New York Civic to Launch Public Referendum to Close "Grandfather" Loophole of Term Limits Law

Good Government Group to Join Councilman Ulrich, Charter Commissioner Cassino and a Coalition of Former City and State Officials to Close “Grandfather” Loophole That Exempts 34 Elected Officials from Two-Term Law

New York Civic, a nonpartisan good government group founded by former NYC Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern, will announce Monday morning on the steps of City Hall that it will pursue a public referendum to eliminate the controversial “grandfather” clause of the recently passed term limits ballot question, which delays the effective date of the law until 2021 and exempts 34 city incumbents from being restricted to two consecutive terms.

Joining New York Civic in undertaking this landmark public referendum will be a grassroots coalition of community leaders and activists, including Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens, who is one of the 34 elected officials the term limits loophole would benefit; Anthony Perez Cassino, one of the Charter Revision Commissioners who objected to the inclusion of the grandfathering clause in this year’s referendum; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform, former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman; and Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who will serve as legal counsel in pursing the public referendum, will also be present at the 10 a.m. press conference on November 22^nd.

“This referendum is not about term limits, it’s about respecting the will of the people,” explained Henry J. Stern, the founder and president of New York Civic. “It was bad enough that the City Council ignored the voters in 2008 to extend term limits for itself. It is outrageous that, after 74 percent of New Yorkers voted for two terms for the third time in a generation, 34 incumbents can still serve a third term because of a loophole snuck into the last referendum to benefit a handful of officeholders.”

“Although I supported the recently passed term limits referendum, I was very disappointed that the Charter Review Commission created this loophole for me and my colleagues,” stated Councilman Ulrich. “That’s why I am acting, contrary to my self-interest, to restore the trust of the voters who clearly intended for there to be two terms. This referendum will allow us to make things right again.”

"This campaign is about respecting the will of the people and ensuring that their votes count on term limits and their decision stands unless they vote for a change,” said former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit opposing the term limits extension in 2008. “Our local democracy still hasn't recovered from the harm done by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council two years ago to the true two-term limit that the voters twice imposed by referendum and that they have still not had the opportunity to restore. This campaign will finally afford them that opportunity."

Anthony Perez Cassino, one of three members of the Charter Commission to sign a minority report objecting to the grandfather clause, agrees with Councilman Ulrich’s concerns. “The Charter Revision Commission did the right thing by returning term limits to the ballot for the voters to decide, but we didn’t go as far as we needed to regain the trust of the public. Getting rid of the grandfather loophole is the only way to heal the wounds of 2008.”

City Charter: Queens Civic Congress - Says YES on Question 1 - No on Question 2

The Queens Civic Congress, a coalition of more than 120 major Queens neighborhood-based civic groups, hosted the first borough forum on Charter Revision in June 2010. Since then, QCC has participated in Commission hearings and spoken at town hall meetings across Queens. In September, at a public meeting, QCC delegates voted unanimously on the two major questions the Charter Revision Commission placed on the November ballot.

====================

On August 23, 2010 the New York City Charter Revision Commission (CCRC) adopted two questions to be placed on the citywide ballot this November 2. While CCRC considered the Queens civic community’s call for two-term term limits, several issues that civic leaders called on CCRC to include in its “top down” Charter revision were dismissed as “too complex.” For instance, CCRC ignored the Citizens Union’s support for non-partisan elections as “divisive.” The Commission also failed even to consider calls by civic organizations to enhance the powers of the Borough Presidents, Public Advocate, and Comptroller. It also chose to put aside calls for changes in land use regulation. At the end of a three month process, the Commission was able to produce only a convoluted question regarding term limits and an equally contorted question dealing with six unrelated issues, most of which could be addressed by City Council legislation.

====================

QUESTION 1

A Yes vote on this question would approve two-term term limits, but with a provision that the two-term limit not become effective until after the 2021 municipal elections. The Commission decided “in the interests of fairness,” it said, to give all city officials elected for the first time in 2005 or 2009 (including the Public Advocate, the Comptroller, the Bronx and Manhattan Borough Presidents and several Council members) the opportunity to serve three full terms. At no time in the months leading up to CCRC’s term limit proposal did anyone publicly mention or ask for a ten year delay before implementing term limits. The Commission ignored widespread public support for limiting changes in term limits to referenda and instead proposed to bar serving members of the Council from changing term limits. A NO vote on term limits would lock in the current three-term term limit law that the Council adopted in 2009 at the Mayor’s request. It would also allow the Mayor and Council to change term limits or eliminate them altogether.


The Queens Civic Congress reluctantly recommends a YES vote on Question One. QCC believes that despite postponing implementation of two-term term limits until 2021, the overriding concern for most New Yorkers is to restore the two-term limit, which they overwhelmingly voted for in two referendums, and according to recent polls continue to support. CCRC also overruled the public’s calls for referenda to change term limits and instead barred the Council from changing term limits for any elected official during that official’s term in office. A NO vote would present the Mayor and Council with a strong and possibly irresistible temptation to make the current three-term term limits permanent or to eliminate term limits altogether.

====================

QUESTION 2

The second question on the November 2 ballot combines several unrelated topics which appear to be “reformist”: New campaign spending disclosure requirements; a reduction in the number of petition signatures for candidates in municipal elections; the merger of the Voter Assistance Commission and the Campaign Finance Board; the strengthening of the Conflicts of Interest Law; and the inclusion of certain transportation and waste management facilities in the City’s siting map .

CCRC tucked two propositions that would hand more power to City Hall into the middle of its “reforms”: The merger of administrative tribunals and adjudications into an Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (centralizing more power for the office of the Mayor); creation of a new commission to review requirements for reports and advisory bodies, and waive the present requirements, subject to Council review, where the new commission finds the review of no continuing value (effectively limiting the Council’s oversight of mayoral agencies and increasing the Mayor’s power);.

The Queens Civic Council recommends a NO vote on Question Two. QCC believes that the Council, following public hearings could address most of these issues. QCC is concerned that the issue of administrative tribunals and that dealing with reports to the Council are, in fact, efforts by the Mayor to further centralize power in City Hall at the expense of public oversight and Council review.

A NO vote on Question 2 would send these unrelated “reformist” issues back to City Hall, which could submit legislation to the Council on each issue.

Public Advocate De Blasio Calls on Charter Revision Commission to Focus Only on Term Limits in 2010

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio today held a press conference before the Charter Revision Commission’s hearing on term limits calling on the Commission to only place questions regarding term limits on the 2010 ballot, and to reserve action on all other issues until 2012. The Public Advocate also called on the Commission to reject consideration of nonpartisan elections for this year's ballot.

“This year’s charter revision process should have one priority: Giving New Yorkers the final say on term limits,” said Public Advocate Bill de Blasio. “Like term limits, nonpartisan elections present profound consequences for our Democratic process, but unlike term limits this issue has not been exhaustively debated for the last two years. I personally believe that nonpartisan elections create a system of politics dominated by wealth and that an issue with such severe consequences should not be put on the ballot without a substantive, thorough, and public process.”

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also released a comprehensive charter revision proposal that would enhance government transparency and accountability, foster a new level of civic engagement, and help restore the balance of power at City Hall.

