Term Limits Tension Rising

It is d/j vu all over again, again, with the issue of term limits thrust back into the political spotlight. When beloved baseball superstar, Yogi Berra, first uttered those eternal remarks, I am sure they were met with wide grins and hearty laughter. But as the tension over the brewing term limits battle boils over and idle speculation gives way to strategic planning, New Yorkers are left with no laughing matter.
In 1993, voters first approved term limits by public referendum, restricting New York City elected officials to no more than two, four-year terms in office. The measure was reaffirmed in 1996, again by public referendum. Now, as the current crop of elected officials, who came to power in 2002 because their predecessors were forced to leave office, face the end of their respective terms, the issue of term limits has once again reared its ugly head.
If no changes to the law are enacted, the Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, four out of the five Borough Presidents and nearly three quarters of the City Council will be forced out of office on January 1, 2010. However, would-be office holders should not start looking for office space just yet because a growing movement has begun within political circles to overturn or extend term limits. With a billionaire mayor whose popularity is as strong as any in memory potentially willing to self-finance a public campaign against term limits, anything is possible.
I am opposed to term limits for legislators, but believe strongly that they should only be abolished or extended by direct voter approval. Anything else shows a clear and unacceptable disregard for the will of the people. When term limits were first approved, it was said that the massive turn-over would be good for the city; it would bring in fresh ideas and open up government. In actuality, term limits are undemocratic because they deny the voters a choice and reduce access to government while leaving the city in capable, but untested hands.
Because term limits place a shelf-life on the careers of our elected representatives, they are less apt to continue to serve their respective districts for the full course of their terms and more likely to expand their exposure in other areas of the city where they may be running for office. I am not asserting any dereliction of duty on the part of elected officials, but if the end was near in your job, it would not be surprising if you had an eye to the future.
More importantly, the relationships cultivated through nearly a decade of public service that are of immeasurable value to constituents, cannot be forged overnight. Senior centers, school projects and non-profit organizations that benefit from the expertise that only comes through years of service will all be at square one when new elected officials take office. Running our city effectively and efficiently does not lend itself to on the job training.
A democracy is about choices and responsibility. People benefit from the opportunity to choose who among them best represents their ideals, values and beliefs. And in turn, voters have a responsibility to keep the people in office who are upholding their duty and throw out those who are not. Men and women have fought for the right to make that decision. Taking that choice away doesn’t breed democracy; it kills it.
Recently, two bills have been introduced into the City Council which may have a substantial influence on the term limits saga. The first, sponsored by City Councilmember Oliver Koppell, from the Bronx, would allow city elected officials to serve three terms in office. The second, drafted by City Councilmember David Weprin, of Queens, requires any change in term limits come exclusively through public referendum. Weprin’s bill puts the issue where it belongs - on the ballot for the people to decide, but whether his colleagues in the Council take up his measure remains to be seen. In a recent survey by The New York Times, at least twenty-seven of the Council’s fifty-one members said they were open to the idea of changing the term limits law through legislation. I would like to know who they are and why they feel the clear and repeated will of the people can be ignored.
This issue should be simple. Whether you are in favor of term limits or against it, the decision should rest solely in the hands of the voters, not those whose jobs depend on the outcome of that decision. However, this is New York, a city where simple and politics don’t often collide even on the busiest of streets.

NEWS & NOTES: