By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of the mayoral transition, Zohran Mamdani’s team has informed over 150 senior members of the current administration that their positions will be vacated by January 1st. These notifications, confirmed by Mamdani’s spokeswoman, were delivered to political appointees, including deputy mayors and commissioners, ensuring the incoming administration can implement its own agenda. This is standard practice during a mayoral transition, allowing the new team to build their City Hall plan and appoint their own staff in key roles. The list of those expected to depart encompasses a wide range of appointees who serve at the mayor’s discretion.
Read the original article here
Mayor-elect Mamdani tells 170 senior Adams administration staffers to be out by Jan. 1 – it’s really something, isn’t it? The news, the headlines, the immediate reactions – it’s almost predictable, the way everyone jumps on this as some kind of unprecedented, shocking event. But honestly, when you step back and look at it, it’s not that surprising at all. In fact, it’s pretty much standard operating procedure. A new mayor comes in, and a significant portion of the old guard is shown the door. It’s a changing of the guard, a new vision, a fresh start. And in a city as big and complex as New York, that almost inevitably means a wholesale reassessment of personnel.
This isn’t some rogue move or a sign of impending chaos. It’s not a commentary on the character of Mamdani, necessarily. The process of replacing an entire government administration, especially in the largest city in the U.S., is a completely normal one. The current reaction feels like fear-mongering and sensationalism directed at an anti-establishment candidate. It is, generally speaking, how it works. It’s all about making sure that the new mayor’s agenda is carried out, that the people in charge are aligned with the new vision, and that the city is moving in the desired direction.
And frankly, given the nature of the previous administration, wouldn’t it be more surprising if Mamdani *hadn’t* made such a move? One has to look at the motivations behind this move. Good corruption demands correction, some would say. If there were issues, ethical concerns, or a lack of confidence in the people holding those positions, then this is the perfect opportunity to make changes. This is essentially draining the swamp.
The media’s response is interesting, to say the least. It’s almost as if they’re assuming the average person doesn’t understand this is standard procedure. So, the headline grabs your attention, the phrasing of it attempts to capitalize on the “firing=bad” mentality. The aim here is to paint Mamdani as something of an apocalyptic leader. The fear of any kind of actual change by an anti-establishment candidate is palpable.
We’re talking about senior staff here. It’s not like he’s firing teachers or firefighters. We’re talking about the folks at the very top, the decision-makers, the ones who were integral to the policies and direction of the previous administration. It is, as the article likely states, the usual. In fact, it is important to remember that they will watch and criticize even how he breathes. They will criticize every move. Any change of administration does this. It’s a clean sweep, and it’s usually what happens.
Now, some may wonder about the numbers. Is 170 staffers a lot? Actually, it appears that it is well within normal parameters. Over the past 30 years, mayors have typically let go of key positions, around 50 agency heads, about 30 advisors/press staff, and a mixed number of middle management. The numbers align, and the new mayor has different goals. It makes sense for him to turn over a lot of leadership. It’s a clean sweep of the corrupt trash already.
Ultimately, the tone should be “Mamdani summarily dismisses staff who aided and abetted Adams’ corruption.” There’s no reason to keep around people who contributed to corruption, should it exist. It’s about clearing the decks, removing those who were perhaps complicit in past wrongdoings, and ushering in a new era of accountability and integrity.
So, is this a big deal? Sure, it’s news, it’s newsworthy. But it’s not a crisis. It’s not a betrayal of the democratic process. It is the beginning of the new era. It is, in many ways, the natural order of things. Expect the media to react in such a way. It is a sign of a new beginning.