Council Term Limits Without Boundaries
The burning issue that is quickly shaping the first part of the new City Council term is not which of the seven candidates will succeed Gifford Miller as Speaker. It is not even about many of the issues that were discussed during the debates for the Speaker candidates. The issue of early 2006 is the term limit question for the Council.
Surprisingly, all seven Speaker candidates are for extending Council limits to three terms. The problem is that it is nearly a foregone conclusion that term limits will be extended by Council fiat. Although voters twice voted for the current two term limit last decade, a wonderful loophole allows the Council to be able to vote for such an extension.
There are merits to extending the term limits for the City Council or for even abolishing term limits. However, two votes by city voters restricted the Council to two consecutive terms. Although the Council is technically able to extend those limits, to do so by Council decree would set a bad precedent. What is stopping the Council from voting to extend the term limit to four terms in 2010, after the third term has already been won? Let's also remember that most of the Council members have their seats thanks to the massive turnover in 2001 when most of the Council had to leave due to the new term limits.
It is up to the Council to go to the voters and give the reasons why another term to the limit should be allowed. The Council must make that case to the voters. The voters are not stupid (well...for the sake of argument); they will understand the issue before them. If the Council is convinced that three terms is needed, then it will have no trouble presenting its case directly to the voters.
One of the major reasons this has been pushed by the Council was that another term would ensure that a lame-duck Speaker would not have to be elected every term. Additionally, this would ensure that there would be one Speaker to be a counterpart to the Mayor, who would likely have both terms.
This could provide benefits. After all, the Speaker is at a disadvantage as it is. The Mayor does have broad powers and there is less public awareness of the Council and its Speaker. The City Council is supposed to be a coequal branch with the Mayor. Having to send a new Speaker every term that may be less experienced in dealing with the Mayor may be a disadvantage.
However, although this is a Council where most of the members entered at the same time, there will come a time when there will be more of a seniority structure in the Council. Then it will be quite likely that the new Speakers will be elected from the most senior group of members. Then, lame-duck Speakers will once again be elected. Will the Council then need a fourth term to correct that problem?
It is a reason to support the abolition of term limits altogether. But, two votes have made it clear that there should be a limit of two terms. It is only fair that the voters of this city get to have a say in this process. After all, it is our Council.
Further reading on the Speaker race and term limits:
Backroom Deal Breaker
Gotham Gazette: NYC Term Limits Revisited
Surprisingly, all seven Speaker candidates are for extending Council limits to three terms. The problem is that it is nearly a foregone conclusion that term limits will be extended by Council fiat. Although voters twice voted for the current two term limit last decade, a wonderful loophole allows the Council to be able to vote for such an extension.
There are merits to extending the term limits for the City Council or for even abolishing term limits. However, two votes by city voters restricted the Council to two consecutive terms. Although the Council is technically able to extend those limits, to do so by Council decree would set a bad precedent. What is stopping the Council from voting to extend the term limit to four terms in 2010, after the third term has already been won? Let's also remember that most of the Council members have their seats thanks to the massive turnover in 2001 when most of the Council had to leave due to the new term limits.
It is up to the Council to go to the voters and give the reasons why another term to the limit should be allowed. The Council must make that case to the voters. The voters are not stupid (well...for the sake of argument); they will understand the issue before them. If the Council is convinced that three terms is needed, then it will have no trouble presenting its case directly to the voters.
One of the major reasons this has been pushed by the Council was that another term would ensure that a lame-duck Speaker would not have to be elected every term. Additionally, this would ensure that there would be one Speaker to be a counterpart to the Mayor, who would likely have both terms.
This could provide benefits. After all, the Speaker is at a disadvantage as it is. The Mayor does have broad powers and there is less public awareness of the Council and its Speaker. The City Council is supposed to be a coequal branch with the Mayor. Having to send a new Speaker every term that may be less experienced in dealing with the Mayor may be a disadvantage.
However, although this is a Council where most of the members entered at the same time, there will come a time when there will be more of a seniority structure in the Council. Then it will be quite likely that the new Speakers will be elected from the most senior group of members. Then, lame-duck Speakers will once again be elected. Will the Council then need a fourth term to correct that problem?
It is a reason to support the abolition of term limits altogether. But, two votes have made it clear that there should be a limit of two terms. It is only fair that the voters of this city get to have a say in this process. After all, it is our Council.
Further reading on the Speaker race and term limits:
Backroom Deal Breaker
Gotham Gazette: NYC Term Limits Revisited
posted by Will at 10:58 AM
1 Comments:
another interesting site on the matter, http://www.poboss.com.
fyi.
Post a Comment
<< Home