Term Limits Question Goes To Voters For A Third Time

It is looking more likely that the Charter Revision Commission is going to pass the buck on what to do about term limits and leave it up to the rest of us New Yorkers. Twice before we overwhelmingly told politicians that two terms is enough. Apparently Michael Bloomberg, Christine Quinn and their sycophants in the Council didn't care much for those prior votes, so they overrode the will of the people. Now to make up for things we get to vote for a third time, whoop dee doo!

From The New York Times:

Come November, New York voters will almost certainly be asked to decide one of the most contentious questions in recent political history: term limits. But exactly how the question is phrased remains up for debate.

Two terms? Three terms? Unlimited terms?

Several members of the Charter Revision Commission, the group responsible for suggesting updates to the city’s 335-page constitution, floated the idea of eliminating term limits altogether at a meeting on Monday.

The Mayor's hand picked people...surprise...think we should eliminate term limits all together. I would love to agree with Mr. Fiala on the Commission who claimed that elections are the great arbiter, but he is too short-sighted to see that elections do not happen in a vacuum. Our system is set up to favor the incumbent and throw roadblocks up in front of challengers. Unless we can level the playing field, term limits are in my opinion one of the best solutions to stop the corruption that saturates our system of government.

When that question is placed on the ballot, the Commission should be warned to not leave the question of keeping putting a two-term limit in place for New York's public officials.

Not Funny Mr. Mayor, Not Funny At All

Michael Bloomberg may think he's a humorous run of the mill plutocratic Mayor, but jokes about term limits are not funny to the democratic system we are supposed to be living in. At the announcement of Stephen Goldsmith as the new superstar Deputy Mayor (and former Mayor of Indianapolis) Bloomberg had those on hand guffawing over the controversial issue of term limits.

Here's the joke.

Getting a cheap laugh may sound good to the Mayor who got away with extending term limits in the fall of 2008 and capitalizing on it a year later. However, half of the voters last year and the great majority that did not even bother to vote are not laughing. What he did was denigrate and spit on the democratic process, all the while claiming to act under the guise of a free democracy. Unfortunately for him, reality says otherwise, and his statements throughout prove it.

Thompson Talks Term Limits

Thompson stood with Randy Mastro and others to protest Bloomberg's term limit extension law today on the steps of City Hall. They believe the change instituted by the Mayor and Council is discriminatory in nature and should be struck down by the Department of Justice.

Thanks to the ever-intrepid Azi Paybarah of the Observer/PolitickerNY, we have it on tape:

Bloomberg Still Waiting On Justice Dept's O.K.

Mayor Bloomberg is already spending millions on his re-election campaign, yet it could all be for naught. The Justice Department has yet to make a decision to allow the term limits extension to go through. The courts have given him a pass, thanks to Christine Quinn the Council let it pass but it must check out with the Voting Rights Act first and the deadline is tomorrow.

From The NY Daily News:

The Department of Justice's section for voting rights must decide by Tuesday whether the October term limits extension will hurt minority voters.

If it does, every two-term incumbent in the November elections would be suddenly ineligible - sending Bloomberg and a boatload of other politicians on a retirement cruise.

The city Law Department filed 1,789 pages with Justice to make sure that doesn't happen, saying that "term limits by definition affect all candidates and their constituencies in precisely the same manner" without any racial overtones.

Norman Siegel and Randy Mastro - lawyers on the other side of the issue - sent their own sheaf of paper to Justice pointing out what should be glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at the City Council: Without term limits, incumbents stay in their seats.

"Since 1993, no minority candidate has ever unseated a white incumbent for any municipal office in New York City," Mastro said. "It's a textbook case of a civil rights violation."

While the Bush Administration's DoJ would haven't thought twice about giving Bloomberg his chance to hold onto power, the Obama Administration might have other ideas. They may also listen to several local Democratic Members of Congress who have voiced their own concerns about the Mayor and Council's term limit extension. Ultimately though, it comes down to whether the city's law violates the Voting Rights Act and as long as the DoJ analyzes the situation, they'll quash Bloomberg's (and many incumbent City Council Members) third term ambitions.

