Why I am Not Voting in the NYC Election for Public Advocate

First of all, let me give the job description as described in https://ny.curbed.com/2019/1/8/18174001/nyc-public-advocate-special-election 

The public advocate is responsible for receiving and investigating citywide and individual complaints “concerning city services and other administrative actions of city agencies.” The public advocate presides over City Council meetings, can conduct investigations into agencies where complaints have been made against them and have the power to introduce legislation, though they can not have a vote. Additionally, the public advocate is next in line of succession if something were to happen to the mayor.

First of all, complaints can be made to the respective council member, thus the position is redundant.  There already is a Speaker of the City Council, so why is a Public Advocate needed to preside over meetings?  The past public advocates have just used this office as a stepping stone.

For these reasons, I feel that the office of public advocate be abolished.  There would have to be a change in the City Charter and some other person must be placed in the line of succession if the mayor leaves office.

I must respectfully disapprove of the election process for this office.  There are now 17 candidates running in a non-partisan election on Tuesday.  The winner will likely have no more than 15% of the vote.  The cost of running this election is likely more than the annual budget of the office of Public Advocate.  The winner of Tuesday' election will only hold the office for several months as another election will be held in November.  Likely there will be a primary in September for the Democratic and Republican nominations for this office incurring more costs for the tax payers.