|
|
| |
The End Of The Term Limit Overthrow Cabal
|
| The February 15, 2001 Tribune front page declaring the supporters of the effort to overturn term limits without a vote of the people guilty of Crimes Against the Peoople of New York. Is such an effort finally dead?
|
By By MICHAEL SCHENKLER
This won’t be my final column on term limits.
I’ve been writing a weekly column – mostly political — almost weekly, since before the current millennium. I write them on the weekends.
And as each weekend begins, I think out loud searching for column topics. Sometimes I have one before I ask, and many times, from Friday night to Sunday morning, I can be heard asking the ether, “What should I write my column on?”
And although there is rarely an answer from the beyond, when I do wonder out loud, “What should I write my column on?” Lil usually chimes in: “Not term limits!”
Term limits and the pathetic dysfunctional New York State legislature have been my most frequent topics since Not4Publication became the name of this column.
Since the calendar faced its Y2K catastrophe and the onset of the new term limit law was becoming a reality to the members of the City Council who would be prevented from running again in 2001, the self-serving term-limited Councilmembers have been plotting to overthrow the law passed twice by the people.
When the term-limited Council, in 2000, tried to hide their dirty little secret plot to overturn term limits, repealing on their own the law passed by referendum, this paper, this column, yelled loudly. We put the names and faces of the seven Queens members involved in the undemocratic cabal on a front page WANTED poster accusing them of “Crimes Against the People.”
Back then, subsequently, and with some regularity, we yelled out loud that the only way to change a law passed by a vote of the people is by another vote of the people. We went as far as asking Mayor Bloomberg to pose such a Charter Revision to a Commission requiring any law passed by referendum could only be changed by referendum. For the City Council members to be allowed to extend their own terms after the people limited them, was, is and always will be, nothing more than vile undemocratic rule of government – I care not the excuse.
To go back, have another refendum and have the Council try to convince the people to change the law would consume the Council from now until next November, cost a fortune and likely fail as the effort did in 1996. Term limits have worked in New York City.
The first term-limited Council cried that the sky was going to fall.
It did not. On the contrary, three dozen newcomers marched into the Council and competently managed the legislative responsibilities of government. A new Mayor shined; we rested easier with the ethics and leadership of a new Comptroller; Public Advocate and Beep changes did not do the slightest harm to our city. As a matter of fact, six years later we are better off – a lot better off.
And when 2009 comes and term limits brings another wholesale change in City officials, you can bet bright, competent, energetic people will step forward to skillfully fill the void. It will be our collective job to make sure the right ones get into office.
After years of whispering about how they would overturn term limits, the present Council came face-to-face with reality last week.
Speaker Christine Quinn sounded the death knell for the overturn-term-limit-crusaders. The statement she released said in part:
“After careful consideration and discussions with my colleagues in the Council, I have decided not to pursue a change in New York City’s term limit law. I will neither support legislation nor will I seek or support a new referendum eliminating or altering term limits.
“Over the last two years, the City Council has pursued an agenda of reform and democratization. . . I believe that overruling the will of New Yorkers - who have voted twice in favor of term limits - would be anti-democratic and anti-reform.”
Bravo!
Now Quinn did the right thing and we applaud her. Any other move would have been the end to her dream of a successful run for Mayor. But whatever her motives, we applaud the Speaker’s crystal clear support in upholding the will of the people and democracy itself.
More of our City leaders should have weighed in on this one. But in politics doing what is right often takes a back seat to winning friends, support and money.
For the moment, the term limit overthrow effort is dead.
But as long as there are politicians who put themselves before the people, an informed and involved electorate is the best defense of democracy. See you at the voting booth. MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com
|
|
Vandal Busted By Straphanger Cell Phone
Queens Small Biz Hurt By Credit Crunch
State Senate Race: The Final Lap?