A fully copy of the Public Advocate’s proposal is attached. Some of the Public Advocate’s specific Charter reform proposals include:

• Increasing disclosure by making more government operations and decision-making available online including capital and discretionary funding requests, Requests For Proposals, Community Benefits Agreements, the responsiveness of City agencies to Freedom of Information Law requests, lobbyists visits, and other aspects of City government;

• Establishing independent budgets for the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB), the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), the Comptroller, Borough Presidents, District Attorneys, Community Boards and the Public Advocate and giving the CCRB independent prosecutorial power;

• Instituting reforms such as same-day voter registration and electronic voter registration to encourage broader participation in municipal elections;

• Making the Public Advocate Coordinator of Citywide Civic Engagement as an expansion on the office’s constituent services and organizing work;

• Reforming the City’s enforcement of ballot access laws by providing legal assistance to candidates during the petition process;

• Expanding the Board of Standards and Appeals, which currently only holds Mayoral appointees, to include members appointed by the Public Advocate and the five borough presidents, similar the model of the City Planning Commission;

• Granting subpoena power to the Public Advocate’s office to strengthen its oversight role and empowering the office to track compliance with Community Benefits Agreements;

• Creating a new Department of Inspection to oversee and monitor all building inspections conducted by the Department of Buildings; and

• Strengthening Community Boards by creating a Community Board Resource Center (CBRC) in each borough with at least one full-time staff member, who would serve as the borough's Director of Urban Planning.

At the Charter Revision Commission’s hearing on term limits, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio also submitted signatures from 4,000 New Yorkers calling for the charter revision process to be as open and democratic as possible.

Bloomberg Makes a Term-Limits Joke by Azi Paybarah - The New York Observer

Read original...

It's too bad the joke is on the citizens of New York City...

Michael Bloomberg's new deputy mayor, Steve Goldsmith, who is a former mayor himself, said he won't seek office again.

"I said that too," Bloombeg said, to much laughter.

Weiner Decides to Stay Out of Mayoral Campaign by Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen - NYTimes.com

Read original...

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, the one-time front-runner in the campaign for mayor who became a frustrated sideline player, has made it official: he is staying out of the race.

His decision all but ensures that the city’s comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., will not face a serious challenger in the Democratic primary. Mr. Weiner is expected to announce his plans at a news conference outside his parents’ home in Brooklyn on Wednesday, according to a person briefed on the matter.

In an Op-Ed page article to be published on Wednesday in The New York Times, Mr. Weiner suggests that his — or anyone’s — chances of beating Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has already spent $19 million on his re-election campaign, are slim.

“As a native of Brooklyn, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t savor a good scrap,” Mr. Weiner wrote. “But I’m disappointed because I’m increasingly convinced a substantive debate isn’t likely right now.”

Mr. Weiner, a six-term congressman, also said that with his party controlling both Congress and the White House, he could accomplish more by focusing on legislation in Washington than by waging a distracting and probably fruitless campaign for mayor in New York.

Mr. Weiner’s exit, first reported on Tuesday on the Web site Cityhallnews.com, deprives the campaign of its most colorful and confrontational candidate. Mr. Weiner is known as a tireless political street fighter — and trash talker — who had outmaneuvered opponents in races for the City Council and Congress.

But, as his opinion piece in The Times made clear, even the relentlessly driven Mr. Weiner could not find a way to overcome Mr. Bloomberg’s advantages, especially his money.

A year ago, Mr. Weiner was perhaps the most high-profile mayoral candidate. In October, however, Mr. Bloomberg persuaded the City Council to revise the city’s term limits law and allow him to serve another four years, drastically altering Mr. Weiner’s calculus.

The congressman seemed not only vexed by the difficulty of fighting the incumbent, but personally stung and deflated by the turn of events, and he seemed to disappear from view for several months.

Mr. Weiner wrote that Mr. Bloomberg’s intention to spend more than $80 million on his campaign would allow the mayor to “swamp” an opponent.

“With spending like that, regular debates about real issues will probably take a back seat to advertising,” he wrote.

Running against Mr. Thompson, his Democratic rival, Mr. Weiner wrote, “would only drain the ability of the winner to compete in the general election.”

Mr. Weiner is among the few political figures in the city who seem to rattle the supremely confident Mr. Bloomberg, and appears almost to relish antagonizing the mayor. His exit, in some ways, is a victory for Bloomberg campaign aides, who sought to knock him out of the race.

Over the last few days, as his self-imposed deadline for deciding whether to enter the mayor’s race neared, Mr. Weiner huddled with his longtime advisors in Washington: Jim Margolis, a media strategist; Anson Kaye, a political strategist; Joel Benenson, a pollster; and Huma Abedin, Mr. Weiner’s companion, an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The congressman hinted in his Op-ed article that personal considerations played a role in his decision, too. An unmarried workaholic who plays in midnight hockey games and attributes his slim physique to a nonstop metabolism, he implied that he was ready to settle down.

“I’d also like to build a family,” Mr. Weiner wrote in The Times.

Speaking to Reporters, Bloomberg Calls One a ‘Disgrace’ by Michael Barbaro- NYTimes.com and YouTube Video by Azi Paybarah - NY Observer

Read original...

Michael Bloomberg discussing the economy and term limits, during a May 28, 2009 press conference in Queens. Azi Paybarah

Since announcing his third term bid, he has publicly scolded a blogger in a wheelchair for accidentally turning on a tape recorder during a news conference. He called a question about his spending “ridiculous.” And he labeled an inquiry about a political rival a “waste” of a question.

But on Thursday, he seemed to reach new heights of peevishness, calling a reporter who posed a question he did not like “a disgrace.”

At a news conference in Queens, Azi Paybarah, a reporter for The New York Observer, asked the mayor whether an improving economy would undercut his reasoning for seeking a third term. Mr. Bloomberg had argued, during the battle over term limits, that tough times required his steady hand and business background.

Yet at the Queens news conference, Mr. Bloomberg said he was “very optimistic” about New York’s economy. (Thus Mr. Paybarah’s question.)

Mr. Bloomberg cut off Mr. Paybarah midsentence, saying that “the rationale for extending term limits is, the City Council passed it, and the public’s going to have a chance on Nov. 3 to say what they want.”

“I don’t think we have to keep coming back to that,” he said, adding, “When you have a serious question about the economy, I’d be happy to answer it.”

With that, the mayor concluded the news conference, thanked the audience, stepped away from a microphone and looked directly at Mr. Paybarah. “You’re a disgrace,” he snarled, nearly under his breath, but just loud enough to be captured by reporters’ tape recorders.

After receiving inquires from reporters, a spokesman for the mayor, Stu Loeser said: “The mayor asked me to pass along his apologies to Azi for the comment after the press conference, which I did.”

Senate Dems Move Term Limits Bill (Nothing Personal, Mayor) by Elizabeth Benjamin - The Daily Politics - NY Daily News

Read original...

Following the lead of their Assembly counterpart, members of the Senate Elections Committee voted along party lines this morning to move a bill that would require another public referendum on term limits and throw a wrench into Mayor Bloomberg's re-election bid.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Parker, was moved to the Finance Committee after a 4-3 vote in which two of the four Democrats - Martin Dilan and Brian Foley (whose GOP opponent, ex-Sen. Caesar Trunzo, was backed by Bloomberg) - voted "yes" but with no recommendation (hardly a ringing vote of confidence).

The other two "yes" votes were cast by Sens. Joe Addabbo and Jose Serrano (by proxy).

The "no" votes came from Sens. Tom Morahan (also by proxy), Tom Libous and Joseph Griffo.

This really is more of a symbolic move than anything else.

My DN colleague Glenn Blain caught up with Finance Committee Chairman Carl Kruger after the vote. When asked whether he has a timetable for taking up Parker's bill, Kruger responded, shortly: "No." He also said he hasn't read the legislation yet, even though Parker insisted Kruger supports his bill.

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who used to be a Bloomberg ally, hasn't taken a position on the bill, but has said he won't block it from coming to the floor.

What this morning's vote does demonstrate, is that there is considerable bad blood remaining between Bloomberg and the Senate Democrats.

The hearing debate, which lasted about half an hour, got a little testy, Blain reports.

Libous led the fray for the Republicans, insisting there isn't enough time to hold a May referendum as the legislation requires. He also asserted the bill would, in effect, impose an unfunded mandate on local governments by requiring they hold expensive referenda every time the issue of term limits comes up.

Parker, who is not a member of the Elections Committee, defended his measure during the hearing, insisting it would only effect New York City (this is not the case). During a post-hearing Q&A with reporters, Parker accused the Republicans, who have long benefitted from Bloomberg's largesse, of being "in the pocket" of the mayor.

