Dear Editor,
Frankly, I would welcome the opportunity to serve my constituents and the citizens of New York for another term. It's likely that at the end of 2009 there will be unfinished business in two areas where I have taken leadership roles: public education and minority affairs. The possibility of continuing to advance these causes and promote progress has real appeal.
My "self-serving" personal considerations are not the reason term limits should be re-examined. There are a number of substantive reasons why this issue should be revisited. The Federal Constitution imposes term limits on the president for a very specific reason-to confine the lasting influence of one president's judicial appointments to a reasonable time frame: a maximum of eight years. The Constitutional amendment imposing presidential term limits came in the wake of Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court. The Constitution places this restriction only on the Executive branch of government; there is no attempt to curb the legislative branch of government other than scheduled elections.
When New York City voters were presented with the issue of term limits in 1993 and again in 1996, no such distinction was made. Voters could only vote up or down-imposing term limits on both branches without regard to the very different functions and impact on these separate branches of government.
One important consequence of term limits for the city's legislative body, the Council, is the impact on legislative leadership. Legislative leadership works very differently than executive leadership. An executive-the mayor or the president-governs by directive. Orders are given-for example, across-the-board budget cuts of 2.5 percent-and there is a distinctly vertical hierarchy.
A legislative leader guides more by consensus. For the City Council, our legislative leader is elected from amongst our membership by the membership. With current term limits, Council members are faced with only two options. Each has drawbacks: elect a brand new member or elect a lame duck. As a system of governance, this puts the Council in a weaker position than the executive branch, where the leader can hit the ground running from day one, not having to build or maintain coalitions.
Another consideration for the electorate is the constitutional requirement that council district boundaries be redrawn after every national census-which is a ten-year cycle. City elections are on four-year cycles, so there is "jiggling" to make the city election cycle fit the constitutional requirements. I ran in 2001, in 2003 and in 2005 and will have served two two-year terms and one four-year term to complete my eight years of service. This makes for inconsistent cycles of service, which potentially affects pragmatic things like committee tenures and assignments. And there are direct costs to the public of holding odd-year elections that traditionally get less attention and lower turnouts than presidential elections.
Term limits also bring an unintended consequence that I believe will become more detrimental over time. City agencies always have some institutional continuity because the majority of staff do not come and go as a result of an election. On the other hand, legislative staffers serve at the pleasure of the speaker or Council member. With key benefits pegged to 10 years of service and term limits capped at eight years-two years shy of that threshold-staff members are out along with their principals and without the benefits that traditionally make civil service attractive. This is a disincentive that will ultimately lower the caliber of people willing to work in staff positions at the Council.
For all of the above reasons, I believe the issue of term limits needs to be reexamined.
In Unity,
Council Member Robert Jackson
Frankly, I would welcome the opportunity to serve my constituents and the citizens of New York for another term. It's likely that at the end of 2009 there will be unfinished business in two areas where I have taken leadership roles: public education and minority affairs. The possibility of continuing to advance these causes and promote progress has real appeal.
My "self-serving" personal considerations are not the reason term limits should be re-examined. There are a number of substantive reasons why this issue should be revisited. The Federal Constitution imposes term limits on the president for a very specific reason-to confine the lasting influence of one president's judicial appointments to a reasonable time frame: a maximum of eight years. The Constitutional amendment imposing presidential term limits came in the wake of Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court. The Constitution places this restriction only on the Executive branch of government; there is no attempt to curb the legislative branch of government other than scheduled elections.
When New York City voters were presented with the issue of term limits in 1993 and again in 1996, no such distinction was made. Voters could only vote up or down-imposing term limits on both branches without regard to the very different functions and impact on these separate branches of government.
One important consequence of term limits for the city's legislative body, the Council, is the impact on legislative leadership. Legislative leadership works very differently than executive leadership. An executive-the mayor or the president-governs by directive. Orders are given-for example, across-the-board budget cuts of 2.5 percent-and there is a distinctly vertical hierarchy.
A legislative leader guides more by consensus. For the City Council, our legislative leader is elected from amongst our membership by the membership. With current term limits, Council members are faced with only two options. Each has drawbacks: elect a brand new member or elect a lame duck. As a system of governance, this puts the Council in a weaker position than the executive branch, where the leader can hit the ground running from day one, not having to build or maintain coalitions.
Another consideration for the electorate is the constitutional requirement that council district boundaries be redrawn after every national census-which is a ten-year cycle. City elections are on four-year cycles, so there is "jiggling" to make the city election cycle fit the constitutional requirements. I ran in 2001, in 2003 and in 2005 and will have served two two-year terms and one four-year term to complete my eight years of service. This makes for inconsistent cycles of service, which potentially affects pragmatic things like committee tenures and assignments. And there are direct costs to the public of holding odd-year elections that traditionally get less attention and lower turnouts than presidential elections.
Term limits also bring an unintended consequence that I believe will become more detrimental over time. City agencies always have some institutional continuity because the majority of staff do not come and go as a result of an election. On the other hand, legislative staffers serve at the pleasure of the speaker or Council member. With key benefits pegged to 10 years of service and term limits capped at eight years-two years shy of that threshold-staff members are out along with their principals and without the benefits that traditionally make civil service attractive. This is a disincentive that will ultimately lower the caliber of people willing to work in staff positions at the Council.
For all of the above reasons, I believe the issue of term limits needs to be reexamined.
In Unity,
Council Member Robert Jackson