A Visit From The Mets
Nine Charged In $1.4M Mortgage Scheme
Inside The Board Of Elections: State Senate Votes Prompt Race Debate
MTA Changes Expected
Councilman Stable After Car Accident
Queens Weathers Economic Storm
Hospital Welcomes ‘Miracle Babies’ Home
Queens Law College Ranks In Diversity
Queens Arm Wrestlers Take Home Top Prizes
Second Attempt For Greener Taxis
Triborough Bridge Now The RFK
Opponents Flip On Willets Point Plan
Recount Get Underway In Tight Senate Race
Return To Jail Likely For Con Freed In Hoax
City Officials File Suit Over Term Limits
Audit Finds Water’s Edge In Too Deep
Celebs Cut Ribbon On New Garden
Liu Fixing Broken Meter Rule
New Test For 8th Graders Unveiled
Parkway Hospital Closes
|
| |
Spitzer: First Year Flaws; Hoping For Recovery
By
By HENRY STERN
December is the month when writers review the events of the year, pontificate over the past, and prognosticate for the future. The new kid in town this year is Gov. Eliot Spitzer, and it would be exaggeration to say that he received mixed reviews.
There have been two full-scale magazine articles worth reading on the governor’s first year.
The long David Margolick piece in Vanity Fair, “The Year Of Governing Dangerously,” was, in our view, particularly well done. The very long New Yorker article by Nick Paumgarten, “THE HUMBLING OF ELIOT SPITZER: The Governor’s rocky rookie season,” is a serious and thoughtful piece.
This week the governor moved to strengthen his administration by appointing the competent Paul Francis as director of state operations, replacing Olivia Golden, Ph.D., who had been assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, serving under HHS Secretary Donna Shalala in President Clinton’s second term. Dr. Golden had not attracted much public attention since her appointment by Gov. Spitzer on Jan. 11. In fact, we were unaware that she existed until we read that she had been replaced.
The Times reported that Mr. Francis will be in charge of the deputy secretaries to the governor. Among the eccentricities in New York State government is the fact that the traditional No. 2 man in the Executive Chamber holds the title: Secretary to the Governor, and the men and women who oversee various agencies are called “deputy secretaries to the governor.” In New York City, they would be Deputy Mayors.
The report that Mr. Francis “will supervise and coordinate the work of all the deputy secretaries who run state agencies” raises the issue of what role the Secretary to the Governor, Richard Baum, will have in 2008. It would be normal for deputy secretaries to report to the Secretary. If it is true that Mr. Francis will assume this responsibility, that may help solve the problem of what to do with Mr. Baum, who has been reported by the media to have been criticized in internal discussions within the administration. Mr. Baum has been a faithful Spitzer deputy for many years, serving without incident.
However, when things go seriously wrong, the blame must be placed somewhere, and it usually ends up just below the top. Look at the subprime mortgage problems as an example in the private sector. In each bank, they seem to find some head to roll. Is that the person who is really responsible for the problem? The answer is probably: sometimes.
Another aspect of the Spitzer shakeup is that it is a reasonable solution to retain a trusted and faithful friend while limiting his duties. That may be the case here, if Mr. Francis assumes more responsibility for what in Albany has been called “agencyland.” It is also quite unwise to dismiss a staffer who is in a position to give testimony adverse to his employer. Remember Darren Dopp’s difficulties, publicly expressed, in paying his mortgage and educating his children while he was suspended for 35 days without pay? Apart from common decency and reciprocal loyalty, there is an element of prudence in retaining the services of persons who happen to be in such awkward positions.
Mayor Bloomberg is in the fortunate position of being able to offer employment, in his corporation or his foundation, to anyone whose time in government has passed. This was the case when Verna Eggleston, the first Human Resources Administrator under Mayor Bloomberg, resigned in the fall of 2006 to join his foundation. She was succeeded at HRA by Robert Doar, who is the son of John Doar, a significant figure in civil rights in the Justice Department under Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and later president of the New York City Board of Education.
It is a good sign when succeeding generations in a family devote themselves to public service, as long as it is not the money or the power of the elder generation which secures the position for the younger, definitely not a factor in the Doar case. BTW, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, speaking at a Crain’s breakfast Thursday, said that he proved that one did not have to be the son of a governor or a multimillionaire to hold public office in New York State. But could he have raised the money to win a contested primary? Fortunately, the question will not arise until 2010, but how can an honest man raise substantial money without relying on people who have a special interest in the Comptroller’s decisions? StarQuest@NYCivic.org
|
|

|
Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato |
|
|
|
|