The Problem with the Mayor’s Slate

Many have wonderful resumes, but they can’t be the independent advocates the people deserve.

Mayor Malik Evans is running with a powerhouse slate for City Council. They are an impressive and accomplished group of individuals. Without a robust and organized challenge, I fully expect three or four of the five to be elected.

That’s not a good thing.

Let’s start by reviewing the role of City Council. The council is responsible for overseeing the executive branch, led by the mayor. Its members vote on contracts, budgets, policies, and other key decisions that shape the city. Beyond these duties, elected officials have a broad advocacy role that touches all aspects of civic life and often extends beyond the boundaries of their jurisdiction.

While this oversight role is critical to maintaining accountability and fostering good governance, the structure of City Council and the backgrounds of its members can create challenges that undermine its effectiveness.

First, Rochester is a one-party town, so there are no checks and balances that come with a two-party system. We have to rely on our City Council to hold the mayor accountable. To that end, voters should be naturally suspicious of any legislative candidate explicitly running to support the executive.

Second, there are inherent conflicts of interest that can’t simply be resolved through financial disclosures or occasional recusals. It’s important to remember that serving on City Council is a part-time role, meaning these candidates are unlikely to leave their day jobs. This matters because nonprofit leaders often depend on City Hall for funding and partnerships, making it challenging to openly critique decisions or policies without risking their organization’s standing. Similarly, certain government aides must navigate complex relationships across municipalities and levels of government to safeguard their own employment, further complicating their ability to act as independent advocates.

That brings us to the mayor’s current slate of candidates. Three of them are high-ranking nonprofit executives, including one serving as a CEO. Their careers—and the success of their organizations—are deeply tied to maintaining strong relationships with city, county, state, and federal governments. The fourth candidate works in community engagement for the Monroe County Executive, a role that inherently demands loyalty to the executive and harmonious relationships with a wide range of stakeholders.

At first glance, you might think, “Isn’t it good to have elected officials who work well with others and foster strong relationships?” To some extent, yes—collaboration is important, but only to a point. The reality is that executive branches often make decisions that demand scrutiny, such as cutting vital programs or mismanaging funds. Councilmembers who must juggle the interests of their day jobs with their duty of oversight cannot consistently be the fierce advocates the role requires. They may struggle to be the truth-tellers, investigators, and agitators our community needs.

You may also be thinking, “Why couldn’t they push back against the mayor or anyone else?” In a perfect world, they could—and face no consequences. But the reality is that we live in a community where those with power often use it to enforce party discipline and silence dissent. People who rely on jobs, contracts, grants or political support tend to fall in line quickly. Explicit threats aren’t necessary; the consequences of stepping out of line are clear. People see what happens to those who challenge the status quo and, more often than not, choose the path of least resistance.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting these individuals lack integrity or have engaged in ethical lapses. Rather, I’m pointing out that this dynamic is unhealthy for our democracy. If we want leaders like these in elected roles, we should consider transitioning to full-time legislators or eliminating at-large council seats.¹ The latter, in particular, tends to favor candidates like the mayor’s slate—those with existing proximity to power.

We see these same issues in the county legislature, which struggles with nepotism and similar conflicts. The local Democratic Party too often treats local legislative bodies like a corporate board, where members are expected to provide oversight and guidance without challenging Democratic executives too directly. This approach prioritizes harmony and collaboration over accountability and independence, often sidelining the critical role of questioning, investigating, and advocating for the public’s interests.

A legislative body should serve as a counterweight to the executive branch, ensuring that policies are scrutinized and power isn’t concentrated in too few hands. When our City Council lacks true independence, it undermines the very idea of representation.

When I vote in this primary election, I’ll be looking for candidates who come with no strings attached.

1. Rochester is among the few cities of its size to have a majority of city council seats designated at-large.