Term Limits To Be Addressed By The State Senate Tomorrow

When the City Council passed the term limits extension bill last year there were immediate cries to have it struck down from up above. So far the legal challenge has been stymied but the legislative challenge has not. In the State Assembly the process is moving slowly but surely and in the Senate the bill is going to be addressed by the Elections Committee tomorrow. Jimmy Vielkind has his reservations about it though:

ALBANY—A bill requiring a referendum on term limits will be heard in a Senate committee tomorrow, but won't necessarily get any farther.

Austin Shafran, a spokesman for State Senator Malcolm Smith, said it will be heard during a meeting of the Elections Committee, and then placed on the calendar. From there, it could sit for months.

State Senator Kevin Parker, the bill's sponsor, said in a Capitol hallway that he is confident it will clear committee and he will hold public hearings on the legislation.

"One game at a time," he said.

Of course legislative recourse is unlikely and I am extremely hesitant to say that the bill will pass. Most likely Bloomberg will have to be kicked out of power at the ballot box in November. However, if there is enough pressure put on Senators by their constituents, the speed of the bill can quicken. Smith may not have taken a position on the bill yet but considering the Majority Leader's power or lack thereof these days, it might not take much to knock him over onto the side that wants the power given back to the people of NYC.

Term Limit Bill Clears It's First State Assembly Hurdle

Albany is a dysfunctional place, but when there is widespread public support for something, the process has an ability to work from time to time. This week the Elections Committee considered and affirmed Hakeem Jeffries' bill to usurp the Mayor and Council's decision to extend term limits and make them put the issue to a vote. The legislation has a long way to go, but nevertheless it is going.

From PolitickerNY:

"While some of us, including myself, are against term limits, the City of New York spoke twice," said Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr., the committee chair.

The bill will now advance to the Ways and Means Committee. It would require a citywide referendum in New York by May 1.

Assemblyman Rob Walker, of Long Island raised concerns about whether the city Board of Elections would be prepared in time. A Diaz staffer assured him the BOE could be ready, especially if the bill is passed soon.

There is no indication it will come to the floor expediently, and still has not been approved by the relevant committees in the State Senate. A spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Ah yes, the State Senate. Hopefully they'll be as diligent as the Assembly is thus far. A May 1st election date is not that far away and everything must be in order quickly. I still feel that the chances of actually blocking the Mayor's re-election bid are slim, but for now, at least they aren't non-existent.

Praises For Quinn Start Showing Up As She Stands Up To Bloomberg

Adam Lisberg of the NY Daily News was singing praises for Speaker Quinn this weekend after watching her stand up to the Mayor over the last couple of months. Indeed, Quinn has been on the more progressive side of issues while the Mayor sits comfortably where he is on the Upper East Side (my apologies to Upper East Siders who disagree with the Mayor). It really is almost as if she has changed from the willing ally back when she passed the term limits extension through in October.

From The NY Daily News:

Now that she's not running for Mayor Bloomberg's job, Christine Quinn has turned into his best opponent.

The City Council speaker stood up last week to back a detailed plan for a half-millionaire's tax that she said would help the poorest New Yorkers - while conspicuously spurning Bloomberg's plan to raise the sales tax on everyone.

A week earlier, Quinn used her State of the City speech to push high-tech government initiatives that should have been thought of by the guy who set up 311 - like creating one online application for all new city businesses, merging back office operations and selling .nyc as an Internet address.

That came a day after she led the Council in overriding Bloomberg's veto of a bill easing residency requirements on DC37 members. They differed only on technical points, granted, but a veto is a veto.

And it was the Friday before Christmas that the Bloomberg administration caved in to Quinn's push to junk a $117 million plan to revamp the city's senior centers.

All great things I agree, as Lisberg dutifully notes them down in the article. He then lauds her style for not talking up these issues in her State of the City address because, "That's not her style." Meh. Mr. Lisberg you have got to be kidding me here. Look, it is great that she's acting like the progressive that she once was, or still is deep down inside.

