What's on the back of the ballot

Sliwa has plan to reform City Hall

From the Daily News:

Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, who also heads the state Reform Party, wants to give voters a chance to abolish the city public advocate office.

Sliwa, who also hosts a daily radio talk show, is set to call Wednesday for a public referendum to eliminate the advocate position and have the City Council speaker elected by voters, not the council members.

With no oversight or subpoena power, “it is clear by now that the public advocate position has just become a taxpayer-funded method to run for mayor of the city of New York,” Sliwa said.

Making the council speaker a publicly elected position would take the power away from the party bosses who currently control the process, he said. Sliwa added that the speaker should also have increased oversight functions.

By law, the council could vote to put the measure on the ballot or the mayor could appoint a charter revision commission to do it.

Doubting that will happen, Sliwa said the state Reform Party and its allies are prepared to try to collect the necessary signatures needed to put it up for a citywide election.

Speaker candidate wants term limits extended...again

From the Daily News:

A candidate for City Council speaker has drafted a bill to extend term limits for the Council to three terms.

Councilman Jumaane Williams plans to introduce the legislation by the end of the year to allow Council members to serve three four-year terms instead of the current two, if voters approve the idea in a referendum.

Williams is among eight candidates running for Council speaker — all of whom have said they’d support giving their fellow pols a third term.

“This is only about what’s best for the city and best for good government,” said Williams (D-Brooklyn), who plans to release the bill Monday as part of a broader proposal outlining his plans for the speakership.

The legislation would allow three terms for the Council, while keeping the max at two for the mayor, public advocate, controller and borough presidents.

It would take effect if voters ratified it at the ballot box during the next general election after a vote by the Council for the measure.

Doesn't the process for getting referendum items on the ballot require a large signature gathering operation? If the people vote yes on the measure, then it becomes law. No city council intervention is required. However, no one is collecting signatures to get term limit extensions on the ballot because...the people already voted for 2 terms 3 times.

Sounds like a ploy for votes from colleagues.

Council member introduces bill for shelter commission

From the Daily News:

A city councilman wants to take the politics out of locating homeless shelters by having an independent commission decide where new ones should be built.

“This isn’t happening just in one neighborhood, but it’s happening all across the city,” Councilman David Greenfield told the Daily News. “I think it will be a lot easier to get done than the way we have to get it done right now, which is piecemeal.”

Greenfield will introduce a bill Thursday to create a 15-member commission, made up of 5 appointees from the mayor, 5 from the City Council speaker, and one by each of the 5 borough presidents. The commission — which would have to be approved by voters at a referendum — was inspired by the independent board that determines which military bases face closure, another political can of worms.

“It’s an ambitious solution for what is essentially a political problem, where the politics of placing homeless shelters prevents them from getting built and we’re always playing catch up,” Greenfield said.

Albany preparing for possible con-con

From the NY Times:

Every 20 years, New Yorkers have the chance to vote whether they want to hold a constitutional convention to amend, tweak or otherwise improve the founding document of the state.

For the past half-century, voters have demurred. This year, however, academics, good-government groups and others believe the outcome of the ballot question in November may be different. And — perhaps no surprise — it has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.

“Trump’s election emphasizes how valuable it is for states to chart their own course,” said Peter J. Galie, author of “Ordered Liberty: A Constitutional History of New York” and a professor of political science at Canisius College in Buffalo. “We can put a right to clean air and water in our Constitution. If we want to add more labor protections, we can do it. That’s the beauty of federalism.”

But before voters confront the ballot question, they will no doubt be barraged by campaigns for and against a constitutional convention, affectionately called Con-Con.

Nonprofit groups interested in issues including campaign finance reform, redistricting, term limits and the legalization of marijuana have come out in favor of a convention. They argue that the state Legislature is unlikely to take up these thorny, politically treacherous topics. At the same time, unions like the United Federation of Teachers and state legislative leaders have argued against a convention, saying it could repeal hallowed protections.

There are some offbeat — some might say flaky — positions that advocates say could come about only during a constitutional convention. They include calls for a unicameral Legislature — doing away with the Assembly or Senate — and the division of the state into autonomous regions, with separate regional governors and legislatures.

If voters approve a convention, delegates would be elected in 2018, with the convention held the next year.

What the ballot questions are about

From Capital New York:

PROP 1: REDISTRICTING

If approved: The constitutional amendment would establish a commission to redraw legislative and congressional district lines, as required by the federal government to account for population changes every 10 years. Currently, lawmakers themselves handle redistricting, a system good-government groups argue leads to gerrymandering. The new panel would include legislative appointees.

PROP 2: PRINTING BILLS

If approved: Also a constitutional amendment, this proposal would remove the requirement that bills are printed before lawmakers may vote on them. Lawmakers would still need access to the bills for three days before voting, absent a message of necessity from the governor, but the legislation could be distributed in electronic form instead.

PROP 3: BONDING FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

If approved: The state would be authorized to borrow $2 billion for various education purposes. Proposed by Cuomo in his 2014 State of the State, the chief advertised purpose of the bond is for technology upgrades in school districts, which vary widely in terms of their resources. While the funds would cover infrastructure upgrades to support reliable, high-speed internet access and devices like laptops and tablets, there are other allowable uses. For example, school districts might use it to build or renovate pre-kindergarten classrooms, obtain space to eliminate trailers in overcrowded schools or to purchase high-tech security upgrades. The money would be distributed using existing school-aid formulas. Approval of the bond act would also authorize the state to borrow another $5 million for technology upgrades in schools that serve students with disabilities.

Click the link above to read more about them.

Lawsuit over 2022 redistricting

From Epoch Times/AP:

A government watchdog group is challenging the wording of a ballot question on redistricting, saying the referendum on this fall’s ballot is deceptive.

Common Cause-New York announced the lawsuit Tuesday. The organization is one of several that have criticized the ballot question, which will ask voters to authorize a new commission to handle redistricting beginning in 2022. That’s the next time the state’s political districts will be redrawn to account for population changes.

The referendum says the commission will be independent, even though top lawmakers would pick eight of its 10 members, and the Legislature would have the power to reject any commission proposal it didn’t like.

Common Cause Executive Director Susan Lerner, a plaintiff in the suit, says the proposition is misleading and should be rejected.

Queens pols want expanded gambling

From AM-NY:

Queens lawmakers and business groups are betting that casino table games at the borough's racino will bring riches to the local economy.

As Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushes his proposal for new non-Indian casinos to attract jobs and visitors to upstate New York, southern Queens elected officials Tuesday said their borough should get a piece of the action. They joined with the Queens Chamber of Commerce and the borough's Economic Development Corp. to push for approval of table games like poker and blackjack at the Resorts World racino at the Aqueduct Racetrack.

"We shouldn't be pitting one neighborhood against another, one county against another," said Assemb. Phillip Goldfeder. "Enhanced casinos will really help our state. But more importantly for Queens, it'd be a large part of Sandy recovery if we can bring more economic development and jobs to the neighborhood."

Cuomo's casino gambling plan would allow for three facilities to open in upstate New York. The proposal must get approval from the Legislature and voters in a referendum to change the state constitution.

Quinn attacked for extending term limits

From the Daily News:

The Brooklyn crowd erupted in boos Wednesday night when frontrunner Quinn fielded a question about having helped pave the way for Mayor Bloomberg to seek and win another four years in office.

Quinn spoke calmly over the jeers: “I believed it was the right decision… I respect that many folks disagree with that.”

Democrats often use the term-limits controversy to bash Quinn as uncomfortably close to Bloomberg. It's a perception some observers say has encouraged Quinn to demonstrate her independence before the primary without alienating Hizzoner or his fans in November.

When asked Wednesday, she refused to pledge not to overturn a voter referendum if elected mayor.

The speaker's primary foes -- former Councilman Sal Albanese, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, Comptroller John Liu and ex-Comptroller Bill Thompson -- all said they would not scuttle a referendum.

And the mayor thinks Christine is just peachy.

NEW YORK CIVIC TO SEEK PUBLIC REFERENDUM TO MAKE TERM LIMITS LAW EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Good Government Group to Join Councilman Ulrich, Charter Commissioner Cassino and a Coalition of Former City and State Officials to Close “Grandfather” Loophole That Exempts 34 Elected Officials from Two-Term Law

New York Civic, a nonpartisan good government group founded by former NYC Parks Commissioner Henry J. Stern, will announce Monday morning on the steps of City Hall that it will pursue a public referendum to eliminate the controversial “grandfather” clause of the recently passed term limits ballot question, which delays the effective date of the law until 2021 and exempts 34 city incumbents from being restricted to two consecutive terms.

Joining New York Civic in undertaking this landmark public referendum will be a grassroots coalition of community leaders and activists, including Councilman Eric Ulrich of Queens, who is one of the 34 elected officials the term limits loophole would benefit; Anthony Perez Cassino, one of the Charter Revision Commissioners who objected to the inclusion of the grandfathering clause in this year’s referendum; former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey; Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform, former State Senator Seymour P. Lachman; and Michael Meyers, President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition. Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who will serve as legal counsel in pursing the public referendum, will also be present at the 10 a.m. press conference on November 22nd.

“This referendum is not about term limits, it’s about respecting the will of the people,” explained Henry J. Stern, the founder and president of New York Civic. “It was bad enough that the City Council ignored the voters in 2008 to extend term limits for itself. It is outrageous that, after 74 percent of New Yorkers voted for two terms for the third time in a generation, 34 incumbents can still serve a third term because of a loophole snuck into the last referendum to benefit a handful of officeholders.”

“Although I supported the recently passed term limits referendum, I was very disappointed that the Charter Review Commission created this loophole for me and my colleagues,” stated Councilman Ulrich. “That’s why I am acting, contrary to my self-interest, to restore the trust of the voters who clearly intended for there to be two terms. This referendum will allow us to make things right again.”

"This campaign is about respecting the will of the people and ensuring that their votes count on term limits and their decision stands unless they vote for a change,” said former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, who was the counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit opposing the term limits extension in 2008. “Our local democracy still hasn't recovered from the harm done by Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council two years ago to the true two-term limit that the voters twice imposed by referendum and that they have still not had the opportunity to restore. This campaign will finally afford them that opportunity."

Anthony Perez Cassino, one of three members of the Charter Commission to sign a minority report objecting to the grandfather clause, agrees with Councilman Ulrich’s concerns. “The Charter Revision Commission did the right thing by returning term limits to the ballot for the voters to decide, but we didn’t go as far as we needed to regain the trust of the public. Getting rid of the grandfather loophole is the only way to heal the wounds of 2008.”

Last word on term limits hasn't been written yet

From City Hall:

After last Tuesday’s big win for term limits proponents with an overwhelming 2-1 margin in favor of reinstating a two-term limit on elected officials, the issue, which has been eating at many New Yorkers since Michael Bloomberg’s 2008 decision to overturn the law, would appear to finally be settled.

But Anthony Perez Cassino, a lawyer from the Bronx and member of this summer’s Charter Revision Commission, says he is not done yet. Cassino is already putting together the pieces for a new term limits battle next year.

In August, after a protracted and confusing procedural fight, the Charter Revision Commission decided by a small majority to allow all officials who were elected before Nov. 2, 2010, to serve a full three terms.

That means the two-term limit approved by voters on Tuesday would not fully kick into effect until 2021.

During the commission hearings, Cassino argued that this would be an affront to the voters who clearly had twice stated that they wanted all officials to have two terms. And even before the term-limits vote on Tuesday, Cassino was laying the groundwork for a citizen-led ballot question in 2011 that would give voters the chance to also roll back the term of all current elected officials from three to two.

“I’m 100 percent on board with the idea,” Cassino said. “We didn’t go far enough to heal the wounds of 2008.”

The change would affect all City Council members elected in 2005 and 2009 (plus Council Member David Greenfield, elected in 2010), as well as Public Advocate Bill De Blasio, Comptroller John Liu, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr.

Cassino has already begun to reach out to current and former elected officials who might support the effort, potential donors who could pay for a signature gathering effort, and a prominent election lawyer to fight legal challenges.

How should you vote on the charter issues?

Someone asked that we talk about the Charter Revision ballot measures.

Queens Civic Congress advises you to vote yes on question 1 and no on question 2.

But others disagree.

Here's some info on the ballot measure that deals with transparency in campaign finance reporting.

And here's another about the ballot measure meant to bring about environmental justice.

These are on the reverse side of the form, so make sure you fill out both sides before you feed it into the machine. Here are all the questions.

From the "No shit, Sherlock" file...

From the NY Times:

Two years after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg extended the limit on New York City’s elected officials from two terms to three, paving the way for his re-election, nearly three-fourths of city voters favor reversing his move, according to a New York Times poll.

The remarkably unified public support is a rebuke for Mr. Bloomberg, who overturned the results of two voter referendums when he asked the City Council to rewrite the term limits law in 2008.

Now voters appear poised to undo Mr. Bloomberg’s actions at the ballot box this November, when they will be asked to select limits of two or three terms.

If anything, the battle over Mr. Bloomberg’s decision to revise the rule has intensified public support for the original measure, which restricted most officials to eight consecutive years in office: in 1993, it was adopted with 59 percent of the vote. Today, 73 percent want it restored, the survey found.

Interviews with respondents to the poll show that frustration with the mayor’s aggressive tactics two years ago has influenced their views on the issue.

In a city where consensus on anything can be elusive, the poll revealed broad, bipartisan support for returning to the two-term cap: 74 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Republicans and 72 percent of independents back it.

Good question!

From NBC:

The Commission has labored long and brought forth a mouse. If the voters say they don’t want the change, then three terms presumably will be enshrined for the future. If they vote for this wishy-washy version of term limits, it won’t happen until years from now. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

It’s a compromise, they say, but at whose expense? They want to be fair, the commission members say, to the incumbents. But what about being fair to the people of New York? Somehow, that has escaped them.

From NY Civic:

The bottom line here is that some people wanted to take care of some other people they know. And they were able to convince enough naive colleagues so that they could do it.

The remedy here is relatively simple: another referendum, with an effective date written into it so no Commission can substitute its wishes for the voters' decision by fiddling with implementation and postponing a simple reform for over a decade.

The unanswered question is Rule 17-C. Who will bell the cat? Who will step forward and take the initiative to see that the will of the people is implemented, whatever it may be. Now is the time to begin consideration of that question. It has been attributed to Edmund Burke in 1795. No one, however, really knows who said it first: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing."

To those of you who think, what difference does this make, two terms or three, you have a point. The issue, however, is not two or three terms. The issue is fairness; first the Mayor and Council circumventing the Charter in 2008 for their own benefit, and now the Commission trying to circumvent the referendum of 2010, whether they know it or not.

Americans, and New Yorkers are Americans, like to play fair, and don't like to be disregarded or manipulated. That is what underlies this controversy. It is the same nagging issue that sharply reduced the majority the competent mayor should have received after two successful terms. Our recommendation: respect the will of the people.

From Room Eight:

The need for a referendum to change the charter, or at least portions of the charter for which the politicians have a conflict of interest, is one thing I thought any decent group of people would propose. But they haven't, and there is no explanation as to why, although the report does mention that having he Council overturn a referendum without another one is something many objected to. Not only could the City Council eliminate term limits, but it could also eliminate initiative and referendum. This stunning omission has gone without comment. BTW, to change the NY state constitution requires the assent of two consecutive state legislative terms AND a referendum. If the City Council can just change the charter, why does it exist, since it is no more difficult to change than any ordinance?

Voting on term limits....again

From the NY Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will not be on the ballot in 2010, but the issue that many New Yorkers lambasted him over in the 2009 election very likely will be: term limits.

“We need as a commission to be heard this November,” Matthew Goldstein, the chairman of the New York City Charter Revision Commission, said on Monday night, during a hearing at Brooklyn Borough Hall.

Asked afterward to elaborate, Mr. Goldstein, who is the chancellor of the City University of New York, said, “I haven’t heard any commissioner opine that we ought to pass in November about term limits.”

The statement was hardly a surprise. After all, when Mr. Bloomberg decided in the fall of 2008 to upend the city’s term limits law (which had been approved twice by voters) to give him and other city officials a chance at a third term, he promised that a charter commission would revisit the issue. And when Mr. Bloomberg appointed the 15-member panel in March, Mr. Goldstein said that term limits would be one of many issues on the table.

Still, Mr. Goldstein’s comments represented the most definitive statement yet that term limits would be on the ballot this year — as opposed to next year or even in 2012, as some people have suggested. Mr. Goldstein also indicated that the commission was far from a consensus about what the term limits ballot question would be:

For example, should voters be asked to return to the old system of limiting city officials to two terms? Should voters be asked to make three four-year terms the standard? Should voters be asked to consider a multi-tiered system of term limits, like two terms for the mayor, and three for the City Council members and other officials? Or should any plebiscites be legally protected, so that future City Councils that wanted to emulate the actions of the “Bloomberg 29″ (as the Council members who voted to extend term limits in 2008 were derided by critics) would be barred from doing so?