Close the Insider Loophole
Which Saves 34 Officials
From Two-Term Limit
We promised near the end of yesterday's lengthy article on the history of term limits for elected officials in New York City that we would wrap it up today, so you can enjoy Thanksgiving untrammeled by thoughts of the Charter and the insiders’ effort to tweak it so they can stay in office four more years.
The Charter Revision Commission was intended when it was appointed to offer the public the opportunity to decide the matter by offering the choice of a two-term or three-term limit. The Commission did offer that choice, but added a poison pill provision that the two-term limit not take effect until 2021, ten years into the uncertain future.
The effect of delaying the date by a decade was to create a loophole in the system which would allow every incumbent elected official who is not now on their third term to be eligible for one. In all, this means that 34 incumbents will again wriggle free from the two-term restriction that was thrice approved by the voters (in 1993, 1996 and 2010).
A group of New Yorkers has organized with the goal of closing this loophole and securing "Term Limits Now". To do this, the Charter must be amended to eliminate the provision which appears in the Commission's abstract as:
"The new law would affect City officials elected after the general election in November, 2010 so that current elected officials would remain subject to the present three-term limit."
We believe there is no valid reason to exempt incumbents from the two-term limit. Indeed, they are the principal individuals the referendum was intended to affect in the first place.
Of course, it is entirely logical and predictable that these people want to stay in office as long as they can. We are in a period of high unemployment and many of the legislators' prior experience is as neighborhood activists, rather than as practitioners of more established professions.
The two-term standard is simple and direct. It is part of the Constitution of the United States, the 22nd Amendment, which was adopted by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the 36th state (Minnesota) in 1951. A two-term limit for governors is the law in 36 states. One state, Utah, has a three-term limit. The remaining 13 states, including New York, have no limit.
Without extended discussion of the advantages of term limits, one stands to mind that is rarely mentioned. If there is a defined limit, candidates arise to run for the seat that will be open. If there is no limit, the incumbent is likely to run until he loses to a challenger, who may not be the best person to succeed him.
For example, when Ed Koch ran for a fourth term, he lost to David Dinkins. When Mario Cuomo ran for a fourth term, he lost to George Pataki. If term limits had been in effect, others could have competed for their party's nomination without attacking the incumbent. More candidates are likely to enter the field if the seat is open, rather than occupied by someone seeking to hold it.
The principal reason for the petition drive, however, is not the difference between two and three terms, an issue which is certainly arguable. The motive is to protest the subversion of the public's vote for two terms, first by the self-serving Council vote in 2008, in which the incumbents extended their own eligibility, and the poison pill in the 2010 charter revision, in which the two-term alternative presented to the people was saddled with a ten-year delay in implementation.
Twice the insiders have frustrated the public's desire, expressed at the polls, for a two-term limit. Too often in recent years, federal, state and local governments have expressed their disregard for the public by imposing new regulations and restrictions, while exempting themselves from compliance. There is a national sense that government is growing larger and increasingly less representative of the people and more beholden to the elites and lobbyists, whether on the left or the right.
We are not, however, embarking on an ideological crusade vis a vis government. We also recognize that there are more important issues out there to resolve. We simply want to right a wrong in a situation where we believe that insiders have overstepped, placing their personal interest above the will of the public.
We know that support for this position will not be unanimous. There will always be toadies, seeking to ingratiate themselves with whoever is in authority. There are a few dozen incumbents who would be adversely affected if the two-term rule were put into effect. There are individuals and organizations who have an eye on the mayoralty election in 2013, and will do or say whatever will help their chosen candidate. There are those who say that a charter so recently adopted should not be disturbed. Some will say that there are more important matters to consider, so why bother with term limits? It may be argued that the public should not presume to instruct elected officials as to how long they should serve. A few may believe that this issue deserves to be considered at length, maybe for ten years.
But at the end of the day, in most cases these arguments will all boil down to a common denominator: veiled self-interest. But there is hope. One of the seven founding members of the coalition to enact term limits now is Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens. Ulrich, a 25-year-old reformer, has signed on in support of our referendum, despite that fact that he is one of the 34 incumbents who are the beneficiaries of this loophole.
"No one is indispensable, including yours truly," said Councilman Ulrich this Monday at the press conference announcing our public referendum on the steps of City Hall. "To suggest that I need to be on the City Council for 12 years or the sky is going to fall is ridiculous."
When was the last time you heard a politician talk like that?
