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 term limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label term limits. 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.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday's Two-Sided Ballot
Term Limits On Ballot Tuesday
Move to Overrule City Council,
Which Thwarted Two Referenda
We participated in a City Hall press conference Monday with Ronald Lauder, the term limits advocate and Michael Long, the state Conservative Party chair.
The purpose of the event was to express support for Question 1, which will be on the ballot Tuesday. The Charter Revision Commission was formed, in part, to revisit the issue of term limits after the City Council unilaterally extended the eligibility of city elected officials, primarily themselves, from two to three four-year terms.
This decision by the Council, made after intense lobbying by Mayor Bloomberg, eliminated a section of the Charter that had been added in 1993 as the result of a referendum largely funded by Mr. Lauder. Nonetheless, an election is no less valid because one side has spent more than the other, nor does a contest necessarily go the biggest spender.
In the Republican mayoral primary in 1989, Mr. Lauder had competed with Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination to succeed Mayor Koch, who had lost his bid for a fourth term in a primary with David Dinkins. Giuliani won by a margin of 67-33, slightly better than two to one. Lauder spent $13 million on the race, the largest amount ever spent on a mayoral contest up until that time. Lauder ran a series of commercials attacking Giuliani which, while they did not benefit him, weakened Giuliani for the November contest against Dinkins, who won the mayoralty by a 47,080 vote margin (52%-48%).
Lauder's attacks on Giuliani were said to have been inspired by US Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who had a beef with Giuliani because after the Senator had approved Giuliani's appointment as U.S. Attorney by President Reagan in 1983, Giuliani proceeded to go after D'Amato and succeeded in sending his younger brother, Armand, to jail. Since anything Armand did was likely to have been in his brother’s interest, one can see that the prosecution was more than a shot across the bow.
Back to term limits.
With the 1993 referendum slated to take effect in 2001, the City Council Democrats put the term limits issue on the ballot again in 1996, seeking to extend the limit from two terms to three. This proposal, basically a compromise between a two-term limit and no limit at all, was rejected by the public by a 54-46 margin, a much closer contest than the 59-41 vote by which term limits had been adopted in 1993. At the time, it was suggested to Council Speaker Peter Vallone that the Council had the legal authority to change term limits on its own, but the Speaker decided that since the original limit had been imposed after a referendum, it was more appropriate for any change to be submitted to the people for approval.
Five years later, the original referendum took effect for the 2001 election, and thirty-six out of the fifty-one Councilmembers then sitting were ineligible to seek re-election. Among the departing members was Speaker Vallone, who ran for mayor instead. Vallone lost to Mark Green in the Democratic primary and Green lost to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.
Vallone was succeeded in his Council seat by his son, Peter Vallone, Jr. The younger Vallone was re-elected in 2005, but would have been ineligible to seek a third term in 2009 if the Council had not overruled the referenda and extended term limits for all 59 elected city officials: 3 citywide, 5 borough presidents and 51 councilmembers.
Others newly elected in 2001 included Joel Rivera of the Bronx, who succeeded his father, Assemblyman Jose Rivera. Joel was elected majority leader of the Council at the age of 22 as part of the deal that made Gifford Miller the Speaker at 32. Helen Diane Foster (Bronx) followed her father, Rev. Wendell Foster, into the Council; Erik Martin Dilan (Brooklyn), followed his father, Martin Malave Dilan; and Yvette Clarke (Brooklyn) (elected to Congress in 2006) succeeded her mother, Councilmember Una S. T. Clarke.
Term limits do not override patrilineal or matrilineal descent. It is the voters who choose whether to ratify the accession of the heir. Because of gerrymandering, name recognition, obstacles to ballot access, the role of local political clubs in which the parent is usually influential, and years of mailings paid for by the city, the heir has an enormous advantage over his or her rival. The voters decide the outcome in the Democratic primary. No children of retiring incumbents have been defeated while trying to succeed a parent in the City Council.
At Monday's news conference, Ronald Lauder announced his support for the charter change submitted by the Charter Revision Commission, under which the limit would revert to two terms in 2021. While many, including Mayor Bloomberg, found the eleven-year delay to be ridiculous, it is still the only proposition before the voters that would nullify the Council's self-serving action in 2008.
If Question 1 is approved by the voters, efforts are likely to be made by good government forces to advance the effective date of the two-term limit to 2013, which means that no incumbents will be able to profit from the extension they gave themselves any more than they already have.
The proposal to be voted on next week is supported by Mayor Bloomberg, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Conservative leaders, liberals and reformers of many stripes. It is likely to receive editorial support, although one never knows.
It is opposed by those who feel there should be a longer limit, or no limit, on the number of times that public officials can stand for re-election. They argue that elections provide term limits imposed by the people. That claim is countered by the political reality that Council candidates are so unknown, so down-ballot and so underpublicized that the voters are deprived of an effective choice of candidates. Most New Yorkers do not know who their own Councilmember is.
Term limits are advocated to sweep out incumbents, remove career politicians, and give more people the chance to be elected to public office. Term limits are often opposed by incumbents, career public servants, and people who have already been elected to public office and want to retain their positions, salaries, pension eligibility, lulus, expense accounts, staffers and other perquisites of office.
The vote Tuesday is likely to be reduced somewhat by the fact that the Charter amendments will be printed on the back of the ballots (in small type), so voters will have to know enough to turn the ballot over to find the questions being asked. The dismissal yesterday of the executive director of the Board of Elections for alleged "insubordination" is not likely to speed the voting process next week.
Most newspapers have not yet made their recommendations, and people who are undecided will probably make up their minds in the next week, if they vote at all on the questions. There is another conflict because seven separate issues have been combined into a single Yes-No vote on Question 2.
