By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Primaries are upon us. Prior to elections, we interview the competing candidates as a group so that we may present to our readers any differences uncovered during the one-and-a-half to two hour sessions. We also rely heavily on the interview in determining our editorial endorsements.

These interviews are usually wonderful — I love them. I get the chance to probe, challenge and explore the thought process, principles, compassion and motivation behind office holders and challengers. Other Trib and Press staff members sit in and write the account of the interview and occasionally participate. But the sessions are basically mine.

In one form or another, I have been interviewing politicians and commenting on the world of politics since shortly after I learned to walk. My political science degree from Queens College, my father’s scholarship in the areas of government and history, my own personal inclinations and the good fortune of winding up in this business, have enabled me to meld vocation and avocation. I participate, analyze and share with passion, the game of politics — here in Queens, the City and occasionally beyond.

My motives are simple: First and foremost I enjoy writing and politics. Second, but primary, is my belief that an informed citizenry is essential to the democratic process of government and a progressive, inclusive society. My offerings are my heart and mind’s honest analysis. Please note that I do, with some frequency, modify intellect with compassion — that’s where the heart part comes in. Without getting into a long-winded debate about political spectra, it is that quality that I believe places me to the left of center. That is not to say that only “progressives” or “liberals” — as we used to be proud to be called — have feelings or hearts, it just seems ours are more sensitive than those on the right.

Well, all of that is to say I have been running our interview sessions looking for just (fair), compassionate, hardworking, driven people who understand the process of government and want to improve their community, our society and the life of their neighbors.

Contrary to periodic suggestions, we do not go outside the newsroom to determine which candidates (or issues) to support.  There are those rare occasions where we could go either way and when I’m uncertain and a divided newsroom unpersuasive, we’ve sought counsel from those whom  we respect.

However, it rarely happens.

As a matter of fact, I usually conduct brief postmortems after the interviews and it is obvious to all of the editorial staff present which candidate emerged as best for the people. As explained previously, there are other considerations but more often than not, our interview sessions bring out the disparity between the top public servants and the rest of the bunch.

There are only five primaries out of fourteen Queens seats — nine incumbents are being given a free ride. This indeed is a sad commentary on New York’s electoral system. While our City has as progressive a public campaign finance program as anywhere in the nation, its administration has been problematic and, at times, mean-spirited. We’ll leave that subject for another time.

While we lead the country in campaign finance, our ballot access procedures are as archaic as any and discourage and limit participation. Reform is essential.

Finally, term limits have brought new and talented people into the game, but the power of incumbency and party politics continue to result in too few choices for the people. After the Primary, only one of the Queens seats faces a serious challenge from the opposing party — and we’re stretching it, at that.

We must demand change. But a non-functioning State Legislature offers little hope of improving our system.

Now, none of the above criticism is aimed at the quality of the City Council members, all of whom face reelection this year. We’ve sung their praises since they came into office nineteen months ago as a unique class created by term limited vacancies. We continue to be impressed by this Council. That does not mean all of its members deserve to be returned to office.

We look this week at the five contested primary races. We offer by edition, localized reports of our interview sessions if they pertain to your area, as well as our endorsements and this column. I assume if you’re reading this, you have already read our endorsements which precede this column by two pages in the Trib and six in the Press. The words below are the words of this political junkie and do not necessarily reflect the paper’s endorsement. As a matter of fact, this column is being written before endorsements are decided.

During one postmortem, I pointed out to Aaron Rutkoff, – a new reporter sitting in for the first time, – that at that moment, my vote and endorsement might differ. As an individual, my heart and personal feelings might influence me to go in one direction, while careful thought and analysis wearing the Publisher/Editor-in-Chief hat might moderate my sometimes more radical personal reactions — I wasn’t sure.

We have, for our own purposes, been keeping an ongoing informal evaluation of each council member based on their effectiveness at both City Hall and in their district.  We reiterate that the class of fourteen from Queens is superb, so when we compare members to a class “norm”, please accept that norm as superior in quality.

Of the five contested seats, one belongs to a Council star. Leroy Comrie in the 28th has proven himself a leader, a consensus builder and a moderate yet enlightened voice for the minority (read “race “ not “party”) in the Council while maintaining an active district office and tending to district needs. Leroy sits with a handful of members as the top performers in the Council. He showed this in his interview session where, despite being less than charismatic, Comrie shined as a bright, well-informed master of the process and a compassionate advocate for the needs of the people. His challenger has an understanding of government, but neither the ability nor issues to deserve consideration.

Likewise, John Liu, the first Asian elected from Queens, has performed well over his nineteen months in the Council. His challenger was also clearly outclassed and out-informed.

The other three seats are held by Councilmembers performing below the high quality average of their Council class — remember, the bottom of this talented class can still be quite impressive.