The Brooklyn Democrat later echoed those remarks, saying Bloomberg and the Republicans are in "collusion."

But Parker also insisted he doesn't have it in for the mayor, despite the fact that Bloomberg backed Councilman Simcha Felder is his failed primary challenge against Parker last September.

"There's nothing for me to feel vindicated about. It's nothing personal," Parker said, adding, after I noted that Bloomberg had endorsed his opponent. "Yes, but I won."

Libous insisted the Republicans' opposition to Parker's bill was not politically motivated, saying: "I can tell you that I have never spoken to Mayor Bloomberg or anyone on his staff about this issue." He called the legislation "unfair to the taxpayers of New York City."

There were several Bloomberg aides present for the committee hearing, including the city's top in-house lobbyist, Michelle Goldstein, and Matt Gorton, press secretary for Bloomberg's Albany office.

Also in the room was Michael Avella, a former Senate GOP staffer who is now working with lobbyist Brian Meara and serving as counsel to the Bloomberg campaign. Avella later told me he wasn't there for the term limits debate, but rather as a representative of the voting machine company Sequoia.

State Lawmakers Mull Bill To Overturn Term Limit Change - NY1

Read original...

A bill that could end Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bid for a third term is reportedly picking up steam in Albany.

According to the New York Times, the State Assembly Committee on Election law has enough votes to approve a bill that would effectively undo the law that allows the mayor and City Council members to run for a third term.

The Senate Elections committee is set to vote on the bill on March 10th.

The bill would apply retroactively, and would require a public referendum on term limits in the city.

The committees are just the first step in the process. It would still have to be approved by Governor David Paterson – who has expressed support for the mayor's efforts to run for a third term.

Judge Tosses Out Term Limits Lawsuit - NY1

Read original and watch video...

A federal judge Tuesday tossed out a lawsuit against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, saying there is not enough evidence to prove he violated constitutional amendments in his successful bid to extend term limits. NY1's Grace Rauh filed the following report.

Chalk up another win for Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

After convincing the city council to extend term limits last year, the mayor got a court decision on Tuesday that backs up his move.

Throwing out a lawsuit, federal Judge Charles Sifton said the council and the mayor had the legal authority to amend the two-term limit law voters twice approved in the 1990's.

But plaintiffs in the case, many of whom are elected officials, said they aren't giving up.

"This fight is not over. The people have still not spoken and the people of this city want to decide this issue. There's no question in my mind," said Brooklyn Councilman Bill de Blasio.

De Blasio and others argued it was unconstitutional and a violation of due process for a term-limited mayor and council to extend term limits for themselves. Under the previous law, elected officials had only been able to hold office for two consecutive terms. Now, it's three.

The judge's ruling also made one thing very clear, according to one supporter.

"The people of the City of New York will have the choice and the time to vote, but have the chance to vote for everyone. And give everyone the opportunity to vote for everyone who wishes to run for a position," said Brooklyn Councilman Domenic Recchia.

The next step for the defeated plaintiffs is up in the air. They said they'll decide soon whether they will appeal.

"I believe that there are grounds for an appeal. I believe that judge Sifton got it wrong, especially with regard to the fundamental right to vote. And that you need to have a public referendum to overturn a previous public referendum," said Civil Rights Attorney Norman Siegel.

Another factor in the mix are bills sponsored by Democrats in both houses of the state legislature seeking to undo the law, instead requiring a referendum to change term limits.

Even if the decision is appealed, it's unlikely to have any immediate impact.

For weeks now, dozens of politicians throughout the city have been plotting their political futures based on the assumption that the term limits extension will stand.

Smith Will Allow Senate Vote on Bill to Require Term Limits Referendum by Sal Gentile - City Hall News

Read original...

Speaking at a City Hall On/Off the Record breakfast Nov. 7, incoming State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith threw up a potential roadblock to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bid for a third term. Asked whether he would allow the State Senate to vote on a bill, sponsored by several Democratic lawmakers, that would require a public referendum before the city’s term limits law could be changed, Smith gave a simple answer: “Yep.”

Threats by Democratic state lawmakers to preempt the mayor’s bill to extend term limits with their own measure were seen as largely symbolic because Senate Republicans, who have benefited from the mayor’s financial largesse, would almost certainly have prevented a vote on the bill.

But now that Democrats have wrested control of the Senate from Republicans, the bill’s sponsors, including Smith’s third-in-command, State Sen. Kevin Parker, may be able to cobble together enough votes to pass it.

Smith declined to say whether he would support the measure himself, though he did say he opposed the concept of term limits.

“I can’t tell you that I wouldn’t vote for it,” Smith said. “I can tell you that I’m not a proponent of term limits. I never have been. I think term limits is that the voters have the opportunity to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to us.”

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has already said that he would allow a similar bill sponsored by Assembly Member Hakeem Jeffries to go through the normal legislative process. Silver has been perceived as leery of passing a one-house bill just to goad Bloomberg, but now that the bill could have life within the Senate, its chances of passage in the Assembly—which come January will have just 41 Republicans out of 150 members—are improved.

Traditionally, leaders of the Senate and Assembly have only allowed votes on bills they know will pass. But it was unclear whether there was enough support in the Senate to pass Parker’s measure, or whether Smith—who has had a somewhat rocky relationship with Bloomberg—would simply allow a symbolic vote as a way to brush back the mayor for his strong support, in both endorsements and campaign support, for Senate Republicans.

The Democrats will likely hold a slim 32-30 majority in the Senate when they take over in January, and it was unclear whether Bloomberg allies and the so-called “gang of four” dissident Democrats would support Parker’s bill, though one of them, Hiram Monserrate, already cast a vote against Bloomberg’s extension in the City Council.

Another, State Sen. Ruben Diaz, might have a personal stake in stopping the extension of term limits, since that would clear the way for his son, Assembly Member Ruben Diaz Jr. to have an open race for Bronx borough president. Yet another, State Sen. Carl Kruger, has toyed with the idea of running for Brooklyn borough president, a race which would be also be open if term limits were to remain in place.

Joseph Addabbo, another incoming Senate Democrat, also voted against the mayor’s bill in the City Council. And fellow freshman Daniel Squadron—whose State Senate bid was endorsed by both Bloomberg and Rep. Anthony Weiner, a harsh critic of the mayor’s bill and likely 2009 opponent—made support for the concept of term limits a key plank in his reformist agenda, and has said that he opposes extending term limits legislatively.

“I don’t think folks should extend term limits for themselves,” Squadron told the Downtown Express on Oct. 31.

An unresolved State Senate race in Queens may further complicate the bill’s prospects. In that race, Democrat James Gennaro, a member of the City Council, trails Republican Frank Padavan by just 723 votes, with an unknown number of paper ballots left to be counted.

Gennaro also voted against the mayor’s bill in the Council. Were he to prevail, the Democrats’ margin in the Senate would increase to 33-29, adding another likely vote for Parker's bill. Supporters would then need to hold the other members of the conference or pull in a few Republican votes.

Should the bill pass both houses, it would go to Gov. David Paterson for approval. While avoiding specific comment on the term limits extension, Paterson has said he thinks Bloomberg has done a good job and could continue doing a good job in a third term.

Whether he would be willing to sign legislation halting the term limits extension and openly confront Bloomberg, whose wealth and popularity would make him an instant favorite were he to run for governor against Paterson in 2010, remains an open question.

sgentile@cityhallnews.com

Changenyc.org Launches it's Website and Plan for Change

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 12, 2008

CHANGENYC.ORG LAUNCHES ITS WEBSITE AND PLAN FOR CHANGE

ChangeNYC.Org, a new Democratic grassroots political action committee focused on New York City government and neighborhood organizing, launched its website www.changenyc.org this morning.

