Term Limit Debate Is Rekindled,
Mayor Suffers Victor's Remorse
As Day of Departure Draws Nigh

By Henry J. Stern
August 28, 2008

While most of the political world is immersed in the parties’ national conventions, some New Yorkers find themselves dealing with an old issue unexpectedly revived by Mayoral speculation: term limits.

The issue was supposedly settled by referenda in 1993 and 1996, when the voters of the City of New York, on Election Day, expressed their preference for a limit of eight years, generally consisting of two four-year terms, for elected officials in New York City government. There is no term limit for state legislators, or for district attorneys, because prosecutors are state employees, even though their jurisdiction consists of a county within the City of New York.

The term limits law went into effect with the 2001 elections, and about three-quarters of the Council membership turned over at that time, including Peter F. Vallone, who had been speaker for 16 years.

The class elected in 2001 will be ineligible to seek re-election in 2009, and that has led to many candidacies for other offices, with term-limited councilmembers seeking borough presidencies and the three city-wide offices: mayor, comptroller and public advocate. Four members are seeking seats in the state legislature.

Until recently, the matter had been considered settled, with Mayor Bloomberg and Council leaders saying they were committed to term limits. The mayor installed clocks in numerous agency offices, timing the countdown to December 31, 2009; today is Day 490. By that reckoning, 125 remain in 2008 (a leap year) and 365 more in 2001.

With the date of departure approaching, the mayor now says he has reconsidered the issue and would not object if the Council extended term limits from eight years to twelve. He sees nothing in the City Charter precluding that action, and has reportedly consulted newspaper publishers to obtain their approval of extending his eligibility. Business leaders are said to be urging him to run to maintain stability in government, presumably unattainable under any other candidate.

It is true that this question was decided, not once but twice, by referendum. The original 1993 referendum was the result of the efforts of one person, Ronald Lauder. After being defeated in the Republican mayoral primary by Rudy Giuliani in 1989, Mr. Lauder ran as the Conservative Party candidate for mayor. His heavy negative advertising against Giuliani ended up helping David Dinkins, who won the general election contest for mayor that year by two per cent.

In his efforts at the time, Lauder was allied with Senator Alfonse D’Amato, who remains as a bitter enemy of Giuliani. When Rudy ran for President in 2008, D’Amato first endorsed Fred Thompson, and then switched to John McCain. The leitmotif is clearly, anybody but Giuliani.

D’Amato’s grievance was that he had either brought about, supported or consented to the appointment of Giuliani as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York; after which Giuliani and his staff spent considerable time and effort trying to send D’Amato to jail. The closest he could get was the conviction of D’Amato’s younger brother, Armand D’Amato, on 7 out of 24 counts of mail fraud, but a Federal appeals court reversed the conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence.

It was widely believed that Armand D’Amato did not commit crimes on his own initiative, but there is a difference between what people may believe and what can be proven in a court of law. There is also a difference between what is the truth and what will satisfy a jury. Cf. California v. Simpson (1995).

It is unclear at this time what will emerge from further discussion of term limits by the Council. The deadline for placing a matter on the ballot in 2008 is September 5, sixty days prior to the election on November 4. The City Clerk is the functionary who receives petitions and legislative resolutions to refer to the public for decision at the polls. We note that the current agitation about Council action comes when it is barely too late for the Council to refer the matter to the public.

One could almost conclude that the timing of this change of heart was arranged to exclude the public from participation in the decision. Could it be that some public officials were more interested in extending their own tenure than in allowing the people who elected them to limited terms to decide the issue of whether they were eligible to run ad infinitum.

Mayor Giuliani made a similar effort in the aftermath of 9/11, when he proposed that because of the emergency, the election scheduled for that year should be postponed three months, with the new mayor taking office on April 1, 2002. The plan was rejected by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, who held the mayor in low regard because of previous disputes they had over city-state issues.

The most egregious legislative action in recent years, the repeal of the New York City commuter tax, a decision made by the Assembly on May 17, 1999, was attributed in part to the speaker’s distaste for Mayor Giuliani, but other motives, including a vain attempt to win a Rockland County seat in the state senate, may have been in play. In any event, eight million people should not have been punished for discourtesy shown by one man. On the other hand, over the years, the Speaker has been the principal legislative supporter of state assistance for the City of New York.

The term limit controversy will spin on and on. It is complex, so we shall deal with it in relatively brief segments, with occasional digressions. If you have any questions about the issue or its history, feel free to ask us by e-mail.

#492 08.28.2008 942wds