Paul Bass Photo
John DeStefano.
John DeStefano Jr. served as mayor of New Haven from 1994 through 2013.
Since retiring from the mayor’s office 10 years ago, I have held strongly to the view that after being involved 30 years in the civic and political life of New Haven, I should be “seen and not heard.” I had my time in the public life of our city, and a part of my calculus in retiring was that it was time for a new generation of voices and attitudes in City Hall.
That said, while I have largely withdrawn from public commentary, I haven’t withdrawn from thinking about New Haven; about our city’s challenges and opportunities; and about what can help to make New Haven a better place for one another. So, when a compelling issue arises, all of us need to have their voices heard. And so, I offer mine today -– and encourage all voters to add their voices this Tuesday by voting “Yes” on New Haven’s 2023 charter revision question so we can create a more efficient and responsive local government.
Fundamental to my conviction on the merits of a “Yes” vote is that if approved by voters, the charter revision will implement four-year terms for mayor, alders, and the city clerk beginning in 2027.
I come to this view because I lived with the two-year election cycle for the 20 years that voters kept me in office. A period longer than any other mayor in the 240-year history of the entity that we know as the City of New Haven.
Over the time of those 20 years, I ran in 10 general elections and five primary elections. Let me say this again -– 15 elections over 20 years. And I am thankful and grateful to have prevailed in all of them. But honestly, it is exhausting, distracting and an unnecessary time and cost burden to the whole of the city that can be remedied by a “Yes” vote on Tuesday.
Let me explain why. Running for office and governing are two different things. Related, but different. Both require putting teams together. Both require making choices, compromises if you will. And both subject your ideas and directions to the test of the ideas and preferences of others who have different or competing views and interests.
However, campaigning and governing are different, in that they subject the participants to different elites, interests, and pressure points that at times put in tension what it takes to run a successful campaign with what it takes to exercise good governance. Suffice it to say that the functionally “permanent campaign” that results from two years terms inject too much political consideration and pressure on good governance choice. It. Just. Does.
You know our first mayors, starting with Roger Sherman, were elected to life terms, subject only to death or resignation. I am not advocating for that! However, four years is the right balance -– have the election, and then take time to govern.
Let me add some thoughts on four-year aldermanic terms. I have listened to the argument that four years terms for alders can stick a neighborhood with an absentee or ineffective alder for too long a period. Having served during my 20 years as mayor with 133 Alders (yes, I counted them!), the truth is most all are hardworking, committed, and passionate advocates for both the city as a whole and their neighborhood. There were a few with lousy attendance records – but they were the very few.
The fact is that most alders do extraordinary work for their neighbors. Further, to put alders on a two-year cycle with the mayor at four-year cycle would risk an off-year election with extraordinarily low voter turnout and that would divorce the issues and teams that arise in a mayoral campaign from alder selection. Elections should be used to build consensus and teams, not divide. Alders should be on a four-year cycle as well.
It is worth mentioning that among the other changes proposed in the charter revision, this set of reforms will move the governance of boards and commissions from the charter to the Code of Ordinances, which will allow the Board of Alders to quickly adapt to changing circumstances through the normal legislative process rather than waiting 10 years for the next charter referendum. These and the other proposals contained in charter revision are all, on balance, smart and reasonable steps for these times.
A final word. Four-year terms do not ensure perfection. Bridgeport has four-year terms, and the current absentee ballot mess there is both shameful and unacceptable. Rather, four-year terms make things better for New Haven. It still requires the exercise of accountability by voters by participating in elections. It still requires concerned residents to step up to the plate and offer themselves as candidates and to participate in the civic life of our city. And it still requires all of us to see our interest in one another as members of our New Haven community.
Are there other changes I would like to see in city government and our political system? Sure. I am convinced of the wisdom of eliminating partisan elections in New Haven due to one party dominance (my Party), I see the wisdom of ranked choice voting and many other reforms. But they are not in front of us today. What is in front of us is the current charter revision proposals. Proposals that if enacted, will make things better in New Haven. So, let’s not make the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote “Yes,” and let’s make things better.
Mr. DeStefano maintained his dignity after leaving office. Too bad he emerges to shill for this naked power grab by democrats. For shame!!!! Please go back to your self-imposed silence!