The website prominently features ChangeNYC.Org's plan to improve New York City government and the first in its series of web commercials called "Morning in New York", aimed at calling attention to the new organization and its objectives.

At the heart of ChangeNYC.Org's extensive plan are initiatives designed to capture the tremendous enthusiasm for politics generated by President-Elect Obama's campaign and to translate that energy into local involvement. To inspire New Yorkers to take the same interest in their own neighborhoods that they showed for the nation, ChangeNYC.Org is spearheading a movement toward online voting in local elections. Online voting would begin with electing offices solely within the political parties, like County Committee Members, District Leaders, and County Leaders, but, once proven effective, would expand to the General Election for City and State offices.

In addition to increasing participation, online elections will give voters instant access to information about the candidates and their records from blogs and websites. This will enable voters to make more informed decisions as they cast their ballots, rather than a last-minute choice based on campaign spin. Americans living abroad can already vote for President online in both the Democratic Primary and General Elections. ChangeNYC.Org believes that expanding interest in local elections will encourage new leaders to run for office and the City's current leaders to do better. "The election of Barack Obama convinced New Yorkers that we could finally dare to expect more from our elected officials," said Evan Burr, speaking on behalf of ChangeNYC.Org and the coalition of neighborhood activists and everyday New Yorkers of which the organization consists. "With both our State and City facing cutbacks, now is not the time for politics as usual. If we are going to accomplish the change we so desperately need, every single New Yorker is going to have to get involved and make a difference in their borough, in their neighborhood, and, most of all, on their block. ChangeNYC.Org was created to help New Yorkers do just that."

Originally slated to debut after the Presidential election, ChangeNYC.Org made its first foray into City politics last month opposing the New York City Council's legislative change to the City's term limits law.

State Legislators Plan to Fight on Term Limits by Jeremy W. Peters - NYTimes.com

Read original...

For all of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s money and might, there is one political antagonist that he has been unable to wear down: the New York State Legislature.

And as Mr. Bloomberg prepares to run for re-election in 2009, some of the same legislators who have thwarted the more ambitious pieces of his agenda are once again threatening to derail his plans and deal him an embarrassing blow.

Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat and outspoken critic of the mayor, plans to file a bill on Friday that would effectively stop Mr. Bloomberg and other city lawmakers from seeking third terms without winning approval from city voters in a referendum. A week ago, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, another Brooklyn Democrat, filed the same legislation in the Assembly.

While bills are routinely circulated in Albany only to disappear into the legislative ether, both of these bills appear to be gaining momentum. The leaders of both chambers have said they would allow the legislation to advance.

Malcolm A. Smith, in line to become Senate majority leader, has said he would “have no problem” letting Mr. Parker’s bill come to the floor for a vote.

Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, made his first public comments on the legislation Thursday. As Mr. Bloomberg stood at his side at a press conference at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, Mr. Silver said he would allow Mr. Jeffries’s bill to go through the normal legislative process.

Mr. Silver was careful to point out that he had not taken a position on the bill and added that his members would ultimately decide whether it passes. “I’m not opposed to it. I’m not in favor of it,” he said after the press conference. “We haven’t seen the bill yet, and we don’t know which law he would be amending. There are 12,000 bills in the hopper, and they all go to committee.”

Although Mr. Silver appears indifferent about the legislation now, a growing number of his colleagues are not. Mr. Jeffries has received commitments from 16 Assembly members from New York City to sponsor the bill so far. Sixty-five of the 150 Assembly members are from the city, and he plans to begin contacting members from outside the city.

In the Senate, Mr. Parker said he had five cosponsors already and expected to recruit more once other senators have a chance to review it.

To ensure that the bill would undo the City Council’s recent vote to change the term limits law to permit three consecutive four-year terms and enable Mr. Bloomberg to run again, Mr. Jeffries, who wrote the legislation, added a clause that would make it retroactive.

To elected officials inside and outside the city, Mr. Jeffries’s bill — which could prompt a lawsuit from the city if successful — was an unsurprising response from a body that has relished its role as a check against the mayor’s powers.

“For good or for ill, and I think for good, Assembly Democrats are an ornery, prideful group,” said Rory I. Lancman, a Democratic assemblyman from Queens who is a cosponsor of Mr. Jeffries’s bill. “And I take a lot of satisfaction, as I think all the members do, in being a check on powerful interests and powerful people who want to do things to my community.”

He added, “In our profession, that’s where the glory is.”

The term limits legislation currently before both houses of the Legislature is only the latest clash in the long-simmering conflict between the mayor and lawmakers in Albany, a conflict rooted in sharp disagreements over what role the state should play in city affairs.

“We are elected to represent communities throughout the state as coequal branches of government,” Mr. Jeffries said, adding that many of the same voters who elected him and other state legislators also voted to elect the City Council and the mayor. “I think we resent it when executives, be that a mayor or a governor, attempt to dictate to us what they believe is the right thing to do for the communities we are elected to represent.”

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, would not comment on the term limits legislation in Albany, but he pointed out other successful bills that the mayor had supported, including those to build of a waste transfer station near Gansevoort Street on the West Side of Manhattan and pay for a $13 billion capital plan to improve school buildings.

“Absent a couple of high-profile instances, the city, by and large, has gotten all it wanted and more from Albany over the last seven years,” Mr. Loeser said.

Still, what could have been the defining accomplishments of his tenure as mayor have risen with great promise only to die in the State Capitol.

The mayor’s proposal to build a stadium on the West Side was jettisoned after he failed to reach a deal with Mr. Silver, and his plan to charge drivers $8 to enter the most congested parts of Manhattan was defeated after unrelenting opposition from Assembly Democrats from the suburbs and the other boroughs.

Part of the mayor’s disappointing record in Albany on some of his biggest issues, legislators said, has to do with personality conflicts. “On his report card, under ‘works well with others,’ he gets an F,” said Mr. Parker, whom Mr. Bloomberg notably did not support for re-election in a primary race this year.

Others insist that the Legislature too often tries to meddle in city affairs, as evidenced by the term limits bills. “In my neighborhood, the word for that,” said Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn, “is chutzpah.”

Jonathan P. Hicks contributed reporting.

Crowley Cites Democratic Gains in Queens by Jonathan P. Hicks - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

Read original...

It was something of a mutual admiration society on Thursday morning between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and United States Representative Joseph Crowley.

Representative Joseph Crowley is the Queens Democratic chairman. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

Mr. Crowley, who is also the chairman of the Queens Democratic Party, was the speaker at the breakfast hosted by the Association for a Better New York. And Mr. Bloomberg made a last-minute addition to his schedule to appear at the event.

At first, Mr. Bloomberg focused his remarks on his support for the redevelopment of Willets Point, an industrial enclave near Shea Stadium in Queens. But then he turned his attention to Mr. Crowley.

The congressman, Mr. Bloomberg said, “always seems to be in the right side of issues,” adding that the “great opportunity” to develop Willets Point would not have been possible “without the help of Joe Crowley.”

Mr. Crowley, in turn, said that Mr. Bloomberg “has done a good job as mayor.”

“I think people are pleased with the job he has been doing,” Mr. Crowley added.

What does that bode for a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent mayor seeking a third term? Would the Queens County Democratic organization be kindly disposed to supporting Mr. Bloomberg?

“We have a healthy respect for each other,” Mr. Crowley said in an interview after the breakfast. “He comes to me when there is an issue he believes I can help. We disagree on some things, too. But we have a good relationship. However, it’s much too soon to talk about what might happen next year.”

However, Mr. Crowley added that there are two longtime Democratic officials who have already committed to seeking the party’s nomination for mayor in 2009: Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., and United States Representative Anthony D. Weiner.

“There are two people out there already who I think can do the job and who are looking to run as Democrats,” Mr. Crowley said. “The mayor is a formidable candidate. But I don’t think anyone is unbeatable.”