The Charter Revision Commissioners say the Board of Elections told them this merger of issues was required for mechanical reasons in preparing the ballot so they had no choice. The Board of Elections denies this account, and now claims that they could accommodate a larger number of separate issues on the ballot.
The executive director of the Charter Commission, Lorna Goodman, is the former County Attorney of Nassau County and chief of the affirmative litigation division of the New York City Corporation Counsel's office. Her reputation for intelligence and integrity is high. She has been a lawyer in public service since 1976.
The 2010 Charter Commission, perhaps pressed for time, has taken halting steps toward reform. Their recommendations come nowhere near Mayor Bloomberg's aspiration to reorganize city government. Just as the Yankees have to wait until next year, so do our hopes for substantive change in the City Charter.
It could be desirable to support the minor improvements offered - although hardly anyone understands most of them - rather than end up with nothing to show for seven months' work by a generally praiseworthy Commission and its diligent chair, CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein, who told the story that when Mayor Bloomberg first asked him to chair the Commission, he thought to himself that he needed that like a lochenkopf. Later he relented, and took the unpaid job.
A thought: voters should not take out their justified anger and frustration with government by opposing, on principle, the legitimate, but limited, proposals that are being put before them, anachronistic as Question 1 may be.
Rule 29-P: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." So wrote Voltaire in 1764.
Move to Overrule City Council,
Which Thwarted Two Referenda
We participated in a City Hall press conference Monday with Ronald Lauder, the term limits advocate and Michael Long, the state Conservative Party chair.
The purpose of the event was to express support for Question 1, which will be on the ballot Tuesday. The Charter Revision Commission was formed, in part, to revisit the issue of term limits after the City Council unilaterally extended the eligibility of city elected officials, primarily themselves, from two to three four-year terms.
This decision by the Council, made after intense lobbying by Mayor Bloomberg, eliminated a section of the Charter that had been added in 1993 as the result of a referendum largely funded by Mr. Lauder. Nonetheless, an election is no less valid because one side has spent more than the other, nor does a contest necessarily go the biggest spender.
In the Republican mayoral primary in 1989, Mr. Lauder had competed with Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination to succeed Mayor Koch, who had lost his bid for a fourth term in a primary with David Dinkins. Giuliani won by a margin of 67-33, slightly better than two to one. Lauder spent $13 million on the race, the largest amount ever spent on a mayoral contest up until that time. Lauder ran a series of commercials attacking Giuliani which, while they did not benefit him, weakened Giuliani for the November contest against Dinkins, who won the mayoralty by a 47,080 vote margin (52%-48%).
Lauder's attacks on Giuliani were said to have been inspired by US Senator Alfonse D'Amato, who had a beef with Giuliani because after the Senator had approved Giuliani's appointment as U.S. Attorney by President Reagan in 1983, Giuliani proceeded to go after D'Amato and succeeded in sending his younger brother, Armand, to jail. Since anything Armand did was likely to have been in his brother’s interest, one can see that the prosecution was more than a shot across the bow.
Back to term limits.
With the 1993 referendum slated to take effect in 2001, the City Council Democrats put the term limits issue on the ballot again in 1996, seeking to extend the limit from two terms to three. This proposal, basically a compromise between a two-term limit and no limit at all, was rejected by the public by a 54-46 margin, a much closer contest than the 59-41 vote by which term limits had been adopted in 1993. At the time, it was suggested to Council Speaker Peter Vallone that the Council had the legal authority to change term limits on its own, but the Speaker decided that since the original limit had been imposed after a referendum, it was more appropriate for any change to be submitted to the people for approval.
Five years later, the original referendum took effect for the 2001 election, and thirty-six out of the fifty-one Councilmembers then sitting were ineligible to seek re-election. Among the departing members was Speaker Vallone, who ran for mayor instead. Vallone lost to Mark Green in the Democratic primary and Green lost to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.
Vallone was succeeded in his Council seat by his son, Peter Vallone, Jr. The younger Vallone was re-elected in 2005, but would have been ineligible to seek a third term in 2009 if the Council had not overruled the referenda and extended term limits for all 59 elected city officials: 3 citywide, 5 borough presidents and 51 councilmembers.
Others newly elected in 2001 included Joel Rivera of the Bronx, who succeeded his father, Assemblyman Jose Rivera. Joel was elected majority leader of the Council at the age of 22 as part of the deal that made Gifford Miller the Speaker at 32. Helen Diane Foster (Bronx) followed her father, Rev. Wendell Foster, into the Council; Erik Martin Dilan (Brooklyn), followed his father, Martin Malave Dilan; and Yvette Clarke (Brooklyn) (elected to Congress in 2006) succeeded her mother, Councilmember Una S. T. Clarke.
Term limits do not override patrilineal or matrilineal descent. It is the voters who choose whether to ratify the accession of the heir. Because of gerrymandering, name recognition, obstacles to ballot access, the role of local political clubs in which the parent is usually influential, and years of mailings paid for by the city, the heir has an enormous advantage over his or her rival. The voters decide the outcome in the Democratic primary. No children of retiring incumbents have been defeated while trying to succeed a parent in the City Council.
At Monday's news conference, Ronald Lauder announced his support for the charter change submitted by the Charter Revision Commission, under which the limit would revert to two terms in 2021. While many, including Mayor Bloomberg, found the eleven-year delay to be ridiculous, it is still the only proposition before the voters that would nullify the Council's self-serving action in 2008.
