LAWRENCE OF ARABIA SAID: 'NO PRISONERS',
WILL PATAKI EMULATE THE DESERT PRINCE
By Henry J. Stern
May 6, 2003
 
    The annual Battle of the Budget has taken a surprising new twist. In the 2003 version, the triumvirs of Albany are divided, and not along party lines. Governor Pataki, having engaged in blatantly excessive spending in 2002 to win union endorsements, is now preaching strict austerity.  Senate leader Bruno and Assembly Speaker Silver on the other hand, want to increase state and city taxes to save the jobs of thousands of public employees (or maintain essential services, if you prefer).  They are joined by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council (by a 46-3 vote yesterday, the three being Republicans who love services, but hate taxes).

    How long this novel alliance will continue is unknown, no Republican wants to be on the bad side of a newly re-elected Republican Governor.  But on the other hand, nobody wants to fire employees represented by unions which have made many contributions over the years.   Nor do legislators wish to shift substantial tax burdens to towns and cities in their home districts.

    The situation suggests the United Nations, where the world lineup has often shifted over the years.   It began in 1945 with the US, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and Nationalist China against Germany and Japan, Italy having opted out in 1943.   In 2003, it is the US and Britain, opposed by France, Germany, Russia and mainland China (Red China is passé, the People’s Republic of China is too long, and their economy today can scarcely be called Communist.)   Spain (sans Franco), Italy (sans Mussolini) and Japan (sans Tojo et al.) are now on our side.   We may even get Iraq (sans Saddam).  
 
    This digression into international affairs is meant to show that side-switching, backstabbing and arm-twisting are not confined to Albany.  One part of the anatomy may be kissed or kicked, depending on which action will elicit the desired response.

    As to politics, there will be many local hostages who could be put at risk if the struggle continues.  One is the Interim Acting Commissioner of the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services, Robert Bruno, brother of the Senate majority leader.  The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.  The officeholders are as frightened as rabbits; Robert Bruno's office would not even answer the simple question, clearly a matter of public information: how long has he been with the agency?
 
    There is a debatable issue of public policy with regard to purges based on loyalty.  One argument is that if you got your job because of who you know (a fortiori, your pedigree), you should lose it if your sponsor falls from grace.  The counter-position is that if you do an outstanding job in public service, you ought to be judged on your own merits. This side would leave the execution of hostages to the banana republics (lower case).
 
    Most people, however, can be found in the middle, doing all right but not remarkably well.  In such cases, I would give a presumption in favor of the chief executive, but one easily rebutted by the facts in individual cases.   The power to confer rewards should include the power to withdraw the rewards.  One should, however, judge each case on its facts (no mass executions).  One should consider, first, the quality and quantity of the work performed by the jobholder, his or her age (favoring older workers, who would have a harder time finding jobs), the length of time spent in public service, and their relationship with their rabbi (the closer, the worse). Another factor is whether the offending sponsor has a public payroll of his own on which he can place the victims of his independence.

    Over the years, many people who were appointed politically have inched this way into positions where they can only be removed for their own official misconduct, not political misconduct by their sponsors.  (In New York City, it takes just two years to reach that status.)

    Of course, everyone in the business of politics hopes that the dispute is resolved amicably; the sooner the better.  They know that when elephants quarrel, it is the mice (as well as the grass) that will be trampled.  From the viewpoint of the taxpayers who pay for the cheese, fewer mice might be an unintended beneficial outcome.

Henry J. Stern is the director of NYCivic.