That is why we are very concerned that, with the state budget gap, there is talk of laying off public school teachers. East Side Assembly Member Jonathan Bing, one of the good guys in Albany, is trying to refine the state’s approach to layoffs. His proposal would allow a panel of teachers, principals and administrators to decide whom to downsize. Although Bing would still allow seniority to factor into any decision, his plan has come under attack because that aspect would no longer be the central factor in cutting staff.

It’s reasonable not to agree with Bing’s idea (the teacher’s union contends that this may be used as a way to fire the most expensive teachers), but the current policy of “last hired, first fired,” which gives senior teachers priority during staffing cutbacks, doesn’t take into account a particular school’s needs, or the capabilities of newer teachers. If layoffs progress according to this plan, Bing has said that District 2 on the East Side and downtown would lose almost 20 percent of its teaching force.

While we’re not sure the panel approach is the answer, we do know that a conversation should be started about the right way to trim teaching staff, keeping the interests of students first. Laying off teachers is not a step that anyone wants to take, but smart, conscientious and independent legislators like Bing should not be afraid to advance ideas in this debate.

In the more affluent neighborhoods of Manhattan, there are numerous very good schools, both public and private. Unlike some suburban areas and rural parts of America, where the local public school is the only choice, in Manhattan parents get to research and choose from a wide variety of educational settings to match the needs of their child.

That is why we support lifting the cap on charter schools in New York State, even though there is no conclusive evidence yet that charter schools nationally are better or worse than public schools. In New York, however, the evidence is compelling that charter schools
are succeeding.

What charter schools in New York have done in recent years is given many parents new options, particularly in poor neighborhoods in upper Manhattan and Brooklyn, and that is a good thing.

Yes, we agree with the United Federation of Teachers and a recently introduced State Senate bill that charter schools need to cater more to English Language Learners and special education students, a group that has traditionally been served poorly by public education. And strong oversight should continue to be a hallmark of charters in this state.

That said, it is urgent that the State Assembly, led by Speaker Sheldon Silver, join with their Senate colleagues in passing a bill that lifts the cap statewide and allows New York to compete for much needed “Race to the Top” funding for our school system.

Never before has there been such unanimity on both the federal and city level for charter schools. The Obama administration, along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein, are big charter fans, and that will be a major factor in ensuring that those charter schools that currently exist—and those that will be created once the cap is lifted—will succeed.

New York’s charter schools, by and large, are more successful than those nationally for a variety of reasons. There is much philanthropic money from Wall Street flowing to many of them, and there are better school leaders starting and executing these new schools. One shining example is former East Side Council Member Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success network of schools, which each year attracts thousands of eager parents to its lottery and was recently the subject of a documentary film that debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival.

The results on statewide reading and math tests at Moskowitz’s schools are stellar, and this is true of many charter schools in the city.

We don’t believe that charter schools are a panacea for public education, and we often wish that more philanthropic money went directly to our public school system. But it is hard to argue that, at least in places like Harlem, charters are offering hope right now for many deserving children and their parents.

Lifting the cap now will allow New York to compete for hundreds of millions in federal money that, in this tough economy, our state sorely needs.

Mark Boal, a 37-year-old journalist who graduated from Bronx High School of Science and was the editor of Our Town in the late 1990s, had an amazing night at Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony. Boal won an Oscar for his screenplay for The Hurt Locker, which also netted top honors as “Best Picture” in a field of blockbusters that included the overly-hyped Avatar, and other, much better-financed productions.

There are many reasons we are tickled by this outcome, not the least of which is that he began his journalism career in our newsroom about a dozen years ago. A recent Oberlin College graduate, Boal had a fire in the belly to make a name for himself as a writer and an editor. In the year he edited our East Side newspaper, he did what all journalists are meant to do (no, not opine mindlessly on blogs!): he “afflicted the comfortable and comforted the afflicted.” His tenure was marked by impressive exposés on teen smoking and investigations of affordable housing problems. He took readers behind the scenes at the city’s Department of Investigations unit that is charged with rooting out municipal corruption.

