|
NOTE: We know that this is the third article on this subject, which may not be of interest to all of you.It is however, a most important issue, relevant to who will be elected Mayor in 2009, and whether the City Council can trump the votes of the people on an issue where the councilmembers' own interests are deeply affected.
Pols Chide Mayor for Toying
With Them On Term Limits
By Discussing the Possibility
Of Reversing Two Referenda
By Henry J. Stern
September 2, 2008
Hurricane Gustav and mass evacuation, the truncated Republican convention, and the vice presidential nominee’s impending grandchild have dominated the news cycle for the past few days, with New York City relatively out of the limelight.
The issue of term limits, which we wrote about Thursday and Friday, continues however to lumber along. Mayor Bloomberg said several weeks ago that his support for term limits, a position he has held vocally and repeatedly for seven years, was no longer operational. As the days of his second term (now 485) dwindle, the prospect of a third term, which he had previously strongly rejected, began to tantalize him. With the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, targets of his 2007 experimentation, now unavailable, it is not unreasonable for the Mayor to turn his attention back to what was called by David Garth forty years ago "the second toughest job in America."
The problem with this retro quest is that there is a law, approved by the public in referendum in 1993 and 1996, that specifically forbids such a candidacy. But what does the law mean when pliant legislators are ready to pass another law, over-ruling the voters’ decision to suit themselves?
The subject of term limits is highly debatable; there are arguments both for and against it. The subsidiary question of whether the limit should be eight or twelve years is a legitimate subject of discussion. There is also the issue of what specific limits should apply to executives, and what limits would be appropriate for legislators.
What appears unconscionable, however, is that a confederacy of sitting public officials, who were elected only because their predecessors (in five cases, one of their parents) were forced out by term limits approved by the voters in two referenda, should now unilaterally seek to hold on to their jobs by abolishing the very rules that made their first election possible. That’s chutzpah.
When term limits were approved by the voters in 1993, the effective date of the law was made 2001, so that incumbent public officials would have eight years to serve before being ineligible to seek re-election. If the City Council or the Mayor now wish to repeal term limits, the proper thing would be to make the repealer effective in 2017, or, at the earliest, the mayoral election of 2013.
If the Council has the nerve to seek to repeal term limits immediately, we foresee future referenda to restore the limits, perhaps amending the charter so that such referenda could not be reversed by the people they are intended to affect. The current system creates the mother of conflicts of interest, with elected officials tempted to reverse the popular will for what is obviously their personal interest in retaining their six-figure salaries for part time work, at which not even their attendance at Council or commitee meetings is legally required. (See the Daily News story below.)
Press Coverage
Today’s newspapers report that public officials, including the normally placid Comptroller, are displeased at the mayor’s ongoing flirtation with term enhancement. On B1, Michael Barbaro and Jonathan P. Hicks, under the headline ANGER RISING AT WAVERING BY BLOOMBERG ON TERM RULE: Candidates Demanding Clear Stance as ’09 Nears. The lede:
“Irritated by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s protracted dalliance with overturning the city’s term limits, leading candidates for a variety of New York City offices are demanding, in unusually pointed language, that he make up his mind.”
The News handles the story under the headline on p22, MAKE UP YER MIND, MIKE: Mayor Wanna-Be Blasts ‘Charade’ Over Term Limits. Erin Einhorn writes:
"A fed-up city comptroller says he’s had it with Mayor Bloomberg’s public dickering over term limits and called on him to, well, rule or get off the throne." [This is a euphemism.]
The Post gave the story short shrift, with a small item at the bottom of p16. Under the head, A LIMIT TO HIS PATIENCE, David Seifman wrote: "In unusually strong language, city Comptroller Bill Thompson demanded yesterday that Mayor Bloomberg declare publicly if he’s going to try to change term limits."
The Sun, at the top of p2, carried Benjamin Sarlin’s story with the lede: “Mayor Bloomberg’s newly ambiguous position on term limits is drawing the ire of one of his potential successors, Comptroller William Thompson, Jr., who is demanding that Mr. Bloomberg make his intentions on the issue known.”
