Home Page > Editorial and Op-Ed
The Changes We Need, Starting with Term Limits
Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:43:00
Mayor Michael Bloomberg did a good job of reigniting the debate over term limits in New York City last month before deftly disposing of the opposition in one of the fastest legislative processes ever to occur in municipal government. There were and still are many opposed to the change, including several local members of the Assembly and State Senate—most notably Hakeem Jeffries and Eric Adams, though people like Ruben Diaz, Jr. and Kevin Parker joined the charge as well. Naturally, this led some in the term limits extension camp to ask the next reasonable question: if they are willing to fight for term limits for city officials, why not support similar limits for state officials?
Well, some said, the opposition was to the means, not the ends: they abhorred the idea of term limits, but abhorred the idea of legislatively tweaking a charter provision created by referendum even more. Jeffries has since introduced a home rule bill that would prevent the change from taking effect without a referendum, and there is reason to believe that the legislation might have some legs if the speaker and new majority in the Senate decide to flex their muscle as one of the first acts of Democratic dominance. There are certainly enough personal factors in play to imagine that they will at least be tempted to get in the mix.
But the most respectable response to those asking the questions at the New York City Council’s Governmental Operations Committee hearing came from Adams. Yes, the freshman senator said in his testimony, they had a good point, and he was indeed planning to back a bill with Assembly Member Karim Camara to institute term limits for the Legislature.
That is exactly the right thing to do.
Having term limits in place in New York opened up the process to people who otherwise would have been largely shut out, many of whom arrived with important ideas. Sure, the ticking clock motivated a lot of arguably premature jockeying for other positions, but this proved to be exactly what was necessary to motivate city government into intense action. Sure, term limits kicked out a lot of good people in 2001 and was on the verge of doing so again in 2009, but they also kicked out a fair amount of mediocre people, and—more importantly—gave more good people a chance to serve, working as an effective way to recruit top leaders into civic engagement.
The argument voiced most often against term limits in New York City, however, is the strongest argument for having them in Albany: they make institutional memory impossible. In a state government which has been effectively complacent about letting problems ride for years and which has been known to let good ideas fall by the wayside because they conflict with the status quo, institutional memory is something we could use a lot less of in the halls of the Capitol.
With fewer and fewer competitive elections for the Legislature, especially in the Assembly, the democratic check on encrusting power is all but gone, making term limits the only way to scrape out people who have been in their seats for far too long. Granted, they would at the same time remove some very good long-serving members, but that is the price we would pay for a measure that could truly do some good in changing state government and the state as a whole.
With the two-year terms currently in place, limits of four or five should give legislators enough time to learn the ropes but not enough time to sacrifice the energy and momentum which needs to be brought into state government. Taken together with an independent redistricting commission, a real campaign finance system and rules changes which would open up committees and the process of bills coming to the floor, this is an agenda all 212 legislators should support.
Responsible leadership would be acting entirely against basic self-interest to institute these massive changes in the state. After a year of campaign promises and high-minded rhetoric, Democrats now have the opportunity to show that with full control of Albany, they actually can and will be able to transform the state government from the worst-ranked in the country to something better. Any of these would be a good way to start. All of them would be the revolution that we need.
Well, some said, the opposition was to the means, not the ends: they abhorred the idea of term limits, but abhorred the idea of legislatively tweaking a charter provision created by referendum even more. Jeffries has since introduced a home rule bill that would prevent the change from taking effect without a referendum, and there is reason to believe that the legislation might have some legs if the speaker and new majority in the Senate decide to flex their muscle as one of the first acts of Democratic dominance. There are certainly enough personal factors in play to imagine that they will at least be tempted to get in the mix.
But the most respectable response to those asking the questions at the New York City Council’s Governmental Operations Committee hearing came from Adams. Yes, the freshman senator said in his testimony, they had a good point, and he was indeed planning to back a bill with Assembly Member Karim Camara to institute term limits for the Legislature.
That is exactly the right thing to do.
Having term limits in place in New York opened up the process to people who otherwise would have been largely shut out, many of whom arrived with important ideas. Sure, the ticking clock motivated a lot of arguably premature jockeying for other positions, but this proved to be exactly what was necessary to motivate city government into intense action. Sure, term limits kicked out a lot of good people in 2001 and was on the verge of doing so again in 2009, but they also kicked out a fair amount of mediocre people, and—more importantly—gave more good people a chance to serve, working as an effective way to recruit top leaders into civic engagement.
The argument voiced most often against term limits in New York City, however, is the strongest argument for having them in Albany: they make institutional memory impossible. In a state government which has been effectively complacent about letting problems ride for years and which has been known to let good ideas fall by the wayside because they conflict with the status quo, institutional memory is something we could use a lot less of in the halls of the Capitol.
With fewer and fewer competitive elections for the Legislature, especially in the Assembly, the democratic check on encrusting power is all but gone, making term limits the only way to scrape out people who have been in their seats for far too long. Granted, they would at the same time remove some very good long-serving members, but that is the price we would pay for a measure that could truly do some good in changing state government and the state as a whole.
With the two-year terms currently in place, limits of four or five should give legislators enough time to learn the ropes but not enough time to sacrifice the energy and momentum which needs to be brought into state government. Taken together with an independent redistricting commission, a real campaign finance system and rules changes which would open up committees and the process of bills coming to the floor, this is an agenda all 212 legislators should support.
Responsible leadership would be acting entirely against basic self-interest to institute these massive changes in the state. After a year of campaign promises and high-minded rhetoric, Democrats now have the opportunity to show that with full control of Albany, they actually can and will be able to transform the state government from the worst-ranked in the country to something better. Any of these would be a good way to start. All of them would be the revolution that we need.
