You Just Can’t Seem To Level The Playing Field

We are dependent – dependent on an awful lot of things.

But for me, and many of us, it’s our computers – they rule us.

Nothing was clearer than when on Saturday morning, Allison called to me and said, “The fan isn’t on!”

No, she wasn’t talking about the central air conditioning system – she was speaking about my computer’s power supply unit.

Allison has her own computer but my high-speed DSL connection is the reason she borrows mine whenever I’m not on it.

By the time I rebooted, it was clear that the power supply unit was toast – needed to be replaced. Now, I probably could have done it myself: take the computer apart; remove the old, conveniently-located unit; go shopping for a new one; install it; reassemble.

Well, the computer needed some other upgrading and I quickly decided to leave the work to the Trib’s skilled consultant, John Leo.

However, my zip disk with many of the files I had to work on was in my computer’s zip drive and unaccessible without power. I could go back to the office, copy the files onto another disk or disks and come back home and work on my laptop.

In order to do this, my laptop needed some work – it wasn’t just a matter of taking it out and turning it on. I had to hook up –through a complicated maze of port connectors and cables – a cd-rom drive, a zip drive, install my new printer and DSL modem hardware and software, before I could do my weekend work.

I was cursing . . . quietly.

I had a lot of weekend work – more than usual due to the glossy anniversary retrospective we published last week. As a matter of fact, I had brought home three 100 meg zip disks filled with files to work on.

I had dummied the Trib and press Friday night and forwarded the electronic files to editorial and sales. I had to write and layout this column, edit and compose QConfidential, and – due to staff changes – select, edit, and lay out a PressPix and two TripPix pages...all deadline work due Monday morning. I sure do my best to keep the entire shop on schedule.

I also spend weekend time on my computer doing non-editorial business work which piled up since the previous week’s special kept me at the office for many more hours than usual. I also had my own personal stuff to take care of.

I was not happy.

And to make matters worse, Lil reminded me that I had promised to scan photos of her nursery school class and prepare and print individualized photo canvases for their artist unit.

What to do?

I turned on the laptop and started writing what you are reading. It required nothing more than a flick of a switch. I put off any decision on how to proceed with all the other tasks at hand.

The notes for the rest of my column were online, on the unaccessible zip disk and at the office. This was as far as I could go without facing cables, ports, drives and installations.

I couldn’t get through the weekend without my computer.

I can’t get through a day without my computer.

How did this ever happen?

When did it all change?

Is it good or terrible?

When did I become dependent on e-mail? When did paper give way to electronic files? When did my weekend workload fit on a storage device smaller than a wallet? And I was shopping for newer smaller hoohahs.

It doesn’t really matter. It happened and I’m hooked. I am a computer junkie.

My personal finances, my hobbies, my writing, my work, my business, my life seems a bit too dependent upon the flow of information in and out of the computer box.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Now I have to do some work.

The four-to-one campaign finance match has not worked.

We’ve spent considerable time talking about leveling the playing field: creating a set of circumstances where aspiring office holders could challenge incumbents and be seriously competitive. One certain way of holding elected officials accountable is to give them a race on election day. Enabling an energetic wannabe to enter the game on relatively equal footing would, the theory went, attract quality people and insure challenges. This would accrue to everyone’s benefit providing for periodic review of elected officials — at the ballot box.

In New York City, where historically the incumbent has been almost always returned to office, it seemed once elected, always reelected. And quality of performance suffered. I write of legislative positions: City Council, Assembly, Senate, Congress.

The only way to get someone out of office in our borough – or our City – seemed to be death or indictment... and indictment didn’t always work.

Big money, name recognition and the perks – staff and mailings  – that came with holding office presented an absolutely insurmountable obstacle for challengers.

Then they started to slowly eat away at those advantages – or so we thought.

Using staff on campaigns during working hours was illegal – but enforcement is a different story. Official bulk mailings were limited as Election Day approached. Good government groups and some newspapers started printing and distributing materials providing equal coverage and balance between incumbents and challengers.

Still Election Day meant all incumbents go back to office – year after year, election after election – good, bad or ugly.

Along came some very smart legal crafters and created a new wrinkle to level the playing field for the City Council – no we’re not talking term limits. They created a publicly funded election system where if you followed the rules and raised a reasonable amount of money from City residents, you get lots of money to run your campaign. Your expenses are capped as are your opponent’s. And in the last City Council race, just about everybody participated in the Campaign Finance Program and just about all candidates had a fair shot at spending roughly the same amount of money.

Bravo! The playing field was certainly more equal – or was it?

It doesn’t seem to be the case in this year’s upcoming Council election.

Normally, freshmen — as are all 14 Queens Council members — would receive serious challenges in their first test. With a generous four-to-one match they should be coming out of the woodwork to run for office.

Last week, the filing deadline for matching funds passed. A quick perusal of the list files reveals the likelihood of: three seats with no race (Districts 25, 29, 30); five seats with nominal races (20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 32); minor contests in two (19, 21); one slightly more than minor contest (24); and one real interesting race (28); and one where the incumbent is the underdog.

No, Councilmember Allan Jennings – who has become known for his bizarre behavior – is not the underdog. Jennings – who is being opposed for reelection by the Queens County Democratic organization – is however a hard worker, knows the political game and right now has five opponents. With five opponents or any more than one, Allan will waltz back to City Hall (can’t you picture it?). Look for the County Dems to try to knock everyone, but their designated candidate – Yvonne Reddick, District Manager of Community Board 12 – off the ballot. But even if County helps Reddick raise money, knocks the other challengers off the ballots, and exposes Jennings bizarre behavior including his domestic disaster, we believe Jennings will outwork Reddick. It will take more than Reddick has shown so far to beat this incumbent.

So who is the underdog incumbent?

According to the Campaign Finance Board, Councilmember James Sanders has failed to file for matching funds. The deadline has passed. His two challengers did file. One –  James Blake – who also ran last time, beat the organization’s candidate last year to become a Democratic District Leader ousting a longtime incumbent. Blake is a bright, sophisticated organizer. Unless Sanders can raise over $150,000, expect him to be outspent by Blake who could receive a 5-to-1 money match, according to CFB rules.

Sanders did not return calls and his office had no comment as to why he did not file. Certainly, one should never count the incumbent out. But failure to file here was the worst mistake of the political year. Consider the challenger Blake, the frontrunner.

In the 19th, Democratic incumbent Tony Avella faces a minor challenge from old-time Repub candidate Phil Ragusa in an area where the GOP can win.

In the 20th, John Liu has an easy race with three challengers — one named Jay Liu. The confusion game isn’t going to work. Now if it were JLo....

Hiram Monserrate will be slightly tested by Eric Ruano-Melendez in the 21st.

In a Jewish district, Jim Gennaro has two Jewish opponents in a seat he worked hard to win against two Jewish challengers. There is no reason to believe the race won’t be easier for Gennaro this time out.

Eric Gioia’s (26th) potential race disappeared when Joe Conley dropped out to spend time attending the Virginia trial of his father’s accused murderer.

Leroy Comrie (27th) will have it easier in a four-person field this time out.

Peter Vallone, Jr. (22nd), David Weprin (23rd),  Helen Sears (25th), Melinda Katz (29th), Dennis Gallagher (30th), Joe Addabbo, Jr. (32nd) all have little or no race.

The Dems didn’t even try to challenge the lone Republican member Gallagher. Another case of live and let live. Hmmm!

We’re lucky that most of the incumbents are fine public servants.

Otherwise, it seems all we could do is wait for term limits.

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato

————————————————————

Michael Schenkler can be reached at: MSchenkler@queenspress.com