Shall we revise the NY Constitution?

The con con. A modern, almost glib, acronym for Question Number One. It asks (every twenty years) whether we New Yorkers are pleased with our constitution or if we think it could use some re-direction. Indeed, we can even tear it up and replace the whole thing. If we so choose, this would be done by way of a constitutional convention (con con).

The framers of the NY Constitution were serious about their endeavor and it's lasting effects upon their progeny. Concerned about their ability to anticipate the needs of future generations, they incorporated this way of checking back with the body politic to see how they feel they are being governed by the laws and mechanisms in place.

If you are delighted with how New York State is run and feel it needs no changing, pull the NO lever and move contentedly on to another article. Likewise, if you are prone to worry and never take a chance on anything nw for fear that it may not be as good as the old, do the same.

To me, the Constitution should be thought of and talked about with respect bordering upon reverence. It was written by sincere people on a serious mission with a focus and single-minded purpose to do the best possible with the assembled collective wisdom - to give future generations a document to guide, enable, ensure and protect.

Therefore, its change should only be contemplated with the same serious focus and sense of mission. Clearly, our forefathers intended that we challenge this document's current ability to fulfill our needs or have no excuse for disparaging what is written there.

As we have approached the time to make this decision, we have been bombarded by opinions as to the wisdom of such an endeavor. Indeed, there have been dire warnings of risk, purported to exceed any possible benefit that could come from the effort. Occupying the middle ground, are those who maintain that since you can not guarantee who will do the changing (before saying yes to the process) the status quo will certainly prevail and we will have wasted precious resources in the process.

The other extreme takes the position that NY State's government is broken, almost non-functional and no longer serves the people adequately. Some portion of the problems are rooted in a constitution that has not changed with the needs of the people.

Further, this view holds that the self-interest of career politicians who control the system prevents the changes NY needs. They maintain that the only method to put government back in touch with, and responsible to the people governed, is by way of a constitutional convention.

Inevitably, lists of persons and organizations for and against the convention have been made. I have noticed that the list of supporters (other than politicians on either side of the issue) are, for the most part, prominent individuals and fiscal critics of NY government. Those against the proposition are predominately organizations. Each with a cause and something they feel compelled to defend against loss. Their names are impressive and include the CSEA, NY State United Teachers, Change-New York, Christian Coalition, Sierra Club, NY Farm Bureau, Childrens' Defense Fund, League of Women Voters, National Educators Assn., Public Employees Federation, N.O.W. and Civil Liberties Union. Who is to question the sincerity of the Audubon Society?

As the decision has gotten closer and the arguments more strident, several things have become increasingly clear. Many of the organizations aligned against the proposition are found at the top of the list of those year after year, spending large sums on lobbyists to influence the legislature. The status quo has served them well and they obviously have confidence that they will continue to be better off if things are not changed. The one thing all opponents seem to have in common is a total lack of confidence in, or disdain for, democracy.

We the people cannot be trusted to tackle the issues that would come up. The process is corrupted beyond grass roots control and guidance. They imply that when the final work of the convention is presented to us, our collective wisdom is not capable of making a reasonable judgement of their work.

Now it is our turn. Yours and mine. Exercise democracy or not? Will we take a chance? Can we find serious, knowledgeable, fair and focused individuals who will consider the needs and, yes, the responsibilities of, and to, all of the people? Will they be able to withstand the considerable pressures which will certainly be brought upon them? Can we be assured that the peoples' business will be done in the full light of day, with input from all quarters?

Decision time. Question Number One. Which lever will you pull?

I will vote to give democracy a chance!

John H. Van Dusen
Publisher

Note: Click here for dozens of articles, opinions and public polls on the convention.

top of page

A chance to improve local government

Over the years, the dollars have gotten much bigger. The laws and rules have gotten thicker and more complicated. There is a lot for a new supervisor to learn. Wayne County government revolves around a strong committee system. The full board of Supervisors votes on the work of the committees. Individual supervisors do not serve on all committees but need to know and understand the workings of each.

The process of budgeting, appropriating, and then living and learning from the expenditures, takes at least a full year. After our new Supervisor has gained experience, knowledge and contacts to better serve us, he/she must become distracted from that effort by the renomination, fundraising and campaigning process.

Let us recruit and elect the best people we can energize. Doing so with the knowledge that they, and we, can expect them to devote full attention to Town and County government for at least three years before compromising those efforts in order to get re-elected.

Please pull the YES lever on the proposition that will make the Arcadia Supervisor term of office four years.

top of page

Before you
sign that check Election Day . . .

Proposal Number Three on the ballot asks you to write a check for $2.4 billion. You have no knowledge or control of when, where or how the money will be spent. You have already pledged $775 million for the same purpose this year alone (local school district building aid). You are in debt further than anyone else (highest per capita of any state). You pay a higher interest rate than others to offset the level of risk in loaning you the money. Your actual cost will be closer to $5 billion including the interest.

Your ability to repay the debt is already constrained (1994 Census Bureau found that NY surpassed Alaska as highest taxing state). Independent financial consultants have cautioned you that your projected income and expenditures are already in the red (several years from now) by billions of dollars. You already have increased your level of indebtedness by over twenty five percent in the last four years.

IT IS your money!

You decide!

Pull one lever or the other, but do not skip this issue.

The School Facility Health and Safety Bond Act of 1997

top of page