Boal was (and still is) a journalist in the truest sense of the word: He did not mind putting himself in dangerous situations to get a great story. And that is what he is now being celebrated for on one of the biggest stages possible, the Oscars. In 2004, he embedded himself with an army unit in Iraq and translated the story of these brave military men into a poignant and non-judgmental work of fiction that is now being called one of the great war movies of our time.

But it started with a heroic act of journalism: Mark Boal decided to put himself on the front line and see firsthand what it was like to be one of the soldiers charged with defusing bombs in Iraq. He then wrote a series of articles for Playboy magazine (yes, they do publish some serious journalism along with those photos), which became the basis of a screenplay that many people rejected in Hollywood before Boal and courageous director Kathryn Bigelow decided to produce it themselves on a low budget.

Now, their hard work and vision has received not just critical acclaim, but many awards, and Boal is on his way to a successful career as a screenwriter. We hope he does not lose his love for journalism, and that he remembers the lessons he learned as a young journalist: It is still great stories and human drama that make for great art and great films.

His shining example should serve as an inspiration to any young person who is told that a career in journalism is a dead end, or that there is no future in publishing. It is still newspapers and magazines that produce the great stories that Hollywood and others feast on each year.

And it is in the newsrooms of small community newspapers like Our Town, on the East Side, that Oscar-winning careers are born. Just ask Mark Boal.

So it’s puzzling to consider the 2010-11 State Executive Budget’s recommendations to cut support for The City University of New York—by about $84 million for the system’s senior colleges, and by almost $22 million for community colleges. One of the few, and the most important, ways that New Yorkers can meaningfully plan for the future is through higher education. A college degree is associated with better career opportunities, a higher lifetime income and improved health and job security.

Making cuts to one of the state’s few pipelines to jobs—a true engine of workforce and economic development—is a serious public policy mistake. What’s more, it ignores three critical trends.

First, CUNY is experiencing record enrollment. Spring enrollment of 257,000 is the largest ever for that semester, up more than 5 percent from last year. Fall 2010 registrations are on track to top last year’s record high.

Second, CUNY is in the midst of an academic renaissance. Increased enrollment includes many more high-achieving students. The celebrated Macaulay Honors College is producing some of the city’s finest graduates. And CUNY colleges are regularly included on “best value” lists for public institutions.

Third, the federal government is elevating public higher education on the national stage. The American Graduation Initiative would invest $12 billion into strengthening community colleges and helping an additional 5 million students earn degrees and certificates by the year 2020.

“Time and again,” President Obama has said, “when we placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result.”

CUNY’s six community colleges serve more than 89,000 students through degree programs, job training and professional development. These resources are a necessity in an increasingly competitive marketplace, and CUNY’s community colleges are nationally recognized for innovative work. Yet both the state and city are recommending substantial cuts to community college budgets.

In a time of economic uncertainty, New York should be protecting these assets. The recommended reductions to CUNY’s budget must be restored. 

In Albany, our legislators have become synonymous with dysfunction. Scandals have taken down a governor and comptroller, and a dramatic State Senate coup last summer brought government to a standstill for weeks. At the federal level, Congress has been divided into two gangs, the Dems vs. the GOP. It’s a divisive and corrosive mix that even a once-popular president has been unable to tame. In our great city, apathy, cynicism and a flawed voting system have resulted in primaries where less than 10 percent of the eligible populace votes, and general elections that merely rubber stamp the results of Democratic primaries (with the notable exception of mayoral elections, but that’s a story for another day).

Is this the type of government our Founding Fathers shed blood for? Is this what was intended by our Constitution, a brilliantly crafted document of power sharing and checks and balances?

There are many things that need to be done to improve our democratic system, from reforming archaic voting systems to a comprehensive and equitable campaign finance system. This year, the mayor is likely to convene a charter reform commission to address the livewire topic of term limits, among other things. We’ll comment on those in upcoming editorials, but today we want to encourage the mayor to take one more pass at non-partisan elections, a referendum that lost in the polls in 2003, but today is needed more than ever.