The issue for her critics though, such as I and those in the Council that opposed her bid to screw the voters and extend term limits so that she and the Mayor could run again is simply unforgivable. This isn't a single-issue, anti-Quinn campaign though, it is a matter of credibility and seeing those that have it. Disrespecting the voters who instituted term limits twice goes to the very heart of having good leadership in the city. Bloomberg, by the way he went about that extension (such as waiting for enough time to pass so that he could claim there wasn't enough time to send the question to the voters again) shows that he simply wanted to hold onto his power. Quinn could have stood up to him then, but she didn't and neither did the 28 other CMs that she helped vote the way of the Mayor and their own self-interest (especially those who were in their second terms).

As to the question of having a powerful Mayor with a worthy opponent, why doesn't those in the media such as Mr. Lisberg wonder about respecting New Yorkers and letting them have a Mayor and Council that actually reflect their views and opinions, and not just the billionaires who lust for power and their "deputies" that wish to have the same some day.

Assembly Will Consider Term Limits Bill Next Week

Making good on his promise to deal with Mayor Bloomberg, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries is sponsoring a bill to rescind the Mayor and Council's action that extended term limits from eight to twelve years. Next week, the bill will get its shot at moving through the Legislature, even if it is a slim one.

From PolitickerNY:

On February 25, the day Michael Bloomberg meets with Republican County leaders, members of the Democrat-controlled Assembly will consider a bill to block the term-limits extension that allows Bloomberg to run for a third term.

The bill is sponsored by Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn.

Here's info on that bill, courtesy of a helpful reader in Albany:

Election Law (DIAZ)

9:00 AM, Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Room 715 LOB

1224-A JEFFRIES, COLTON, MOLINARO, JAFFEE, DIAZ, PEOPLES, KOLB, MILLMAN, BENJAMIN, KAVANAGH, PERRY, PERALTA, BOYLAND, LANCMAN, WEPRIN, WRIGHT, TOWNS, POWELL, ROBINSON, P. RIVERA--

An act to amend the election law, in relation to requiring voter approval for the abolition or modification of term limits for certain elected offices.

While there are a few names attached to the bill (including my own Assemblyman Mr. Kavanagh), it isn't hardly enough to ensure passage. The CW on this is that the chances of actually blocking Bloomberg's re-election camapaign is somewhere between nil and none. While the bill is likely to fail and my hopes of it succeeding are near the CW, getting press on the action is the most crucial part of this.

When Bloomberg pressed Council Members to vote his way, he said that voters will forget that they did an end-run on the democratic process. With actions such as Mr. Jeffries, we will continue to remind New York City that Mr. Bloomberg and twenty-nine Council members disrespected the will of the voters when they passed term limits not once, but twice. Mike may think he is a shrewd politician and an omnipresent one with the backing of his billions, but with enough force, even King Bloomberg can be dethroned.

The Commonalities Of Michael Bloomberg And Hugo Chavez

It might be hard to imagine the Mayor of New York and the President of Venezuela sharing much in common but if you strip everything away and just consider the trappings of power, the two are one in the same. Yesterday a small majority of Venezuelans (or so the polls say) voted to abolish term limits so that Hugo can run indefinitely. It must have made George Bush cringe and boiled the blood of neo-cons everywhere. Though I doubt they weren't too concerned when Michael Bloomberg decided he wanted to run for a third term despite New Yorkers having had approved of term limits by referenda twice in the 1990s.

A few months ago, the blood was boiling on the left side of New York's political side and in the veins of all people that decry political power plays such as what the Mayor and Council undertook. Yet for as much outrage as his opponents could muster, the Council, with Speaker Quinn's prodding, made sure that everyone was able to run for a third term, get extra benefits and allow the Mayor to drop $80 or $100 million on a campaign that some would call buying victory.

Of course, it isn't exactly the same set of circumstances. Our Mayor has never been the target of a U.S. backed coup, nor bashed President Bush day in, day out, and he doesn't even try to appear in touch or connected with the people he rules over attempts to govern. Bloomberg also has no shame, as he now tries to cajole the Working Families Party into letting him run on their line. Despite their differences, both are clearly obsessed with power, and will do whatever it takes to hold on to that. The means may differ because of where they each are, but the ends are all the same.

Court Gives Bloomberg Green Light To Run For 3rd Term

In not so unexpected news, Judge Charles Sifton in Brooklyn denied the plantiffs from overturning the Mayor and Council's decision to extend term limits. It was a slim chance that New Yorkers would be given the right decision here, so it is on to the next battle.

