For the third time in two decades New York City voters will be considering the issue of term limits this November.
We can only hope this will put the matter to rest. The Mayor and City Council erased the two-term limit in 2008 -- defying the will of the voters as expressed in two referendums and clearing the way for both the Mayor and Council members to run for third terms in 2009.
The denial of the voters’ wishes was a shabby act. Even many who don’t believe in term limits found it hard to accept this tactic. It was undemocratic. It failed the political smell test.
But the Mayor is now squarely behind the effort to change the law so a two-term limit will be in place. Indeed, Bloomberg has even criticized the commission proposal’s big exception to term limits: present office holders will not be limited to two terms. They can still seek a third term. Only newcomers to public office will be affected by the new law.
Bloomberg, rightly, says that’s wrong. He told the commission: “You should decide what is the best for the city, and not what’s the best for any particular elected official.” Better late than never!
Unless the Charter Commission tinkers with the proposed change again, it appears that incumbents like the public advocate, comptroller, Bronx borough president and new City Council members could be re-elected in 2013 and 2017 and serve through 2021.
That doesn’t sound like what voters have said they want.
To give some insight on what these politicians might be thinking, the Daily News quotes Brooklyn Councilman Jumaane Williams as saying: “I would love three four-year terms, for one it would be great to have the possibility to reach the ten-year mark in terms of city pension for my family.”
The News editors call the argument “dopey.” And they’re right.
I spoke to Susan Lerner of Common Cause, who called the Commission's proposal "a train wreck.”
“We had a term limits law," said Lerner. "It was changed by fiat. Now, we’re giving old Council members a special right to sit at their desks for an extra four years."
But Lerner says she has opposed the whole idea of term limits. She thinks the Mayor and civic leaders should be engaging the public in a discussion about the positive and negative effects of term limits. “It’s very unfortunate,” she asserts, “that a full debate has not taken place before the public.”
Lerner thinks it would be “unfortunate,” too, if the decision on term limits is made solely on the basis of what may be this year’s prevailing sentiment: “Throw the bums out!”
And Lerner is right. The term limits issue deserves more discussion than it’s getting. Sadly, it has been so politicized over the years that New York has never had a chance to consider it solely on the basis of what best serves the cause of good government.
