By The TimesLedger
In a letter published in last week’s paper, Andrew Ippolito takes issue with an April 17 editorial in which we disagreed with a call by the John Golden Park Block Association to end the Parks Department policy that allows dogs to run off leash before 9 a.m. Since then, Frank Skala, the president of the East Bayside Homeowners Association, has echoed that call.
Ippolito urges the TimesLedger to “get real before you start condemning people on your editorial page.” Puppy poop. Although the editorial disagreed strongly with Blanche Felton and her block association, it condemned no one, except for the irresponsible people who fail to clean up after their dogs, leashed or unleashed. Nor, as Ippolito suggests, did the editorial attack anyone for exercising their First Amendment right. The TimesLedger has been unwavering in its commitment to giving its readers an uncensored voice.
We agree with Ippolito that Queens needs more dog runs to accommodate the thousands of residents who have dogs and no place to let them play. However, we didn’t see much hope that a city that was getting ready to lay off 3,000 workers would be spending money to build additional dog runs in the foreseeable future.
In fact, Ms. Felton told Queens Parks Commissioner Richard Murphy that her organization did not want a dog run in John Golden Park. She said, “Once you encourage people to come in, it could get out of hand completely.”
In his letter, Ippolito describes John Golden Park as “a vast public toilet for literally hundreds of dogs.” While we cringe at the description, we find it significant that hundreds of people are having fun with their dogs in this park. On the other hand, the people who voted to oppose the Parks’ policy fit comfortably in Skala's living room. Enough said.
Should members of the City Council be full-time lawmakers, or should they be allowed to continue working in law offices and other jobs, treating the Council as a part-time job? Legislation introduced last week would prohibit council members from holding a second job. The sponsors argue that constituents deserve the full attention of their elected officials and they charge that the outside employment could raise conflict-of-interest issues.
We are not convinced this legislation is necessary. The sponsors note that the base salary for council members is $90,000 with substantial increases for members who chair committees. But for a council member with a law degree, this is not a lot of money.
The potential for conflict of interest is real. We have often questioned how state Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin (D-Flushing) can continue to serve as the president of Central labor Council.
However, the city’s Conflict of Interest Board has sufficient power to address such issues among council members.
We see two problems with this bill. First, we question whether most council members have so much work to do that a second job is unthinkable. Much of what the Council does is ceremonial and much of the legislation that we have seen this year has been, well, nonsense.
More importantly this legislation would limit the pool of potential council members to people who have made a career of government work. Gone would be the “citizen legislator” who is already a successful professional and is looking for the opportunity to spend four or eight years in public service.
Despite its noble intentions, we think this legislation has the potential of doing more harm than good.
