August 30, 2010 - Once again, we take pen in hand (figuratively) to criticize the actions and inactions of the Charter Revision Commission. We do that not because there is overwhelming public interest in the subject at this time, but because there is an issue of trust and credibility here which should be discussed openly.

Today, the Post joined the Daily News in sharp editorial criticism of the Commission. We quote extensively from these hard-hitting editorials. If you wish, you can click on News and Post for the full text.

Under the headlline CHARTER CHANGE CHOKE, The Post laments: "The New York City Charter Revision Commission concluded its work last week, delivering a final product that amounts to a sadly missed opportunity.

"When the commission formed last spring ... headed by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, the sky was the limit on what might be brought before voters in November. But the big issues were term limits and governmental structure -- i.e., whether the city might run more effectively without such offices as borough president and public advocate.

"What will be on the ballot this fall?

"An opportunity to endorse "term limits" again -- which won't be fully functional until 2021, because current elected officials are grandfathered in.

"And nothing at all to do with structural reform; that's been punted to the next charter commission, whenever that might be convened.

"Even though voters have twice called for a two-term limit for elected municipal offices, some incumbents could remain in place for a decade..."

The Daily News has published three editorials on the subject, trying vainly to persuade the Charter Commission before the 15-member group made its final decision. On August 26, the newspaper was scathing in its criticism.

"New Yorkers have twice previously voted for the two-term option. They'd surely do so again if given the opportunity.

"But the panel, chaired by CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, chose instead to give the public the back of its hand. It voted to put on the November ballot a proposition that would set two terms for everyone - except, incredibly, for incumbent officeholders.

"They alone would be permitted to run three times; never mind that some of these same Council members supported the 2009 overthrow of the voters' will.

"How this misbegotten result came about is a study in the misapplication of power.

August 24, 2010 - The Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mayor Bloomberg voted last night to postpone by eleven years the effective date when a two-term limit would take effect, even if the voters approve it in referendum this fall.

After a motion to put the eight-year limit into effect now was defeated, (it received six votes, eight being needed to pass), and a so-called 'hybrid' motion for a 2017 effective date also failed with six votes, Commission Chairman Matthew Goldstein brought the 2021 date up for a vote and it was approved 12-0, although it was not a compromise between the other two alternatives, but mandated an even longer delay in carrying out the decision made in the public referendum.

On the two previous motions, the chairman had called the roll and voted last. On the 2021 proposal he called on himself first and dramatically voted 'Yes'. The eleven other members present followed suit.

A large majority of the witnesses who testified last night supported implementation of the referendum at the next Council election, scheduled for 2013. The speaker for a delay was Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who had taken a leading role in supporting the two-term limit in 2008. He did not explain why he changed his mind, but as a mayoral candidate in 2013, he will be seeking support from the legislators whose eligibility he sought to prolong.

The effect of this postponement is to confer a benefit on a small group of Councilmembers, some of whom voted in 2008 to extend their eligibility. Others, who voted No on the change, allegedly on principle, will also have the opportunity to seek a third term, and it is likely that most of them will avail themselves of that privilege. The extension to 2021 will give the freshmen, now in their first year on the Council, the right to serve twelve years before there will be an open seat. 

The rationale behind this gift of time is that, since in 2009 the three-term limit was in effect, the candidates ran with the expectation that they would be entitled to seek three terms and the city is in good faith bound to honor their belief. Those members first elected in 2005 would require the gift of a third term to have them serve into 2017. However, the public will presumably by 2010 have voted three times (1993 and 1996 were the first two) for a two-term limit.

The theory that there is a duty to fulfill the expectations of the ambitious appears as harebrained to me as it may sound to you, but it was expressed by at least one Commissioner last night, and it was the rationalization of others. Try to think of another justification for prolonging the implementation of the decision of the voters for a period comparable to serious prison time.

August 20, 2010 -The Charter Revision Commission will meet Monday evening to decide what amendments to the City Charter will be placed on the ballot in November. The Commission's recommendations are generally beneficial and should not arouse much public controversy, except from diehards who want the political process to be as arduous and arcane as possible.

