There are two propositions to change the City’s Charter on the ballot, but neither makes the change we really need, which is to take away the Mayor’s power to appoint charter commission every time he has a bad hair day or a contract to pay off. This year’s Commission derives solely from the Mayor's need to get fellow billionaire Ron Lauder to take a dive and let him have a third term.
However, let us consider these proposals on their merits.
QUESTION ONE (TERM LIMITS): This proposition would reverse Bloomie’s reverse bill of attainder and restore the status quo ante, because there will never again be anyone as special as Mike Bloomberg.
Two years ago, I noted, “Democracy works, if only because politicians have a strong instinct of self-preservation.
Term limits unhinge politicians from the need for self preservation. Why worry about the voters when you’ll never have to face them again? …
…Any law that creates a circumstance which systemically puts a politician’s self interest in direct contradiction to the wishes of his or her constituents is by definition a bad one. Moreover, once politicians are unhinged from the need to further answer to their constituents, they are surely capable of far greater atrocities (and don't even get me started about the need to counterbalance our Imperial Mayoralty with a legislative branch which isn't perpetually dizzy from constant accelerated rotation)
In other words, the vote to change term limits in itself shows why term limits should be abolished."
That all being said, a three-term limit allows staggered rotations rather than the massive ones a two-term limit facilitates. Thus, we get a Council more balanced between freshness and experience. Further, the temptation to gorge immediately lest one always be left hungry is thereby reduced considerably. I might even buy the argument that a three term limit is better than no limit at all.
GATEMOUTH SAYS VOTE NO.
QUESTION TWO (HALLOWEEN GRAB BAG): This is a largely inoffensive set of process reforms that some people are upset about for reasons of process; they cannot vote on each separately, and are petulant about it.
Moving to the merits though, there seems little reason to defeat this.
The proposals would:
1. Require independent organizations that spend money on elections to disclose their expenditures. About fucking time.
2. Cut the number of petition signatures to get on the ballot for City Offices. This is a worthy proposal. Some have objected that the City may be precluded by State law from doing this, but even if this turns out to be correct, where is the harm?
3. Put the Voter Assistance Commission under the Campaign Finance Board. Dan Jacoby of The Daily Gotham and the Albany Project objects, saying the VAC should be under the auspices of the Board of Elections, not the Campaign Finance Board. Does anyone really think the public would be better served by giving the Board of Elections more functions to screw up?
4. Raise maximum fines for a single violation of the City’s conflicts of interest law from $10,000 to $25,000. Jacoby objects that this would make draconian fines possible. Yes, and compliance more likely.
5. Authorize disgorgement of gains obtained as a result of any ethics violation. A no brainer.
6. Require each city employee to receive training in conflicts of interest law. This seems only fair if they are going to be held liable for such exacting standards.
7. Create a commission to recommend elimination of unnecessary reporting requirements. I’d prefer just eliminating any unnecessary requirements, but it seems logical to first figure out what they are.
8. Add to the annual map of the "citywide statement of needs" certain state, federal and private services. Is this not a good idea?
9. Allow the Mayor to reorganize administrative tribunals:
I save this one for last, since it seems to give people the most trouble. Jacoby says:
“This gives the Mayor power to control what is supposed to be an independent proceeding.”
Nonsense. In fact, the exact opposite of the truth.
Take it from me; I’ve actually worked four years as a Judge at the TLC, where my job was to punish immigrants for making a living.
All the administrative tribunals already are part of Mayoral Agencies. They are not independent.
The problems is that right now, they are each administered by the agencies themselves. In the diplomatic corps, one calls the phenomena of being too influenced by one’s surrounding “going native.”
Taking administrative tribunals away from the agencies and centralizing their administration will not make them less independent.
It is not possible to make the tribunals less independent.
Taking the administrative tribunals out of the agencies might actually make them more independent.
GATEMOUTH STRONGLY RECOMENDS A YES VOTE!