It’s fairly rare that we wholeheartedly agree with politicians – even our local elected officials. One of a journalist’s most trusted, and frankly crucial, tools is healthy cynicism that allows us to keep said pols in check by roping them in when they lie about achievements or nailing them to the wall if they scheme to cheat constituents.
This is one of those extraordinary occasions when we find ourselves in lockstep with our electeds.
On Nov. 7, New York voters will get to answer three ballot questions. One of them is as follows: “Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?”
No. There shall not.
Here’s why: The cost of such an undertaking could be astronomical—for something that has no tangible conclusion attached. It would be akin to tearing open the proverbial Pandora’s box and using a blank check to try to close it.
City Councilman Eric Ulrich (R-Ozone Park) this week changed his view on the matter. Initially, he backed the proposal—under one condition: “That it does not interfere with collective bargaining agreements or public pensions. I strongly oppose any effort which would take away the retirement security of our cops, fire fighters, teachers and other municipal workers.”
On Tuesday, Ulrich explained his evolution on the issue.
“My job as an elected official is to represent my district,” he said. “I simply cannot, in good conscience, go against the views of my constituents on such an important matter. I have always supported collective bargaining rights and have fought very hard to protect public pensions under two administrations (Bloomberg and de Blasio). I won’t allow the ConCon question to tarnish that record.”
Last week, Assemblywoman Stacey Pheffer Amato (D-Howard Beach) and State Sen. Joe Addabbo, Jr. (D-Howard Beach) indicated that they were encouraging their constituents to vote No on ConCon question.
“The working men and women of New York State, represented by labor unions and activists, have been crystal-clear: a Constitutional Convention would leave crucial worker protections vulnerable,” Pheffer Amato reasoned. “The NYS Constitution, while not a perfect document by any means, gives collective bargaining and other labor rights a permanent seat at the table, which is not something any of us can afford to lose.”
Perhaps the stars, moons, and planets have aligned just right – whatever it is, we agree with our local representatives: Vote No on Prop 1.
Say Yes to Question 2
On to ballot question 2 (try not to laugh): The proposed amendment to section 7 of Article 2 of the State Constitution would allow a court to reduce or revoke the pension of a public officer who is convicted of a felony that has a direct and actual relationship to the performance of the public officer’s duties. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?
Our answer is a resounding, shout-it-loud from the rooftops, put-it-on-a-billboard YES.
Our beloved borough has produced some of the worst political crooks in the history of the Empire State. (Hi, Brian McLaughlin!) Perhaps the promise of a lost pension will keep the next batch of greedy elected gremlins on the (mostly) straight and narrow.
Perhaps. .