Non-partisan elections would have candidates appear on the ballot without party titles. If no candidate captured a majority vote in an election, a run-off with the top two or three finishers would occur, ensuring that whoever won that race would more accurately reflect voters’ preferences. This system is already in place in several municipalities across the United States, including Los Angeles, Houston and Boston. Here are a number of reasons why non-partisan elections would improve our system:

• All registered voters—including Independents and other third-party members—would be enfranchised in every election, significantly expanding the electorate.

• Candidates would no longer be voted into office by winning less than 40 percent of the vote in a Democratic primary, and then cruising to an easy victory in the general election.

• By eliminating party primaries, non-partisan elections would create a more diverse public debate.

• Some people avoid running for office because they feel they could not win a Democratic primary (tantamount to winning office in New York City); non-
partisan elections would lead to a larger, more diverse field of candidates.

• By removing party labels from the ballot, candidates who hope to be competitive would no longer feel forced to register in the Democratic Party.

• Since incumbents almost always win re-election when they’re not term limited, non-partisan elections would force incumbents to broaden their appeal and encourage rivals to throw their hat in the ring.

• Non-partisan elections would probably entail a bigger expense when it comes to publicly financed campaigns, but the amount is nominal in the context of the city’s budget, and the end result of more competitive elections justifies this investment of public funds. Campaign finance law could also be written to ensure that only those candidates with a realistic chance of winning would be eligible to receive public funds.

Of course, for non-partisan elections to function properly, the state’s petitioning laws would have to be altered. We’d urge the mayor to work closely with the legislature and governor to ensure that any unforeseen—and undesired—consequences are avoided when making these changes. In the end, we’d like to see some scenario where any registered voter can sign any petition, regardless of party affiliation.

We strongly encourage the mayor and the upcoming charter revision commission to come up with a comprehensive plan for non-partisan elections, and to put the issue on the November 2010 ballot. The time is right. This will help reform our broken electoral system.

Democracy, by our definition, offers citizens strong choices and vibrant debates on ideas and policies, not uncontested primaries or people appointed to high office by one unelected leader.

Democracy requires—should even demand—that a sizable majority of eligible voters come to the polls to pick their leaders. Instead, in New York lately, we’ve seen our top officials picked by less than 10 percent of the eligible populace. Or, worse yet, by succession or appointment.

What are we doing wrong? Many things, but three things stand out in our mind.

First, we need to encourage more of our best and brightest minds to seek elected office, and that means turning away from “gotcha politics” that seek to expose the private foibles or “flip flops” of those who are thrust into the public glare. Humans are imperfect; elected leaders, perhaps sometimes more so. And we all have a right to have our opinions evolve or even change.

Second, we need to demand that political parties have real primaries—that means at least two or more viable candidates debating their vision so voters have a choice at the polls. The only reason President Obama was a strong candidate in November was because he was toughened up by a competitive primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Why would he and his aides and Sen. Charles Schumer now forget that important lesson?

Finally, we desperately need to make the act of voting more accessible and user-friendly. There should be two days of voting, for example, and one of these should be a weekend election day, so people don’t have to cut into their work day to vote. And there must be a way in the near future to allow secured digital voting; this will ensure greater turnout and also engage a new generation of voters in this sacred right.

Now let’s go from the theoretical to the concrete: Andrew Cuomo should announce immediately that he’s running for governor. Nothing against Gov. David Paterson, who has of late picked up his game somewhat, but there needs to be a vigorous debate about this state’s future and who is the right leader to get us through these difficult financial times.

Nassau County Executive Steve Levy should also challenge the incumbent. And Chris Collins and Rick Lazio (and hopefully others) should give GOP voters a choice. The more candidates debating and giving voters options, the better.

Finally, Harold Ford should be applauded, not derided, for showing the courage to contemplate seeking statewide office. The Senate seat from New York, formerly held by such greats as Patrick Moynihan and Hillary Clinton, is a very important one. And although Kristin Gillibrand is working hard and has done some impressive things so far, she nevertheless deserves a primary challenge to test her mettle for what will likely be a stiff GOP challenge.

So, run Andrew and Harold, run. The governor’s race and the Senate race are too important to limit our choices and have a coronation.