We Look at the Issues
There are several questions that overhang the decision on term limits. One is that a mayoral candidacy is a four-year undertaking, as is a race for the Presidency. This is the third year of promotional activity for those who seek city-wide or borough-wide office; the bell lap begins in January 2009. Since the races have been under way for some time, it smacks of unfairness and over-reaching to change the rules in the midst of the struggle, especially if one must overrule the expressed will of the people in order to do so.
Two is the fact that a clear and strong position on this issue was taken by the Mayor many years ago, when the issue might have been considered after proper hearings, and sent to the voters for a new referendum, but that was not done. In fact, nothing was done on the subject.
To reverse oneself at the eleventh hour is acceptable if one is relinquishing one's own ambition, but where people have relied on a man's word as repeatedly expressed, and raised millions of dollars from their friends (and hopeful supporters) on the basis of that reliance, it is particularly uncomfortable, and in a way degrading, for candidates to be tweaked in this manner. How can they continue their campaigns without knowing who else can run, or whether they can stay in their current jobs? That's anarchy.
The spectacle here is the Old Lion, showing that he is still King of Beasts, and could remain so if he cared to. True, he is a competent and popular Lion, good at what he does, but just as every Broadway show opens and closes, every public official comes and goes. It is important in politics, as well as in the theatre, to leave the stage while the audience still wants more.
The difficult historical record of mayoral third terms, starting with Mayor LaGuardia himself (1942-45), shows that one’s friends tire and retire, and one’s enemies are emboldened. Mayors LaGuardia and Wagner did not seek a fourth term (although Wagner ran four years later); and Mayor Lindsay did not seek a third term. Mayor Giuliani was prevented by term limits from seeking a third term, and Mayor Koch lost his bid for a fourth term, as did Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Alfonse D’Amato.Governor Pataki wisely chose not to seek a fourth term. Like isotopes, politicians have half-lives.
None of this is to say that Mayor Bloomberg has not been a generally satisfactory mayor, exceptional in the areas of public health and cultural support. The next mayor will certainly not have the resources that Bloomberg brought to the job, nor the national influence, nor the prestige that accompanies the combination of wealth and power.
The case for a mayoral limit of twelve years is actually stronger than the case for extending the term of council members. For mayor, the people know who they are choosing because they have been reading about the candidates and watching them govern. Since the city has a fixed boundary, it cannot be gerrymandered. Council district lines, on the other hand, are arbitrary, subject to gerrymandering, and drawn by political bosses for the comfort (or, rarely, the discomfort) of incumbents.
Most voters are unaware who their city council member is, and simply vote the party slate. Council members, whether good or bad, are hardly ever defeated at the polls. In 2005, the only incumbent who lost had previously been fined and censured by the Council for gross misconduct. He was defeated by the person he had succeeded in 2001. There is life after term limits.
There are pros and cons on the larger issue of term limits. The question arising in September 2008 is whether the Council, at this time, should grasp at this straw to extend itself. We believe that to tamper with the will of the people, whether it proves to be legal or not, fails the smell test. And it will be months before the Court of Appeals decides on the constitutionality of any self-serving law the Council might enact.
While we are writing about the City Council, there is a story in today’s Daily News that you should read. It is by Frank Lombardi, the veteran City Hall reporter, and appears on p22. The headline: BX. POL AT HEAD OF CLASS – FOR SKIPPING WORK.
The lede: “Though many City Council members seem open to extending – or scrapping – term limits, some don’t even bother to show up for meetings now.”
A chart, called Low-Shows, gives the attendance record of the five members with the most absences. All are Democrats. Maria Baez gets the booby prize for 48% attendance. She is followed by Darlene Mealy (Bk) with 61%; Albert Vann (D-Bk) 69%; Thomas White (Q), 69%; and Larry Seabrook (Bx) 73%. The high scorers were two mayoral candidates, Tony Avella (Q) and Christine Quinn (M), whose mark was 100%.
BTW, when I was a Councilmember (1974-83), I kept records of attendance at roll calls. For my first term, the only two with 100% were Peter F. Vallone, Sr., twelve years before he was elected Speaker, and this blogger. For my second term, Peter and I were joined by a freshman Councilmember, Ruth W. Messinger, who was later elected Borough President of Manhattan. None of us ever made Mayor, although Ruth ran in 1997 and Peter in 2001.There are limits to what gold stars can bring.
#494 09.02.2008 1633 wds |