Tonight I got my robo-call from Mayor Bloomberg asking me to vote for Dan Squadron for State Senate, and had to admit it sounded slightly more animated than the Mayor live and in-person attempting to be spontaneous.
I recently put forth the theory that Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement of Squadron against incumbent Marty Connor did not stem from some amorphous desire to reform Albany–a ridiculous proposition given the Mayor’s quite obvious desire to maintain the status quo of Albany power arrangements, especially maintaining the Senate’s morally corrupt anti-city Republican Majority.
Bloomberg’s mommy didn’t raise no dummies, and he eventually realized that some explication was in order for why he would support someone who he referred to as "the new young guy, Brian Sargeant." Finally, he came up with this.
"One of the reasons, for example, that I am supporting um, um Squadron for uh state Senate is he's running against someone that's been there for a long time and has voted three times against Gansevoort, refused to stand up and fight for congestion pricing, was opposed to mayoral control of schools."
"All of those things I disagree with violently. Our kids deserve more. Our people deserve more. We deserve more. We need to make some changes in Albany and get young people in who are willing to face the controversial issues and go on the record.”
This too was at least partially bunkum.
Both candidates support congestion pricing, although, as Daily Gotham blogger Dan Millstone and reporter Azi Paybarah have pointed out, Squadron was still telling people he was against Congestion Pricing at a time when Connor had already endorsed it; something confirmed by both the Environmental Defense Fund and Congestion Pricing lobbyist Pat Lynch.
Likewise, while Connor did oppose the Gansevoort Waste Transfer Station, just smelling distance away from his district’s portion of Hudson River Park, at least he took a position. By contrast, check out what Squadron had to say about the matter on the Albany Project:
“I support the idea that the trash can't be dumped into poor neighborhoods. It's an issue of fairness and of health. That said, I am really sympathetic to concerns about the Hudson River Park, which will be great thing in the city.”
Squadron said a similar statement about Congestion Pricing indicated he actually supported it. Now that it’s too late to put anything in the mail, will he admits he wants to ship out garbage from the middle of Hudson River Park?
Squadron offers something for everyone, except those who might want an actual answer. In fact, he’s still equivocating on the Presidential Primary, even though it took place in February.
Clearly, then, the Mayor’s endorsement of Mr. Squadron, give or take a little spite, was entirely about the Mayor’s efforts to maintain his complete and unencumbered control of the City’s public schools, in the face of the desire by most public school parents to see the system changed when Mayoral control is up for renewal next year in the legislature.
As this video shows, Squadron thinks Mayoral Control is the best things since oral contraception. And, while in the face of bad reaction, Squadron subsequently sent out a piece of literature outlining his "plan for the schools", when it comes down to dust, Squadron's plan for the schools, bells and whistles aside, is that the Mayor should control them, and be accountable to no one. In fact, on the video he says that thanks to Mayoral control, the system is now MORE ACCOUNTABLE, which is sort of like calling ketchup a vegetable.
The fact remains that Squadron may be the only candidate in the City (excepting Simcha Felder and those running for Mayor) who has wholeheartedly embraced mayoral control.
Senator Connor, perhaps chastened by his own experience as the parent of a child in a Bloomberg controlled school, while making obvious his distaste for the old Board of Education, has made quite clear his desire to make some changes, and has recently spearheaded public hearings in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, much to the Mayor’s consternation.
The theory behind mayoral control seems unassailable—put the power in one place and everyone knows who to blame. And to some extent the theory has been vindicated–every public school parent I know looks at the problems of the system, both those which are long term, and those recently created by Mr. Bloomberg’s “innovations”, and blames Mr. Bloomberg. By that measure, mayoral control has been a tremendous success.
The problem with this new accountability is that there is no way to hold Mr. Bloomberg accountable. Terms limits mean we can’t punish him, and even if they were repealed, his unlimited funds virtually guarantees that he could not be voted out of office. And of course, the current legislation, in its efforts to ensure accountability leaves virtually no check or balance that might cloud our ability to know who’s responsible.
This week, when a Councilman and a Member of the Assembly were unable to furnish me with any information about if and when my child would get the school bus which we were promised in writing, and which our particular circumstance entitles us, it was no surprise, as the law as it currently exists leaves the Mayor no obligation to answer to anyone, and, as is his MO, he is complying with the letter of that obligation.
Actually, I’m being unfair. We did get answers. So four we’ve gotten four of them, each contradicting the other.
I think the problem may owe to the fact that, in the past, really concerned parents could always find someone to talk to. Now they have "parent coordinators, who know nothing and tell less. Bloomberg seems to believe the school should give out information on a need to know basis, and that no one needs to know. It is as if there were an "Official Secrets Act" designed to protect officials rather than secrets.
Under the old system, parents dealing with the schools were often forced to undertake intrigues that would have shamed the Borgias, trying to find someone receptive to a little baksheesh. Under the old system, the well connected and persistent were served while others suffered. Now, under Bloomberg this inherent inequality has been replaced by a classless society where all are equal (and equally baffled and disenfranchised.)
Under Bloomberg's reform, there is no one corrupt to deal with–instead all that is offered to those with an issue is a brick wall to knock one's head against. Plus there seems to be an incredible degree of cluelessness far in excess of what one would expect from even the worst apparatchicks.
I'm not sure this qualifies as an improvement.