Editorial: Nothing to Lose
April 14th, 2008
So the Council has had one of the most contentious votes in its history. The final count on the congestion pricing home rule message, 30-20, was not, strictly speaking, a close one. After all, most candidates would be thrilled to get 60 percent of the vote in an election. But by the standards of the New York City Council, with its 51 supposedly diverse and diversely minded members, the margin was razor-thin, a real nail biter.
And yet, the Council chamber’s crumbling ceiling regardless, the building did not fall down. Nor, presumably, would it have fallen had the vote gone the other way, and congestion pricing never made its way to Albany.
Amazing.
This publication was supportive of the mayor’s congestion pricing proposal from the outset, so took the results of the March 31 vote as good news, though clearly, prematurely celebrated. But better news would have been the possibility that even a vote like this could be brought to the floor of the Council and not pass.
Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Unaff.) are savvy and powerful leaders who used the powers of their offices and the goodies in their possession to tug Council members in the direction they wanted. Quinn’s delay of the vote until she was sure she had a majority was a flexing of parliamentary muscle to which she is entitled as the Council speaker. That is politics.
But what Quinn and the rest of the Council should learn from the vote, which with its 20 nays the speaker still proudly called a victory, is the acceptability of dissent. For those with an interest in vigorous and worthwhile debate, the idea that no bills ever fail in the New York City Council is more than a little depressing, and all too much like Albany.
True, the Council already often gets bogged down debating excess bills which, without the possibility of passing, are grand exercises in futility. However, to enable debates and votes on bills not sure to pass would inevitably change what the Council ultimately votes up, and the kinds of bills which are introduced in the first place. Not only would this help dissipate some of the overwhelming power over the institution which goes to any Council speaker, it could also do much in making the Council the forum for open discussion and cross-pollinating ideas which all representative bodies should ideally be. As someone who has had a strong record on reforming some of how the Council does business, Quinn should start to let bills fail.
Change the rules and allow unguaranteed bills to come to the floor. Change history and let a bill lose in a vote.
That is democracy. That is government.
And yet, the Council chamber’s crumbling ceiling regardless, the building did not fall down. Nor, presumably, would it have fallen had the vote gone the other way, and congestion pricing never made its way to Albany.
Amazing.
This publication was supportive of the mayor’s congestion pricing proposal from the outset, so took the results of the March 31 vote as good news, though clearly, prematurely celebrated. But better news would have been the possibility that even a vote like this could be brought to the floor of the Council and not pass.
Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Unaff.) are savvy and powerful leaders who used the powers of their offices and the goodies in their possession to tug Council members in the direction they wanted. Quinn’s delay of the vote until she was sure she had a majority was a flexing of parliamentary muscle to which she is entitled as the Council speaker. That is politics.
But what Quinn and the rest of the Council should learn from the vote, which with its 20 nays the speaker still proudly called a victory, is the acceptability of dissent. For those with an interest in vigorous and worthwhile debate, the idea that no bills ever fail in the New York City Council is more than a little depressing, and all too much like Albany.
True, the Council already often gets bogged down debating excess bills which, without the possibility of passing, are grand exercises in futility. However, to enable debates and votes on bills not sure to pass would inevitably change what the Council ultimately votes up, and the kinds of bills which are introduced in the first place. Not only would this help dissipate some of the overwhelming power over the institution which goes to any Council speaker, it could also do much in making the Council the forum for open discussion and cross-pollinating ideas which all representative bodies should ideally be. As someone who has had a strong record on reforming some of how the Council does business, Quinn should start to let bills fail.
Change the rules and allow unguaranteed bills to come to the floor. Change history and let a bill lose in a vote.
That is democracy. That is government.
