a proposal to change election rules to improve his chances to be reelected. In a democracy, we must seek a fair and level playing field. The guy (or guys or gals) in office must not be allowed to modify the rules to help themselves — even if they are your guys and gals.

Democracy must come before party — remember that!

Much too often do we see elected officials making decisions considering what’s good for their party over what’s good for the people or system. This has led to corruption and more often to the people’s distrust of elected officials. Party politics frequently makes government ugly. Ask any member of Congress, or just check recent accounts of partisan behavior in D.C.

On the State level, things are horrendous. Perpetuating each party’s majority and each leaders power in the house they control has almost displaced the purpose of government.

On the City level, we have periodically witnessed corruption and scandal due to the unchecked power of one party. The current scrutiny surrounding the selection of judges by party bosses is the most recent example of sacrificing good government for partisan motives at best, and corruption at worst.

Our system of government is wonderful. The two party system has served us well. However, the system of government is more important than any political party.

This lifelong Democrat has seen his party lose its way on more than a couple of occasions. Good citizens yell when that happens — they must. Party members must keep party and elected officials focused on the true prize — good government.

I was and am ready to consider alternatives.

But Mike Bloomberg proposed the alternative of non-partisan elections, appointed the Commission to consider placing it on the ballot, and all the while he would be the beneficiary of its passage.

No way, no good!

Okay, that’s where I was at.

Then everything changed.

Last Thursday at a Charter revision commission hearing held at Queens Borough Hall, Commission Chair Frank Macchiarola — a man of impeccable integrity who has served the New York community in a variety of impressive positions over the years — announced a significant twist in what was perceived as the Mayor’s plan.

As a matter of fact, Macchiarola released a letter from Mayor Bloomberg, which has given the non-partisan election proposal real significant impetus. The Mayor has removed himself and his reelection as a factor in the non-partisan proposal. The Mayor, in a letter dated July 16, advocated that the non-partisan election proposal move forward and be voted on at the next election, but not be implemented until 2009...after he has been term limited out of office.

Bloomberg, abandoning any advantage from the change, wants to run for reelection under the present rules and have the new rules in place for the following election. He appears to be a man who is willing to sacrifice his own personal gain to get an election change enacted that he believes will benefit the system and the City.

That alone gives us reason to evaluate the proposal. The Mayor’s move was the only move that could have propelled the idea of non-partisan elections into the clear light to be studied.

I wonder if my party, the Democratic Party, has the same courage to abandon consideration of what benefits them and evaluate the proposal on its merit for the people of our City.

In a recent interview with the Trib, Alan Gartner, executive director of the Charter Revision Commission, discussed the Commission’s desire to increase access to the election process and offer opportunity for people who would normally not run to consider it, while also providing greater accountability for both elected officials and party influence.

“In many ways our system is broken,” Gartner told the Trib. He explained that fewer than a quarter of those eligible “actually vote” and “except for a small handful” those who do vote do not turn out for party Primary elections.

The commission set out to see what the “50 largest cities” in the United States were doing and found that “41 were conducting their elections for Mayor and other positions by non-partisan elections.”

Like Gartner, who identified himself as being a quintessential New Yorker, this writer was shocked at finding the percentage of large cities holding non-partisan elections. Gartner told the Trib that if it wasn’t done in New York, “I assumed, while interesting, it wasn’t common.” In fact, of the top 10 largest cities in the US “all but New York and Philadelphia” were holding non-partisan elections.

However, as a true New Yorker, he maintained that, “Just because they do it in Sheboygan, doesn’t mean we should do it here.”

Gartner added that in looking at the other large cities, they found that political parties “do everything they currently do” including organizing behind a candidate and offering their support. But the change in the election process would “eliminate the lock step.”

Nothing we learned from Gartner was conclusive. It merely emphasized the point that there is an issue here worthy of evaluation. And now that the Mayor has removed himself as a factor, we believe the debate should begin in earnest.

We challenge the Democrats to participate intellectually.  We will, as soon as the ballot language is finalized, offer them and other concerned parties (as in participants in the process, not necessarily political parties) space on these pages to help educate our readers on this important proposed change to our political process.

This is not a decision that should be based on whether more Dems or fewer Dems will win election. We should not judge this on self-interest but on how it will impact the government, the process and history.

My mind is open.

I am, as I’ve stated before, a proponent of change.

Is this the change we should ratify?

I believe the Macchiarola Charter Revision Commission will place this change on the ballot.

I believe we must have a healthy debate.

Keep your mind open.

Participate in the discussion.

Do what is right.

The Mayor just did.