In his Jan. 6 State of the State speech, Paterson laid out an ambitious plan of long overdue regulations to whip Albany back into shape. Some highlights:

Photo by Andrew Schwartz

• Drastic cutbacks on allowable campaign contributions, including an outright ban on corporate donations;

• A requirement that legislators disclose outside income;

• Public financing for campaigns, much like the city’s arrangement;

• Term limits for all state offices (six, two-year terms for Senators and Assembly members; and two, four-year terms for other statewide officials)—something that’s sure to be an uphill battle;

• An independent state government ethics commission to replace the broken Commission on Public Integrity, which effectively lets legislators police themselves.

While these reforms sound like a good government group’s dream, some legislators are suggesting that the governor is merely trying to boost low poll numbers. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver pointed out that his house has previously passed campaign finance reform, but Paterson opposed it. “If he had a change of mind, I welcome him,” Silver added. “I’m still sponsoring a public campaign finance bill.”

At press time, the Legislature was reportedly working on a reform package as well. We’re happy to consider what lawmakers put forward, as long as it is as comprehensive as Paterson’s plan. But the danger here is that our representatives—Paterson included—will get mired in politicking and use that as an excuse not to act.

Quite frankly, we don’t care why anyone supports reform, so long as the proposals being supported have teeth and will make headway in changing the way Albany does business. Yes, lawmakers need to focus on job creation and balancing the budget, but these tasks become exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, when special interest groups control the debate. That can change with proper campaign finance reform.

Now is the time for everyone in Albany to stop making excuses and start making changes—or voters will do it for them.

While natural gas has the potential to be a more environmentally friendly source of fuel, the hydraulic fracturing process—which pumps massive amounts of high-pressure water and chemicals deep into the earth to break shale and release natural gas—merits a lot more investigation. This type of drilling has contaminated drinking wells in other parts of the country, and could pollute the Catskill/Delaware watershed, where New York City gets its drinking water. Should our water supply, renowned as one of the cleanest in the country, become contaminated, the city would have to build an expensive
filtration plant. This is a risk we cannot afford to undertake.

To date, local elected officials like State Sen. Tom Duane and Borough President Scott Stringer have done an admirable job pushing for the city to have a voice in this critical debate. But the time for public comment will end Dec. 31. That is why the mayor must weigh in on this issue, and do it soon. Although the city does not have a role in determining drilling regulations, the state does, and we hope Bloomberg will encourage Gov. David Paterson and the Department of Environmental Conservation, which is currently drafting drilling rules, to take a hard look at this issue and err on the side of caution.

All New Yorkers can and should chime in on this issue, and we urge readers to cut out the letter below and mail it to City Hall. The sanctity of the city’s water supply is too important to gamble on.

As we mentioned back in September, the key to governing the city at this critical juncture is nursing a more diverse economy back to health while maintaining and building on the gains of recent years in education, business, public safety and the vibrant culture that defines New York City. We think Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is running as a Republican and Independent, is best qualified for this job.

Throughout the past eight years, Bloomberg has advanced ambitious plans to overhaul the largest public school system in the country, mitigate traffic and congestion, increase and improve green space, foster arts and culture and rezone the city to fit the residential and business needs of tomorrow—all while driving crime to record lows and keeping a vigilant eye on a terrorist threat that still lingers. His goal has been to enhance New York City’s best attributes to make it a place where people want to live, do business and visit. A keen businessman, the mayor understands that these three goals are inextricably linked, and he has the foresight and drive to make them all priorities. We strongly endorse him for re-election.

Comptroller: John Liu

During the primary, we found Democrat John Liu to be an estimable candidate who had both bold ideas for the office and the financial know-how to tackle its fiscal responsibilities. His Republican opponent, Joe Mendola, certainly has the right background for the job, but he is so focused on painting Liu as a political insider that he hasn’t articulated a clear vision for the office. Liu will surely bring the same tenacity to the comptroller’s duties as he does to City Council committee hearings, and we endorse him for the general election.

Public Advocate: Bill de Blasio

We found Democrat Bill de Blasio to have the most far-reaching vision for this office, and the most detailed plans for executing that vision on a shoestring budget. We hope he can leverage the public advocate’s meager resources
by working with organizations like Transportation Alternatives and the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University Law School. His Republican opponent, Alex Zablocki, simply doesn’t have the same innovative ideas for making the most of this citywide ombudsman office. We endorse de Blasio for public advocate.

