SEND US NEWS TIPS!
blog@nypress.com






FOLLOW THE LEADER

City Council slackers

By John DeSio

City council members in this city bristle when they’re criticized, especially as a do-nothing, ineffective legislative body. But sometimes they just make it so damn easy.

Last week, Queens City Councilman Hiram Monserrate came under fire after it was revealed that he had procured an official city council proclamation honoring Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard and his celebrity acolyte Tom Cruise for their roles in the creation and promotion of a detoxification program now being used by 9/11 rescue workers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the proclamation was an inappropriate gesture on behalf of the city council, and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn questioned the merits of the detox program itself, stating to the New York Post that the program is not supported by “any legitimate upstanding scientist.”

In fairness to the city council, it is worth noting that this particular proclamation was never put to a full vote by the council, and was merely an example of one lone member running amok. So sensitive are the topics—both Scientology and the ability to deliver proclamations—that it is considerably hard to find a colleague of Monserrate’s willing to go on the record about it. Queens City Councilman Peter Vallone, chair of the council’s public safety committee, has been vocal. As has Quinn. But the silence from the body’s remaining members is deafening.

It would also be fair to say that not everything the city council does is meaningless. Quinn is pushing for a tax credit for renters, and Brooklyn’s David Yassky is trying to lower taxes for freelancers. They do put a budget together each year. And without them, the mayor would have total control over the city. But some of what they do is utterly asinine—and a total waste of time.

Monserrate is one member of the city council’s civil rights committee, chaired by Bronx Councilman Larry Seabrook. Last year, the subcommittee was elevated to a full committee by Quinn, even though Seabrook had failed to hold even one meeting of the subcommittee during the two years it existed. Despite this, Quinn rewarded Seabrook with a $4,000-per-year stipend, or “lulu,” for his service as chairman. From this committee comes some of the most trivial, non-binding grandstanding any legislative body might ever see—designed more to grab headlines than accomplish anything.

In February, the committee considered and passed a symbolic bill to ban the “n-word” after former “Seinfeld” star Michael Richards dropped the “n-word” numerous times at a California comedy club. The sentiment behind the bill is laudable, but there’s no way any elected body could ever legislate thought. You’ve probably heard someone use the word during the weeks since the bill passed. The ban was symbolic of nothing but a push by city council members to thrust themselves into the media, to capitalize on the Richards controversy.

Last week, Seabrook teamed up with colleagues Robert Jackson and John Liu to introduce a bill to apologize for slavery. That’s right, the City of New York is going to apologize for slavery. “There cannot be peace without justice,” said Seabrook. “And, there cannot be justice without truth. The truth is New York City benefited enormously from the brutal slave system that built our economy and our country. Until we recognize and hold ourselves accountable to this truth, we cannot achieve the peace and reconciliation that will help move us forward as a strong and unified nation.”
Slavery was a disgusting act, and its practice in this country has left a dark mark on an otherwise great nation. But will this resolution actually do anything, and are we really to believe that the wounds of slavery cannot and will not be healed unless the city council passes a resolution apologizing for it?

If Seabrook wanted to apologize for anything, he should probably make amends to his district for having the third worst attendance record in the entire city council, making it to just over half of his required meetings according to an audit by the Daily News. But moves on such resolutions are typically done more for the press than anything else, and can often have negative effects on the city as a whole. In the run up to the Iraq War, the city council overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the fight. The resolution meant absolutely nothing since the city council doesn’t have such war powers, but it allowed city council members to pat themselves on the back and posture about just how progressive and groundbreaking they were.

They’ve spent the years since complaining that the Bush Administration won’t pony up the proper aid for the city. Maybe one has something to do with the other?
del.icio.us digg NewsVine