Incumbency Has Its Privileges

by: Justin Krebs

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 08:15


New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has scheduled a vote for thus Thursday on extending theirs and the Mayor's term limits.

One argument for term limits is that incumbents may misuse the power of their office to stay in office.  Regardless of whether you believe in term limits in principle, you see that concern come true in the case of New York.

Council Member Bill de Blasio, who along with the Working Families Pary's Its Our Decision campaign, has been leading the charge against the change, outlined the process concerns at a forum last night: Council members are voting on their own jobs; the publishers of the major dailies were on board with the Mayor before their editorial boards were approached; the major proponent of term limits in the past has been offered a seat on the review commission in return for his cooperation now; there are reports that the Speaker has threatened to strip committee chair posts from recalcitrant members; the Mayor's advocates have hired people to sit in hearings as supporters; and all of this is being rushed through an uncustomary two-week process that has left hundreds of New Yorkers who have come to testify closed out of the hearing rooms.

To de Blasio, it's not about term limits -- it's about the problems of corporate media, self-funded candidates and a willingness to ditch democratic process.

Justin Krebs :: Incumbency Has Its Privileges
At the debate last evening, it was clear that there are legitimate reasons to want to change the law.  Council Member Oliver Koppell, who argued for the repeal, is entirely opposed to term limits (not just, as the Mayor proposed, extending the limit from two to three terms), and had proposed the change in the past.  He argues the elected officials are more effective as they serve longer, and that long-standing Council Members are an effective way to check the executive in New York's strong-Mayor system.

But when it got to the details of how it's being done, his argument fell apart.  He said that though the duration of this debate has been short, it's already been more debate he's seen on any issue in 30 years.  What's incredible is that in his mind that means there's been enough debate, as opposed to recognizing that the packed hearing rooms indicate more debate is needed.

If you're really opposed to term limits, as structured, there would be legitimate ways to go about reforming the law -- that wouldn't misuse the powers of incumbency:

- put it up to a popular referendum.  It was voted on twice by the public in the 90s; let the public undo it.  There would still be time this spring for a vote; and a vote could have happened this year if Bloomberg had been honest about his intentions

- change the law prospectively.  Don't allow the City Council to extend its own terms; pass reforms that affect the next class of Council Members to avoid any conflict of interest.

- charter review transparency.  Don't promise seats on the review board in exchange for complicity; be clear and honest about what reforms a review commission will be examining.

- longer public comment period.  Enough said.

- take a pledge to abide by campaign finance law.  Many term limits opponents argue that New York's generous matching funds and spending limits even out the advantage to incumbents.  Except, of course, when you can opt out and spend $80 million on your re-elect.

There'd be ways of doing this right.  That's not what the Mayor and Speaker are pursuing.  But, hey -- they are incumbents -- they must know best.

Tell the undeclared City Council Members we don't need this vote on Thursday -- contact them through the It's Our Decision website.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Incumbency Has Its Privileges | 13 comments
I wish I felt the same way about this (0.00 / 0)
but I just don't.  I always thought that Giuliani's 2 term thing was too short, and I agree that term-limiting council members is generally speaking a good idea, but I think 2 terms is way too short.  I'm for Mayor 3 terms council members - maybe no more than 10 consecutive years, or something like that.

OH well.  I don't live in NYC any more so I don't get a vote.  But as a former NY'er, I think term limits always sound good from a populist perspective, but are in fact, a lousy idea from a governance perspective.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



you're not the only one who won't get to vote (4.00 / 2)
Don't feel bad, QueenTiye, about not being a New Yorker and therefore not being able to vote...we New Yorkers won't get to vote on this issue either and that's part of the problem.  What was passed popularly is about to be overturned by Council.

I'm not so sure how I feel about term limits.  I've heard good reasoning for making Council terms longer than the Mayor's to balance out the strong-Mayor system.  I've also heard people argue that passing more serious regulations around campaigns to dampen the incumbent advantage could have the same effect of making races competitive.

But as a process, this is just lousy.

[ Parent ]
Term limits might be bad .. (0.00 / 0)
but then look at Chicago .. if term limits are bad .. why not repeal the FDR amendment(I forget the actual number) .. why not let a President serve 20 or 30 years?
[ Parent ]
Presidents are term limited (0.00 / 0)
but congressmen and senators aren't.

Big difference.

When Guiliani originally pushed for term limits, he was attempting to check the power of the council.  The trade off was checking his own with two terms as Mayor.  It worked. But it sucks as a system.  NYC mayors should have term limits at 3 terms - that was always my hope, and there's very little good reason for term-limiting council people for all the reasons stated (NYC's mayor is very powerful, council members get better at their jobs over time, historical continuity matters as a function of governance).  

I favor non-consecutive terms, which means we expand the political playing field, but I don't favor actually "term-limiting" council members, and I don't think 2 terms is long enough for Mayor.  An effective mayor can and will be elected more often than that, and an ineffective mayor will be booted out by the electorate.

