A former student of mine called in anger recently. Of course the issue was this pending malevolent attack on term-limits (and probable hijack) by Mayor Bloomberg and a New York City Council majority; via proposed legislation altering the term limits law voted in by the people. The student was livid.

With typical youthful innocence and idealism, he kept challenging me to make sense of all this. How could a plebiscite be overturned without going back to the voter via referendum? Why were there two referenda on this issue, when the legislators could just come in and sweep away the people’s vote (will) at anytime? And what is to stop them from extending the limit another four years, when 2013 rolls around? Is this the “democracy” that we Americans love to boast about to the rest of the world?

So today at her press conference, I asked the Council Speaker Christine Quinn, for some clarification relative to the future. Does the proposed bill extending term-limits, include provisions safeguarding it from another whimsical hijack four years from now? I could have gone further and asked if there were any inclusions in the proposed bill, which would prevent the mayor and council members, from abolishing term limits altogether at any point in the future? Of course the latter question was implied.

Ms. Quinn seemed a bit uneasy in attempting to answer. You see, the rationale for overturning the people’s expressed will (through two votes in 1993 and 1996), is ostensibly this: that given the economic situation we find ourselves in today -as a country, state and city- it is imperative that we offer the current mayor and about thirty of the council members, the possibility of another term (third). And we must do this despite the fact that twice already, the voters have limited them to two consecutive four year terms; and did this via referendum (twice).

You see, it appears that in a city of nine million people, only fifty-two (the mayor, the speaker, and the remaining fifty council members) can prevent this city from certain economic death. Wow! This is deep; to say the least. Who died and made them Gods?

Ms. Quinn’s answer only verified what many already suspected: that there are no safeguards in this bill, limiting this extension strictly to the four years now being proposed. I must say that I felt sorry for the speaker; her body language and pained facial expression, demonstrated that her heart wasn’t in this. It seems like she is just now completing the terms of her pre-speakership negotiations. Promises, promises, promises!

The more I think this through, the more I believe that supporters of term-limits may be fighting the wrong battle. Based on everything I have researched -and based also on conversations with supposed legal scholars- I am left to conclude that only the Justice Department will be able to override this horrid legislation once passed. And even there the chances are slim. The state’s highest court has held that the state constitution (and the city charter) does not prevent overriding referenda through legislative fiat. Where the fight should now focus -beyond the perfunctory press conferences, rallies, demonstrations, etcetera- is in changing the state constitution (and/or city charter) to say that only through plebiscite can we overturn a plebiscite (referendum). We need to put this in a cement suit. We need to do this ASAP. We need to begin that process now.

It is rather disingenuous for member after member, to rattle off that they are against term limits in principle; since that was the part of the argument(s) they presented to the voters twice: and lost. They should be saying that they are sworn to uphold the law, not break it; and not to make new laws that violate both the letter and spirit of democracy. They lost the term-limits fight but they want the victory all the same. I wonder if they would like it, were we to change the law, in order to allow the person with the least votes in an election be sworn into office: that’s tantamount to what they are doing here. It’s disgusting. It’s disrespectful to those who come out and vote near every election.

This shocking display of wanton hubris, can only serve to make young students that I mentor, more cynical and jaded about the whole democratic process. And we wonder why civic participation is so low in this naked city? When our political leaders surrender the moral high ground; when they lie, contradict, cheat, steal, ignore or break laws, and the like; they then casually set us up for larger societal problems. Look; the enemies of democracy are usually hiding in the bathroom mirror: those who support this hijack should go look.

Stay tuned-in folks.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |