You are here
Term Limits in Time of Crisis -- Staying in Power vs. Upholding the Law
Monday, October 6th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
Updated Oct. 10, 2008; see final three paragraphs
New York City is in a crisis. But its mayor and 2/3 of its City Council will have to leave office due to term limits imposed by referendum in the 1990s.
Mayor Bloomberg wants to get rid of term limits, and Ronald Lauder, the billionaire who backed the term limits referenda campaigns, wants them suspended for the 2009 election, due to the financial crisis and its devastating effects on New York City. Bloomberg says that the issue could be put to the people again in 2010, so effectively, both are looking for a temporary fix that will apply to current officeholders.
But for that reason, it runs into not only a democracy issue (can a council override a law set by referendum?), but also into a government ethics issue: is it appropriate to change a law only to preserve one's own political office?
Does a financial crisis require that the mayor and council stay in office, or at least be allowed to run for office? This assumes that their experience and expertise cannot be tapped by other people, and that they cannot help in other roles. If councillors' experience and expertise are that valuable, won't a new mayor appoint some of them to high-level positions? Couldn't Mayor Bloomberg be made a right-hand adviser, officially or unofficially? And aren't there are others in a city such as New York who have experience and expertise they could offer to the mayor and council?
Already, according to an article in Saturday's New York Times, the mayor's people are responding to two council members' decision to move toward a referendum on the issue by saying that a special election's small turnout might make the decision suspect in the eyes of federal election and civil rights attorneys. That seems questionable.
If at all possible, any changes to the term limits law should be done by referendum. I don't think the law should be changed on an emergency basis, unless it can be shown that not doing so could severely harm the city. I don't think that has been shown. So far it looks more like an attempt to hold on to power and to undermine a law just as it is time for it to be enforced.
According to an AP article, Bloomberg made a deal with Lauder, so that Lauder would head a charter revision commission in 2010 in return for not opposing the override of the term limits law, which would allow Bloomberg another term in office. New York Common Cause filed a complaint with the NYC Conflict of Interests Board, arguing that this trade was a use of public power for personal gain (disclosure: I have done a lot of work for, and was once on the board of, Connecticut Common Cause).
Two council members filed a request with the COIB for an advisory opinion on whether or not it is a conflict for lawmakers to change a law such as the term limits law which directly affects their careers.
These are certainly two matters to follow.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
New York City is in a crisis. But its mayor and 2/3 of its City Council will have to leave office due to term limits imposed by referendum in the 1990s.
Mayor Bloomberg wants to get rid of term limits, and Ronald Lauder, the billionaire who backed the term limits referenda campaigns, wants them suspended for the 2009 election, due to the financial crisis and its devastating effects on New York City. Bloomberg says that the issue could be put to the people again in 2010, so effectively, both are looking for a temporary fix that will apply to current officeholders.
But for that reason, it runs into not only a democracy issue (can a council override a law set by referendum?), but also into a government ethics issue: is it appropriate to change a law only to preserve one's own political office?
Does a financial crisis require that the mayor and council stay in office, or at least be allowed to run for office? This assumes that their experience and expertise cannot be tapped by other people, and that they cannot help in other roles. If councillors' experience and expertise are that valuable, won't a new mayor appoint some of them to high-level positions? Couldn't Mayor Bloomberg be made a right-hand adviser, officially or unofficially? And aren't there are others in a city such as New York who have experience and expertise they could offer to the mayor and council?
Already, according to an article in Saturday's New York Times, the mayor's people are responding to two council members' decision to move toward a referendum on the issue by saying that a special election's small turnout might make the decision suspect in the eyes of federal election and civil rights attorneys. That seems questionable.
If at all possible, any changes to the term limits law should be done by referendum. I don't think the law should be changed on an emergency basis, unless it can be shown that not doing so could severely harm the city. I don't think that has been shown. So far it looks more like an attempt to hold on to power and to undermine a law just as it is time for it to be enforced.
According to an AP article, Bloomberg made a deal with Lauder, so that Lauder would head a charter revision commission in 2010 in return for not opposing the override of the term limits law, which would allow Bloomberg another term in office. New York Common Cause filed a complaint with the NYC Conflict of Interests Board, arguing that this trade was a use of public power for personal gain (disclosure: I have done a lot of work for, and was once on the board of, Connecticut Common Cause).
Two council members filed a request with the COIB for an advisory opinion on whether or not it is a conflict for lawmakers to change a law such as the term limits law which directly affects their careers.
These are certainly two matters to follow.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
