The First Lap – A report on the Mayor’s freshman year, 2002
By Henry J. Stern
January 6, 2003
The first year of the Bloomberg mayoralty ended last week. The reviews, including this one, are quite positive. The polls are not so good, reflecting the property tax increase, the smoking bill controversy, and the Mayor being perceived as not quite the man in the street, even though he rides the subway.
Bloomberg has appeared in public, and managed the city, as a technocrat. He has made nonpolitical and meritorious, although for the most part obscure, appointments of commissioners and mayoral staff. He has taken a moderate Democratic course on policy issues, and avoided personal controversies for the most part, except at Italian parades. The Mayor issues serious reports taking pride in specific achievements of his administration, with an emphasis on technology. That is not surprising for a person who made his billions by developing a new business machine, the Bloomberg box, which supplied financial and market data more quickly and clearly than its rivals.
As far as major challenges go, the record is inconclusive. On the transit workers, the Mayor deferred to Governor Pataki’s decision to get the best (i.e. lowest) contract possible while avoiding a strike. Of course, if the union knows that is what you are doing, the deal becomes more costly and the givebacks disappear.
The United Federation of Teachers received a 15 per cent increase, partly in exchange for working an additional 20 minutes a day. Imagine what they would have been earning if they had agreed to work an extra hour. On the other hand, they did not defeat school reform in the Legislature, which they might otherwise have done.
The new mayor cancelled many of the initiatives of Mayor Giuliani, most notably the new baseball stadia, but included other capital projects which the city may no longer be able to afford. He also has a vastly different personality, not showing his anger in public, turning the other cheek to verbal assaults (as, for example, transit union leader Roger Toussaint telling him in public to shut up). This pleases the part of the public that abhors controversy, but displeases those who want a fighting mayor as their leader. On the other hand, it is impossible to please both these groups, and is difficult for a truly fair-minded person to fully please either of them.
Interestingly, there has not been any conflict with Mayor Giuliani. He and Mayor Bloomberg appear to have a mutual non-aggression treaty, although they differ on many issues. This understanding will probably last for some time. It is in the interest of neither man to trash the other. Anyway, Giuliani was important in electing Bloomberg, so why should he question his own judgment. And Bloomberg goes by the rule, “Be kind to man and beast,” at least in public.
The attainment of control over the new Department of Education gives reason for hope. But one cannot fairly say that this mayor prevailed where the previous three failed. They had an invaluable role in softening up the enemy (in this case the Board of Education and its master, the United Federation of Teachers). They put together the newspapers, public opinion and disgust with academic failure under the Board. When Mayor Bloomberg agreed to the generous increase for the teachers, the result was assured. No deal, of course. But even if there were (subjunctive mood) such a deal, it would be more in the public interest than Governor’s Pataki’s arrangement with the health care workers, in exchange for their support of his re-election.
The appointment of Joel Klein as Schools Chancellor, however, is solely the result of the Mayor’s sound judgment. Unimpeded by a background in education, Klein has set a whirlwind pace of visits, studies, appointments and decisions intended to improve our public schools. He is brilliant and brave, but nobody’s reading scores have taken off yet. Of course, it is too early to see that happen, but many people believe he is our last clear chance for educational reform. He is making the right enemies, but they seem, at least, to respect what he is trying to do, and he has regard for their professional skills.
The most important mayoral agency is Police. Public safety is the first civil right, because it is a precondition of enjoying the others. Here the Mayor has made a solid choice in Ray Kelly, a career police officer who rose through the ranks, and enjoyed a high-level career in Federal law enforcement during the Giuliani administration.
There are crime statistics we watch closely, murders are down this year from 641 to 580, the lowest total since 1963, when Robert F. Wagner was Mayor. All other major crimes are down, except rape, which was higher due to an increase in acquaintance-rape as contrasted to stranger-rape. This could be due to more frequent reporting of these crimes by injured women. The reduction was achieved with less man and woman power than the police had in 2001. As to quality of life offenses, the police have generally kept up the pressure on squeegee solicitors and illegal gamblers. An anti-noise campaign was initiated and is being pursued. Many Giuliani initiatives are alive and well at NYPD.
