NYC Mayoral Control Battle - A Lesson in Corrupting Influence

I have been following the battle going on in New York City over mayoral control of city schools. Just before Rudy Giuliani exited the stage in New York city, the legislature voted to attempt mayoral control for the schools as long as Rudy wasn't the guy (clearly thinking that a Democrat would win the mayors office and all of the various embedded special interests would be protected). When Mike Bloomberg pulled of the upset and won the election, the process moved forward and he took over the city's schools.

Why did this happen at all? For some time, NYC schools were controlled by a massive centralized bureaucracy mixed with local school boards. This patchwork "rule by committee" operation continued to fail the students, fail the parents, allow crumbling schools to endanger student and teacher alike in addition to spending that was absolutely out of control (with no effect). This system was a failure even by New York's liberal tolerance for corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars.

Along comes mayoral control. Mayor Bloomberg first put assessment and accountability into the system starting with himself. They measured the management, they measured the schools and they measured the teachers. They closed non-performing schools. They replaced them with better schools with more motivated teachers. They increased charter schools to engender healthy competition. They removed failing teachers and principals and replaced them with motivated professionals. And they got rid of many of the parasites who exist solely to feed off of the excesses of a failed system.

Given all of this, why is there a debate? Because this is New York. And the teachers union doesn't like accountability. And the special interests don't like that the money spigot was turned off and they want it turned back on. And the legislature is frankly so corrupt and tainted by money influence none of which has the students or their families in mind...and this has become a real debate.

By all measures this should be a success. But like most of what amounts to governing in the Northeast of this country, the lobbyists may well bring New York City back to the 70's. And that is just the way they like it. Shame.

---

NY Rebates Checks and Bloomberg

The New York Post once again featured the war of words between the Mayor and City Council regarding rebate checks and when they will be mailed out. The debate seems to be posturing with the Mayor on one side wanting an increased property tax and the council looking to tell their constituents they provided goodies. From the NY Post:


"We're continuing to work with the City Council on the issue of the rebate and all of the other budgetary challenges created by the financial crisis," Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna said when asked whether the checks will go out this month.

Also on the table is a 7 percent property-tax increase, which would raise $1.2 billion annually. The real issue here has nothing to do with rebates(because they aren't actually rebates). In the past 5 years, municipalities and states have used "rebates" as a way to circumvent the tax system to provide election year goodies in return for the politician to return to office. The system has gotten so bizarre that in New Jersey, if you actually pay taxes, you have a much higher chance of NOT qualifying for the rebate than if you don't pay taxes (apartment dwellers ALL get the rebate but homeowners generally don't).

With the city in such dire budgetary straits, this should be a no-brainer. But it don't be. Because the council has to pay the bribe it promised. And THAT is why politics in the Northeast is such a joke. There isn't one brave politician who can do the right thing anywhere.

Read the entire thing here.

---