Can we keep term limits this time, Mayor Bloomberg?

Even if he wanted to overturn it (0.00 / 0)

he couldn't, the referendum barred the City Council from overturning it, which, in hindsight, should have been in the original referendums. Then the whole mess would have been avoided.

---

by: IrishMike @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 14:45:57 PM UTC

The rpoblem is (4.00 / 1)

that until the Charter is changed, the City Council has the ability to change the charter and the referendum language didn't change that.  I could use Dan Jacoby here to explain exactly why that's the case but my understanding from him and others was that the language is not air tight and the City Council could still change term limits even with this vote.

---

by: BingChester @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 15:22:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, if (4.00 / 1)

Mayor Moneybags decides he really wants to go the full FDR and run for a fourth term, I'm sure his toadies on the Council will find a way to make that happen.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 16:38:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interestingly (0.00 / 0)

The provision putting the barrier in the way of the Council changing their own term limits also puts that barrier in the way of the Council changing the term limits of anyone else currently serving in office.

Yup, the Commission thought of that possibility too.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:15:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Changing term limits (again) (0.00 / 0)

The Commission actually did something intelligent here.  (Note:  I disagree with term limits, and voted "no" on proposal 1; this is about the Commission's attempt to stop the Council from changing their own term limits again.)

Under state law (I believe it's §10, subdivision 1, paragraph (ii)(a)(1) of Municipal Home Rule law), the City Council can amend the City Charter as it relates to term limits (among other things).  The result is that there is no way the City Charter can completely prevent the City Council from changing term limits law, because it would conflict with state law.

That being the case, the Commission decided to erect an extra obstacle.  The new Charter provision would require a City Council that wants to change their own term limits to do two things:  1) They must undo the law that prohibits them from changing their own term limits, and 2) They must then vote to change their own term limits.

The idea is that it will not only be more difficult politically for the City Council to grant themselves a third term, but also require them to do it in a two-step process, instead of the single vote they did in 2008.

Here's the fun part:  The provision prohibiting the City Council from changing their own term limits is probably illegal.  In order to find out, however, someone (presumably a member of the City Council, since they are probably the only people with standing to take this action) would have to sue, and ask a court to throw out the law.  Going that route, however, would be even more involved -- and controversial -- than just having the Council vote to eliminate the provision.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."  (Two points for correctly identifying the author of that quote -- and it's not William Shakespeare, nor any of his contemporaries.)

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:11:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tangled, but classically New York (0.00 / 0)

---

by: simonstl @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:13:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Got it (0.00 / 0)

by the Google: Sir Walter Scott.

But, I really must throw firewood now, whether I want to or not...

---

by: robinia @ Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 16:31:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The City Council (0.00 / 0)

Wanted Bloomberg to do this.  My God, a majority of them were running around CRYING that they needed these partime jobs and the salary they made from them.  Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of them have outside incomes.  

---

by: ROSALIE907 @ Fri Nov 05, 2010 at 22:13:34 PM UTC