The smoking bill, although important in saving lives and reducing medical costs, injured Bloomberg’s popularity. He was seen as a fusspot, preaching to real guys (Marlboro men) and restricting their freedom (to poison the waitresses and bartenders serving them). Meanwhile, the Council, 26 of whose members co-sponsored an even stronger bill, with 42 voting for it in the end, largely escaped censure, just by keeping a lower profile.
The real estate tax increase, unpopular as it is, could be considered necessary as part of a financial recovery package. But staff reductions have not really followed suit. The Mayor believes, from a businessman’s point of view, that if there is a challenge you maintain the quality of the product, increasing the price if necessary. He feels if you degrade the product you will end up losing customers and revenue.
But that’s not the way it works in government. Higher taxes mean the loss of people, because those who can afford to pay them can also afford to move to places where there are more healthy trees and accessible public schools. And lowering costs does not necessarily mean reducing services, it means smarter management and reduction in the administrative overstaffing, particularly at the MTA, which the mayor does not control. He could, however, have a plan on this issue for the Governor and Peter Kalikow, and he does have four votes (out of 14), enough to make a public issue of the waste.
The strategy last year was to protect the Governor to help him get re-elected. It worked, Pataki won big. In Year 2, the plan so far appears to be good behavior while the Legislature is in session, so as not to anger the Governor or the Legislature during the session, because that could jeopardize the added funds and cost-reduction measures the city is seeking. They say you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but they also say you can’t get blood from a stone. Both theys are right to an extent, the Mayor must squeal loudly enough to get action, but not so loud as to break anyone’s eardrums, or cause them to spill their soup. There isn’t much chance of that.
The Mayor’s staff is quite good, and improving daily as they get experience. They work relatively harmoniously, which is a sea change from the culture of conflict. Whether it will produce more effective government, however, remains to be seen.
As a former employee of Mayors Koch and Giuliani, whose leadership I admired (although. as in any relationship, there were easier times and harder times), it is fascinating to watch a mayor with a different background and different style. He leans left out of upbringing, ‘60s education, personal conviction and perhaps a bit of concern over his extraordinary personal circumstances. He is extremely charitable, not only truly believing that money is there to do good, but acting on that principle.
There is no ideal mayor, and if there were, he or she couldn’t be elected. It was totally necessary, in order for this man to win, to spend 73 million dollars or so. But if you prorate that to our incomes, it would be a few thousand dollars. Wouldn’t it be worth it? However, it is important to know that all that money would not have elected him if he didn’t have fine personal qualities, a message people wanted to hear, endorsements by Mayor Giuliani (Republican) and Mayor Koch (Democrat), and no one credible to speak badly of him.
The Democrats, on the other hand, squandered their lead (like the Giants on Jan. 5), betrayed each other, aired a wild, hysterical commercial that in effect called Bloomberg a murderer, and in general acted like feuding radicals or disappointed politicians selling out.
To sum up, year 1 was a relative success in terms of avoiding disaster, and setting a tone and style of honesty, industry and commitment. The real problems, however, have been postponed until Spring 2003. Hopefully, the Mayor will reduce costs and effectively wage war on waste, inefficiency, duplication, unnecessary paperwork and ludicrous contracting procedures. To do this, he must first learn that waste exists, that it is substantial, and then, where it can be found. But who will speak truth to power?
P.S. This essay is not particularly funny, but neither is the Mayor. Perhaps as he lightens up in his sophomore year, we will have more interesting material for you. On the other hand, New York’s most entertaining Mayor was James J. (Jimmy) Walker (1926-32), who sang, danced and joked. However, Mayor Walker was a crook, big time.
A quotation from Mayor Walker: In 1926, on assuming office, he appointed his predecessor and defeated rival, John F. Hylan, to be a Judge of the Children’s Court. When asked by the press how he could possibly have appointed Hylan, whom he had described so negatively in the 1925 Democratic primary, Walker replied: “I wanted the children to be judged by their peer.”
Henry J. Stern is the director of NYCivic.