From The Daily Politics:

US District Court Judge Charles Sifton has rejected a legal challenge to the term limits extension sought and signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg, agreeing with the city's argument that opponents of the change will have the ability to demonstrate their displeasure at the voting booth.

"To permit this particular group of legislators and city officials to run for re-election and thereby offer the voters the chance to select seasoned leaders at a time when the economic position of the city must be dealt with serves a legitimate government purpose," Sifton wrote.

"Because no fundamental right was infringed, and because the term limits amendment bears a rational relationship to a legimtiate government purpose, no reasonable fact finder could conclude the defendants had violated plaintiffs' substantive due process rights."

Sifton also found "no admissable evidence" to support the claim that there was a quid-pro-quo between Bloomberg and Ron Lauder, in which Lauder was promised a seat on the next Charter Review Commission that would review whether term limits should be permanently extended in exchange for his support of letting the current crop of elected officials seek a another four-year term.

So there could be an appeal, there could be a fight with the Federal authorities at DoJ (most likely in Obama's Administration by the looks of things) or we could just go straight to city politics and like the Judge said, let the voters decide in the ballot box. Chances are electoral politics is going to be where the deal is done. No matter how much mayoral candidates gripe and stand tall in front of the court, they'll have to take the Mayor down the old fashioned way.

Sadly though, the Judge, in my view is wrong that a fundamental right was infringed upon. His decision sounds a lot like Bloomberg's take on it, basically, if people have a problem with what I did, vote me out. However, the people had clearly expressed their intent about term limits....twice. No matter how you feel about the theoretical side of things, the intent of New York voters was firm. Yet Bloomberg and 29 CMs went along with him anyway for their own personal gain. That intent is there for anyone to see, whether they choose to accept the reality of the situation is another.

Term Limits Debate Gets Its Day In Court

Bloomberg got the City Council to vote against the wishes of the people this past October and extend term limits, but the fight over the issue is hardly over. While the Mayor is still deciding on whether to ask the Feds to give their seal of approval, the courts are looking at whether what the Mayor and Council did was legal. The key question of course is, if the Council can overturn the referendum that the people passed twice in a row without having their consent.

From The NY Times:

Each side tried to make its case, and the judge, Charles P. Sifton, acknowledged how difficult a decision this might be for him.

“We’re talking about different interests,” said Judge Sifton, whose ruling will essentially decide the makeup of the citywide ballot. “It’s difficult to convert into some common denominator.”[...]

Overturning the law extending term limits would most likely cause chaos in the city’s political world, compelling politicians who would be forced out of office to come up with new plans and candidates who had given up running against entrenched officeholders to rethink their strategies.

Judge Sifton, who last month denied a city request to have the case moved to Manhattan and combined with another lawsuit challenging the law, did not set a date for his decision. “I’ll issue a written opinion as fast as I can,” he said.

Sifton certainly has a lot on his plate here. Even though he denied Bloomberg's attempt at making these lawsuits go away faster, the Judge's opinion is far from being known. He is certainly aware of the stakes here and most likely his decision will be appealed one way or the other. Regardless, Sifton represents the judicial branch of government here in the city, and he must act as a check on the Executive and Legislative sides that have clearly run amok of the will of the people.

Whether it be denying Bloomberg outright or demanding a special election (there'll be quite a few coming up for newly-vacated City Council spots anyways), something must be done to stop the travesty committed just two months ago.

Few Fans Left In Speaker Quinn's Original Base

Christine Quinn is at the peak of power in the New York City Council, but those at the bottom of the mountain are fuming at the woman they helped put on top. Quinn was supposed to be a progressive's progressive, not on with GLBT issues but as a fighter across the board that would take on the corporate powers in the City and advance the people's agenda. Now she's seen as the chief minion of Mayor Bloomberg and all the elitist interests he represents. The term limits debacle was the final straw for many. As we approach 2009, her original base is all but gone and hopes of a Mayoral bid, even if in 2013 (presuming she supports Bloomberg's third term) have diminshed considerably.

