At a press conference last month, a reporter asked Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he intended to seek a fourth term. The mayor seemed taken aback. After all, his second term is not yet over, and polls have begun to show at least a glimmer of doubt for the prospect of a third term.

He stammered through a response.

“The law does not permit it,” he said at first, as if such concerns were determinative.

“Let me point out that I had no intention of running for a [third] term up until near the end, as you know,” he added, as if the world had forgotten that he made similar public denials up until abruptly shifting his position last fall.

The next day, the mayor said he thought the reporter who asked the question was kidding.

He was not.

So everyone is confused. Will the mayor try running for a fourth term? Does he really think reporters would joke about this topic in the middle of a Blue Room Q&A? Will the city’s term limits law be capped at three terms, the way the law currently stands? Or will the mayor follow through on his promise to convene a Charter Review Commission and snap things back to two terms? Or will city lawmakers once again wait “up until near the end” to decide that they are too indispensable, and extend term limits yet again?

It is time to resolve these questions. And there is no better moment than November.

Last year, when asked why the term limit question could not be put before the voters as it was twice before, backers of the extension said there simply was not enough time. The mayor waited to go public until just after the deadline to get something on the ballot for the November 2008 elections, and he and others insisted that having a referendum in February, so close to when petitioning would begin, was impractical.

This November’s election is now over four months away. That is plenty of time to put together a ballot referendum to settle the term limits uncertainty.

Backers of the term limit extension last year said their presence in office was necessary to give voters continuity. Most of them will get that continuity. A referendum would apply for what the law should be going forward, after the ends of the terms to which they will be elected. Voters could even pull the lever for their incumbent, extension-supporting Council member and mayor, while also pulling a lever reverting the law to two terms. And in the process, New Yorkers might be able to resuscitate the principles of democracy that were thrashed on the rocks of last year’s flash-bolt process.

Getting a referendum on the ballot would not be easy. According to the City Charter, at least 50,000 voters would need to sign a petition that was submitted 60 days prior to Nov. 3. But given how easily they were able to change a law twice affirmed by voters for their own benefit, perhaps a little hardship is in order. Council members have had enough practice to bring them back into good petition-gathering shape in their quests for the unexpected third terms, and the mayor has certainly shown that he is willing to commit money toward elections. The 29 Council members who backed the change should be the first ones out on the streets with clipboards bought and provided with Bloomberg cash. After all, most of the 29 who gave themselves the right to another four years do not even have real challengers. They need something to do with the rest of the summer.

This undertaking will not be cheap. But compared with the kinds of cash swashing around campaign coffers—by one person in particular—adding one more ballot measure is chump change. Nor will there be major cost to the city, since we are holding an election on Nov. 3, barring some even more novel maneuver on the part of city government. But putting this question back to the voters, quickly, would be worth whatever cost, especially if it means upholding the democratic process and reminding citizens that this government is theirs.

A referendum would end speculation about whether or not a Charter Review Commission, which the mayor said would be appointed to settle this question, would in fact be seated. A November term limit referendum would mean that the kinds of promises made to people like Ronald Lauder, who was told that he would be on the Commission to render a verdict on this matter, would be moot. The voters of the city may in the end approve of a three-term limit, and Council members elected in 2005 will be able to breathe easy knowing that their day of seniority will come soon enough. But either way, the voters should decide.

At that press conference, the mayor also said, “It’s up to the voters whether they want four more years.”

Correct. Now the time has come for him and the rest of the Council to make sure that happens.C