Even at or near the bottom, the disparity in knowledge and judgment between incumbent and challenger comes shining through. The challengers this time were not up to the level of the top half of the some 65 people who came through our interview process when the seats were vacant due to term limits.

Hiram Monserrate’s opponent was sadly ill informed about the role and powers of a Councilman, while Hiram has grown in his short tenure.

Jim Gennaro faces two challengers. One clearly is not up to the task of legislating — she has failed to demonstrate a grasp of anything deeper than hot button issues. While David Reich, – Gennaro’s other opponent — is bright and has a sincere desire and grasp of government, he demonstrated no knowledge of the incumbent’s performance or votes. He was unable to define any difference he would make. Sadly, he has run twice for City Council but has never found the time to attend a Council meeting. No, neither gave us any reason for the people to look further than the incumbent.

Finally, we came down this past Friday to the one race where we felt change was needed and perhaps likely — the 28th Council District. Incumbent Allan Jennings has been the odd man out – more often than not – in a united Council. His strange antics have been an embarrassment to himself and perhaps to others. Yet he is bright, very hard working and dedicated to serving. His opponent Yvonne Reddick has a two-decade long record of fine service as a Community Board District Manager. She has also been a Democratic District Leader for 13 years.

There was a difference here. Jennings voted against raising property taxes by 18.5 percent and offered to us the idea of across-the-board cutbacks of every City agency as an alternative. Reddick supported the tax increase. Jennings called for reform in the selection process of judges while Reddick blessed the very questionable and well publicized, troublesome status quo.

On the issue of term limits — passed by a referendum of the people — Jennings promised to oppose any further attempt to modify term limits without going back to the people even though he previously flip-flopped on the term limit “tweak” allowing the Speaker and others to run for an additional two years while denying his predecessor the right to challenge him. Reddick, was all over the place on this issue, at times echoing the cry of the self-serving Council members who three years ago tried to extend their own terms: “The people didn’t understand what they voted for.” But finally, under great pressure from this interviewer, offered that she would support the effort to overturn term limits by going back to the people.

Now, we’ve battled with Jennings. At times, he’s refused to return newsroom phone calls. We’ve encouraged others to consider challenging him. Allan Jennings is not our ideal council member. However, he is fiercely independent and advocates for the good of the people without regard for party or politics.

Yvonne Reddick knows the game and knows how to get along. She seems to be another politician who will turn on the weather forecast to make sure she knows which way the wind is blowing.

There is a difference.

Reddick won’t embarrass us.

Jennings will.

Reddick won’t make waves.

Jennings will.

I know how I’d vote.

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato

Would Non-Partisan  Elections
Offset County Leaders’ Power?

In the weeks between now and Election Day (Nov.4), you will be asked to make a judgment and vote on Charter Reform proposals which will, among other things, impact the way we elect New York City officials.

We hope to offer a variety of viewpoints to help readers in casting an informed vote.

Here’s our first.

By HENRY STERN

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposals for City Charter revision have been presented, and the opposition has quickly formed: an alliance between Democratic Party organizations and the unions who comprise the NYC Central Labor Council. 

There is less difference between these two groups than may meet the eye... Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin (Democrat of Queens) is chairman of the Central Labor Council and a potential candidate for the Democratic mayoral nomination.

It is in the self-interest of the leaders of the Democratic Party and the City’s labor unions to try to sew up the Democratic mayoral nomination in a process in which only their followers can participate.  They will oppose the Mayor’s plan as not being representative enough, but in fact it would allow far more people to take a significant part in choosing a Mayor than the existing primary – limited to party enrollees – currently permits.

Few people, or agencies, give up power voluntarily and political elites are no exception.  The requirement of prior party enrollment for participation at the polls in a primary precludes people who are politically independent, and have not enrolled in a particular political party.  The process is called a “closed primary”... it is similar to a closed shop where workers have to be union members even before they are hired, therefore excluding everyone not selected by the union leaders as worthy of admission.  Since union membership is sometimes awarded on a hereditary basis, this policy has the effect of keeping desirable jobs in the family, either genetic or extended.

The case for this preference was once explained to me by a union officer as follows:  Mr. Rockefeller can leave his millions of dollars to his children and that gives them a great advantage in life.  My main asset in this world is my union card, so why can’t I leave that to my son. 

People wiser than I can explain why this unionist’s position is unjustified.  It is, however, usually true that the necessary burden of eliminating discrimination in education, housing and employment falls far more heavily on the middle and working classes than it does on the rich.

Many people claim that they do not like party politics or insider domination of City government.  The proposed charter will somewhat weaken political parties, although they will still exist because of the natural human desire to band together for protection against enemies and advancement of friends, and to nominate and elect state and federal officials.  But it is also true that while many people dislike politics, they are satisfied with their own officials.