From Chelsea Now:

Chelsea’s enthusiasm for its Council representative, Speaker Quinn, has diminished considerably, if not morphed into anger. Her abrupt reversal on term limits to support Bloomberg’s bid for a third term, in defiance of the two-term limit established in 1993 and reconfirmed in 1996 by popular vote, has even upset her own political club, the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club. Like most city voters—89 percent of those polled by Quinnipiac University in October—Chelsea residents believe the term-limits issue should be decided in another referendum, not by a City Council vote. Speaking to the CRDC on Dec. 18, Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause/New York, deplored “the about-face of our Speaker, who I have a great deal of personal regard for, and found, quite frankly, that it was shocking that she did not have the courage of her convictions to come out, in any one of the hearings, and confront the public.”

Personal regards aside, what Quinn has done as Speaker is deplorable. Whether it be the use of slush funds or pressuring Council Members in other monentary ways, she has been one of many unethical presences at City Hall and her time to go is now (or technically election day in 2009). The Mayor is much too powerful and a new face and fresh vision is needed to take on the ridiculous amount of corporatization that has gone on in our once proud Gotham. It is going to be clubs like the CRDC and others local organizations that will have to rise up and defeat people like Christine Quinn.

Fidler Wants His Cake, Tries To Eat It Too

When it comes to having an abundance of emotion, Lew Fidler can be counted among those that have it in City Hall. He can talk up a storm and pound his fist on the table for good measure. Fidler certainly did that in the wake of the property tax hike initiated by Bloomberg and shortly after the Mayor's "gutless" comment for all those that didn't vote his way. Lew was outraged, outraged I tell ya!

Check out this sternly-worded statement:

I just wanted to tell each of you that the Mayor has some frickin' nerve calling the CMs who voted no on the property tax increase "gutless". I wanted to remind all of you---or tell you if you had not heard this before---that this is the same Mayor who told me that it would be better politically to do it sooner rather than closer to the election. So who is gutless? The people who stood up and said "this is not necessary now. If we have to do it later because it becomes necessary then we will,", or the guy who says let's do it sooner so the voters might not be as mad when the election comes around.

When he called me in his round of phone calls to thank members who supported the term limits extension, he immediately went to the property tax and said---and I quote---"It would probably be better politically if we did this now rather than later anyway."

I would not share a private conversation this way if he had not made such an outrageous public comment. I guess when you have been a business executive and did not need the cooperation of democratically elected co-workers, you could function this way. After 7 years, its hard to believe that he doesn't recognize the world he works in.

Lew Fidler

Aww Lew, after seven years, it is unbelievable that you do not recognize that very same world. For the sake of your own self-interest, you voted for the term limit extension that is meant to help you and the Mayor in power. Sure, I heard your excuses before about why you oppose term limits and that this is just an opportune time to get it done. Nevermind of course that your actions helped to see an undemocratic means get to its end.

Basically, Lew stuck with the Mayor when it was advantageous to him, and now that the CM wants to be seen as fighting for the people who own homes in his district, he is a screamin' and a shoutin'. I have to admit, even though Bloomberg is a gutless wonder himself, he is right that there are gutless Councilmembers out there, like Lew Fidler.

Councilwoman Mendez Sets Bloomberg Straight On Term Limits

Rosie Mendez is my Councilwoman in District 2 and she stood up in front of the Mayor to address her concerns on term limits. She still wants the issue to be addressed by the public through a special election (though the Mayor feels differently of course). Except for the comment about her constituents wanting to re-elect Bloomberg, her two minutes at the podium wasn't half bad.

Bloomberg 29 Member Gonzalez Gets A Challenger

In a little over ten months, New Yorkers will be going back to the polls, this time to decide on city-wide elections. As you may know, twenty-nine Councilmembers voted for the Mayor's bid to extend term limits for him and themselves. They got away with it despite considerable protest from citizens, but alas, greed comes before the will of the voters for these "representatives" of the people.

So unless we a lawsuit stops this Council vote from becoming law, we'll have to throw the bums out ourselves. There are already a multiple amount of challengers to Members who sided with the Mayor. Now we have another, David Galarza, running against one of the shadier politicians at City Hall, Sara Gonzalez.

