What's At Stake in New York City?
I've <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/525" target="”_blank”">already written</a>
about the conflict of interest problems involved in the New York City
term limits dispute. But now the dispute is over, according to <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-lim…; target="”_blank”">an article on today's New York Times website</a>: the NYC Council chose to allow current elected officials to
run beyond the term limit rules approved by citizens twice in
referendums, And a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23thu2.html" target="”_blank”">New York
Times' editorial earlier today</a> called for this decision.<br>
<br>
The <span>Times</span> has long
disapproved of term limits, but this should be irrelevant to the issue
of the Council overriding voters' wishes. The <span>Times</span>
feels that the people should have the opportunity to vote for a
candidate they highly approve of. I agree. And losing Bloomberg would
possibly have changed people's minds, so that term limits would be
voted out at a future referendum, at least for the mayor. But a rule's
a rule, the government ethicist in me says, and the rule is that the
will of the people is clear, and the procedure is clear for seeing if
the public has changed its mind (in addition, polls show it hasn't changed its mind
yet). And the rule is also clear that it is bad for officials to vote
themselves a chance to run again when the law says otherwise.<br>
<br>
A<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/nyregion/23bloomberg.html" target="”_blank”">
front-page article in today's paper</a> made it clear that even Mayor
Bloomberg's former aides and close allies are disillusioned with the
way the mayor has acted throughout his successful attempt to run again.
Acting out of character sadly happens a lot when one's own future is at
stake. Yes, the city's future is also at stake, but no man is
indispensable, and there is no reason why Bloomberg could not play an
important role outside the mayor's office. Non-mayors in New York have
saved the city before; why not after Bloomberg's term is over at the
end of next year?<br>
<br>
No matter what is said about the need for continuity in a crisis
situation, this is really about private interest over public interest.
Apparently, no law has been broken, even though the mayor promised a
position on a future charter revision commission to keep fellow
billionaire, and term limit supporter, Ronald Lauder quiet. But there
is something other than law, and Mayor Bloomberg and the Council
majority have broken it.<br>
<br>
Wouldn't it be ironic if someone else were elected mayor next year?
It's possible that a man who could have been elected president could
lose a municipal position not because of his position on issues, but
for going too far to help himself.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---