Mr. Crowley added that he had not given any thought as to what might be involved in the legal maneuvers that would allow Mr. Bloomberg to run for re-election on the Democratic line.

The congressman did speak about the Democratic Party’s gains in Queens, pointing out that the longtime State Senator Frank Padavan, a Republican, was only narrowly ahead of the Democratic challenger, City Councilman James F. Gennaro, in the results from last week’s general election, with about 8,000 absentee and other paper ballots yet to be counted.

In addition, a City Council seat that had long been held by Republicans went Democratic in last week’s election. Councilman Anthony Como, one of three Republicans in the Council, was defeated by Elizabeth S. Crowley, a developer of educational programs for nonprofit agencies. She is also a cousin of the congressman’s.

“I think we’re doing a great job as a Democratic Party in Queens,” Mr. Crowley said. “If we’re able to win the Padavan seat, which I think we will, it will mean that every member of the Assembly, the City Council and the State Senate from Queens will be Democratic.”

Mr. Crowley added “we’ll no longer be viewed as the political stepchild.”

Officials Sue to Block Term Limits Change by Fernanda Santos - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

Read original...

City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., Councilman Charles Barron, Councilwoman Letitia James, and the lawyer Norman Siegel announced a lawsuit challenging the new law extending term limits to three terms from two. (Photo: John Marshall Mantel for The New York Times)

Elected officials, aspiring politicians, public interest groups and average citizens who voted to establish term limits in New York in the 1990s filed a federal lawsuit [pdf] Monday morning challenging the constitutionality of a law signed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg last week that extended the limits from a maximum of two terms in office to three.

The lawsuit charges that the mayor and the City Council seized upon the economic downturn as an excuse to undo the term limits law that had been twice affirmed by voters through referendum, and did so at an unprecedented pace.

The legislation that Mr. Bloomberg signed, and which the Council approved by a 29 to 22 margin last month, was the subject of two days of public hearings at City Hall that dragged deep into the night and forced witnesses to wait for hours before they were allowed to testify.

“Allowing a self-interested mayor and City Council to dismiss the results of two recent referenda undermines the integrity of the voting process, effectively nullifies the constitutionally-protected right to vote, and perniciously chills political speech by sending the unavoidable message that the democratic exercises of initiatives and referenda can be disregarded by public officials,” the complaint states.

If the two-term limit had stayed in place, the mayor, comptroller, public advocate, four of the five borough presidents and 35 council members would have had to vacate their seats by Dec. 31, 2009.

But by extending the limits, the mayor and the Council altered next year’s municipal elections, forcing those who had planned to run for what would have been open seats to reassess their decisions and, in some cases, change their strategies.

Among the lawsuit’s 25 plaintiffs are several politicians who have had to rethink their races. Councilman Bill de Blasio had been campaigning to replace the Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz, who could not run under the old rules but now will run for a third term. So Mr. de Blasio is now running for public advocate, a seat that will be open because the incumbent, Betsy Gotbaum, has decided not run for a third term.

Kenneth J. Baer has spent most of the $12,000 he has raised in his campaign to replace Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, who is now unsure if he will run for a third term or run for comptroller. The comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., has said that he will carry on with his mayoral aspirations, but there are some who doubt he will ultimately challenge Mr. Bloomberg, who has said that he is ready to spend $80 million of his own fortune on his re-election campaign.

There are others: Peter Gleason, who planned to run for the seat that would have had to be vacated by Councilman Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan if the limits had not been extended; Mark Winston Griffith, who planned to run for the seat held by the two-term councilman Albert Vann of Brooklyn; and Alfonso Quiroz, who has raised $50,000 for his campaign to replace Councilwoman Helen Sears of Queens, though Ms. Sears is now likely to vie for a third term.

The lawsuit points out that in the past decade, only 2 of 107 incumbent council members lost a re-election bid. It also highlights Mayor Bloomberg’s many statements in favor of term limits over the past few years, as when he deemed some council members’ calls for a change to term limits “disgraceful” and criticized a proposal to resubmit the issue to a third referendum by saying, “I think the public has spoken twice and they’ve spoken quite clearly. I don’t know that you should keep shopping for a different answer.”

Aside from Mr. Bloomberg, the City Council and the city itself, other defendants named in the suit are the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, and James J. Sampel, the president of the Board of Elections.

The lawsuit was filed by Randy M. Mastro, a deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration and a partner at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Norman Siegel, the civil rights lawyer who is running for public advocate.

Mike Long and Bill Thompson File Lawsuit to Overturn Term Limits Extension by David Seifman - New York Post

Read original...

A group of New Yorkers who aren't usually on the same side - including Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long and city Comptroller Bill Thompson - filed a federal lawsuit yesterday to overturn the City Council's extension of term limits.

"We're not going to let a small group of people silence 8 million New Yorkers," said Thompson at a press conference outside City Hall.

The lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn federal court by civil-rights lawyer Norman Siegel and Randy Mastro, a former deputy mayor under Rudy Giuliani, claims that the council didn't have the right to overturn two public referenda that installed eight-year term limits.

Mike Sued by Pol Pal Over Limits by Sally Goldenberg - New York Post

Read original...

A key ally of Mayor Bloomberg is suing him over the city's recent change to the term-limits law.

Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari is the lead plaintiff on a suit to be filed today against Bloomberg, who recently won a controversial City Council bid to grant all city officials, including himself, a third four-year term.

"One person has the awesome power - and only one person - to be able to change the electoral system in our city, a city of over 8 million people. That's wrong. That flies in the face of democracy," said Molinari, a Republican who was forced to leave office in 2001 because of term limits.

Molinari, who helped elect Bloomberg mayor, insisted the suit has nothing to do with either Bloomberg's ability to govern, or his own anger toward the mayor for leaving the Republican Party in June 2007 to become a political independent.

"This is a mockery of the word democracy," Molinari fumed. "When I think back to the days when I was fighting with the Marines in Korea . . . people would say, 'We're here to defend our democracy.' "

Still, he said, he would consider supporting Bloomberg for re-election if the lawsuit fails.

Other plaintiffs on the suit include City Council members Letitia James and Charles Barron, both Brooklyn Democrats, Comptroller Bill Thompson, who plans to run for mayor next year, and Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

A mayoral spokesman declined to comment last night.

Molinari said the suit would be filed in federal court today on "constitutional issues," but declined to give further details.

The suit will argue any change to term limits should be put on a ballot for voters - rather than the council - to decide, the source said.

StopKingBloomberg.com - Check It Out..!

Home Page

StopKingBloomberg.com is committed to stopping Mayor Bloomberg from serving a third term as Mayor of New York. We take no position on the merits of his tenure as Mayor, we simply believe that for him, the City Council and the rest of the city officials who have served two four-year terms, it's over. The vote of the City Council on October 23, 2008 denied the will of the people who voted twice by public referendum to have term limits. The City Council's vote was against public policy because the City Council members who would be term-limited out of office, voted selfishly to extend their terms thus self-dealing when they could have avoided such conflict of interest earlier in their terms by appointing a commission and having a special election or referendum.

Our volunteer base is growing daily as citizens have found a voice and renewed sense of hope.

You too can make a difference. Sign up for the newsletter and join the fight for good government.

New York Will Survive Without Bloomberg by Jason L. Riley - WSJ.com

New York Will Survive Without Bloomberg - WSJ.com

"Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it."
-- Benjamin Disraeli

Citing the financial crisis, twice-elected New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to scrap the city's term-limit law. He's asking the city council to pass a bill that would allow him to seek four more years in office.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. AP Photo

Obviously the mayor believes that he's indispensable to Gotham's well-being, which will come as no surprise to any journalist who's met with him. What's passing strange is that so much of the local press seems to share the mayor's inflated view of himself.