From The Daily Gotham:

I know David Galarza somewhat from local politics and consider him a good, honest candidate. Formerly a journalist, David Galarza, has been a member of community board 7 and was a communications specialist for the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), Local 1000. Galarza worked in the public affairs departments of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, NYC Comptroller Alan Hevesi, the NYC Board of Education, and the Children's Aid Society. In 2005, :

Justice Committee, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Greater NY Labor Religion Coalition, International Labor Communications Association, endorsed by Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Lambda Independent Democrats, Independent Neighborhood Democrats

I am glad Galarza is running. We need to challenge the city council members who have shown such disregard for the voters and for accountability. Gonzalez is among the worst and Galarza strikes me as a genuinely good guy.

"Genuine" is something we are in desperate need of in New York City. With all of the domestic abusers, slush fund enthusiasts and Bloomberg apologists, the city definitely needs a change. I am looking forward to hearing more about Mr. Galarza and his vision for the City Council that currently can't see past Mayor Bloomberg's behind.

Lawsuit Against The Campaign Finance Board Gains Speed

When the City Council decided to trample the will of the voters in New York when they passed the term limits extension, they probably expected some outrage but no real resistance. With lawsuits against the decision in the courts, talk of overriding the bill in the Statehouse (unlikely to go anywhere, but never say never) and challengers popping up to do battle with the Bloomberg 29, the heat is truly on. Now those politicians that were starting to run for higher office but are now going with a safer re-election bid have another hurdle to jump.

From Dan Jacoby at The Daily Gotham:

On the same day that Mayor Bloomberg signed the term limits extension into law (and held that mockery of a "hearing"), the Campaign Finance Board issued an "Advisory Opinion" in which they gave people who had spent a lot of money on higher office a "do over" if they choose to run for their current seat.

It's a clearly and obviously illegal ruling, to anyone who bothers to read NYC's campaign finance law, something the CFB theoretically should have done. For those who haven't read the law, ask yourself if high-spending incumbents should be allowed to pretend they didn't spend the money, just so that they can get your tax money to spend on their campaigns, and so that their opponents' spending was limited while they went crazy. Ask yourself if the campaign finance system, which was supposedly designed to level the playing field, should be [ab]used to tilt that playing field instead.

As Liz notes, the CFB says they're just trying to make things fair. The problem with their "leveling" of the playing field, is that it gives an edge to elected officials that already starting from higher ground. That is why several challengers in next year's Council races have signed onto this lawsuit and according to Jacoby, the fairest thing for the voters would be to quash the CFB's recent decision and let the rules stand as they were before.

S.I. Advance Finds NY City Council In Disarray

There was plenty to be grateful for during Thanksgiving (and every day of course) but a working City Council in New York City is not one of them. In a lengthy report the Staten Island Advance has found that the legislature in our city is divided and broken over the term limits fiasco. Not only were things heated between members of the Council last month, but continuing even today with the budget battle looming.

From The S.I. Advance:

In the aftermath of the most divisive battle in recent City Hall history, many members of the City Council who spoke with the Advance said they find it difficult, if not impossible, to trust some of their colleagues. A few even described the institution itself as broken -- that now, more than ever, people seem to be just going through the motions.

The question is, how will that affect the way they work together? Over the next few months, while they negotiate with Bloomberg to finalize a plan to chop hundreds of millions of dollars from spending in this year's budget and even more from the budget for the next fiscal year, will the tough choices they make represent the best choices for the people of this city -- or the deals brokered simply for political advantage?

Brokered deals bred out of ethically-challenged, smoke-filled rooms? In our Council?!? Can I make sarcasm drip out of your monitor on this one? Seriously though, we have long known about how City Hall works and the fact that the term limits extension bill passed is a testament to just how broken it is. What makes me hopeful (to a degree) with all of this mess is that there are actually Council Members that realize how flawed the system is, particularly the ones that voted against the Mayor's undemocratic 845A legislation and that heads must roll for it.

As the Advance notes, Tony Avella and others understand that those that voted for selfish reasons need to be voted out of office. Now that we know what's going on, it is time to act. Every single Council Member must join the thousands of New Yorkers who demand change from their government. We must work together to find challengers to the Bloomberg 29 and work as hard as we can to get competent people into the chamber who will represent their constituents for a change and not the whims of an egotistical plutocrat such as Michael Bloomberg.