I saw this most vividly years ago at a small recreation building in Bay Ridge, where the citizens complained to Mayor Giuliani and cited examples of what they called rampant lawlessness in their neighborhood. When the Mayor asked the people their opinion of the captain of their precinct – who was present – they all replied that he was a wonderful police officer and that they liked him.  The captain was shortly transferred out of the precinct by Commissioner Bratton, who felt that if the officer were so competent, there would have been fewer crimes for the people to complain about.

It may well be the same with the Charter. People don’t like politics, but they like their own representation.  They may be inclined to vote to keep them in office and not to make it more difficult or inconvenient for them to be re-elected.  On the other hand, term limits won twice, thanks to Ronald Lauder.  The issue could come down to how much each side spends on the campaign.  

The political and labor establishment will attack Mayor Bloomberg if he spends even one per cent of the money he has earned over the years in support of charter reform. But they will use the treasuries of their organizations and the members they control to defeat the new charter and preserve the status quo which has brought them such rich benefits in power, wealth and prestige over the years of their domination.

On the other hand, in a predominantly Democratic city like New York, there are problems with nonpartisan elections as well.  The first round would become the substitute for the Democratic primary, and the two front-runners in November could well both be Democrats.  Indeed in many if not most of the 51 Council districts, this is likely to be the case.  Therefore Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals would not have a candidate of their own party to vote for in the November election.  They would, however, be able to choose between the top two vote-getters, which would be a good thing, because Republicans might support the more conservative Democrat while members of the Working Families party could support the more radical. 

The September candidates might have to reach out to different constituencies to win votes in November, especially in moderate districts. Voters would have a second chance to pick a winner, even if their choice did not prevail in September. Since the Council today consists of 48 Democrats and three Republicans, people who are not enrolled Democrats have much more limited influence in choosing their Council member than those who are.

In his third term, Mayor Edward Koch was criticized because of the corrupt activities of the Bronx and Queens Democratic leaders...Stanley Friedman and the late Donald Manes. Koch did not appoint either of them to public office, they were elected to party office in their respective counties before he became Mayor.  Friedman and Manes controlled the City Council delegations from their boroughs.  If the Mayor wanted any significant legislation to be adopted by the Council, their approval was necessary.  As a result, they had certain leverage, which they tried to exert in personnel recommendations.

They were often rebuffed, as in 1985 when Manes sought control of the Department of Transportation and the Parking Violations Bureau (for reasons not known at the time, but later revealed, setting off a chain of events which culminated in his suicide). His repeated requests were denied by Mayor Koch, who appointed a non-political career manager, Barbara Gunn.

The link between elected puppets and county leaders is unquestionably a corruption hazard. Imagine if the since-convicted Angel Rodriguez, who was Clarence Norman’s candidate for speaker in January 2002, had been selected.  As in 1986, it was the Bronx and Queens organizations that combined to defeat Brooklyn. Manhattan was always too fragmented and too full of candidates to be of much use to anyone and Staten Island was too small.

The enemies of non-partisan elections oppose the new charter because of self-interest. They rely on their lawyers’ intimate familiarity with the existing process. Even if the power of political leaders would not, in fact, be significantly diminished, they are fond of the rules as they are, with all their built-in unfairness, such as: onerous requirements for ballot access, lawsuits knocking candidates off the ballot for technical reasons, harassing elderly petition signers with subpoenas, impressing jobholders to do battle with insurgents, etc.

As a non-radical reformer, I have serious problems with the way the big guys play politics in New York State.  Existing conditions and practices – sometimes widespread – include executive, legislative and judicial patronage, court appointments of attorneys based on influence and contributions to the party in power; nepotism, cronyism and favoritism; private law practices on public issues; pork barrel appropriations; poverty pimping; padded expense accounts; double billing for expenses; multiple constituent mailings; influence peddling and purchasing; judge selling; log rolling, buck passing, grandstanding, gerrymandering to insure eternal tenure; as well as yet undetected schemes of pillage and privilege, have made state and local government somewhat less worthy of New Yorkers’ respect than might be the case if the people had real choices to make when they vote. 

If nonpartisan elections would lead to curing some of these evils, they would be worthwhile. No one can be sure how politics would be affected, but it is hard to imagine how the system would become worse.

Sometimes, when complex issues are raised, people decide by voting on the side of people they like and respect, or against those who have irritated them. But the charter vote should not be a referendum on Mayor Bloomberg. Opponents will try to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with City conditions to protect their interest in political domination. That is a problem the campaign must face. But to retreat from the struggle would be to abandon a major initiative to try to depoliticize municipal government, or at least to alter the balance of influence between party bosses and the rest of the people of New York.

Henry Stern was NYC Parks Commissioner for fifteen years and a Council member for nine. He is founder and director of NYCivic, a good government group. He can be reached at: starquest@nycivic.org