There will be a question on Tuesday’s ballot that asks New Yorkers to make a serious decision about the future of this city and the office of Public Advocate. New York City voters will be asked, “Shall the Charter be amended to require a special election in about 60 days after a mayoral vacancy (in addition to the later general election to fill the vacancy), with a runoff election if no candidate receives at least 40 percent of the vote, and to make the Speaker of the Council responsible for presiding over meeting of the City Council instead of the Public Advocate?” The New York Sun urges a vote against this resolution on the grounds that an off-year election in the middle of the term of the Public Advocate is not the time to be dealing with the question of charter reform on this issue.

We understand that under the current setup, the Public Advocate — in the instance, Betsy Gotbaum, a Democrat — could serve for a full 15 months in the event of the death or resignation of the mayor. We also recognize that this is somewhat akin to the way the office of vice president of America was set up in the early years of the Republic. While not exactly parallel, it would be sort of like Al Gore being second in line to George Bush’s presidency. The voters, however, knew perfectly well what they were doing when they elected Mrs. Gotbaum to succeed to the leadership of the city should Mayor Bloomberg leave office before his term. To suggest otherwise — as do Mr. Bloomberg’s supporters on the charter revision question — is to suggest that the voters are stupid. It’s not something we believe.

The charter reform item on the ballot would also remove the Public Advocate’s duty to preside over meetings of the City Council. Backers of the measure argue that the change will be largely meaningless, since the Public Advocate’s presiding role is largely ceremonial. But this leaves the question: If it’s all so ceremonial and meaningless, why is it so all-fired urgent to strip the Public Advocate of its powers and to do so in such a rush. What one is really left with is the sense that Mr. Bloomberg is just having a hard time dealing with Mrs. Gotbaum — in which case the question he should be asking himself is why the voters, in their wisdom, decided to select her as their modest check and balance on the mayor.

More broadly, we don’t mind saying that the whole anti-Betsy-Gotbaum charter reform episode is another example of the mayor exuding an inappropriate sense of entitlement. Sort of like his campaign to impose on the rest of the city his shrill morality on cigarette smoking in the bars so many New Yorkers have liked to retire to for a drink and a smoke at the end of a hard day. New York City today is embroiled in a historic budget crisis and is recovering from a devastating attack that was one of the early engagements in a new world war. In the midst of this the mayor is running around in a lather about smoking in bars and the question of whether the Public Advocate can fulfill a ceremonial duty in the City Council and, potentially, the role of succession she was elected to fulfill. These are not the sort of priorities that will deliver Mr. Bloomberg the role in history New Yorkers would like to see him carve.