How Christine Quinn Got Me Angry All Over Again

For the last two weeks or so Speaker Christine Quinn has been out trying to mend the fences she burned down by forcing the term limits extension bill to pass. What she did with the Mayor and twenty-eight other Council members was an atrocious act that spit on the voters of this city that approved term limits twice. The way they treated democracy was absolutely unforgivable and simply sending her opponents a "lets work together beyond this" message that was photcopied on her letterhead will not do the trick to heal the wound.

Here's her letter in full (with my thoughts in bold):

Dear Joshing:

Recently you contacted me to express your thoughts and views on term limits.

As I'm sure you now know, on October 23rd the Council voted to extend term limits for city elected officials from two to three four-year terms.

Despite widespread disapproval of going around the voters who enacted the limits.

I understand how strongly you and others feel about this issue. The decision wasn't one that the Council and I took lightly, and it came with a great deal of deliberation, dialogue and debate, including two days and nights of public hearings.

Hearings that Quinn didn't take the time to show up for, because really, she could care less what the public thinks since she did not take part in the deliberation, dialogue and debate. If she really wanted deliberation, the hearings would have been brought out to all the boroughs and we would have at least taken two weeks, not rushed through in two days.

I realize there's very little I can say at this point to convince you that my support for extending term limits was based solely on what I absolutely believed in my heart was best for our City: that in these extraordinarily difficult times, New Yorkers should have the choice to keep their current leadership or vote us out at the polls.

Absolutely nothing will convince me that you didn't do this simply out of your own self-interest, since the Mayor was offering you a deal to be Deputy Mayor among other things. Your heart had nothing to do with this, unless you truly love to be greedy.

I would like to promise you this, though. As Speaker, I will continue to work as hard as I can each and every day to earn your trust and respect and to help make city government more responsive and effective for all New Yorkers.

How can I have respect for someone that makes backroom deals with the Mayor and her fellow Council Members? Christine, the only person you are responsive to is Mike Bloomberg.

Next November, you and other voters will have the opportunity to vote for me, any of my colleagues, or Mike Bloomberg for another four years - or to make a change. The decision will ultimately be yours. That, to me, is the essence of democracy.

Actually I can't vote you out, since I'm not in your district but I'll certainly support someone that wants to challenge you. I will without a doubt not vote for Bloomberg. As for the essence of democracy....is that a brand of perfume, because I can smell your stench of slush funds from here.

Thank you for hearing me out. As difficult as this decision was, I appreciate and respect your views and hope we can continue to work together during these tough economic times.

You appreciate and respect my views? Now that'll be a cold day in hell.

Sincerely,
Or insincerely,

Christine C. Quinn
Speaker

Quinn obviously did not listen to Mayor Bloomberg about this. He's hoping that people will forget all about term limits by the time election day rolls around. It isn't very bright to go around using taxpayer money and time to send a letter reminding New Yorkers how you screwed them over to enrich yourself.

I'm relishing your defeat next November even more now, along with the rest the Bloomberg 29 and the Mayor King himself.

The Gang Of Three Do Not Understand NY Referendum

I'm grateful that Hiram Monserrate came to his senses and broke from the independent gang of Democrats in order to get behind Malcolm Smith. The other three however, Kruger, Diaz and Espada are wandering further into the woods and in dangerous territory if they want to win re-election in 2010. Yesterday's meeting accomplished absolutely nothing but more uncertainty for the Senate. The three are desperately trying to remain relevant and delaying their decision about whether to support Smith has now been delayed until January. Oh and they added something new to the mix about their bigotry the debate over gay marriage in New York.

From The Daily Politics:

The biggest news to come out of the get-together, which took place at an Italian restaurant on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx, is that the three Democrats - Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., Sen. Carl Kruger and Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. - are calling for a referendum, rather than legislative action, on gay marriage.

"Basically, they said if Malcolm thinks term limits changes should be decided by referendum, then why not gay marriage?" said a source close to the three.