The city's two major tabloids, the New York Post and the Daily News, both ran editorials under the headline "Run, Mike, Run" that called for changing the rules so that Mr. Bloomberg could stand for re-election next year. And the New York Times complained that the term-limits law "is particularly unappealing now because . . . it would deny New Yorkers -- at a time when the city's economy is under great stress -- the right to decide for themselves whether an effective and popular mayor should stay in office."

The paper took the opposite view seven years ago, when there was talk of extending the second term of Mr. Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, in the wake of 9/11. "To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani . . . undermines New York's sense of self-sufficiency," said the Gray Lady. "While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable."

How Times change.

With a job-approval rating around 70%, Mr. Bloomberg is almost certain to win a third term if allowed to run again. He's continued Mr. Giuliani's policing policies and kept crime down. The mayor also deserves praise for his aggressive pro-development policies, such as rezoning large swaths of the city where industry is not coming back. Mr. Bloomberg, a nominal Republican who switched parties to run for office, made education the centerpiece of his first campaign, and he's made good on a promise to implement reform. Merit-pay pilot programs have been introduced, the number of charter schools has expanded, and student test scores have improved modestly.

But the argument for extending the two-term limit for Mr. Bloomberg -- a self-made billionaire who got his start on Wall Street -- is that the city needs someone with his financial acumen to help weather the fallout from the banking crisis. The biggest problem with that argument is that Mr. Bloomberg hasn't been very adept at managing the city's finances, even though he's had record revenues to work with.

Between 2000 and 2007, New York's tax receipts grew by 41% after inflation. "That's something that's never happened or come close to happening in the city's modern history," says Nicole Gelinas, who follows municipal finance at the Manhattan Institute. This windfall had everything to do with the Wall Street bull market, and everyone knew that the rate of growth was unsustainable. Instead of using the flush-year surpluses to put New York's fiscal house in order, however, Mr. Bloomberg mostly squandered them.

The four big costs to New York's budget are Medicaid, pensions, debt and health care for public employees. Since the mayor took office seven years ago, those costs are up 57% after inflation. His handling of the city's debt is particularly disappointing, if not irresponsible, since debt-service payments are legal obligations that can't be suspended during economic slowdowns.

Since 1990, debt per person in New York is up by 185%, exceeding inflation by 118 percentage points and exceeding tax revenue growth by 27 percentage points. By most measures, New York has higher per-capita debt (about $7,000) than any other city in the nation. And while the problem obviously predates the current mayor, the future burden has worsened substantially on his watch.

Instead of cutting other parts of the budget and using the city's swollen coffers to service debt and pay for capital projects out of operating spending, Mr. Bloomberg chose to increase borrowing. Between 2000 and 2007, debt grew by 5.7% annually and will continue to grow by 5.9% annually over the next four years. By increasing the city's debt obligations while doing nothing to decrease the city's overdependence on income tax revenue from Wall Street wages and bonuses, Mr. Bloomberg has exacerbated a bad situation.

The mayor's spending record isn't much better. Between 1975, when New York faced its last fiscal crisis, and the Giuliani era, city spending rose by just 9% after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Mr. Bloomberg's 2008 budget is nearly 50% larger than the one he inherited from Mr. Giuliani in 2001. That far outpaces inflation, which rose 21% over the same period. Nor has the mayor shown any sustained interest in working with the state to reform a Medicaid system that costs the city $6 billion per year and is rife with waste and abuse. New York state's per-capita Medicaid spending is easily the highest in the U.S.

Another popular argument for keeping Mr. Bloomberg in City Hall is that his potential successors -- New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, City Controller William Thompson and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn -- are the political equivalent of the Three Stooges. It's true that the city could do worse than Michael Bloomberg. But it's also true that mayoral term limits were approved by New Yorkers twice in referendums in the 1990s, and not by small margins.

There is something deeply undemocratic about legislatively overturning the will of the people without giving voters a say in the matter. And there's something deeply disturbing about a local press corps that lets the political class get away with it.

Mr. Riley is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

Council Votes, 29 to 22, to Extend Term Limits By Sewell Chan and Jonathan P. Hicks- City Room Blog - NYTimes.com

Read original...

“This is a defining moment, a game-changing moment,” Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said as she voted no on the bill to extend term limits. (Photos: James Estrin/The New York Times)

After a spirited, emotional and at times raucous debate, the City Council voted, 29 to 22, on Thursday afternoon to extend term limits, allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and undo the result of two voter referendums that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms. (Please refresh this post for latest updates.)

The vote was a major victory for Mayor Bloomberg — a billionaire and lifelong Democrat who was elected mayor as a Republican in 2001, won re-election in 2005 and decided just weeks ago that he wished to seek a third term in 2009 — and for the Council’s speaker, Christine C. Quinn, but the intense acrimony surrounding the decision could come at great cost.

After Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who presides over the Council, announced the final result, the balcony erupted in shouts of “The city’s for sale!” and “Shame on you!”

Earlier, at 3:22 p.m. the Council rejected, 28 to 22, a key amendment that would have called for a public referendum on term limits by summoning a Charter Revision Commission, which would schedule a special election. One member, James Sanders Jr. of Queens, abstained on the amendment. (See the end of this article for the full roll call.)

As Ms. Gotbaum announced the final vote count on the amendment, groans erupted from the balcony, which was packed with members of the public opposed to extending term limits without a public vote. The Council immediately turned its attention to the main bill, which would extend the limit to three terms from two.

Councilman Bill de Blasio of Brooklyn, who supported the amendment, warned his colleagues that the Council’s legitimacy would be forever tarnished.

“The people of the city will long remember what we have done here today, and the people will be unforgiving,” Mr. de Blasio said. “We are stealing like a thief in the night their right to shape our democracy.”

Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, one of the members who introduced the amendment, announced that despite its defeat, he would vote for the underlying bill. He said that term limits were bad public policy and that a limit of 12 years, instead of 8, would help strengthen future lawmakers in the face of strong mayors.

Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn adamantly disagreed. “The city of New York has never, ever in the history of our nation postponed a transfer of power, regardless of the circumstances,” she said, quoting an editorial from The New York Times in 2001, when Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to extend his term by three months in the aftermath of 9/11.

“My constituency wants the opportunity to vote for this,” and if they do not have that opportunity, “they want me to vote no,” Councilwoman Rosie Mendez of Manhattan said.

Councilman Tony Avella of Queens called the term limits bill “an absolute disgrace,” and warned sternly, “You’re not conning anybody. The public of this city knows that the fix was in from the beginning.”

He added, “You should all be voted out of office for voting for this. Vote this down!”

Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn urged his colleagues to extend term limits, citing the economic crisis. He paraphrased Abraham Lincoln, who ran for re-election in 1864 during the Civil War, as saying, “When crossing a river you don’t swap horses halfway.”

Councilman Lewis A. Fidler of Brooklyn said he would vote to extend term limits because he had always believed they were a bad idea. “I’m pleased that the billionaires have finally come around to my point of view,” he said to laughter, adding that he did not care about any of the three billionaires who have inserted themselves into the debate: Mayor Bloomberg, Ronald S. Lauder and Tom Golisano.

Councilman G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx said the Council was acting within its full authority to amend the City Charter, which was amended in 1993 by a voter initiative that imposed a two-term limit.

“The charter can be amended in different ways for different things,” Mr. Koppell said. “We’re acting within the rules.”

Councilman John C. Liu of Queens denounced what he called the “arrogance” of Mayor Bloomberg, who promised Mr. Lauder that he would convene a Charter Revision Commission in 2010 to revisit the issue of term limits. Such a commission should be convened next year instead, he said.

Councilman Eric N. Gioia of Queens urged his colleagues to preserve the existing term limits, saying, “It’s no wonder that people no longer trust politics or politicians.”

Councilman Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan, one of the three authors of the amendment, drew hisses from the balcony when he announced he would support the underlying bill:

The possibility of a referendum is now impossible — unfortunately, in my opinion. We are therefore left with two stark alternatives: either we decide not to extend term limits, or we decide to extend term limits. The same democratic principles which led me to support a referendum compels me, under this choice before us, to vote yes on this bill.