If Question 1 is approved by the voters, efforts are likely to be made by good government forces to advance the effective date of the two-term limit to 2013, which means that no incumbents will be able to profit from the extension they gave themselves any more than they already have.
The proposal to be voted on next week is supported by Mayor Bloomberg, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Conservative leaders, liberals and reformers of many stripes. It is likely to receive editorial support, although one never knows.
It is opposed by those who feel there should be a longer limit, or no limit, on the number of times that public officials can stand for re-election. They argue that elections provide term limits imposed by the people. That claim is countered by the political reality that Council candidates are so unknown, so down-ballot and so underpublicized that the voters are deprived of an effective choice of candidates. Most New Yorkers do not know who their own Councilmember is.
Term limits are advocated to sweep out incumbents, remove career politicians, and give more people the chance to be elected to public office. Term limits are often opposed by incumbents, career public servants, and people who have already been elected to public office and want to retain their positions, salaries, pension eligibility, lulus, expense accounts, staffers and other perquisites of office.
The vote Tuesday is likely to be reduced somewhat by the fact that the Charter amendments will be printed on the back of the ballots (in small type), so voters will have to know enough to turn the ballot over to find the questions being asked. The dismissal yesterday of the executive director of the Board of Elections for alleged "insubordination" is not likely to speed the voting process next week.
Most newspapers have not yet made their recommendations, and people who are undecided will probably make up their minds in the next week, if they vote at all on the questions. There is another conflict because seven separate issues have been combined into a single Yes-No vote on Question 2.
The Charter Revision Commissioners say the Board of Elections told them this merger of issues was required for mechanical reasons in preparing the ballot so they had no choice. The Board of Elections denies this account, and now claims that they could accommodate a larger number of separate issues on the ballot.
The executive director of the Charter Commission, Lorna Goodman, is the former County Attorney of Nassau County and chief of the affirmative litigation division of the New York City Corporation Counsel's office. Her reputation for intelligence and integrity is high. She has been a lawyer in public service since 1976.
The 2010 Charter Commission, perhaps pressed for time, has taken halting steps toward reform. Their recommendations come nowhere near Mayor Bloomberg's aspiration to reorganize city government. Just as the Yankees have to wait until next year, so do our hopes for substantive change in the City Charter.
It could be desirable to support the minor improvements offered - although hardly anyone understands most of them - rather than end up with nothing to show for seven months' work by a generally praiseworthy Commission and its diligent chair, CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein, who told the story that when Mayor Bloomberg first asked him to chair the Commission, he thought to himself that he needed that like a lochenkopf. Later he relented, and took the unpaid job.
A thought: voters should not take out their justified anger and frustration with government by opposing, on principle, the legitimate, but limited, proposals that are being put before them, anachronistic as Question 1 may be.
Rule 29-P: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." So wrote Voltaire in 1764.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Back to the Future 2021
Two Editorials Assail
Charter Commission
Over 11-Year Delay
On Term Limit End
Once again, we take pen in hand (figuratively) to criticize the actions and inactions of the Charter Revision Commission. We do that not because there is overwhelming public interest in the subject at this time, but because there is an issue of trust and credibility here which should be discussed openly.
Today, the Post joined the Daily News in sharp editorial criticism of the Commission. We quote extensively from these hard-hitting editorials. If you wish, you can click on News and Post for the full text.
Under the headlline CHARTER CHANGE CHOKE, The Post laments: "The New York City Charter Revision Commission concluded its work last week, delivering a final product that amounts to a sadly missed opportunity.
"When the commission formed last spring ... headed by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, the sky was the limit on what might be brought before voters in November. But the big issues were term limits and governmental structure -- i.e., whether the city might run more effectively without such offices as borough president and public advocate.
"What will be on the ballot this fall?
"An opportunity to endorse "term limits" again -- which won't be fully functional until 2021, because current elected officials are grandfathered in.
"And nothing at all to do with structural reform; that's been punted to the next charter commission, whenever that might be convened.
"Even though voters have twice called for a two-term limit for elected municipal offices, some incumbents could remain in place for a decade..."
The Daily News has published three editorials on the subject, trying vainly to persuade the Charter Commission before the 15-member group made its final decision. On August 26, the newspaper was scathing in its criticism.
"New Yorkers have twice previously voted for the two-term option. They'd surely do so again if given the opportunity.
"But the panel, chaired by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, chose instead to give the public the back of its hand. It voted to put on the November ballot a proposition that would set two terms for everyone - except, incredibly, for incumbent officeholders.
"They alone would be permitted to run three times; never mind that some of these same Council members supported the 2009 overthrow of the voters' will.
"How this misbegotten result came about is a study in the misapplication of power.
"The panel's 15 members included lawyers, religious leaders, educators, city planners and former Council members, among others.
"Some, like the Rev. Joseph McShane, Fordham University's president, understood what they were assigned to do: Give voters a two-term option.
"But others, like Staten Island County Clerk Stephen Fiala, denied voters the choice they deserve based on his own opposition to term limits. He called them "antithetical to our way of life."
"Still others brought extraneous considerations to bear: Commission Vice Chairman John Banks, a vice president at Con Ed, asserted that requiring incumbents to abide by a two-term maximum would somehow discriminate against minorities. That, too, should have been an issue for voters.
"Outrageously, three commission members - David Chen, Betty Chen and Carlo Scissura - failed even to show up for the meeting. They are said to have been on vacation. That's no excuse. After accepting the responsibility of shaping the very future of democracy in New York, they damn well should have cast votes.
"Finally, Angela Freyre, a vice president at Nielsen who also serves on the city's Conflicts of Interest Board, lacked the courage to vote for or against a measure backed by Goldstein that would have limited the number of Council members who were granted the favor of three terms.
