Today New York Civic, the city's youngest good government organization, is two years old. A birthday is a good time to look around and tell what we see, from the vantage point of a lifetime in public service in New York City.
 
Our newly spruced-up website, www.nycivic.org, contains 98 columns which I have written since March 2002. You are invited to browse it, and comment to us on its contents.

Columns two and three were on former Councilman Angel Rodriguez, who was in the process of being investigated, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned for extortion of a developer for his support of a shopping mall in Red Hook, part of his district. Columns 97 and 98 were on Speaker Gifford Miller, who solicits and receives campaign contributions from trustees and employees of cultural institutions to which he allocates city funds. Miller's behavior is close to current political norms, while Rodriguez was a common thief. But the troublesome issue that remains is whether there was a reward for a public act, and whether that is appropriate.

Ironically, in December 2001, Rodriguez and Miller were the two principal candidates for Speaker, with Rodriguez enjoying the support of County Leader Clarence Norman and the delegation from Brooklyn, the most populous borough. Fortunately, Miller won, in a transaction brokered by the Bronx and Queens delegations, who are responsive to their own Democratic county leaders, Jose Rivera - Roberto Ramirez in the Bronx and Tom Manton in Queens.
 
A similar alliance prevailed sixteen years before that, when Bronx, then led by Stanley Friedman was allied with Queens under Donald Manes to elect Peter Vallone as speaker over the Brooklyn candidate, Sam Horwitz, with the deciding vote cast by a Manhattan turncoat. Of the two, Vallone was the more capable contender. Vallone says Manes had no role in his selection, as Manes was preoccupied with more serious (to him) matters. But even if he won the votes himself by canvassing his Queens colleagues, Vallone needed the Councilmembers from across the Whitestone and Throggs Neck bridges, all the way south and west to the Triborough.
 
That was a digression to provide some political history. Readers of these articles know that, in addition to current reports and issue analysis, we periodically go back in time. The basic lesson we learn is that things were much the same years ago as they are today. Even the names are similar. The Astoria Councilmember now is Peter F. Vallone, Jr. The majority leader of the Council is 24-year-old Joel Rivera, son of Jose, the Bronx Assemblyman and County Leader. Young Rivera makes the 34-year old Miller look like a greybeard.
 
Acceptance of campaign contributions from people or groups that you have benefitted is not a crime, and in fact is a way of life in Washington and Albany. To paraphrase Ed Koch, "If your friends won't help you, who will?" The problem is that these donors aren't friends, they are businessmen. Their money is an investment in the legislator's vote. Many elected officials routinely depend on these contributions to help fund their treasuries, even when their re-election is certain. In that case, they just pile up the unspent money in a special fund which they may use for other than political purposes.
 
One possibility, a privately funded candidacy, is by definition extremely limited in the number of people who are able and willing to do it. Mayor Bloomberg, as we know, is such a rare person, and that is why the voters of New York City had a viable alternative to the Democratic Party candidate, who was disliked by a plurality of voters. In the 2005 election, the Mayor's money will not be as large a factor as in 2001, because by now many people have formed opinions about him, positive or negative.  Nonetheless, he will be able to explain his record in a way that others cannot afford.
 
The current system of public/private financing was a good idea in 1988, when the match was 1:1.  Politicians, accustomed to using taxpayer dollars to promote themselves, raised the match to 4:1 in 1998, and now seek to make it 8:1. In 2001 this deficit-ridden city spent $42 million on individuals' political campaigns. At an 8:1 ratio, the tab in 2005 could exceed $100 million.   Despite this great expense, ostensibly to create a level playing field, every incumbent Councilmember who ran in 2003 was re-elected, most by margins that exceeded 60 per cent.
 
One inconvenience City Councilmembers suffer, compared with State Legislators, is term limits. Since a Councilmember can serve no longer than eight years, his/her successor is more likely to be a sibling than an offspring. The State, although without competitive public financing, allows office holders to bombard their constituents with repeated mailings, usually illustrated with pictures of the Senator or Assemblymember in various poses, alone or with interest groups. The State version of public financing is, of course, limited to incumbents. The lack of legislative term limits has led to members who sit for a generation or more. If experience added value, New York State would be rich indeed.
 
Another factor that contributes to legislative longevity and works against challengers is the districting process. As in Albany, lines are routinely drawn to protect incumbents of both parties. In New York City's districting last year, the Speaker and the Republican Minority Leader combined to over-rule the Mayor's proposed district lines. There was a political decision by the leader of the 3 Republicans in the 51-member Council, that the Speaker could help, or hurt, him and his district more than the Mayor.

The City Charter provides that legislative districts should be compact and contiguous, but politicians favor districts that are so sinuous and attenuated that there is no one community from which a challenger could easily emerge. Districting is complicated by the requirement, enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, to create districts from which people of the correct race or ethnicity are likely to be chosen.
 
When I enumerate these obstacles to good government, readers may wonder how anything positive emerges from the legislative process. The answer is that, when the budget is adopted, fiscal necessity can override some of the less powerful interest groups. From time to time, public pressures on an issue are so great that remedial action must be taken. But those occasions are quite rare.

An example of the stasis between the two houses of the legislature is in the proposed repeal of the Rockefeller drug laws, which are generally considered to be excessively harsh on addicts. The Republicans want to go so far, the Democrats much further. Neither will compromise, so no new law has been passed, which secretly pleases some prosecutors. The Democrats will not pass the weaker bill because they don't want Governor Pataki to get credit for enacting the reform. The Republicans oppose the Democrats' bill, along with much of the law enforcement community. As a result, the oppressive penalties, on the books for a quarter-century, remain the law in New York.
 
This is not to say that all politics is bad, or that, as a group, politicians are bad people. There are honest people and crooks, there are smart ones and dumb ones. Politicians are generally self-centered, but that is why the chose the business they entered (Rule 29-B). Like athletes or actors, public officials are paid for their performance in public attention. Unlike athletes or actors, if they are honest, they do not get rich.
 
The question we ask today is: What is the role of a non-partisan organization dedicated to honest and efficient government? One tries, by bringing information to a wider audience, to increase the number of people who have insight into what is actually happening, which is often not generally reported. If any of you have ideas on how best to do this, please let us know. 

We see the city and state as they slog forward, sometimes sideways, and occasionally backwards. We are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, and we realize that good judgment is often compromised by electability. We think that the basic problem is a locked-in system which rewards those officials with timid souls who cater to special interests. The rewards may consist of longevity in office, leadership positions, large staffs, lulus, and a roomful of plaques, awards, and certificates from the many groups of people who want to be associated with public officials who they feel may be more important than they are. And if the officials receive free gifts and free vacations from those generous souls who enjoy their company or their influence, isn't that just the icing on the cake?
 
Biologically, some human beings have a natural tendency to dominate each others (the alpha male syndrome). That is one reason why so many countries in the world slide into dictatorship. Compared with many (but not all) other nations, we have a great and vibrant democracy in the United States. Is it too much to try to rid ourselves of the barnacles of privilege which prevent us from sharing to the fullest the benefits of freedom?

---