http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/nyregion/17nyc.html?_r=1&oref=sloginInteresting speculation re. Mayor for Life and possible future financial benefits for the "little gray people" who make it all possible.
Apparently there is no explicit violation of the law. OTOH, it's hard to believe that the city's byzantine-in-their-complexity conflict of interest laws are being studiously observed. With so many potential goodies to be enjoyed down the line, and all.
NYC
What’s the Matter at City Hall: Democracy, the Voice of the People and All That
By CLYDE HABERMAN
Published: October 16, 2008
Let’s begin with a civics quiz.
: Michael Bloomberg
Times Topics: Term Limits Of the following political figures, whose actions have shown a true belief in the concept that the people, not the politicians, should decide an issue as fundamental as term limits for government leaders? Is it (a) Michael R. Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, (b) Christine C. Quinn, New York’s City Council speaker, or (c) Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president?
Stumped? Here are some hints, starting with the mayor and the Council speaker.
They struck a deal to undermine the results of two referendums in the 1990s in which New York City voters said by large margins that important officeholders — including the mayor and all 51 Council members — should be limited to two consecutive terms. Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn used to speak about those two plebiscites as virtually amounting to sacraments. Not anymore.
This week, Ms. Quinn made it clear that she would be Mr. Bloomberg’s chief enabler in the Council to push through a voter-dodging bill that would stretch the limit to three terms. The bill goes by the nondescript title of Proposed Intro No. 845-A. You may reasonably think of it as the Incumbency Protection Act of 2008.
On Thursday, a hearing was held in the main Council chamber. As a sign of how critical this issue is, more than half of the Council’s members showed up — an unusually high turnout.
The room was packed with spectators. Dozens of seats were filled with people carrying green signs bearing slogans like “Democrats for Choices: Extend Term Limits.” They were on the mayor’s side. (Essentially, he and his minions assert that by taking away the people’s right to decide the future of term limits, they are actually increasing the voters’ ballot options in next year’s municipal elections. In other words, less choice means more choice. Orwell, anyone?)
The sign holders resisted efforts to find out who they were and why they had gone to City Hall. Everything about them screamed rent-a-crowd.
The hearing stretched into the night. It is scheduled to resume on Friday morning. And that will be that for the public’s say in the matter.
Typically on so highly sensitive an issue, with nothing less than the democratic process on the line, many hearings are held, often with at least one in every borough. But this is a rush job. The full Council may vote on the matter next week. The bill is moving like an express train. It might as well be called the Bloomberg Unlimited.
Both the mayor and the speaker bristle at suggestions that theirs is “a backroom deal.” They may be right. Who knows what room the deal was made in? But they definitely have, shall we say, an understanding.
In lavishly praising Ms. Quinn, Mr. Bloomberg used some intriguing language on Monday. Were she not in government, he said, she “would have enormous opportunities in the private sector as well as the public sector.” Until the billionaire businessman-turned-politician uttered those words, no one had talked about Ms. Quinn in any kind of role beyond government service.
Then on Wednesday, having rejected holding a third voter referendum on New York’s electoral process, Mr. Bloomberg flew to Los Angeles to support a referendum that would change how Californians elect their public officials. He was not amused when someone pointed out the contrast. Chalk it off to a sudden bout of irony deficiency anemia.
Ms. Quinn had her own interesting take on the end-run around New York voters. At a news conference this week, she described Proposed Intro No. 845-A as “the essence of democracy.” When asked how New Yorkers could be assured that they won’t witness a similar attempt to cling to power four years from now, Ms. Quinn replied, “I don’t believe this is something that we’ll see happening on a regular basis.”
Let’s see. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani used that crisis to try to keep himself in office beyond the expiration date set by term limits. The ploy didn’t work. Now Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn are using this economic crisis to extend their stay in office.
How many times must New Yorkers see this movie before it qualifies as “happening on a regular basis”?
Oh, yes, we haven’t forgotten the civics quiz. Here’s another hint: Ten months ago, Mr. Chávez of Venezuela held a referendum on his attempt to increase his considerable power by, among other things, ending term limits. He lost.
In the last few days, a few critics of Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Quinn have cited Venezuela’s experience. Generally speaking, any day when New York’s leaders are compared unfavorably with Hugo Chávez is probably not a good day.
E-mail: haberman@nytimes.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
