Political Appointments, Qualifications, and the American DreamPart II: Citizenship Against the Machine

City Council and the City Democratic and Republican Committees recently convened to discuss appointments to City boards, commissions, and offices. It has long been the custom in the City that the party on Council with the majority of seats would name citizens who were members of that party to fill various posts.

The classic case, because it was both lucrative and power laden, was City Attorney. The position would go to an attorney long loyal to the ruling party. Loyalty, simple faithfulness, would be measured by overall support for the party and its candidates, professional service to the party, such as pro bono legal work, financial contributions and fund raising, and so on.
Political appointments are a variation on the theme, “To the victors belong the spoils,” a phrase dating to the early 1800s and attributed to Andrew Jackson and U.S. Senator William March (D-NY, 1831).

According to the City Charter, Council has the power to appoint the City Manager, the City Clerk, the City Attorney, five members of the Board of Assessment Review, three members of the Fire Commission, nine members of the Recreation Advisory Board, nine members of the Planning Board, seven members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, seven members of the Historic District Commission, and other appointive officers as required. Council also appoints Councilors to seats vacated before the expiration of a term. The City Manger is also empowered to make several appointments.

When it came to filling vacancies on the various boards, if the appointment was supposed to be a Democrat, the City Democratic Committee would meet and bring forward to Council the name and resume of a qualified Democrat; likewise, for a Republican appointment. While most of these posts are considered non-political, the Charter takes precautions to insure that no board be dominated by one party, that a board “shall not consist of not more than a bare majority at any time of adherents of the same political party.”

About five years ago, things began to change. Council was having difficulty filling positions on boards and felt searching for a nominee narrowly, among members of one party, unnecessarily limited the field. There was also the question of Independents or unaffiliated voters. While the majority party could appoint an Independent or unaffiliated person, there was not an organization for those candidates like the two city committees. Then some Councilors who had been snubbed in one way or another by a committee retaliated by voting against nominees brought forward by the City Committees. 

Mayor Einstein has virtually disregarded party politics, case in point being the appointments of the City Judge and the City Attorney, citing qualifications as paramount. Party leaders felt blindsided, embarrassed, and disrespected.  After all, they said, he accepted and benefitted from a party committed to his stated values and dedicated to his election.  But should party, i.e., loyalty, be the first requisite, the first qualification, of an appointment in Geneva City government? 

We don’t think so, if there is a concomitant reform of ‘machine politics’ generally. Machines do bring order to the political process and help to organize our political life. They also do a great deal of the work of vetting nominees. Think of the difficulties independents have running for office. We’d still like to see an open and honest nominating process, where openings are described and publicized, interested citizens may submit qualifications and sit for interviews, and Council makes appointments based on appropriate criteria. But such a process requires a commitment from the parties to be involved in such an effort, for people to be forthcoming with their time and talents, and for Council to commit to appointments based on qualifications that do not include issues of personality and partisanship.