The Term Limits Now coalition will reach out to you and every other voter in the City of New York to gather support for this public referendum. If we receive it, the issue will be on the ballot and the public will have the opportunity to see that its will is carried out, rather than accept its subversion by anonymous drafters and the lobbyists with whom they commune.
This effort will not be easy. In order to get the referendum on the ballot we will need 30,000 signatures in the first round of petitioning and 15,000 in the second. If we succeed, it will be only the second public referendum brought before the people in New York City history, after Ronald Lauder's 1993 initiative that initially established term limits.
However, we are optimistic that the more New Yorkers who learn how they have been duped, the more will join us in righting this wrong. We are optimistic that with your help signing our petition, collecting signatures, and spreading the word to all of your fellow New Yorkers that we will surmount the daunting odds and succeed in our undertaking to restore a little bit of faith in the power of the voter and the rule of law.
Enjoy Thanksgiving. Count your blessings.
Live long and prosper.
Help others.
RECENT ARTICLES ABOUT THE QUEST FOR A REFERENDUM:
November 23, 2010
The Wall Street Journal
By Michael Howard Saul
New Effort to Limits Terms
November 23, 2010
The New York Post
By David Seifman
Civic Group Wants to Yank Three-Term Rule
November 22, 2010
The New York Observer
By David Freedlander
Effort to Tighten City's Term Limit Law Launched
November 19, 2010
The New York Examiner
By Michael A. Harris
Civic Group Wants Repeal of Term Limits Grandfather Clause
Showing posts with label public referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public referendum. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Term Limits Deferred
Petition to Seek
Term Limits Now,
No Delay to 2021
An effort to restore the two-term limit for elected city officials this year was launched yesterday at a news conference on the steps of City Hall.
Like some spacecraft, the mission began with seven pioneers: Anthony Perez Cassino, a member of the 2010 Charter Revision Commission; former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman, Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform; former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition; Henry J. Stern, Founder of New York Civic; and Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens.
We hope the cause will be joined by tens of thousands of New Yorkers. It is intended to bring about a referendum in November 2011, on whether the two-term limit, adopted by a 74-26 margin three weeks ago, will go into effect at the next Council election, in 2013, or will be delayed eight years. If it is, the people who voted to extend their own eligibility will enjoy the fruits of their self-interested tampering with the Charter.
We believe that two terms means just that, eight years, and that the will of the public should take effect as soon as practical, at the next election. The incumbents want it postponed eight years, so they will have time to fiddle with the rule and seek its reversal. A last-minute machination on the Charter Revision Commission added the eight-year delay. Our purpose is to secure a referendum, so that the people will have a chance to vote on whether or not they want the restoration of the two-term limit to take effect promptly.
Although the principles involved are simple: fair play and rule by the people, the machinations of the insiders who consider their own incumbency the ultimate public good have given the struggle a lengthy and convoluted history. For those patient souls who are interested in the background, here it is.
The tale begins in 1993, seventeen years ago, when Ronald Lauder, who had been a mayoral candidate in 1989, funded a petition drive for a referendum on whether elected city officials (the three who run city wide, the five borough presidents and the 51 councilmembers) should be subject to a two-term limit. Lauder's proposal was approved by the voters, 59% to 41%. It was to become effective in 2001.
In 1996, the City Council, concerned with the approaching deadline, placed a referendum on the ballot proposing that the limit of two terms be extended to three terms. Their proposal was defeated at the polls, by a 54-46 margin.
Although the council could have attempted to change the Charter by legislation, Speaker Peter F. Vallone said at the time that since the voters had approved term limits in the earlier referendum, it should be up to them to decide on its modification.
In 2001, the two-term limit took effect. Thirty-seven of the 51 councilmembers were newly elected. Many were chosen only because the two-term limit had removed their predecessors and given them an open seat to run for. In five cases, (Clarke, Dilan, Foster, Rivera and Vallone) the new member was a son or daughter of the old member. That is the prerogative of the voters. The new members were elected under a City Charter provision under which they could serve just two terms, expiring at the end of 2009.
The Charter provides that it can be amended by vote of the people in referendum. It can also be amended by local law, adopted by the council and signed by the mayor. Certain provisions of the charter cannot be amended by the Council, e.g., they cannot lengthen their own terms, reduce the mayor's salary, or arrogate his authority to themselves.