Manhattan District Attorney: Cy Vance

We were highly impressed with all three candidates running for the Democratic nomination for Manhattan District Attorney this September. Cy Vance, who won the primary and is running unopposed in the general election, plans to develop a community-based justice model to better attack problems such as domestic violence and discrimination against immigrants. He has also promised to tackle the criminal court backlog and form special units for mental health issues and hate crimes. The Manhattan district attorney’s office is the most important prosecutorial body in the country, and we have no doubt that Vance will build upon the impressive work of longtime D.A. Robert Morgenthau. We enthusiastically endorse Vance for Manhattan D.A.

Manhattan Borough President: Scott Stringer

If anyone has put to rest calls to abolish the office of borough president, it’s Democrat Scott Stringer. While the City Charter does sketch out rather limited powers for this position—issuing advisory opinions on large developments, appointing community board members and making assignments to various boards—Stringer has squeezed every ounce of productivity out of this role. He’s brought an unwavering spotlight to classroom crowding problems, come up with concrete ways to help preserve small businesses and made greening the city and healthy eating top priorities. His Republican opponent, David Casavis, is running to abolish the office altogether; we suspect he just lacks imagination. Stringer gets our wholehearted support.

City Council District 4: Dan Garodnick

During his four years in office, Democrat Dan Garodnick has shown that he’s a rising star in city government. He’s given Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village tenants a strong voice during turbulent times, and he won key concessions for the East River Realty project. We endorse him for re-election.

City Council District 5: Jessica Lappin

Jessica Lappin, a Democrat, learned this district inside and out while serving as chief of staff to her predecessor, Council Speaker Gifford Miller. She’s led the fight for safer crane operation and has worked tirelessly to get funding for three new waterfront parks. We endorse her for re-election.

To the Maloney family, he was a beloved husband to Carolyn Jane Bosher Maloney and a father to Christina Paul Maloney and Virginia Marshall Maloney. He left behind a mother, Virginia Wells Maloney, and a sister, Virginia Maloney Lawrence, along with eight nieces and nephews.

But even those who didn’t personally know Clifton Maloney can find inspiration in his story. Summers spent at Blue Mountain Lake in the Adirondacks instilled a lifelong passion for mountain climbing, bringing him to the tops of five of the “Seven Summits,” Mount Elbrus, Aconcagua, Mount Vinson, Denali and Mount Kilimanjaro. He served his country in the navy from 1960-1963, and went on to find professional success in finance and real estate, eventually founding his own company. An avid runner, he completed the New York City

Clifton Maloney in one of his favorite places: Blue Mountain Lake in the Adirondacks.

Marathon 20 times, finishing as the fastest American in his age group last year. Maloney was also deeply involved with his East Side neighborhood, sitting on the board of Civitas and the New York Foundation for Senior Citizens. He was active in Carnegie Hill Neighbors as well.

At 71, he traveled to his next challenge: Cho Oyu Mountain, part of the Himalayas on the border of Nepal and China. On the morning of Sept. 24, he reached the top, becoming the oldest American to summit an 8,000-meter peak. He spent the night at Base Camp 3 and arrived the next day at Base Camp 2, at 23,000 feet. That night, he died in his sleep. His last words were, “I’m the happiest man in the world. I’ve just summited a beautiful mountain.”

Friend and climbing partner of 18 years, Marty Schmidt, risked his own safety bringing Maloney’s body down the slopes of the mountain. With the help of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Chinese government, he was reunited with his family on Oct. 1.

What a full life, and what a passion for exploring both close to home and oceans away. We extend our sympathies to the Maloney family, and hope they take comfort in knowing that Clifton Maloney died peacefully, doing something he clearly loved.

Maloney will be remembered at a funeral, held at the Brick Church on Park Avenue between East 91st and 92nd streets, on Friday, Oct. 9 at 11 a.m. In lieu of flowers, the family is asking for donations to the Clifton H.W. Maloney Scholarship Fund at Princeton University, the Explorers Club or the American Alpine Club.