A  Plea To The City Council:
Please Consider Democracy Over Politics

This column is being written on Sunday, July 21 and being sent to all members of the City Council on Monday (7/22). The Council is reporting the term limit bill out of committee on Tuesday (7/23) and plans to vote it into law on Wednesday (7/24).

Why the rush to judgment on a bill just introduced and so intricate that its framer indicated there was an “unintentional side effect” which prevented former Council members from seeking office next year?

Why not step back and fix what is wrong with the bill?

Although I’m not hopeful I can be effective, I write this column to appeal to the honesty, integrity and commitment to democracy of each of the 51 City Council members.

I urge them to value democratic principles above self-serving political acts.

I urge them to read this column, turn to their Speaker and ask that he rewrite a piece of legislation to avoid participating in a new self-serving low for the integrity of the City Council.

Let me explain.

Regular readers know that I have been a leading advocate of the quality, integrity, energy and dedication of the new City Council.

As one who led the fight against the old City Council changing the term limit law passed by referendum so as to enable themselves to run again, it was gratifying to see the fruits of that fight ripen and accrue to the benefit of our wonderful City.

That fight was never a matter of term limits to this paper or me. As a matter of fact, we have never endorsed term limits and opposed the referendum that first brought them to New York in 1993.

However, when the people spoke, and later reaffirmed their position in another referendum, term limits became the law. We believe that the people’s law should remain unchanged until the people decide to change it — not the City Council members who were the very folks term limited by the people’s new law.

However, when the first group of Council members faced term limits, they moved to change the law by themselves. We felt it “criminal” for elected officials to defy the people’s will and on our front page we actually put the Queens Council members supporting the unilateral overthrow of term limits behind bars. It was an ethical and moral low point in New York City government.

This column and this paper yelled loudly. Week after week we pointed our finger at the wrongdoers and explained the undemocratic nature of Council members changing a law passed by the people in order to benefit themselves. Others joined our cry and the vile effort finally failed.

Elections were held last year and 38 new members of the class of 2001 joined 13 more senior members to create a brand new City Council.

Giff Miller from Manhattan’s upper east side was elected Speaker after an impressive effort to build a coalition of support.

The Council went to work in January and demonstrated they were bright, diligent, knowledgeable quick learners who performed at a level far above the previous Council. They quickly proved the term limit doomsday theorists wrong. The sky didn’t fall. On the contrary, the City rebuilt with a new Council effectively functioning under the leadership of a young, bright capable Giff Miller.

In post Sept. 11 New York, government was strong, good and effective. It seemed vigorous and free of many of the ugly scars and blemishes that have been part of our political legacy. The Council members were on. They made us proud.

During their election, we interviewed each of the 14 new Council members from Queens. Some 60 plus candidates for Council came through our office last year. Almost to a person, they responded to our questioning by revealing a disdain for the old Council. They cited the former members’ self-serving attempt to overturn the term limit law and the use of public office and funds for political gain. These council candidates, including just about every winner, deplored such actions.

They would never participate in overturning the people’s will so as to benefit themselves. To a person, I asked; they answered.

I believe they each said it: Tony Avella; John Liu; Hiram Monserratte; Peter Vallone, Jr.; David Weprin; Jim Gennaro; Helen Sears; Eric Gioia; Leroy Comrie; Melinda Katz; Alan Jennings; Dennis Gallagher; James Sanders; Joe Addabbo, Jr.

Although many didn’t believe in term limits, they all believed only the people could change the law they passed by referendum.

Just last month, my old friend Giff Miller stopped by the Trib Office for a chat. During the interview, I asked him where he stood on the term limit law which would force him out of office at the end of next year. Giff responded that he was too involved in the budget negotiations at that time, but had always believed that only the people had the right to change the term limit law.

Then the budget passed and reality set in.

Giff Miller demonstrated that he was a consummate politician. My friend moved with speed and dispatch and had a bill drafted which would “perfect” the term limit law. He would “preserve” term limits and improve the law by adjusting it to reflect “what the people intended.”

The “tinker” would modify the law so that Council members would not be term limited unless they served two consecutive four-year terms. As a result of redistricting, every twenty years a Council class would be term limited after six, not eight years. Giff set out to correct this. He and seven other present members of the Council would be forced out of office next year if the law weren’t changed.

He had election law superstar attorney Eric Lane guide the bill’s technical creation and he worked the phone. Giff lobbied and spun and called every friend and foe of the term limit law. Giff Miller was superb.

He even called me. I had not been quiet about my opposition to the Council modifying the people’s law. I was viewed as one of the leaders of the “crusade” to block the old Council from overturning the people’s term limit law. Giff called and he was good, smooth and charming. He always is.