In general, these prohibitions apply to the relationships between the council and the mayor, and the council and the voters with regard to elections. In those sensitive areas, only the people can change the structure of government and the rules and procedures governing the selection of public officials.
The City Charter is over 300 pages long. It is far too specific, as is the State constitution which is even longer. Many provisions are set out in excessive detail. They consist of requirements which should really be local laws. But its more important provisions, and those in the state's Municipal Home Rule Law, set forth the ground rules under which the city is governed.
The mayor has the power to appoint a Charter Revision Commission, which has the authority to submit proposals to the public in a referendum. These changes can be packaged into a single vote, or broken down into many issues, at the Commission's discretion. Over the years, important changes in city government, e.g. the abolition of the Board of Estimate, were proposed by a Charter Commission, in that case to comply with Federal court decisions.
The mayor and the city council can also propose referenda to amend the charter. Those proposals must be submitted to the City Clerk at least sixty days before the election at which the proposals will be voted upon. But the mayor and council have the power to change the Charter themselves, without a referendum, as long as the change does not affect their powers or other immutable provisions.
In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg promised publicly that he would appoint a Charter Revision Commission in the next year to conduct a broad review of city operations and structure. Whatever proposals they made were supposed to go to referendum in 2008, in time to apply to the 2009 elections, at which time term limits could be reconsidered, extended, or modified, if that were the wish of the voters.
Month after month, the mayor did not appoint a Charter Revision Commission. On September 5, the sixty-day deadline on amendments began, so no proposal could be put on the ballot by petition or by a commission.
However, on September 19, a councilmember, by request of Mayor Bloomberg, introduced legislation into the City Council which would amend the charter to allow elected city officials to serve three terms instead of two. Everyone whose tenure was supposed to end in 2009 would then be able to serve through 2013.
The Mayor argued that the fiscal crisis that New York City was facing prompted his change of heart, and that his business experience uniquely qualified him to lead in what admittedly were difficult times. They still are.
The mayor and his supporters also pointed out that the Charter change did not assure his election, but only gave him the opportunity to run, with the voters making the final decision. His opponents claimed that, in view of the mayor's financial resources, the contest would be unfair.
The mayor contended that, in a predominantly Democratic city, which New York is, his candidacy as a Republican and Independent was always a difficult race. The unexpectedly close outcome of the 2009 election showed that the mayor's wealth alone did not assure his victory. The 2010 defeat of Meg Whitman in California demonstrates that point.
There is an old political tale, some but not all true, which has many versions as to its provenance. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was seeking re-election, and a local Chicago politician, Hymie Shorenstein, was at the bottom of the ticket, running for a minor office. He complained to the boss of his ward that all the election posters carried FDR's name and picture, and none had his, even though he too was on the ballot. The boss told Shorenstein that when a large ferryboat pulled into a slip, much of the garbage in the harbor was pulled in along with it. President Roosevelt, the boss told Hymie, was the ferryboat.
In this case, however, the Council was more important than garbage. Its consent was needed to adopt the Charter change, so the bill had to include its 51 members and other elected city officials. Even then, it passed by only 29-22, an unusual show of restlessness in a normally accommodating municipal legislature. Mayor Bloomberg and his staff used a great deal of political muscle as well as charm and logic to round up votes. Some commitments may have been made.
One yes vote, David Yassky, now chairs the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, a position to which he was appointed after he was defeated for Comptroller. Yassky, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, was considered one of the brightest members of the Council. Hopefully, he will serve well at the TLC.
A Quinnipiac poll published in the Post on October 21 showed 89 per cent believing that the term limits should be decided by referendum, with only 7 per cent thinking otherwise. This was an unprecedented majority of public opinion.
The mandatory public hearings were held on the Charter amendment, with a huge majority of speakers opposing the change. The speakers who supported it argued that the mayor was unique, his services were valuable, he was needed in the time of crisis, and this was the only way to keep him in office. The Council passed the bill on October 28, and the mayor signed it on Monday, November 3, 2008. At the time, the mayor said that the issue of term limits would be taken up by a new Charter commission.
The 2010 commission, headed by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, was appointed on March 3 of this year by Mayor Bloomberg. It consisted of 15 members, and embarked on an ambitious schedule of public hearings, which were televised on the city station. It recommended a number of minor improvements in city governance, and skipped other questions because of lack of time. The most controversial issue, term limits, proved difficult to resolve.
