By a vote of 29 to 22 the New York City Council rubber-stamped billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s legal end-run around term limits and gave him – and themselves – a term extension of four more years. In the end, principle and the will of the people was trumped as term-limited members who joined with the mayor and his supporters voted to preserve their $112,500 a year jobs, which the council increased from $90,000 in late 2006. Apparently, in these challenging economic times the mayor’s political gambit and four more years of a six-figure income and perks were just too tempting to pass up.
But the vote demonstrates just how divisive and contentious this issue is and Mayor Bloomberg may just have bought a new torrid term in office. Speaker Christine Quinn and others who sided with the Mayor are now perceived as “in the mayor’s pocket” and by this vote the City Council has been severely weakened since it failed its first major political test of wills. The Council ignored and rendered irrelevant the “will of the voters” and bowed to mayoral bullying in a show of total political cowardice and financial self-preservation.
Term limits and tinkering with it is nothing new. And it has not been confined only to local politics. In fact, the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed in 1951 to make sure that no U.S. president – after Franklin D. Roosevelt – ever served more than eight years in office. Now, 57 years later, New York City’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg is seeking a third term in office after New Yorkers voted twice to keep term limits in place.
The issue has opened heated public debate over the fact that a majority of the members of the City Council – where 38 of its 51 members are term-limited – sided with the mayor to do an end run around the term limits law by passing its own law that extends the mayor’s term – and the 38 term-limited members – for another four years, thus giving them three terms in office. The reality is that the City Council has legally extended term limits without a public referendum and the Mayor banked on the fact that the Council’s members would buck public anger and outrage and preserve their well-paying part-time jobs.
As the supporters of the mayor and himself spin it, he’s the best person to guide New York City through the present financial crisis because of his fiscal experience. This suggests that nobody in the city’s 8.5 million inhabitants can do better or possess these skills. That is not only insulting but an arrogant predisposition to setting up what literally amounts to an elected monarchy. Hail King Mike I!
Under Mayor Mike Bloomberg's "leadership," the city has lost tens of thousands of jobs in recent months as the financial crisis has gripped Wall Street. Under his "leadership," the city is facing tough times, times that might call for a new mayor. But the mayor’s supporters say that he knows best. Oh, and what about those pesky voters who approved term limits twice in the past – twice have approved two-term limits?
Well, the Daily News, New York Times and the New York Post all say that the City Council will just have to override the voters because, after all, politicians know best. Term limits were originally proposed as an antidote to the power of incumbency in New York City politics. In 1993 there was a referendum on the ballot to create term limits in New York City. New Yorkers voted for term limits by an overwhelming majority.
In 1996, the City Council put a referendum on the ballot that would extend term limits to three terms instead of two. This second referendum was defeated by the voters, so the two-term limit remained. In 2001, term limits took effect. The mayor, comptroller, and public advocate, four of five borough presidents, and 38 of 51 council members were term-limited out of office. Now, two terms later, in 2009, the people who were first elected in 2001 are facing term limits of their own.
The arguments for extending term limits, particularly in the context of Mayor Bloomberg’s position, is that it will remove the most experienced people from City government, that it will strengthen the role of lobbyists and government staffers, that it will weaken the legislative branch of government, create politicians who are more concerned about their next job than serving others and if voters want to remove an unpopular political leader they can do so at the next election.
On the other hand, supporters of term limits argue that it brings fresh views and opinions to government, will make representatives more responsive to people, help eliminate abuses that come with unlimited power and, ultimately, will help overcome the insurmountable advantages of incumbency and make elections much more competitive.
All that may be very well true but there are two problems with this new round of term limit ups and downs. The first is that the mayor’s timing is very, very bad indeed, because this last-minute tactic to stay in office smacks of a naked power grab and an attitude that reeks of arrogance and disregard for the city’s voters. Had he floated this idea at the start of his second term – and not at the end – then he could make a far better case to the people.
Second, there is the little annoyance that New Yorkers already voted in favor of term limits – twice. Opponents say that the mayor, in collusion with the City Council, is undermining the decision and will of the people. By cutting the public out of the process, such a move is inherently unfair and undemocratic. Moreover, this legislative action is not the only course that the Mayor and City Council can take to bring democracy to this issue.
The mayor sees a special election as an unnecessary irritant to his ambitions. There is still time to put this matter to the people of New York City for a vote, and that will ensure that New Yorkers have the opportunity to voice their opinions on this matter at the polls. There is indeed still plenty of time to establish a Charter Revision Commission and to put this question on the ballot at a special election referendum as early as this winter. This can all be completed before the elections next fall.
But here is also an issue of public perception as to the independence and effectiveness of the City Council in relation to the mayor. Is the City Council simply a reliable tool to be used by the mayor whenever he wants to circumvent the will of the people? Is it a rubber stamp for his ambition, policies and thus a toothless, spineless body of mighty talkers only bent on preserving their lucrative, well-paid part-time jobs?
Term limits may be good or bad and there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. However, in this case people are angry about the way that the mayor floated the issue and the kind of political arm-twisting that went into this vote. New Yorkers are divided over the merits or demerits of term limits that is why the democratic and principled approach should be a public referendum – not a coronation of a new king who simply woke up one morning and decided that regardless of what New Yorkers felt he could override it and stay in office as long as he wanted.
By acting legislatively on the issue of extending term limits as opposed to going back to the voters, the power of the City Council will be greatly diminished. Surrendering to the will or dictates of the mayor will give the general public the idea that it is a cowardly, easily manipulated and divided Council that does not and cannot be relied upon to protect and defend the interests of “we the people.”
Reversing two referenda approved by millions of voters in the 1990s, the Council and those who voted with Mayor Bloomberg acted in collusion with his unbridled political ambition and dictatorial attitude ultimately subverting and usurping the will of its own constituencies.