"After expressing wrongheaded qualms about the legality of the compromise, she abstained, dooming the halfway measure.
"Every single commissioner should have to vote, as all had sworn to do in accepting the post. That's the most fundamental responsibility of the job. They should reconvene when, gee, they find it convenient and do it right.
"No absences, no abstentions, no excuses."
OUR VIEW OF THE DISPUTE
The Commission, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg on March 3, produced its final report on August 27, just in time for its recommendations to be placed on the ballot for the November 2 election.
The issue which generated the most controversy was term limits for city elected officials. Although two referenda (in 1993 and 1996) had supported a limit of two four-year terms for the three city-wide offices, five borough presidents and 51 councilmembers, the Council, in October 2008 at the Mayor's insistence, overruled the Charter adopted in referenda to allow all 59 elected officials to seek a third term.
Mayor Bloomberg promised at the time to appoint a Charter Revision Commission in 2010 to put term limits on the ballot for the public to decide the issue. The Commission did that, but in an effort to please incumbents at the expense of allowing the public to decide the issue promptly, postponed the effective date (the first year in which a second-termer would be unable to seek a third term) to 2021, which is somewhere over the rainbow, way up high, far away as politics is concerned.
The Mayor persuaded CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein to chair the fractious commission. He is a Ph.D. in mathematics and a highly capable administrator, who in eleven years has enormously strengthened the City University. He is not a politician, and it was John Banks of Con Edison, the vice-chair, whose views prevailed in the end.
The panel was laced with enemies of term limits, who would just as soon have done away with them entirely if they had the nerve. They had no particular sense that the public will had been tampered with in 2008, and were pleased to reward those who had over-ruled the two public referenda by giving them an extra term for themselves. To add to the deal, they took Councilmembers who had not even been elected in 2008 and gave them a third term as well. Bonanza.
There was an existential rationale for extending Mayor Bloomberg's eligibility: he had done a competent job, was regarded as more qualified than his putative opponents, and the public could make a rational choice as to whether they wanted to keep him as mayor. They narrowly retained him, and the opposition was heavily fueled by his unpopular extension of term limits. On the other hand, the Councilmembers are largely lightly known, are elected from districts gerrymandered for their protection, and until 2009, had almost always been re-elected handily. The class elected in 2005 would in no way have been missed if they were required to seek other employment opportunities in 2013, if the public voted for two terms.
After eight years on the Council, an able (or a more limited) member can run for higher city office, or the state legislature (which has no term limits, which is one reason it is regarded as the most dysfunctional legislature in the United States). He can also be appointed to a job. David Yassky, for one, was appointed to chair the Taxi and Limousine Commission after losing a race for Comptroller. He cast a key vote in favor of extending term limits, although he was not personally seeking a third term on the Council.
There is more to be said about the maneuvering that led to the unfortunate attempt to postpone reality by eleven years. The leaders of the Commission did not understand what the struggle was really about: the popular will and the necessity to resist retrograde attempts to subvert it or postpone it into oblivion.
The issue was not two terms or three; that is a question that people can properly dispute and to which there is no easy answer. The issue was whether the public should be given a chance to overrule the 2008 loophole coup d'etat. The voterse should have been given the opportunity to make that decision; instead the insiders, know-nothings and absentees, amajority of the Commission, nine out of fifteen, denied them that right.
It is a shame to reject the work of honest, decent and industrious people who gave their time, without salary, to work on important public business. However, the attempt by some to set themselves up as masters of the universe cannot go unnoticed. Most of the nine are politically unsophisticated and did not fully understand what the issues were. They are not experts in government. The few that did know should be ashamed of themselves.
They should stick to their day jobs, and leave the Charter to people who appreciate and respect democracy.
Charter Commission
Over 11-Year Delay
On Term Limit End
Once again, we take pen in hand (figuratively) to criticize the actions and inactions of the Charter Revision Commission. We do that not because there is overwhelming public interest in the subject at this time, but because there is an issue of trust and credibility here which should be discussed openly.
Today, the Post joined the Daily News in sharp editorial criticism of the Commission. We quote extensively from these hard-hitting editorials. If you wish, you can click on News and Post for the full text.
Under the headlline CHARTER CHANGE CHOKE, The Post laments: "The New York City Charter Revision Commission concluded its work last week, delivering a final product that amounts to a sadly missed opportunity.
"When the commission formed last spring ... headed by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, the sky was the limit on what might be brought before voters in November. But the big issues were term limits and governmental structure -- i.e., whether the city might run more effectively without such offices as borough president and public advocate.
"What will be on the ballot this fall?
"An opportunity to endorse "term limits" again -- which won't be fully functional until 2021, because current elected officials are grandfathered in.
"And nothing at all to do with structural reform; that's been punted to the next charter commission, whenever that might be convened.
"Even though voters have twice called for a two-term limit for elected municipal offices, some incumbents could remain in place for a decade..."
The Daily News has published three editorials on the subject, trying vainly to persuade the Charter Commission before the 15-member group made its final decision. On August 26, the newspaper was scathing in its criticism.
"New Yorkers have twice previously voted for the two-term option. They'd surely do so again if given the opportunity.
"But the panel, chaired by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, chose instead to give the public the back of its hand. It voted to put on the November ballot a proposition that would set two terms for everyone - except, incredibly, for incumbent officeholders.
"They alone would be permitted to run three times; never mind that some of these same Council members supported the 2009 overthrow of the voters' will.
"How this misbegotten result came about is a study in the misapplication of power.
"The panel's 15 members included lawyers, religious leaders, educators, city planners and former Council members, among others.
