....July 31, 1:19 PM
 
 
 
Democratic: A Party Name Or a Principle?

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

It’s really a pretty simple story.

One can understand both sides but gets hung up on the word “democratic.”

Let me explain.

Candidates running for office must file petitions signed by a required number of registered voters in the party they are looking to run on. On top of the petition, in print smaller than the candidate’s name and office sought, are the names of “the committee on vacancy.” It’s an infrequently mentioned group – usually meaningless – printed on the petition at the direction of the candidate and often controlled by the party.

The only job this committee has is to replace the candidate if he or she should die after the petition process or decline the nomination. The committee is then empowered to name a replacement. Usually when a candidate goes through the rigors and expense of collecting signatures on the petition they intend to run. However, political parties have been known to try to prevent competitive elections for open seats by concealing the fact that the incumbent is not rerunning by having the incumbent collect signatures and decline at the last minute before anyone else can circulate petitions.

Keep in mind that in New York, more than 95 percent of incumbents get reelected. The path to winning office for a newcomer is to run for an empty seat. The party hierarchy wants to control succession and reward loyalty so they conceal the vacancy and have the committee on vacancy pick their person. Thus there is no primary election and no competition for office. In Queens, it’s the Democratic Party which can get away with this move because their candidates almost always win. So if they can prevent a Primary, they name the new officeholder.

It was through that procedure that Queens Party Chairman Tom Manton handed his Congressional seat to Joe Crowley – who after Manton’s death also succeeded him as party chair.

Now Joe is a fine Congressman – that is not the issue. The people just didn’t have any say over the process. Primary elections exist to allow the people – party members – to pick their candidates and take the power away from party bosses. Having someone who knows they are not going to run, circulate petitions so that the party can designate someone else robs the people of their right. However, it is not illegal.

Now, I understand the desire of party bosses to name future elected officials – but that power should really belong to the people.

I was raised in a home with active Democrats. Dad would always explain that the Democratic Party was the party of the people – the little guys – and looked out for the poor and middle class. They were concerned with the rights of the people.

Well, things have changed and the Democratic Party would rather perpetuate their own than look out for the little guy. Power has the ability to do that.

The party bosses lose sight of the fact that the people in a Primary Election usually show darn good judgment and select candidates who fit in and will work with the party but will first look out for the needs of the people. Bypassing this step, bypasses democracy.
Well here we go again.

Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette is the senior member of the Queens Assembly delegation and has been approaching retirement for some time. He managed to get an appointment to some State Commission that we assume will enrich his pension payments and we also assume will not require too much work. So Ivan is not rerunning. It is also clear that Ivan knew of this appointment before filing his petitions to rerun.

Petitions get filed; Ivan declines; one of the party district leaders – Mike Den Dekker — gets named to run in Ivan’s place.

We don’t know Den Dekker but checked him out online. The guy is a sanitation man, an actor and former chauffer to party Chief Tom Manton. Huh?

But plans for the unchallenged handoff may not go so well because someone else circulated petitions to run in the Democratic Primary believing it was time to retire Ivan Lafayette. Democratic activist Marlene Tapper – we just met her – has filed her petitions to run in the Democratic Primary so the people can decide who should succeed Lafayette.

Only one thing . . . the party – the Democratic Party – doesn’t like competition. So chances are they will use their endless legal resources to challenge Tapper’s petitions and keep her tied up in court spending her limited time and money. Often they succeed through technicality in throwing people off the ballot.

I haven’t interviewed Den Dekker or Tapper and would love to see a fair Primary between the two. I prefer the way Tapper earned the right to run while find Den Dekker’s selection from the old smoke-filled room distasteful.

Now the question is whether the Democratic Party will permit the people – party members – to select the candidate and the next Assembly member by election and not use endless court challenges.

Dad told me the Democratic Party was for the middle class and listened to the people.

They have an opportunity to allow the people some input here.

We hope they do.

 
 
When Will State And City Let the People Know?

By HENRY STERN

The City is headed for parlous times, according to economic experts and civic organizations who monitor the fiscal health of governments.

The financial woes of banks and investment houses have resulted in lower earnings for the firms and reduced bonuses for their employees. That is in addition to the tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs in layoffs or the collapse of their firms.

These setbacks have already had a substantial effect on income tax receipts for the state and city. The drastic falloff in real property transactions will result in lower collections of mortgage recording fees and other taxes. The result will be a substantial shortfall in both city and state revenue budgets for fiscal 2009.

Such results have been predicted in past years and, somehow, by the time the budget is adopted, the governments involved have been able to minimize the gap by a combination of borrowing, deferral of expenditures, and one-shot receipts. One technique was collecting a tax in July of year one and June of year two, so there would be a double payment in the fiscal year which included both months.

For fiscal 2010, with the state budget due in March 2009 and the city budget due in June 2009, it appears unlikely that the usual manipulations will succeed in creating balanced budgets. The city has consistently been more fiscally responsible than the state, and the first Paterson budget showed the governor to be somewhat more responsible than the legislature, but Paterson did yield by deferring real change until next year.

The new state comptroller was chosen in February 2007 by the legislature, guided by the Speaker of the Assembly, over vociferous objections by the former governor. He has expressed his concerns over the impending fiscal disaster, but not in any way that has attracted public attention. There is a saying in government that the comptroller must be more fiscally responsible, but only slightly more, than the governor and mayor.

The adopted budget is not a document that itself spends money. It is a fiscal road map for the next year. If receipts do not come in as predicted, there will be no money to spend, whether the relevant appropriations are in the budget or not. We will learn in time whether the state and the city budgets will have to be revised downward midyear on account of falling revenues.

The problem here is that the longer one waits to make cuts, the more extreme the cuts will have to be. Our suggestion would be that both the state and city budget offices and comptrollers begin work to implement reductions as soon as possible, to ease their inevitable effect later.

No one wants to be the one who warns of the crisis which is approaching inexorably, a far milder version of an asteroid headed for Earth. The ones who should sound the klaxon are the officials who are already elected, since they will be held responsible for what may happen.

So far there has been relative silence in both Albany and New York City. That can be rationalized by the maxim: “Don’t frighten the horses.” On the other hand, if the barn is in danger of burning, it is better that the horses be frightened sooner than that they be left undisturbed in their stalls until the flames are upon them.

We are now in the unbearable heat of midsummer, but fall and winter are on the way. Budget making time is five months away for the state, and eight months away for the City. Will we be able to implement the budget for fiscal 2009 without interim reductions? The City could do that, although it might mean using reserves set aside in recent years by a prudent mayor. The state will find that task more difficult, but the state also has its 700 authorities, large and small, and they have powers to borrow money that the city lacks.

It will be interesting to see who will be the first public official, or candidate for office, to blow the whistle on the approaching crisis. Normally, it is the train that blows its whistle as it approaches a surface intersection. In this situation, someone on the ground must blow the whistle to warn us about the oncoming train. Since no seeker of public office sees any gain in becoming the bearer of bad tidings, the figurative whistle is likely to be blown late, if at all.

We hope that public officials of both parties, on both the state and city level, consider what lies ahead, and what they should begin to do about it. The sooner they act, the less painful the remedy will be. It is time for our leaders to take note of the situation, and give clear notice to the public about what lies ahead.

What are the authorities of New York State and New York City going to do or say about this matter, and when will the public be told about it? Hopefully that day will come soon. In this situation, however, time is not our friend.

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.