The Committee of Seventy, hot off of the success of its co-sponsorship of The Next Mayor project, has turned its attention to updating the city charter, arguing (as Sylvester Johnson also recently said) that the police commissioner should have more power to appoint his subordinates and to recruit police officers who don't currently live in the city. My reaction to this was similar to Dan's:

This is a little strange. I understand they are a good government group, so getting their opinion on taking away civil service jobs and moving them to appointments makes sense. But, doesn't it seem strange that instead of being asked about whether they would support a move, they are actually proposing policing policy changes?... (I)t seems more like the Committee of Seventy is either greatly expanding its mission, or that someone asked them to issue this call for change, so as to use their goodwill in the media, etc.

On Sunday, Zack Stalberg appeared on Live at Issue. He said that with the change in office, the Committee of Seventy was likely to shift its attention away from ethics violations (the main issue during the Street Administration) and towards "good government," i.e., efficiency, the quality of city services, etc. The proposed changes to the city charter, then, would fall under how the Committee is now interpreting its mandate.

But even if it's a broadening of focus rather than a wholesale change, I find this troubling -- especially insofar as it seems part of a narrative that with Street out and Nutter in, the city's ethical problems are over and we can move on to other issues. The presumption that a change of the top office holder somehow changes both the prevailing dynamics and universal potential for corruption is woefully short-sighted. [Read on after the jump.]