"Some, like the Rev. Joseph McShane, Fordham University's president, understood what they were assigned to do: Give voters a two-term option.
"But others, like Staten Island County Clerk Stephen Fiala, denied voters the choice they deserve based on his own opposition to term limits. He called them "antithetical to our way of life."
"Still others brought extraneous considerations to bear: Commission Vice Chairman John Banks, a vice president at Con Ed, asserted that requiring incumbents to abide by a two-term maximum would somehow discriminate against minorities. That, too, should have been an issue for voters.
"Outrageously, three commission members - David Chen, Betty Chen and Carlo Scissura - failed even to show up for the meeting. They are said to have been on vacation. That's no excuse. After accepting the responsibility of shaping the very future of democracy in New York, they damn well should have cast votes.
"Finally, Angela Freyre, a vice president at Nielsen who also serves on the city's Conflicts of Interest Board, lacked the courage to vote for or against a measure backed by Goldstein that would have limited the number of Council members who were granted the favor of three terms.
"After expressing wrongheaded qualms about the legality of the compromise, she abstained, dooming the halfway measure.
"Every single commissioner should have to vote, as all had sworn to do in accepting the post. That's the most fundamental responsibility of the job. They should reconvene when, gee, they find it convenient and do it right.
"No absences, no abstentions, no excuses."
OUR VIEW OF THE DISPUTE
The Commission, appointed by Mayor Bloomberg on March 3, produced its final report on August 27, just in time for its recommendations to be placed on the ballot for the November 2 election.
The issue which generated the most controversy was term limits for city elected officials. Although two referenda (in 1993 and 1996) had supported a limit of two four-year terms for the three city-wide offices, five borough presidents and 51 councilmembers, the Council, in October 2008 at the Mayor's insistence, overruled the Charter adopted in referenda to allow all 59 elected officials to seek a third term.
Mayor Bloomberg promised at the time to appoint a Charter Revision Commission in 2010 to put term limits on the ballot for the public to decide the issue. The Commission did that, but in an effort to please incumbents at the expense of allowing the public to decide the issue promptly, postponed the effective date (the first year in which a second-termer would be unable to seek a third term) to 2021, which is somewhere over the rainbow, way up high, far away as politics is concerned.
The Mayor persuaded CUNY chancellor Matthew Goldstein to chair the fractious commission. He is a Ph.D. in mathematics and a highly capable administrator, who in eleven years has enormously strengthened the City University. He is not a politician, and it was John Banks of Con Edison, the vice-chair, whose views prevailed in the end.
The panel was laced with enemies of term limits, who would just as soon have done away with them entirely if they had the nerve. They had no particular sense that the public will had been tampered with in 2008, and were pleased to reward those who had over-ruled the two public referenda by giving them an extra term for themselves. To add to the deal, they took Councilmembers who had not even been elected in 2008 and gave them a third term as well. Bonanza.
There was an existential rationale for extending Mayor Bloomberg's eligibility: he had done a competent job, was regarded as more qualified than his putative opponents, and the public could make a rational choice as to whether they wanted to keep him as mayor. They narrowly retained him, and the opposition was heavily fueled by his unpopular extension of term limits. On the other hand, the Councilmembers are largely lightly known, are elected from districts gerrymandered for their protection, and until 2009, had almost always been re-elected handily. The class elected in 2005 would in no way have been missed if they were required to seek other employment opportunities in 2013, if the public voted for two terms.
After eight years on the Council, an able (or a more limited) member can run for higher city office, or the state legislature (which has no term limits, which is one reason it is regarded as the most dysfunctional legislature in the United States). He can also be appointed to a job. David Yassky, for one, was appointed to chair the Taxi and Limousine Commission after losing a race for Comptroller. He cast a key vote in favor of extending term limits, although he was not personally seeking a third term on the Council.
There is more to be said about the maneuvering that led to the unfortunate attempt to postpone reality by eleven years. The leaders of the Commission did not understand what the struggle was really about: the popular will and the necessity to resist retrograde attempts to subvert it or postpone it into oblivion.
The issue was not two terms or three; that is a question that people can properly dispute and to which there is no easy answer. The issue was whether the public should be given a chance to overrule the 2008 loophole coup d'etat. The voterse should have been given the opportunity to make that decision; instead the insiders, know-nothings and absentees, amajority of the Commission, nine out of fifteen, denied them that right.
It is a shame to reject the work of honest, decent and industrious people who gave their time, without salary, to work on important public business. However, the attempt by some to set themselves up as masters of the universe cannot go unnoticed. Most of the nine are politically unsophisticated and did not fully understand what the issues were. They are not experts in government. The few that did know should be ashamed of themselves.
They should stick to their day jobs, and leave the Charter to people who appreciate and respect democracy.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
Commission Delays Two-Term Limit
For City Officials Until A.D. 2021,
However the Public Votes This Year
The Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mayor Bloomberg voted last night to postpone by eleven years the effective date when a two-term limit would take effect, even if the voters approve it in referendum this fall.
After a motion to put the eight-year limit into effect now was defeated, (it received six votes, eight being needed to pass), and a so-called 'hybrid' motion for a 2017 effective date also failed with six votes, Commission Chairman Matthew Goldstein brought the 2021 date up for a vote and it was approved 12-0, although it was not a compromise between the other two alternatives, but mandated an even longer delay in carrying out the decision made in the public referendum.
On the two previous motions, the chairman had called the roll and voted last. On the 2021 proposal he called on himself first and dramatically voted 'Yes'. The eleven other members present followed suit.
