Could a group of almost out of work public servants pull off a coup d’e tat?

It is more possible than you might think.

About two dozen of the 35 City council representatives who would be forced out of office when their term expires this year, are trying to overturn the will of the people.

They claim, among other things, that their ouster would shift power and the result would hurt communities of color.

They are saying that somehow we didn’t know what we were doing when we voted to limit the time a person could serve in an elected position.

On Feb. 8th there was a hearing on this bill, or measure or what ever you want to call it. There was heated debate as those opposed and for it made their pitches.

Among those calling for a repeal of term limits was Southeast Queens Councilwoman Juanita Watkins who said, "in my district and in the adjoining districts, in two referendums, the people voted against term limits, now whose voice should I listen to?" she asked, as the gavel pounded signaling the time for her plea had run out.

Watkins may feel passionate about what she said and no doubt believes the merit of her fight, but she is not exactly accurate when she implies that our community somehow doesn’t gel with the rest of the city.

Here is what my check of the vote from the 1996 election results from four Southeast Queens districts revealed.

• In Assembly District 29, 10,522 voted YES for term limits; 8,880 voted NO

• In Assembly District 32, 9,108 voted YES and 7,618 voted NO

• In Assembly District 33, 11,823 voted YES and 11,229 voted NO

The only dissenting district was Assembly District 31. In Assembly District 31, 7,274 voted YES and 7,293 voted NO.

Some of the people on the list of those acting to usurp the will of the voters are part of the scramble of politicians looking for work in other offices.

They are questioning our ability to judge and decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and how to use our power at the ballot box.

It is as unsightly, and seemingly undignified effort as it comes in the form of superceding legislation and not in the form of a movement to simply get the issue back on the ballot.

No matter what the intent, it seems that some people are unwilling to accept change.

The mayor, who has suggested that he might sign off on the legislation if there is a campaign finance concession, compounds this conspiracy.

A concession would no doubt be of benefit to these same deeply rooted, and apparently self-serving politicians.

A campaign finance concession would wipe out the campaigns of the 150 or so new candidates, who would, in my opinion, bring some much needed fresh ideas and "air" to an institution where the same people have been so long that they have forgotten about who sent them there.

Term limits will not be perfect and like many new laws it, will take some getting used to.

It will force the halls of government to be cleaned out on a regular basis.

But make no mistake, the repeal measure is halfway from becoming a reality. If it does, remember those who changed your minds for you. Send them packing back to private life with the same resolve they used to stay in it.

The answer to the race question of "whose voice do I listen to?" should be "ours."