While a public vote would have been preferable, Mr. Gerson said, “it would set a terrible precedent to raise a referendum result to the level of absolute constitutional principle.” He said New Yorkers deserved to have “a debate” about the merits of continuity in leadership.

As the final roll call got underway at 4 p.m., Councilman Charles Barron, a firebrand on the Council, attacked Mr. Recchia by name, saying, “We’ve got to prioritize the will of the people over the fish of your aquarium,” a reference to the New York Aquarium, which is in Mr. Recchia’s southern Brooklyn district and has received city financing. Mr. Barron told Councilman Leroy G. Comrie Jr., who earlier had quoted Thomas Jefferson. “If you’re gong to quote somebody, don’t quote Jefferson, a slave-holding pedophile,” Mr. Barron thundered.

Councilman Charles Barron of Brooklyn denounced the effort to change term limits without a public referendum.

Mr. Barron concluded, “Even though the mayor will win today, he is the big loser, because he lost democracy, he lost the favor of the people.”

Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan said she was in an “ethical bind” and said she felt she was open to “accusations of hypocrisy.” She decided to vote no on extending term limits.

“This is a defining moment, a game-changing moment, that marks not the end of a process, but the beginning of a process,” Ms. James said as she cast her dissenting vote.

“If my constituents are not satisfied with the work I’ve done on the City Council, they will vote me out,” Councilman Miguel Martinez of Manhattan said as he voted yes.

“Yes, we will!” came a cry from the balcony, as Ms. Gotbaum banged for gavel, calling for order.

Similarly, as Councilman James Vacca of the Bronx announced that he was voting yes, a voice from the balcony cried out, “Sell-out!”

Councilman Thomas White Jr. of Queens was in an unusual position: He was forced out by term limits after the 2001 elections but came back to the Council after defeating his successor, Allan W. Jennings Jr., who was censured by the Council for sexually harassing subordinates.

Mr. Yassky tried to preserve his image as a reformer. “I don’t think that the throw-the-bums-out policy that is embodied in term limits and in Ron Lauder’s campaign to maintain it is reform,” Mr. Yassky said before voting yes.

Councilman James S. Oddo, the leader of the three-member Republican minority on the 51-member Council, said jokingly that he was hesitant about giving a speech because “I’ve had enough YouTube exposure for two lifetimes.” (A video of Mr. Oddo cursing loudly at a Borat-style prankster was widely circulated on YouTube.)

Mr. Oddo warned, “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” He voted no.

The Council meeting began at 2:22 p.m., nearly an hour late, and began with a speech from the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn.

“This is a difficult vote in very difficult times,” she said. Reiterating arguments she made hours earlier, at a news conference, Ms. Quinn argued that continuity of leadership was essential, saying the city faces its gravest crisis since the Depression.

She added:

Make no mistake: I believe that our great city will get through these challenges and emerge stronger than ever before. I also believe that in challenging times like these, the voters should have the choice — the choice to continue their current leadership. They should have the right to vote for the current mayor, or a new one, for their current City Council member, or a new one. That is exactly what is at stake today.

When Ms. Quinn said it was “ludicrous” for critics to suggest the bill was the product of a “back-room deal,” a chorus of boos and jeers erupted from the balcony. Ms. Quinn said the bill had been the subject of vigorous discussion, including “two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate.”

“Support for this bill is broad and deep,” she said, citing union officials and former elected officials like Gov. Mario M. Cuomo and Mayor Edward I. Koch.

“From Floyd Flake to Felix Rohatyn, the brightest minds with the deepest understanding of the crisis this impact could have in our neighborhoods have come forward in support of extending term limits from two terms to three,” she said.

In one year, she said, “voters will have the right to re-elect us, or defeat us, in the voting booth.”

“The debate today is an important one, but ultimately it is a debate about process,” she said, adding, “By passing this bill, we are increasing voter choice.”

She added, “None of us are arrogant enough to believe we are indispensable. But we are confident enough and secure enough in our ability to help this city we love that we are willing to stand before voters on Election Day and ask them to re-elect us.”

Ms. Quinn tried to preempt criticism that the bill represents “a deal between billionaires, with no one else having a say,” by arguing that she and other supporters of the bill are far from billionaires.

Mr. Yassky, of Brooklyn, spoke next. He rose and proposed an amendment that would require a public referendum on term limits, by convening a Charter Revision Commission. He said the commission could call a special election on term limits for early next year.

Mr. Yassky said he opposed term limits but that the Council’s legitimacy as a democratic body was at stake. “Voters have approved term limits twice, including once when they specifically chose to keep the two-term limit rather than go to three terms. For us to reject those votes and those voters will, without question, make New Yorkers more cynical about politics,” he said.

Mr. Yassky cited a Quinnipiac University poll showing that 89 percent of voters supported a referendum. “That should tell you that a referendum is the right way to go,” he said, to scattered applause from the balcony.

“The only serious objection I have heard to a referendum is that it might lose,” he said. Mr. Yassky said that with an “extraordinarily popular mayor,” newspaper editorial pages and lawmakers on its side, a measure to extend term limits would pass a popular vote.

Mr. de Blasio agreed. “By voting yes on the amendment, we are saying to the people of New York City that we respect what they require of us as public servants,” he said.

Councilman Charles Barron, a Brooklyn Democrat, assailed Ms. Quinn’s logic. “If we are talking about a direct democracy, where the people rule, and a representative democracy, where those who represent the people come to vote — if you do this, you’re undermining the very people who vote you in to represent them, because their voices were already heard,” he said.

Mr. Barron, a fiery critic of Ms. Quinn and Mr. Bloomberg, added, “The bottom line: Mayor Bloomberg has not been the best person to run this city. It was under this watch we got into this economic mess. He came in worth $5 billion. He’s now worth $20 billion. And he comes to this Council wanting to cut the budget.”

Mr. Barron noted that voters in Venezuela in 2007 rejected a proposal by President Hugo Chavez that would have allowed him to run for re-election indefinitely. “Mayor Bloomberg, be like Hugo, and let the people decide,” Mr. Barron said.

“I personally am against term limits, but I am against a process that doesn’t go back to the voters,” said Councilman David I. Weprin of Queens.

Councilman Alan J. Gerson of Manhattan said, “We are left with selecting among alternatives which each have significant flaws,” and called it “a difficult, wrenching decision.” He noted that the amendment was structured so that if a special election could not be held early enough for next year’s election cycle, the Council could revisit the issue.

Councilman Lewis A. Fidler, a Brooklyn Democrat, called the amendment “a cure that’s worse than the disease.” Because of the need for a Justice Department voting rights review and the time to convene a Charter Revision Commission, Mr. Fidler said, there was little realistic chance that a special election could be held before nominating petitions will be circulated in June for the November 2009 election.

Council members Letitia James and Vincent J. Gentile of Brooklyn argued that extending term limits would damage the body’s legitimacy. “From the very beginning, the process has been the problem,” Mr. Gentile said. “The amendment will let the public know that their voices are being heard as clearly as ever.”

Councilman Robert Jackson of Manhattan said he had always been an implacable opponent of term limits. “Let’s have a backbone,” he said, saying his colleagues had been elected to represent their constituents.

Councilman Anthony Como of Queens said it would cost $15 million to hold a special election “and we know what the answer is going to be.” Mr. Como urged his colleagues to vote no on both the amendment and the underlying bill.

Councilwoman Rosie Mendez of Manhattan disagreed. “It doesn’t matter if the cost is $5 million, $15 million or $15 billion,” she said. “The people have a right to vote.” Council members Annabel Palma of the Bronx and Vincent M. Ignizio of Staten Island said they agreed.