A large majority of the witnesses who testified last night supported implementation of the referendum at the next Council election, scheduled for 2013. The speaker for a delay was Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who had taken a leading role in supporting the two-term limit in 2008. He did not explain why he changed his mind, but as a mayoral candidate in 2013, he will be seeking support from the legislators whose eligibility he sought to prolong.
The effect of this postponement is to confer a benefit on a small group of Councilmembers, some of whom voted in 2008 to extend their eligibility. Others, who voted No on the change, allegedly on principle, will also have the opportunity to seek a third term, and it is likely that most of them will avail themselves of that privilege. The extension to 2021 will give the freshmen, now in their first year on the Council, the right to serve twelve years before there will be an open seat..
The rationale behind this gift of time is that, since in 2009 the three-term limit was in effect, the candidates ran with the expectation that they would be entitled to seek three terms and the city is in good faith bound to honor their belief. Those members first elected in 2005 would require the gift of a third term to have them serve into 2017. However, the public will presumably by 2010 have voted three times (1993 and 1996 were the first two) for a two-term limit.
The theory that there is a duty to fulfill the expectations of the ambitious appears as harebrained to me as it may sound to you, but it was expressed by at least one Commissioner last night, and it was the rationalization of others. Try to think of another justification for prolonging the implementation of the decision of the voters for a period comparable to serious prison time.
The fact is that, even if the voters approve a two-term limit in November, the Commission has arrogated to itself the power to frustrate that decision for eleven years. The proposal was offered to allow the public to decide the effective date of the two-term limit, whether at once (2013), 2017 or 2021. This idea was ignored; how can the people be trusted to make a decision of such magnitude? Don't the mayoral appointees on the Commission know what is best for the masses?
The individual members of the Commission are, by and large, reasonably intelligent, not particularly politically sophisticated, and honorable New Yorkers. The chair is a distinguished public servant. How could all these bright people have gone so wrong? Look at Vietnam and numerous situations since then when our country has made decisions which turned out to be wrong. But those important issues had two sides and complicated facts. In this case, the facts are clear and the argument completely one-sided. I invite anyone to submit a column explaining why 2017 or 2021 is the appropriate time for a 2010 referendum to take effect. We'll publish it.
The bottom line here is that some people wanted to take care of some other people they know. And they were able to convince enough naive colleagues so that they could do it.
The remedy here is relatively simple: another referendum, with an effective date written into it so no Commission can substitute its wishes for the voters' decision by fiddling with implementation and postponing a simple reform for over a decade.
The unanswered question is Rule 17-C. Who will bell the cat? Who will step forward and take the initiative to see that the will of the people is implemented, whatever it may be. Now is the time to begin consideration of that question. It has been attributed to Edmund Burke in 1795. No one, however, really knows who said it first: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing."
To those of you who think, what difference does this make, two terms or three, you have a point. The issue, however, is not two or three terms. The issue is fairness; first the Mayor and Council circumventing the Charter in 2008 for their own benefit, and now the Commission trying to circumvent the referendum of 2010, whether they know it or not.
Americans, and New Yorkers are Americans, like to play fair, and don't like to be disregarded or manipulated. That is what underlies this controversy. It is the same nagging issue that sharply reduced the majority the competent mayor should have received after two successful terms. Our recommendation: respect the will of the people.
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied". Britain's Prime Minister Gladstone said it in 1868 addressing Parliament as Queen Victoria's prime minister.
The City of New York should not provide golden parachutes. Not in dollars, not in years. Let the new elected officials take their places, and may they serve the public, not themselves.
For City Officials Until A.D. 2021,
However the Public Votes This Year
The Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mayor Bloomberg voted last night to postpone by eleven years the effective date when a two-term limit would take effect, even if the voters approve it in referendum this fall.
After a motion to put the eight-year limit into effect now was defeated, (it received six votes, eight being needed to pass), and a so-called 'hybrid' motion for a 2017 effective date also failed with six votes, Commission Chairman Matthew Goldstein brought the 2021 date up for a vote and it was approved 12-0, although it was not a compromise between the other two alternatives, but mandated an even longer delay in carrying out the decision made in the public referendum.
On the two previous motions, the chairman had called the roll and voted last. On the 2021 proposal he called on himself first and dramatically voted 'Yes'. The eleven other members present followed suit.
A large majority of the witnesses who testified last night supported implementation of the referendum at the next Council election, scheduled for 2013. The speaker for a delay was Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who had taken a leading role in supporting the two-term limit in 2008. He did not explain why he changed his mind, but as a mayoral candidate in 2013, he will be seeking support from the legislators whose eligibility he sought to prolong.
The effect of this postponement is to confer a benefit on a small group of Councilmembers, some of whom voted in 2008 to extend their eligibility. Others, who voted No on the change, allegedly on principle, will also have the opportunity to seek a third term, and it is likely that most of them will avail themselves of that privilege. The extension to 2021 will give the freshmen, now in their first year on the Council, the right to serve twelve years before there will be an open seat..
The rationale behind this gift of time is that, since in 2009 the three-term limit was in effect, the candidates ran with the expectation that they would be entitled to seek three terms and the city is in good faith bound to honor their belief. Those members first elected in 2005 would require the gift of a third term to have them serve into 2017. However, the public will presumably by 2010 have voted three times (1993 and 1996 were the first two) for a two-term limit.
The theory that there is a duty to fulfill the expectations of the ambitious appears as harebrained to me as it may sound to you, but it was expressed by at least one Commissioner last night, and it was the rationalization of others. Try to think of another justification for prolonging the implementation of the decision of the voters for a period comparable to serious prison time.
