Charter reform redux
Let's get ready to rumble: So tonight the Albany Common Council is set to have a vote on whether or not to put the charter reform initiative on the november ballot, after it gained a new lease on life in the state court system. As you may recall, a citizens petition was completed (and then held up in a court battle) that would give the city voters an opportuinty to reform the city charter in November through a ballot vote. The reforms would marginally reduce the mayor's power in favor of the city council in a few administrative areas of governance. Now the council must approve the petition as a final step to getting it on the ballot. If they approve, the voters will vote on the reforms in November, with a bare majority needed for passage.
I don't have a whole lot to add - i've already said my peace on the substance and the politics before - my thoughts on strong mayors vs. strong city councils and how this might be a classic political win-through-losing situation (also here).
I guess I don't think the proposed charter reforms are substantively bad ideas - in fact I think at the end of the day this is rather much ado about nothing, at least on the merits of the substantive changes in power distribution between the council and the mayor. But i'm always skeptical of any monkeying with the institutions of government for political purposes. As I've written before, there are good and bad aspects to having a strong mayor. There are also good and bad aspects of having popular participation in the form of ballot intiatives. [why haven't you written about that?-ed. This isn't my day job. What do you do?-ed. Shut up.] But it is worrisome to me when people are changing institutions not because the institutions are bad, but because they dislike the people within the institutions. That's what happening here. People don't want to reduce the mayor's power, they want to reduce Jennings' power. And that makes me a skeptic, just as I'm skeptical of the Clifton Park redistricting, though i think it's a good idea substantively.
But, realistically, political philosophy has nothing to do with this anymore (despite the pleas on both sides) - this is a sheer test of wills between a controlling political faction and a rising one. The political stakes have long since dwarfed the ramifications of the institutional changes. But it sure is fun to watch! It is also important to remember that this is an insanely complicated political thicket. There are at least four layers: how you feel about the substantive changes philosophically, how you feel about the initiative method of changing things, how you feel about the likely political results of the changes, and (if you are a current politician) how you think supporting/opposing the measure will help or hurt your own fortunes. Throw in the possibility of strategic voting (i.e. vote yes tonight at the council meeting because you think the measure will fail in November and you want to bury its proponents) and it just becomes crazy.
If you'd like to enter the fray, jump on over to Democracy in Albany, where you can get the pro-reform side of things, and also read an anti-reform letter from Jack McEneny.
It certainly has been fascinating to see the political cogs-a-grinding downtown. I wonder what old Dan O'Connell is thinking right now?
I don't have a whole lot to add - i've already said my peace on the substance and the politics before - my thoughts on strong mayors vs. strong city councils and how this might be a classic political win-through-losing situation (also here).
I guess I don't think the proposed charter reforms are substantively bad ideas - in fact I think at the end of the day this is rather much ado about nothing, at least on the merits of the substantive changes in power distribution between the council and the mayor. But i'm always skeptical of any monkeying with the institutions of government for political purposes. As I've written before, there are good and bad aspects to having a strong mayor. There are also good and bad aspects of having popular participation in the form of ballot intiatives. [why haven't you written about that?-ed. This isn't my day job. What do you do?-ed. Shut up.] But it is worrisome to me when people are changing institutions not because the institutions are bad, but because they dislike the people within the institutions. That's what happening here. People don't want to reduce the mayor's power, they want to reduce Jennings' power. And that makes me a skeptic, just as I'm skeptical of the Clifton Park redistricting, though i think it's a good idea substantively.
But, realistically, political philosophy has nothing to do with this anymore (despite the pleas on both sides) - this is a sheer test of wills between a controlling political faction and a rising one. The political stakes have long since dwarfed the ramifications of the institutional changes. But it sure is fun to watch! It is also important to remember that this is an insanely complicated political thicket. There are at least four layers: how you feel about the substantive changes philosophically, how you feel about the initiative method of changing things, how you feel about the likely political results of the changes, and (if you are a current politician) how you think supporting/opposing the measure will help or hurt your own fortunes. Throw in the possibility of strategic voting (i.e. vote yes tonight at the council meeting because you think the measure will fail in November and you want to bury its proponents) and it just becomes crazy.
If you'd like to enter the fray, jump on over to Democracy in Albany, where you can get the pro-reform side of things, and also read an anti-reform letter from Jack McEneny.
It certainly has been fascinating to see the political cogs-a-grinding downtown. I wonder what old Dan O'Connell is thinking right now?
This entry was posted
on Thursday, September 08, 2005 at 12:17 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
At 1:36 PM ,I concur with much of what you say. I think Jennings is being incredibly stupid, politically-speaking. I don't give reform better than a 50/50 chance on the ballot with his attack machine going. He should just put it on and try to defeat it if he doesn't like it.
Philosophically, I would bicker with you a bit about the democratic nature of this. Sure, "letting the people vote" has a nice ring to it, but there are down sides to the initiative process. Look at California - they can't raise property taxes, they yanked out a governor, and if the courts hadn't stepped in they would have no services for illegal immigrants whatsoever, not even schooling. I think this shows some of the flaws of the initiative system - citizens are far more persuaded by interest group money and inflamed passions than legislators are. They also tend to be less informed about complicated issues. Bottom line - i'm not sold on popular referenda being god's gift to democracy. I'm generally more comfortable with representative democracy.
That said, I think this charter refrom movement is more than your run of the mill California ballot initiative - it is a good representation of what is undoubtedly a citizen movement in the city. And one coming from citizens who have largely been left out of the process in the past. So i think it's a good thing for the politics of the city.
I agree Jennings is gone soon, but i also will stick to my statement that this has been brought on by hatred of Jennings, with institutional reform simply instruemntal in the process. I don't doubt that you want the council to be stronger for the good of the city, but i do think if you had your choice of mayor (but the council opposed him), you'd want a strong mayor. That's all.
Will you be there tonight? I was considering going down and observing.
At 2:23 PM ,
Ok - but doesn't the law also allow the council to reject the petition tonight and doesn't the law also allow people to challenge the petitions in court?
I mean, at some level you must be making a non-legal argument, right? If the council says "no" tonight, you're not going to say "well, that's the law, that's it." Of course not. You'll complain that they stifled democracy.
I'm not saying that's a bad complaint. I'm just pointing out that your argument is more than just a legal one based on rights.
» Post a Comment