Councilman John C. Liu, of Queens, said he opposed term limits, but argued that to abolish them without a popular vote would foster cynicism. “Term limits were not enacted in New York City as the result of a rich man’s ad campaign, as has been suggested, but were born out of a deep cynicism for politics, for elected officials, not only here in New York City, but all across America,” he said.

Councilman Tony Avella of Queens gave a stirring speech:

The people voted twice for term limits. Their message could not have been clearer. for this body to overturn that without going back to the people is undemocratic and disgraceful. There is no excuse for this. Pass the amendment. Put it back to the people. Anything less than that just goes to the heart of what people say about politicians. Do you want to be remembered as the politicians who voted to ignore the will of the people?

Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito and Councilman Eric N. Gioia both said the amendment would give people a voice.

Earlier, as members took their red leather seats, throngs of journalists were assembled on both sides of the Council’s dais. The Council’s sergeants-at-arms restricted access to the main floor of the chamber to lawmakers, their staffs and the press; ordinary members of the public were directed to the balcony, which was standing-room-only.

But many people who tried to enter the chamber were turned away by the Council’s sergeant at arms staff.

One was Gene Russianoff, the senior attorney with the New York Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog group that has been opposed to the mayor’s effort to extend term limits. He made several attempts to plead with the Council’s doorkeepers to get access and was rebuffed each time. Finally, he said, he threw himself on the mercy of one of the Council staff members whom he had known for some time.

In the end, he was able to get a seat in the balcony. “I was able to get in because of the relationship I have with some people on the staff here,” Mr. Russianoff said. “But the average New Yorker would not have fared as well as I did. That’s a problem for the average New Yorker who wants to participate in the process.”

Dan Cantor, the executive director of the Working Families Party, was not fortunate. He got as far as the hallway outside of the Council Chamber but was told that he couldn’t enter the large meeting room.

“It’s outrageous that they are keeping people out of the meeting,” said Mr. Cantor, whose organization has also been a leading opponent to the Council extending term limits.

“They know that this meeting would draw a lot of interest from the public,” Mr. Cantor said. “And they should have made some provisions to accommodate the public.”

Term Limits Move Assumed, Democrats Begin To Grasp at Ways To Beat Bloomberg by David Freedlander - City Hall News

Read original...

Trying to Turn a Long Shot Into a Shot, Democrats Look at Cobbling a Coalition

Democrats, ready your slingshots.

One way or another, a candidate will emerge next fall to face the Bloomberg behemoth, with little more than a ballot line to protect him or her against a billionaire opponent with deep popularity and even deeper resources at his disposal.

The task is surely daunting, but politicos and pundits say cobbling together a coalition to topple the two-term mayor is not impossible. The key, many say, is to begin now as the kinks of the Council's effort to overturn term limits get worked out, as indeed Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn/Queens), Comptroller William Thompson (D) and Council Member Tony Avella (D-Queens) have begun to do.

"That's the place to start and to finish," was Fernando Ferrer's advice to those Democrats who seek to avoid his fate as the party's nominee in 2005.

"You have to ask, 'Are we all okay with making up the rules as we go because you got more money than God and all your friends happen to be hyper-billionaires? Are the rules just for the little people?' That resonates every time somebody has to pay a parking ticket."

Stoking the indignation of voters on term limits will be tough, Democratic operatives say, since it is the kind of process question that sends good government groups into a tizzy but generally registers much less with most voters.

Still, this is a start, and the key to making a successful case that the incumbent plays by his own rules and is more attuned to the needs of his billionaire developer buddies and their newspaper publisher pals than the rest of the city.

"I would go on a rampage. I would argue that he's a plutocrat, a billionaire," said Doug Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College and a former campaign adviser to David Dinkins. "I'd run against the media and do a real middle class populist campaign, painting him as an out-of-touch elitist. Who did he talk to when he decided to do this? Did he go to Astoria or Bayside or Red Hook? No, he talked to his buddies at the Federal Reserve and the Stock Exchange."

But a Sarah Palin-sneering-against-the-elites strategy alone is not likely to be enough to overcome a mayor who has spent over $156 million of his own fortune in his two City Hall runs thus far.

No, that tactic must be mixed with a little Barack Obama magic, said Mark Green, the 2001 Democratic nominee, who calls himself, "the world's expert on what it's like to run against $74 million in this city."

"You have to find a local fundraising version of Obama where you tap into the tens of thousands of small donors who are pissed that Bloomberg broke his word, and then with the magic of 6-1 matching dollars, that adds up to 20-30 million dollars. Bloomberg can spend multiple of that, but if a lot of swing voters are angry at Bloomberg's primary pirouette, you may have something there."

The key, Green and others say, is to then connect the latest flip-flop on term limits into a broader critique of the mayor's policies. One does not stay mayor for seven years in this town without making a fair amount of mistakes and more than a fair share of enemies. Though polls show Bloomberg with a stratospheric approval rating, it was not all that long ago that pedestrians could not walk down city streets without fearing that a crane would tumble on top of them. There are voters in the outer boroughs still smarting over the mayor's plan to charge them a fee to enter into Manhattan, and parents across the city angry at what they see as increased testing and a top-down approach on schools.

The mayor may also have dug himself into a rhetorical hole last summer when he dropped his Republican affiliation and began decrying the very notion of political parties.

If he sticks to his guns in November '09 and eschews running on any line, Bloomberg will find himself on the sixth ballot line, all the way over to the right.
That might be a tough spot to get voters to find, especially in a town where two-thirds of registered voters are Democrats.

"It's very difficult to get elected mayor if you are not on the Democratic or the Republican line," said Democratic consultant Scott Levenson.

Levenson added that Bloomberg would be hard-pressed to try to go back to the parties after so actively shunning them.

"The mayor says he's committed to non-partisan campaigns," Levenson said, "so you try to convince him to set the example."

Part of the reason Bloomberg has remained so effective in office, however, is that he has reached out to core Democratic constituencies like labor unions and minorities and kept them in the fold. He has a strong record to run on, and a history of putting together masterful campaigns.

Come next November, he may even have the support of many Democrats on the City Council, who will, if a term limits extension passes, owe the mayor for their immediate political future, and who will have overturned a twice-voted-upon referendum in order to give Bloomberg another shot at the other end of City Hall.

Each Council member still holds considerable sway over his district and is able to mobilize grassroots support and get-out-the-vote operations on Election Day if he chooses to.

As the Council prepares to vote, opinion on 2009 remains divided, even among those who back Bloomberg's bid for a term limit extension.

"There is no question that if the mayor is able to run for re-election, I would support him 100 percent," said Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn), who received Bloomberg's endorsement for his own failed State Senate primary campaign and who, as chair of the committee overseeing the term limit extension hearings, has decided to remain publicly neutral.

But fellow Brooklyn Democrat Lew Fidler, who has also signaled his openness to changing the law legislatively, said that just because extending term limits could be seen as a vote of approval for Bloomberg, that did not mean he would back Bloomberg next year. Fidler said he was committed to supporting the Democratic nominee-assuming that nominee is either Thompson or Weiner-and predicted that a large majority of his fellow Council members would do the same.

"If Anthony and Billy stay true to their word and run, I think most people will end up supporting whoever is the winner of the primary. If they don't, and if there's a door number three, I think I want to see what's behind that door before I commit to it," he said.

And Council Member Domenic Recchia (D-Brooklyn), who has publicly carried the mayor's water on the term limit extension, appearing on New York 1 and elsewhere to argue the case for four more years, said on the eve of the term limit bill's introduction on the floor of the Council that he had not yet made up his mind.

"This is about the democratic process," he said. "Now is not the time to get into that."

But even if most members come around to support their fellow Democrat, will it be enough? Unlikely, most political observers say, considering the power of money and incumbency on elections and the mayor's popularity. But a lot can happen between now and next November.

He could get blamed if the economy stays sour. If the economy rebounds, his central reason for running again could evaporate.

It is a long shot, even the most loyal Democrats say. But it is still a shot.

dfreedlander@cityhallnews.com