The fact is that, even if the voters approve a two-term limit in November, the Commission has arrogated to itself the power to frustrate that decision for eleven years. The proposal was offered to allow the public to decide the effective date of the two-term limit, whether at once (2013), 2017 or 2021. This idea was ignored; how can the people be trusted to make a decision of such magnitude? Don't the mayoral appointees on the Commission know what is best for the masses?
The individual members of the Commission are, by and large, reasonably intelligent, not particularly politically sophisticated, and honorable New Yorkers. The chair is a distinguished public servant. How could all these bright people have gone so wrong? Look at Vietnam and numerous situations since then when our country has made decisions which turned out to be wrong. But those important issues had two sides and complicated facts. In this case, the facts are clear and the argument completely one-sided. I invite anyone to submit a column explaining why 2017 or 2021 is the appropriate time for a 2010 referendum to take effect. We'll publish it.
The bottom line here is that some people wanted to take care of some other people they know. And they were able to convince enough naive colleagues so that they could do it.
The remedy here is relatively simple: another referendum, with an effective date written into it so no Commission can substitute its wishes for the voters' decision by fiddling with implementation and postponing a simple reform for over a decade.
The unanswered question is Rule 17-C. Who will bell the cat? Who will step forward and take the initiative to see that the will of the people is implemented, whatever it may be. Now is the time to begin consideration of that question. It has been attributed to Edmund Burke in 1795. No one, however, really knows who said it first: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing."
To those of you who think, what difference does this make, two terms or three, you have a point. The issue, however, is not two or three terms. The issue is fairness; first the Mayor and Council circumventing the Charter in 2008 for their own benefit, and now the Commission trying to circumvent the referendum of 2010, whether they know it or not.
Americans, and New Yorkers are Americans, like to play fair, and don't like to be disregarded or manipulated. That is what underlies this controversy. It is the same nagging issue that sharply reduced the majority the competent mayor should have received after two successful terms. Our recommendation: respect the will of the people.
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied". Britain's Prime Minister Gladstone said it in 1868 addressing Parliament as Queen Victoria's prime minister.
The City of New York should not provide golden parachutes. Not in dollars, not in years. Let the new elected officials take their places, and may they serve the public, not themselves.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Two Terms Good, Three Terms Bad
Charter Commission Weighs
Permission for Incumbents
To Run for an Extra Term,
Ignoring Public Referenda
The Charter Revision Commission will meet Monday evening to decide what amendments to the City Charter will be placed on the ballot in November. The Commission's recommendations are generally beneficial and should not arouse much public controversy, except from diehards who want the political process to be as arduous and arcane as possible.
The Commission was appointed in March 2010. Its primary mission was to settle the issue of term limits, which had been approved by the voters in 1993 and 1996. In September 2008, when it was too late for anyone else place a charter amendment on the ballot, Mayor Bloomberg proposed, and the Council approved, a charter amendment overriding the public referenda in the '90s, and providing third-term eligibility for themselves. To make amends for this last-minute power play, the mayor promised to appoint a charter commission in 2010, with the expectation that the term limits issue would be resolved.
The Commission did agree to send the issue to a referendum in November, but unfortunately there is a catch. The issue of when term limits as approved by the public will go into effect is in dispute. Logically, the effective date should be the next election for councilmembers, scheduled for 2013. In a strong editorial today, the Daily News made this point convincingly.
However, an effort is being made to 'grandfather' only those councilmembers elected in 2005, so that they will be able to remain in office until 2017, even if the public votes in 2010 for a two-term limit.
That would be an enormous injustice. Members of the classes of 2001 and 2005 stretched the law to its limit by voting to extend their own eligibility. They found a loophole in the Charter and drove right through it. Now, if the public votes for a two-term limit, it would mean they must leave in 2013, as the Charter originally provided. As a result, they are seeking to create yet another loophole by grandfathering themselves into third-term eligibility. This would again frustrate the will of the voters if they support a limit of two terms, with which polls indicate that 71 per cent of the voters agree.
If the Commission and its members seek to retain their good reputations for integrity and independence, they cannot allow this scheme to succeed. When the public repeatedly says, in its Orwellian mode, "Two terms good, three terms bad" the handful of councilmembers who created the problem in the first place should not be allowed to concoct another scheme to deny the public the right to vote on whether they should have third-term eligibility. The case is worse than a parricide who demands mercy as an orphan. Here the officials are trying to prohibit the jurors from even considering whether they should be allowed to profit from their misdeeds.
Now is the time to close the door on this unfortunate chapter of New York political history. To allow the situation to carry over to 2017 would invite another referendum next year on the same issue. That would denigrate and obscure the other serious matters on which the Charter commission is charged with deliberating.
Close the barn door. Conclude this matter in 2011. Let the Charter Revision Commission go forward with constructive study of municipal issues, of which there are many, rather than stooping to reward the handful of self-serving councilmembers whose desire to linger generated this problem.
GEESE: Latest census, taken by Anne-Katrin Titze, shows 114 geese, nine swans and numerous ducks on the Prospect Park Lake. The swans are members of two families, who are not always friendly to each other. The population consists of four adults and five cygnets. On July 7, Federal agents removed and executed about 300 geese, but the lake is being repopulated as new Canada geese arrive. They are apparently unaware of the fate that befell their brothers and sisters last month.
TREES: The Pelham Parkway 87, originally marked for destruction for highway construction, have received a temporary reprieve after their cause was embraced by local newspapers, Regis Philbin of ABC, who grew up near Pelham Parkway, and community activists. The city will review its design to protect both trees and cars.
