September 20, 2002
Spectator says:
Now it's no votes at all
The Spectator would like to suggest a better test of "one man, one vote" for the federal court than Common Council redistricting.
Some dynamic, agressive, committed leader might make a formal request for the federal court to take a look at New York State's binding arbitration law, where no one in the city gets a vote.
Consider the last decision rendered by the arbitrator in the police union impasse. The arbitrator included in his decision words to the effect that he knew Buffalo was on the brink of fiscal insolvency but that the award he was making could be paid off with loans (which incur borrowing costs that are paid by the taxpayers) or police layoffs or a combination of both.
Since the City of Buffalo has no appellate rights to such a decision, how does an unelected arbitrator sitting in an office hundreds of miles away get the right to impose such a settlement on the people of Buffalo?
We have an elected Mayor. We have elected legislators. We vote for these people in certified elections. Why don't these people get to make the decisions on something as vital as public safety? Why don't people we can hold accountable deal with weighty personnel issues? How does a state rob the people of Buffalo and Rochester and Syracuse and Albany and Yonkers and New York City of this essential right without a peep from mayors and legislators? Didn't we go to war onceover taxation without representation?
Keep in mind that the $10 million police award is only half the story. The same award will be used for the Fire Department. Apparently, the arbitrator is also promoting layoffs of firefighters as well as cops - all in the name of impartial arbitration.
If the political leadership of the city is too timid, perhaps the same federal judge who stepped in when the the police and fire ranks had too few minorities and women might want to take a look now that the ranks of minorities and women will be thinned by arbitration?