(Smith recently said he would not move to block a bill sponsored by Sen. Kevin Parker that would require any changes to local term limits laws to be put to the public for a vote).

This is, of course, a way to keep Diaz Sr. in the fold, since he has made it very clear that he won't support anyone for leader unless that person pledges not to bring a gay marriage bill to the floor for a vote.

The new Senate under Smith, according to Smith will not require him to bring the bill to the floor because he will not hoard power like Bruno had for all those years. Tom Duane or any other Senator should be able to bring bills out of committee all on their own.

As for the question on a referenda on gay marriage, this topic is nothing like the debate over term limits. In that area, the Mayor and Council of NYC abused their authority and violated the spirit of the city charter for personal gain. The people of NYC had already instituted term limits by referendum and it is only fair that to rescind it would require the same method.

Now for gay marriage, this is a question of expanding equal rights to an oppressed minority in our country that is treated unfairly due to sexual orientation. It shouldn't even have to be considered by the legislature but since we restrict their rights as a state, then Albany must give them their rights. Those that vote against it, as Keith Olbermann put it so forcefully Monday night have a problem with other people's love and need to take a second look at their conscience before going forth.

Frankly, this matter has to be taken care of from above and the legislature has to show true leadership in giving all New Yorkers equal rights regardless of whether they want to marry someone of the same sex or not. Obviously it didn't and couldn't happen under Joe Bruno or the brief period with Dean Skelos, but it can with Malcolm Smith as Majority Leader, no matter if he introduces it himself or not.

Councilwoman Darlene Mealy Must Go

Twenty-nine Councilmembers voted to allow themselves and the Mayor a chance to run for re-election despite two referendum in favor of term limits in New York City. It was a disgraceful day for democracy and a shame to see these people vote for a bill that was only for their own self-interest. All of them are top targets to be voted out of office next year, particularly such turncoats as David Yassky and the ringleader of this crap, Speaker Christine Quinn. Now I must add another one to the top of the list, Darlene Mealy. If anything, her response to switching her vote for the Mayor added a new definition to the word "weak" as well as "spineless."

From The NY Times:

In an interview over the weekend, Ms. Mealy spoke for the first time about her decision, insisting that her change of heart was based on a sincere desire to establish better relationships with the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to benefit the constituents of her district in Brownsville.

“This was the best way to build my relationship with the speaker and the mayor,” Ms. Mealy said. “And truthfully, I had no relationship with them. I think my district will benefit from my changing my position.”

Because the mayor and the speaker had the votes to pass the bill, she said, it served no purpose for her to be a dissenting vote and fracture relationships with the city’s two powerful leaders. After all, she reasoned, they might take revenge by cutting programs for her constituents.

“It didn’t make sense for my district to be hurt,” Ms. Mealy said. “I need to get resources for my district. We’re already so low on the totem pole. It’s actually pathetic. I felt I was acting in the best interest of my district.”

What is pathetic Ms. Mealy is your decision to cave to Quinn and the Mayor for political favors. The people in your district voted for you because they thought you had principles that you stuck to, obviously they were wrong about that. Then you added other large heapings of bull turds to the already lame excuse, such as:

“Larry Seabrook told me about the history of referendums, where they came from and how they had often been used against black leaders,” Ms. Mealy, referring to Mr. Brown.

“There were rich people who wanted to change the law, just to get Willie Brown out,” she said. “And here in New York we had Ron Lauder who was behind changing the law,” she added, in a reference to Ronald S. Lauder, the billionaire cosmetics heir who financed campaigns to get voters to approve New York City’s term limit laws in the 1990s.

And finally:

On her turnabout, she added: “I felt I was looking out for my district. I did what I thought was right. My heart is right.”

It sounds like you were looking out for yourself, not your district. As for the correctness of your bodily organs, perhaps you should check your spine and your conscience (neither are organs obviously) as well. The referendum were not simply Lauder's idea and this had nothing to do with putting black people down. Installing term limits was a reaction by the city to combat corruption, pure and simple.

I'm glad that Mealy wants challengers to take their best shot at her seat. They certainly will, starting possibly with former Councilmember Tracy Boyland. Whomever is running against you, they already start with my support compared to your unprincipled behavior.