A greater threat has arisen to the trees on Pelham Parkway South. The proposed reconstruction of a sewer threatens the roots of mature trees on the sidewalk and in the park. The plans should be reviewed by the community and the city agencies involved, Design & Construction and Environmental Protection, before any excavation is begun which endangers the root system of nearby trees. This is entirely possible to do through a process called in situ construction.
ESPADA: No report is complete without an update on the actions of Senator Pedro Espada, who initiated the June 2009 coup which tied up the Senate for a month, along with his sidekick, now former Senator Hiram Monserrate.
Espada is involved in a dispute with a clothier who sold him six custom-made suits, for which the Senator refuses to pay. The scandal was broken by Tom Robbins, who described the affair in absorbing detail, on pages 10 and 11 in the August 18 Village Voice, and reported on p2 of yesterday's Daily News by Tina Moore and Kenneth Lovett.
The unpaid bill is said to be $7200. Sales tax is 8.875% in the Bronx, which he represents, and 7.4% in Mamaroneck, where he is said to live. On a purchase for that sum, the difference is sales tax would be $106.20, and the question arises as to which address he used.
On the other hand, if you're not going to pay the bill, why be concerned about the sales tax?
Permission for Incumbents
To Run for an Extra Term,
Ignoring Public Referenda
The Charter Revision Commission will meet Monday evening to decide what amendments to the City Charter will be placed on the ballot in November. The Commission's recommendations are generally beneficial and should not arouse much public controversy, except from diehards who want the political process to be as arduous and arcane as possible.
The Commission was appointed in March 2010. Its primary mission was to settle the issue of term limits, which had been approved by the voters in 1993 and 1996. In September 2008, when it was too late for anyone else place a charter amendment on the ballot, Mayor Bloomberg proposed, and the Council approved, a charter amendment overriding the public referenda in the '90s, and providing third-term eligibility for themselves. To make amends for this last-minute power play, the mayor promised to appoint a charter commission in 2010, with the expectation that the term limits issue would be resolved.
The Commission did agree to send the issue to a referendum in November, but unfortunately there is a catch. The issue of when term limits as approved by the public will go into effect is in dispute. Logically, the effective date should be the next election for councilmembers, scheduled for 2013. In a strong editorial today, the Daily News made this point convincingly.
However, an effort is being made to 'grandfather' only those councilmembers elected in 2005, so that they will be able to remain in office until 2017, even if the public votes in 2010 for a two-term limit.
That would be an enormous injustice. Members of the classes of 2001 and 2005 stretched the law to its limit by voting to extend their own eligibility. They found a loophole in the Charter and drove right through it. Now, if the public votes for a two-term limit, it would mean they must leave in 2013, as the Charter originally provided. As a result, they are seeking to create yet another loophole by grandfathering themselves into third-term eligibility. This would again frustrate the will of the voters if they support a limit of two terms, with which polls indicate that 71 per cent of the voters agree.
If the Commission and its members seek to retain their good reputations for integrity and independence, they cannot allow this scheme to succeed. When the public repeatedly says, in its Orwellian mode, "Two terms good, three terms bad" the handful of councilmembers who created the problem in the first place should not be allowed to concoct another scheme to deny the public the right to vote on whether they should have third-term eligibility. The case is worse than a parricide who demands mercy as an orphan. Here the officials are trying to prohibit the jurors from even considering whether they should be allowed to profit from their misdeeds.
Now is the time to close the door on this unfortunate chapter of New York political history. To allow the situation to carry over to 2017 would invite another referendum next year on the same issue. That would denigrate and obscure the other serious matters on which the Charter commission is charged with deliberating.
Close the barn door. Conclude this matter in 2011. Let the Charter Revision Commission go forward with constructive study of municipal issues, of which there are many, rather than stooping to reward the handful of self-serving councilmembers whose desire to linger generated this problem.
GEESE: Latest census, taken by Anne-Katrin Titze, shows 114 geese, nine swans and numerous ducks on the Prospect Park Lake. The swans are members of two families, who are not always friendly to each other. The population consists of four adults and five cygnets. On July 7, Federal agents removed and executed about 300 geese, but the lake is being repopulated as new Canada geese arrive. They are apparently unaware of the fate that befell their brothers and sisters last month.
TREES: The Pelham Parkway 87, originally marked for destruction for highway construction, have received a temporary reprieve after their cause was embraced by local newspapers, Regis Philbin of ABC, who grew up near Pelham Parkway, and community activists. The city will review its design to protect both trees and cars.
A greater threat has arisen to the trees on Pelham Parkway South. The proposed reconstruction of a sewer threatens the roots of mature trees on the sidewalk and in the park. The plans should be reviewed by the community and the city agencies involved, Design & Construction and Environmental Protection, before any excavation is begun which endangers the root system of nearby trees. This is entirely possible to do through a process called in situ construction.
ESPADA: No report is complete without an update on the actions of Senator Pedro Espada, who initiated the June 2009 coup which tied up the Senate for a month, along with his sidekick, now former Senator Hiram Monserrate.
Espada is involved in a dispute with a clothier who sold him six custom-made suits, for which the Senator refuses to pay. The scandal was broken by Tom Robbins, who described the affair in absorbing detail, on pages 10 and 11 in the August 18 Village Voice, and reported on p2 of yesterday's Daily News by Tina Moore and Kenneth Lovett.
The unpaid bill is said to be $7200. Sales tax is 8.875% in the Bronx, which he represents, and 7.4% in Mamaroneck, where he is said to live. On a purchase for that sum, the difference is sales tax would be $106.20, and the question arises as to which address he used.
On the other hand, if you're not going to pay the bill, why be concerned about the sales tax?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