The Commission was appointed in March 2010. Its primary mission was to settle the issue of term limits, which had been approved by the voters in 1993 and 1996. In September 2008, when it was too late for anyone else place a charter amendment on the ballot, Mayor Bloomberg proposed, and the Council approved, a charter amendment overriding the public referenda in the '90s, and providing third-term eligibility for themselves. To make amends for this last-minute power play, the mayor promised to appoint a charter commission in 2010, with the expectation that the term limits issue would be resolved.

The Commission did agree to send the issue to a referendum in November, but unfortunately there is a catch. The issue of when term limits as approved by the public will go into effect is in dispute. Logically, the effective date should be the next election for councilmembers, scheduled for 2013. In a strong editorial today, the Daily News made this point convincingly.

However, an effort is being made to 'grandfather' only those councilmembers elected in 2005, so that they will be able to remain in office until 2017, even if the public votes in 2010 for a two-term limit.

That would be an enormous injustice. Members of the classes of 2001 and 2005 stretched the law to its limit by voting to extend their own eligibility. They found a loophole in the Charter and drove right through it. Now, if the public votes for a two-term limit, it would mean they must leave in 2013, as the Charter originally provided. As a result, they are seeking to create yet another loophole by grandfathering themselves into third-term eligibility. This would again frustrate the will of the voters if they support a limit of two terms, with which polls indicate that 71 per cent of the voters agree.

August 18, 2010 - Question: Since one man (person), one vote eliminated a legislative body representing geographic areas like counties, why do we need 2 houses, their cost and their incompetence in NY? - Robert E. Adamski

Answer: Bicameral legislatures are the norm in the United States, the Federal government and 49 states have two houses. The only state with a unicameral legislature is Nebraska, which abolished its House of Representatives in a 1934 referendum at the urging of Senator George W. Norris, a progressive Republican.

Many body parts come in pairs, like eyes, ears, lungs, kidneys, breasts and testicles, not to mention arms and legs. In addition to providing balance, they facilitate survival if one of the pair is injured or destroyed. [In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.]

With regard to legislatures, it is possible for one house to correct the blunders of the other, or to pass bills without fear that they will actually become law. Bicameralism gives every citizen two legislators to elect, so if one is a dope or a crook, a voter can go to the other for assistance or information. It gives young politicians more offices to run for and acquire experience and recognition. The expense is moderate compared with wasteful spending in government agencies.

Two houses are similar to having a doctor or lawyer to give a second opinion on a matter. It makes bribery more difficult and expensive by slowing the wheels of government. It saves the state from some foolish and expensive legislation.

It all goes back to England, motherland of the Founding Fathers and home of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, which were originally quite different, as the names indicate. In the United States, the houses have become increasingly similar, except that Senates are always smaller in membership, with larger districts. The smallest bicameral legislature is Alaska, with 20 senators and 40 representatives; the largest is New Hampshire, whose General Court consists of 24 senators and 400 representatives.

Question: Is there some organization which ranks our Albany Legislators and Agency staff on such categories as effective leadership, intelligence, honesty, civic-mindedness? Obviously, this is subjective and libel lawsuit tricky, but I would love to see them squirm when they get rated this way. - Caroline from Oyster Bay

Answer: Legislators are rated based on their votes on particular issues by advocacy organizations, e.g. Environmental Advocates of New York, League of Humane Voters, The Business Council of New York State. They give the legislators percentage scores.

One man's advocates are another man's lobbyists. Citizens Union publishes some roll-call votes, but does not give out grades. There is little reason to fear libel lawsuits, since elected officials are public figures.

Some ratings reflect genuine differences of opinion on the issues. Intelligence is measurable, but the most intelligent may be the most evil, since they are smart enough to terrify or manipulate their colleagues.

Honesty is hard to measure. Does a legislator keep his word, or is he a chronic liar. Does he stay bought, or does he require fresh incentives? Does he vote his own opinions, follow instructions, or do whatever he believes will help him politically?

Is he independent? Is he literate? Is he numerate? How does he measure up with regard to the seven deadly sins (envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath) or the seven cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, courage or fortitude, restraint or temperance, faith, hope and charity) [source: good old Wikipedia].

In order to squirm, Caroline, one must possess a sense of shame. It is not clear how many legislators have that particular sensibility or sensitivity.