Is it wrong to run for a new office after recently being elected to another? It depends.
Experience in lesser office of smaller jurisdictions are frequently “stepping-stones” for political advancement. The concept of moving forward politically is neither rare nor wrong. However, what judgment should voters make when an elected official is only recently elected, then suddenly announces intention to “move on?” Is it an acceptable “stepping stone” for the candidate or a “stumbling block” for the voters?
This past month, two of the Long Beach City Councilpersons—one appointed in 2011 and one elected in 2013--announced intention to seek higher office. City Councilwoman Eileen Goggin has been nominated by the Nassau County Democrat Committee to run for judgeship in the Nassau County District Court, and Councilman Anthony Eramo has put himself in contention for the New York State Assembly’s 20th Assembly District. While he was not nominated by the Democrat Party, he plans to run a primary race for the ballot line in September. He will also appear as the designated candidate of the Working Families Party.
Eileen Goggin was appointed to fill in a City Council seat left vacant by fellow Democrat Michael Fagen when Fagen was convicted of a crime and left office. She was returned in the City general elections of 2013. Anthony Eramo was elected to the City Council in 2013.
It is not always wrong to seek higher office, even at times when the prior office has been held for but a short time. In fact, sometimes it is a source of great local pride to see a local official “go places.” Critics of “political climbers” might suggest that moving on after being elected shows disrespect for the office first held, skewers the will of the voters who had just elected him or her, and allows the chicanery of Party Chairmen’s making appointments to fill terms.
When is it right and when is it wrong? I propose a four-prong test to help decide:
1. How long was the candidate in the former office?
2. Did the candidate intend to seek other office when he or she ran for the first position?
3. Has the candidate for higher office made accomplishments in the former office?
4. Is the candidate qualified for the new office?
How would this test apply to the Goggin and Eramo announcements? Eileen Goggin, an attorney, has worked for years as a law clerk for County Court Judge Tammy Robbins. To this extent, it seems she might have desired to be a judge some day. She arguably is qualified. She had little experience in local government or civic affairs in Long Beach before being named to the Council in 2011. The book is still open on how good is her legacy of accomplishments as City Councilwoman, given her brief time in office, although she passed through a “baptism of fire” by performing well during Superstorm Sandy and its immediate aftermath. Anthony Eramo was active in the affairs of the third party organization, the Working Families Party. While active in partisan and social agendas, he does not tout a professional or academic background particularly tailored for the prestigious post of New York State Assembly. His time in office with the Long Beach City Council (since 2013) does not give an adequate sample to rate accomplishments of any note. But he’s different. He seems ideologically-driven with the liberal, “progressive” agenda of the Working Families Party. Is he “bored” of city government and realizes that he can accomplish more on the State stage in the uber-liberal New York State Assembly? Long Beach government gives him little opportunity to stretch his ideological muscle, aside from introducing the community to out-of- town “progressive” advocacy groups, sprinkling around money for Agenda 21 projects, and making symbolic statements of “progressive policy.” In a sense, I respect Eramo’s decision to move on: his perceived political career is based on a clearly and fervently held political ideals (of which I do not generally agree, but which I respect) rather than partisan hackery.
The intentions of two City Councilpersons to move on comes on the heels of the 2013 re-election of Judge Roy Tepper, who ran knowing that he could not serve but one year of a ten-year term because of mandatory retirement age. For some, the sour taste of local political “musical chairs” is still there. But Goggin and Eramo are “playing with house money.” They can lose their prospective elections and still retain their City Council seats. In my opinion, Anthony Eramo might not win the Democrat Primary and cannot succeed in the General Election only on the Working Families Party. Eileen Goggin already has the nomination. However, as local judges generally are elected depending on the popularity of their Party in a given year, and with projection of a big year, generally, for the Republican Party in a so-called “mid-year presidential election cycle,” Goggin will probably lose the General Election.
They will return to the Long Beach City Council. Will Long Beach voters return them after their announced desire to move on in 2015? Will the voters be proud of their seeking higher office or consider compromised the public trust that just elected them for their present job?
This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.
The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?
