It is sad.

They just don’t get it.

The people of this great city voted in 1993 and again in 1996 that they wanted terms for the members of the City Council limited to two (four-year) terms.

But it seems that the members of the City Council quietly sit plotting to somehow disregard the will of the people and overturn the term limit law passed by referendum.

This writer and this paper have led the charge each time the self-serving members of the Council have tried to overturn the law on their own – without going back to the people. We went so far as putting those members from Queens who advocated the unilateral overturn of the law behind bars on the front page of our paper. We have declared such action as “a crime against the people.”

But sadly, as each Council class sits down and comes to grips with the reality of their end in the City Council, talks of throwing out the law twice passed by the people becomes their mantra.

There are 36 members of the 51-person Council who will not be eligible to rerun in 2009. That law passed by the people could be overturned or modified by the people themselves by a referendum—or by a majority of the Councilmembers voting to allow themselves to run for office in blatant disregard of the will of the people.

As the 36 members grapple with their own political reality, several factors come into play. Some love the job and want to serve. Others see it as a great supplemental income to another job that they don’t want to give up. Still others want to get to 10 years of service to vest towards a government pension.

Others are ready to accept the people’s will and consider other options. There are three Citywide offices that will also be vacant due to term limits (Mayor, Comptroller and Public Advocate), as well as four Borough Presidencies (not Manhattan), and all are being eyed by present term-limited Council-members. Others may look to “swap” with or challenge their colleagues in Albany.

Last week, at a breakfast speech to the Association for a Better New York, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, in response to a question, said that the council has not “taken a final decision yet on what we’re doing on term limits.” She indicates they have been having discussions on and off for nearly two years and expects a decision on what they will do shortly.

The Council could let the law stand, seek to go back to the people by referendum or attempt to unilaterally overturn the law and defy the people. The members seeking higher office – including Mayoral wannabe Quinn – are aware their standing with the people and their chance for election would suffer if they supported a legislative overturn. Certainly this paper, most or all of the city’s dailies and good government groups will not sit quietly by and allow such unilateral action without calling for voters to punish its supporters.

The option to go back to the people – an acceptable and democratic move – is frowned upon by the Councilmembers seeking to overturn the law since polls have shown the people favor term limits. Some members are urging a referendum to extend term limits to three terms instead of two. Such an action may gain general support and would be the likely referendum if the Council put one forth.

While this writer has been identified as a strong advocate of term limits, that is not the case. We are committed to supporting the will of the people and could consider a modification of the law to three terms if put before the people and no city or council resources or personnel are used to advocate its passage.

But to us, the issue here is black and white. Any Councilmem-ber who advocates or supports term limit overturn without a referendum of the people is clearly unfit for elective office. We will monitor the Council and let you know who they are.

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.