In the end, the Commission on August 11 adopted Charter amendments, including sending to the public a proposal to change the term limit for city elected officials from the three that had been added to the Charter by the mayor and council in 2008, under which the 2009 election had been conducted, to two, as the voters had decided in 1993 and 1996.
However, a kicker was added to the draft Charter relatively late in the process. The effective date of the two term limit was postponed from 2013, the date of the next election, to 2021, a political lifetime for a generation of candidates. All the councilmembers who voted to extend their own terms in 2008 were made eligible to seek a third term. Those newly elected in 2009 would also be able to serve twelve years. Reformers supported the new Charter because, if it were defeated, members could serve for three terms forever.
This brings us to November 2010. We will complete the story tomorrow, before Thanksgiving. If you have read this far, thank you for your patience. If you want to know any more, call or email us. If you agree or disagree, send us your views and we will post them on our blog.
Term Limits Now,
No Delay to 2021
An effort to restore the two-term limit for elected city officials this year was launched yesterday at a news conference on the steps of City Hall.
Like some spacecraft, the mission began with seven pioneers: Anthony Perez Cassino, a member of the 2010 Charter Revision Commission; former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman, Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform; former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition; Henry J. Stern, Founder of New York Civic; and Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens.
We hope the cause will be joined by tens of thousands of New Yorkers. It is intended to bring about a referendum in November 2011, on whether the two-term limit, adopted by a 74-26 margin three weeks ago, will go into effect at the next Council election, in 2013, or will be delayed eight years. If it is, the people who voted to extend their own eligibility will enjoy the fruits of their self-interested tampering with the Charter.
We believe that two terms means just that, eight years, and that the will of the public should take effect as soon as practical, at the next election. The incumbents want it postponed eight years, so they will have time to fiddle with the rule and seek its reversal. A last-minute machination on the Charter Revision Commission added the eight-year delay. Our purpose is to secure a referendum, so that the people will have a chance to vote on whether or not they want the restoration of the two-term limit to take effect promptly.
Although the principles involved are simple: fair play and rule by the people, the machinations of the insiders who consider their own incumbency the ultimate public good have given the struggle a lengthy and convoluted history. For those patient souls who are interested in the background, here it is.
The tale begins in 1993, seventeen years ago, when Ronald Lauder, who had been a mayoral candidate in 1989, funded a petition drive for a referendum on whether elected city officials (the three who run city wide, the five borough presidents and the 51 councilmembers) should be subject to a two-term limit. Lauder's proposal was approved by the voters, 59% to 41%. It was to become effective in 2001.
In 1996, the City Council, concerned with the approaching deadline, placed a referendum on the ballot proposing that the limit of two terms be extended to three terms. Their proposal was defeated at the polls, by a 54-46 margin.
Although the council could have attempted to change the Charter by legislation, Speaker Peter F. Vallone said at the time that since the voters had approved term limits in the earlier referendum, it should be up to them to decide on its modification.
In 2001, the two-term limit took effect. Thirty-seven of the 51 councilmembers were newly elected. Many were chosen only because the two-term limit had removed their predecessors and given them an open seat to run for. In five cases, (Clarke, Dilan, Foster, Rivera and Vallone) the new member was a son or daughter of the old member. That is the prerogative of the voters. The new members were elected under a City Charter provision under which they could serve just two terms, expiring at the end of 2009.
The Charter provides that it can be amended by vote of the people in referendum. It can also be amended by local law, adopted by the council and signed by the mayor. Certain provisions of the charter cannot be amended by the Council, e.g., they cannot lengthen their own terms, reduce the mayor's salary, or arrogate his authority to themselves.
In general, these prohibitions apply to the relationships between the council and the mayor, and the council and the voters with regard to elections. In those sensitive areas, only the people can change the structure of government and the rules and procedures governing the selection of public officials.
The City Charter is over 300 pages long. It is far too specific, as is the State constitution which is even longer. Many provisions are set out in excessive detail. They consist of requirements which should really be local laws. But its more important provisions, and those in the state's Municipal Home Rule Law, set forth the ground rules under which the city is governed.
The mayor has the power to appoint a Charter Revision Commission, which has the authority to submit proposals to the public in a referendum. These changes can be packaged into a single vote, or broken down into many issues, at the Commission's discretion. Over the years, important changes in city government, e.g. the abolition of the Board of Estimate, were proposed by a Charter Commission, in that case to comply with Federal court decisions.