And, while I agree that it sucks the people won't get to vote - on the other hand, I don't trust the popular vote on this one.  Term limits ALWAYS sound good to the majority.  I don't like the sound of this self-serving process and I DO like the idea of the correction being in place AFTER the existing incumbancies, but a popular referendum on this is just as bad (in my opinion) as a popular referendum on gay marriage.  Its an easy-to-demagogue issue.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
But that is my point ... (0.00 / 0)
if you think term limits are bad .. why limit the terms a President can serve?
[ Parent ]
Executive authority is not adequately checked (0.00 / 0)
even by the legislative branch (as we've seen with the Bush presidency). Again, as a demogoguery issue - the executive officer is the figurehead most likely to be re-elected over and over for popularity reasons.  Having the executive term-limited keeps power from accretting to the incumbent.  

Power accretion to the incumbent in local council seats is just as likely - but since their authority is checked by other council seats, this is a self-checking problem.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
It doesn't look that way in NY (0.00 / 0)
Power accretion to the incumbent in local council seats is just as likely - but since their authority is checked by other council seats, this is a self-checking problem.
[ Parent ]
yah (0.00 / 0)
no term limits for congressional seats works well!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Veiw from Brooklyn (4.00 / 1)
I agree that term limits probably doesn't improve governance, and I am sure I am in line with most New Yorkers when I say I am open to re-visiting it but definitely not in the undemocratic and nakedly self-serving manner that Bloomberg and Quinn are foisting on us.

My councilman, David Yassky, is one of the "undecideds" rightfully targeted by the WFP's campaign mentioned above. You could say his career in the council is a textbook example of the effect term limits has on the agenda of an elected official. He has stayed on the fence until he cannot possibly avoid it on any controversial issue even though his local constituents may have overwhemingly one-sided opinions about it. I am thinking in particular about the hugely unpopular Atlantic Yards mega-development which overlaps our district here in downtown Brooklyn and which was rammed through by the mayor and the state with only lip-service to local concerns. Similarly, in the term-limits fight, he is waiting to see which way the wind blows. It all comes down to whether he would prefer to continue seeking the office of Comptroller or if he feels his political career is furthered more by a few more terms in the council. Mostly in the council he has been "showboating", sponsoring laws that appeal to a wider electorate, not his district particularly.

Contrast his career with Letitia James, in the 35th District just across Flatbush Ave from where I am. James was a WFP candidate who defeated the Democrat in the general and an early and tireless opponent of Atlantic Yards and a real fighter for her constituency. I would lvoe to see her stay in the council for a few more terms, and I would bet her constitiuents would as well. But she is also fighting this sleazy maneuver by Bloomberg and Quinn.

Why? I bet if there was no term limit, she would definitely prefer to stay and fight for her district. And as strong a defender of the interests of the people in her district as she has been, I would also bet that she would have a harder time seeking wider office in real estate-controlled NYC than someone like Yassky who has always had his eye out for the main chance.

So whiy is she fighting Bloomberg and Quinn on this? Because it's the right thing to do. Justin is right - click on the "It's our Decision" Link in his post!

corrected link - (0.00 / 0)
BTW the link to the site above has a malformed URL. The correct one is http://itsourdecision.org/
Term limits are really anti-democracy (0.00 / 0)
in many ways.

They limit the people from being able to vote for whom they wish to represent them. They also encourage less-experienced people to take the jobs of those who are more experienced.

I can see some of the upsides - getting new people with new ideas can be preferable. If incumbents have huge troughs of money due to special interest contributions, they can be hard to replace with less-corrupt newcomers. My opinion is that we should reform campaign financing laws, make it so big business and special interests cannot buy our politicians, and let the people choose.

I'd prefer to keep a senator, mayor, congressperson, city council member, etcetera in office longer if they were doing a great job for their constituency. If they are doing a poor job, we the people have the responsibility to give them the boot.

Of course, this requires that the constituents pay attention to politics - they need to be aware of what is going on and not vote reflexively for the name they recognize. Managing our democracy requires our active participation.

(I do, however, agree with term limiting the President. The nation's executive should not be able to become a "king". Plus, being president is hard enough toll on a person, I can't imagine a third term would be good for the country, no matter who the president was.)

Power of incumbents. (4.00 / 1)
People who think this is OK, the way it's being handled - letting people in power vote to extend their own jobs - should consider that it is a blueprint for people in power in Washington DC as well.

Supposing Bush decided that, due to some national emergency, likely that he himself generated, it would be best for the country for him to serve indefinitely.
He has a compliant congress that would validate it.

Umpteen more years of hell could ensue.

Personally, as a New Yorker living near the Trade Center, I can tell you that the Giuliani as saviour mantra is one gigantic myth. He did nothing. In fact, by his inaction he endangered the lives of the firefighters.

But in the frenzied aftermath of the disaster, he could have extended his stay - playing on the frightened emotions of the public to validate his executive order.

We can't allow politicians to become dictators. Even if you think they might be benevolent ones. The days of FDR are well over. We are completely controlled by corporate interests. At least changing the idiots in charge every eight years can minimize their grasp on our lives.  

the term limit catch 22 (0.00 / 0)
if you believe that NYC has had fairly effective government for the past 8 years, then you should consider that a fairly regular house cleaning might be the reason for why you're happy. it's the catch 22 we have here - the demand for a term limit extension is borne of the political culture those very term limits created.  
Incumbency Has Its Privileges | 13 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox