Unearthed: Lauder's 2006 Opposition to Council Changing Limits
"How, then, can we let the City Council blatantly ignore the will of the voters on term limits?" billionaire asks in June 2006 op-ed
In the first issue of City Hall, published June 2006, Ronald Lauder laid out in full his thoughts on changing term limits through a Council vote. More extensively than any of his comments since, in this piece, reproduced below, Lauder wrote: "Yes, problems remain. Term limits never promised to make local politicians pure. Term limits just promised to limit their lease. And the new term limits shenanigans afoot in the current City Council amply demonstrate the need to enforce reasonable restrictions on incumbency."
Lauder has since indicated that he might support a one-time extension of term limits by the Council to allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to continue in office. In 2006, however, he wrote, "Asking the voters may be the only legitimate way to deal with term limits. But, for the politicians, it isn’t the most effective way."
The full article is below.
Every Vote Counts, Unless...
by Ronald S. Lauder
WHEN NEW YORKERS ENACTED a two-term limit on local offices, opponents offered ghastly predictions about the reform.
One fear was the new elected officials would lack the experience of the political dinosaurs they pushed from office.
No such luck.
When it comes to political games, the new City Council proved to be fast learners. Today, City Council members who owe their own election to term limits are seeking to destroy term limits. These people got elected because of term limits. Some of them even thanked me for term limits. But now they decide they’re too important to be replaced?
It gets worse. Previously, term limits opponents went to the ballot box. Not this gang. Asking the voters may be the only legitimate way to deal with term limits. But, for the politicians, it isn’t the most effective way.
You see, the City Council’s ruling junta attacked term limits in 1996 by placing their own looser limitation on the ballot. Despite some slippery wording, voters firmly rejected it.
The new City Council class learned a lesson about troublesome voters. Now they want to gut term limits without going to the bother of asking the voters’ permission. Despite two elections with over one million New Yorkers voting for term limits, legislation is cooking to end the current two-term limit by a simple vote of the Council. The legislation will studiously avoid providing any opportunity for New Yorkers to vote on the change.
Naturally, this assault on voter choice comes after last year’s election. In other words, they want to gut term limits after it is too late for voters to hold them accountable.
The arrogance of this incumbent protection scheme has brought condemnation even from many who originally opposed term limits.
After all, in 2001, the first election held with term limits to level the playing field, more than 300 candidates for City Council were on the primary ballots, with record numbers of women and minorities seeking office.
Under term limits in 2001, voters increased the diversity of the City Council, boosting Latino representation and electing the first-ever Asian-American to the Council. Even new Council Speaker Christine Quinn acknowledges term limits opened the way for her unprecedented election to leadership.
Yes, problems remain. Term limits never promised to make local politicians pure. Term limits just promised to limit their lease. And the new term limits shenanigans afoot in the current City Council amply demonstrate the need to enforce reasonable restrictions on incumbency.
After all, a principle even larger than term limits is at issue. During every election, we broadcast earnest appeals urging
the public to vote. We declare your vote matters. And we often race off to court to see that every vote is tallied.
How, then, can we let the City Council blatantly ignore the will of the voters on term limits? Does the City Council really want to proclaim: Every vote counts unless it inconveniences incumbent politicians?
Ronald Lauder was a candidate for mayor in 1989 and a backer of the successful effort to institute term limits. He
is the founder and president of the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation.
Lauder has since indicated that he might support a one-time extension of term limits by the Council to allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to continue in office. In 2006, however, he wrote, "Asking the voters may be the only legitimate way to deal with term limits. But, for the politicians, it isn’t the most effective way."
The full article is below.
Every Vote Counts, Unless...
by Ronald S. Lauder
WHEN NEW YORKERS ENACTED a two-term limit on local offices, opponents offered ghastly predictions about the reform.
One fear was the new elected officials would lack the experience of the political dinosaurs they pushed from office.
No such luck.
When it comes to political games, the new City Council proved to be fast learners. Today, City Council members who owe their own election to term limits are seeking to destroy term limits. These people got elected because of term limits. Some of them even thanked me for term limits. But now they decide they’re too important to be replaced?
It gets worse. Previously, term limits opponents went to the ballot box. Not this gang. Asking the voters may be the only legitimate way to deal with term limits. But, for the politicians, it isn’t the most effective way.
You see, the City Council’s ruling junta attacked term limits in 1996 by placing their own looser limitation on the ballot. Despite some slippery wording, voters firmly rejected it.
The new City Council class learned a lesson about troublesome voters. Now they want to gut term limits without going to the bother of asking the voters’ permission. Despite two elections with over one million New Yorkers voting for term limits, legislation is cooking to end the current two-term limit by a simple vote of the Council. The legislation will studiously avoid providing any opportunity for New Yorkers to vote on the change.
Naturally, this assault on voter choice comes after last year’s election. In other words, they want to gut term limits after it is too late for voters to hold them accountable.
The arrogance of this incumbent protection scheme has brought condemnation even from many who originally opposed term limits.
After all, in 2001, the first election held with term limits to level the playing field, more than 300 candidates for City Council were on the primary ballots, with record numbers of women and minorities seeking office.
Under term limits in 2001, voters increased the diversity of the City Council, boosting Latino representation and electing the first-ever Asian-American to the Council. Even new Council Speaker Christine Quinn acknowledges term limits opened the way for her unprecedented election to leadership.
Yes, problems remain. Term limits never promised to make local politicians pure. Term limits just promised to limit their lease. And the new term limits shenanigans afoot in the current City Council amply demonstrate the need to enforce reasonable restrictions on incumbency.
After all, a principle even larger than term limits is at issue. During every election, we broadcast earnest appeals urging
the public to vote. We declare your vote matters. And we often race off to court to see that every vote is tallied.
How, then, can we let the City Council blatantly ignore the will of the voters on term limits? Does the City Council really want to proclaim: Every vote counts unless it inconveniences incumbent politicians?
Ronald Lauder was a candidate for mayor in 1989 and a backer of the successful effort to institute term limits. He
is the founder and president of the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation.