The mayor and the city council can also propose referenda to amend the charter. Those proposals must be submitted to the City Clerk at least sixty days before the election at which the proposals will be voted upon. But the mayor and council have the power to change the Charter themselves, without a referendum, as long as the change does not affect their powers or other immutable provisions.
In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg promised publicly that he would appoint a Charter Revision Commission in the next year to conduct a broad review of city operations and structure. Whatever proposals they made were supposed to go to referendum in 2008, in time to apply to the 2009 elections, at which time term limits could be reconsidered, extended, or modified, if that were the wish of the voters.
Month after month, the mayor did not appoint a Charter Revision Commission. On September 5, the sixty-day deadline on amendments began, so no proposal could be put on the ballot by petition or by a commission.
However, on September 19, a councilmember, by request of Mayor Bloomberg, introduced legislation into the City Council which would amend the charter to allow elected city officials to serve three terms instead of two. Everyone whose tenure was supposed to end in 2009 would then be able to serve through 2013.
The Mayor argued that the fiscal crisis that New York City was facing prompted his change of heart, and that his business experience uniquely qualified him to lead in what admittedly were difficult times. They still are.
The mayor and his supporters also pointed out that the Charter change did not assure his election, but only gave him the opportunity to run, with the voters making the final decision. His opponents claimed that, in view of the mayor's financial resources, the contest would be unfair.
The mayor contended that, in a predominantly Democratic city, which New York is, his candidacy as a Republican and Independent was always a difficult race. The unexpectedly close outcome of the 2009 election showed that the mayor's wealth alone did not assure his victory. The 2010 defeat of Meg Whitman in California demonstrates that point.
There is an old political tale, some but not all true, which has many versions as to its provenance. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was seeking re-election, and a local Chicago politician, Hymie Shorenstein, was at the bottom of the ticket, running for a minor office. He complained to the boss of his ward that all the election posters carried FDR's name and picture, and none had his, even though he too was on the ballot. The boss told Shorenstein that when a large ferryboat pulled into a slip, much of the garbage in the harbor was pulled in along with it. President Roosevelt, the boss told Hymie, was the ferryboat.
In this case, however, the Council was more important than garbage. Its consent was needed to adopt the Charter change, so the bill had to include its 51 members and other elected city officials. Even then, it passed by only 29-22, an unusual show of restlessness in a normally accommodating municipal legislature. Mayor Bloomberg and his staff used a great deal of political muscle as well as charm and logic to round up votes. Some commitments may have been made.
One yes vote, David Yassky, now chairs the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, a position to which he was appointed after he was defeated for Comptroller. Yassky, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, was considered one of the brightest members of the Council. Hopefully, he will serve well at the TLC.
A Quinnipiac poll published in the Post on October 21 showed 89 per cent believing that the term limits should be decided by referendum, with only 7 per cent thinking otherwise. This was an unprecedented majority of public opinion.
The mandatory public hearings were held on the Charter amendment, with a huge majority of speakers opposing the change. The speakers who supported it argued that the mayor was unique, his services were valuable, he was needed in the time of crisis, and this was the only way to keep him in office. The Council passed the bill on October 28, and the mayor signed it on Monday, November 3, 2008. At the time, the mayor said that the issue of term limits would be taken up by a new Charter commission.
The 2010 commission, headed by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, was appointed on March 3 of this year by Mayor Bloomberg. It consisted of 15 members, and embarked on an ambitious schedule of public hearings, which were televised on the city station. It recommended a number of minor improvements in city governance, and skipped other questions because of lack of time. The most controversial issue, term limits, proved difficult to resolve.
In the end, the Commission on August 11 adopted Charter amendments, including sending to the public a proposal to change the term limit for city elected officials from the three that had been added to the Charter by the mayor and council in 2008, under which the 2009 election had been conducted, to two, as the voters had decided in 1993 and 1996.
However, a kicker was added to the draft Charter relatively late in the process. The effective date of the two term limit was postponed from 2013, the date of the next election, to 2021, a political lifetime for a generation of candidates. All the councilmembers who voted to extend their own terms in 2008 were made eligible to seek a third term. Those newly elected in 2009 would also be able to serve twelve years. Reformers supported the new Charter because, if it were defeated, members could serve for three terms forever.
This brings us to November 2010. We will complete the story tomorrow, before Thanksgiving. If you have read this far, thank you for your patience. If you want to know any more, call or email us. If you agree or disagree, send us your views and we will post them on our blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