I don’t recall his exact words but he explained that there were two faults in the law that he intended to fix. One was to change the law so that members were not term limited unless they had two four-year terms because that was really what the people intended — he quoted “eight is enough” as the slogan of the term limit advocates back in ’93. The second, was to prevent a term limited official from resigning before the end of a term so as to preserve eligibility to run in the next election.

Giff presented himself as the man who was perfecting the term limit law.

I didn’t agree, but understood.

I told Giff I was going to press with a column that opposed what he was doing — passing a law that extended his own term in office.

I then offered Giff a future column to explain his viewpoint. He eloquently and effectively used that space last week to write about “improving the term limit law.”

He wrote: “The point of this bill is to repair a glitch in the term-limits law that allows some members of the City Council to serve for eight years while preventing others from serving for more than six.”

Giff didn’t convince me, but he convinced just about everyone else. I was ready to throw in the towel and congratulate the Speaker on an impressive win.

I told my friend Peter Vallone, Jr. who had pledged himself to Giff’s effort that even though I thought the effort wrong, I’m not sure — if I were in Giff’s shoes — that I wouldn’t be doing the same thing. You see, Giff’s political survival may depend upon extending his Council post for two years until the Manhattan Borough Presidency becomes vacant as well as the three citywide positions. If he were term limited next year, there would be nothing to run for.

Well, Giff won his point in the public forum. I seemed to be the lone voice against what he was doing and I was ready to give in. Giff was so effective in fact, that we saw one Queens Councilman debate against the bill on NY1 and then the next day change his mind and agree to become a cosponsor of the bill.

Why would Councilman Alan Jennings do such a flip-flop on the term limit legislation?

Perhaps he was told what it took us until last Wednesday to uncover and confirm. Last week’s Queens Tribune broke the story that hidden in the “term limit tinker” was a provision that would deny the right to run again next year to the former Council members who were term limited in 2000.

The “people’s law” passed by referendum in 1993 only kept these members from running until 2003 — the next election. But the term limit “tinker” would ban them until 2005.

That means that the strongest opponents – the people who previously held the seats – would not be allowed to challenge the present Council members.

Now we have no idea how many former Council members would want to run. It doesn’t really matter. They should have the right to.

Tom White was exploring the possibility and after Alan Jennings heard the “tinker” would eliminate his archrival, in front of TV cameras, Alan Jennings sold out and flip-flopped.

Julia Harrison might want to challenge John Liu and it is extremely unlikely that she would be our candidate,but we’ll defend her right to run. How could John Liu raise his hand to block her candidacy when the people gave her the right and the constitution guarantees it? It’s the American way. And so it goes with each of the 38 former members. They might not be better than the new Council people, but they have a right to run.

How could any member of the present Council raise their hand so as to deprive anyone of their right?

The new Queens members sat in my office as candidates not too long ago and pledged a new day in City government. They promised an end to self-serving politicians who used their positions to cast votes to improve their own political lots.

A number of Council people have confidentially talked to me with outraged at this hidden wrinkle preventing the former members from running. However, they also recognize that Council leadership has been generous to them and their districts at budget time and are therefore reluctant to take the fight.

They recognize that the bill’s drafter and Council leadership lobbied effectively, spoke out publicly, and wrote in this column, but secretly hid the fact that buried very deep within the fine print of the law is a provision that would bar the former Council people from challenging their successors. Was this a clever way for Council leadership to win overwhelming support from their members?

The bill explains its purpose; we’ve read the Speaker’s explanation of the legislation. We’ve followed the debate — carefully. They never mentioned this little wrinkle.

So last Wednesday the Tribune called and asked the bill’s framer, “does this legislation prevent the former members from running again?”

And Eric Lane responded that it was “an unintentional side effect.”

Well, Council members are reading this on Monday: The Speaker already knows my point of view.

The law could still be rewritten. The Speaker and his seven term-limited colleagues could still have their right to a minimum eight years in office without ever raising their hands to deny others the right to run.

The people’s referendum permitted the former Council members the right to run again in 2003. Should the new Council be able to take that right away?

Where would you expect to find a legislative body voting to deny their strongest opponents the right to run?

In a totalitarian state? A Central American unstable junta? A Middle East terrorist-allied Authority? Or the New York City Council?

I don’t believe a majority of the City Council members want to defy the democratic principles they hold dear. I believe that even though I disagree with the Speaker’s eight-year minimum term limit change, everyone can have their way without resorting to the horrendous step of Council members enacting self-serving rules that would bar people from challenging them.

There is still time – but very little.

During the election, I asked the Council candidates how long it would take until they sell out and become part of the corrupt and ugly political process they sought to replace.

I fear I may have my answer.

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato

————————————————————

Michael Schenkler can be reached at: MSchenkler@queenspress.com