Dynamic Between Mayor and Council Seen as Shifting Through Term Limits Debate
Questions swirl in private about what passing an extension means for Council power
October 10th, 2008
As Council members and their aides huddled around televisions in the east wing of City Hall to watch Mayor Michael Bloomberg broadcast his historic announcement that would upend their political and legislative plans, confusion reigned.
Some considered the legislative implications of Bloomberg's announcement: Would supporting him be seen as a vote of confidence in the mayor's agenda? Would it shift the dynamic, irrevocably weakening the Council?
Wrote one Council aide in an email after word leaked of the mayor's intent: "If Bloomberg gets reelected, there won't be any legislative priorities--only executive ones."
Others scrutinized the mayor's tone--is he usually so terse and downbeat? Perhaps this was because, as some posited with more than a little resentment, that his maneuver amounted to a clear about-face. This is the mayor, after all, who not too long ago called any attempt to repeal term limits "disgusting."
Then, amid the swirl of hearsay and fact, and before a bank of cameras as large as anyone could remember assembled in the Blue Room at City Hall, came one of the mayor's many references to the Council: "And so, should the City Council vote to amend term limits, I plan to ask New Yorkers to look at my record of independent leadership--and then to decide if I have earned another term."
Bloomberg's announcement touched off a flurry of private discussions, according to people with knowledge of the conversations, most of them dominated by even more questions: What does the mayor want? What will this do to the Council? Which measure has support in the Council? Which measure has the support of Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan)?
Woven through those questions, as well, was an undertone of resentment at what some perceived as the mayor's audacity in, first, reversing himself without consulting rank-and-file members of the Council--or even its majority leader, Joel Rivera (D-Bronx)--and, second, putting the question of what to do squarely on their shoulders.
Opponents and even some supporters groused privately that the speaker, a Bloomberg ally, had been too willing to go along with the mayor's plans too quickly, fundamentally weakening the Council's ability to bargain throughout the next year and perhaps for the following four. That members of Quinn's staff have met with the mayor to discuss his proposal and decide whether the changes should be temporary or permanent, including an evening meeting after the Democratic caucus earlier this month, has not helped assuage these concerns.
"It's getting harder and harder to see which piece of this is coming from which side of City Hall," said Council Member Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), who has emerged as one of the leading voices of the opposition.
Council Member Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), who has introduced a bill demanding a referendum on term limits with de Blasio, added that what happens on the bill will have a large impact on whether the Council comes to be seen as a rubber stamp for Bloomberg.
"I think it raises serious questions with respect to our independence," she said.
But not everyone who favors or opposes a legislative rewrite has been as willing to speak out publicly. Some have lashed out at the mayor, others have been outspoken in their support, but a third, less vocal group has expressed quiet disapproval of the way the mayor and the speaker have handled the deliberations, even as they consider supporting the legislation.
Council Member David Yassky (D-Brooklyn), who is currently a declared candidate for comptroller next year, told the caucus that he was "disappointed" with the way the mayor's plan had unfolded, but acknowledged that it may ultimately be good for the city, according to those in the room, who shared notes on the meeting on condition of anonymity. He echoed the impression, held by many in the Council, that a deal was all but certain.
Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens), who is undecided, said that he "wishes it had been done a different way," but that people were right on both sides.
Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan), one of a handful of Council members who would not be term-limited out of office next year, said he opposed revising the law legislatively, but agreed that standing in the way may prove futile.
Whatever the outcome, the debate has injected a fresh sense of uncertainty into the remainder of the legislative term, and instilled anxiety in more than a few members of the Council who have yet to etch their own political legacies.
The mayor's flirtation with upending the city's term limits law over the past few months worked as a useful gambit to push through his legislative agenda and solidify his political legacy as his term drew to a close, according to both Council members and mayoral aides. Dangling the question of whether he would seek to remain in office--or the idea that he might run for president, vice president or governor--allowed him to offer meaningful trade-offs and bargain with members of the Council more effectively.
Such was the case in February, when the mayor resolved the debate over the fruit and vegetable cart legislation by offering concessions to certain members of the Council that he normally would not have been able to guarantee if he were on his way out. Those Council members ultimately voted for the legislation, despite their reservations.
But now that Bloomberg is done flirting and fully on board--and the prospect of the mayor remaining in office after 2010 is indeed a strong possibility--some Council members fear that the advantage they may have had in dealing with a lame duck mayor has evaporated.
Aides to both the mayor and the Council said the Council may find it more difficult to pursue meaningful trade-offs with the mayor after he succeeds, and after he has ridden a crest of popularity through a dire financial crisis to re-election.
Aides to the mayor see several admittedly ambitious policy items on the horizon if the Council amends term limits, including a potential revival of congestion pricing and a renewed vigor in the mayor's economic development agenda.
"In this case, time is on Bloomberg's side, in that he now doesn't have to worry about some running out the clock on economic development projects," said Jonathan Greenspun, a political consultant and former commissioner of the community affairs unit under Bloomberg, who has advised the mayor in the past. "In some cases, Bloomberg is strengthened in that those who are opposed to the development have lost their card."
He added: "Extending term limits is a new lease on political life and his relevancy."
Council Member James Vacca (D-Bronx), who opposes a legislative extension of term limits and has often been a vocal opponent of the administration, agreed that merely talking about term limits had afforded the mayor unprecedented bargaining power with the Council.
"I think he's been effective in pushing through his legislative agenda," he said, "even though he's a lame duck."
sgentile@cityhallnews.com
Some considered the legislative implications of Bloomberg's announcement: Would supporting him be seen as a vote of confidence in the mayor's agenda? Would it shift the dynamic, irrevocably weakening the Council?
Wrote one Council aide in an email after word leaked of the mayor's intent: "If Bloomberg gets reelected, there won't be any legislative priorities--only executive ones."
Others scrutinized the mayor's tone--is he usually so terse and downbeat? Perhaps this was because, as some posited with more than a little resentment, that his maneuver amounted to a clear about-face. This is the mayor, after all, who not too long ago called any attempt to repeal term limits "disgusting."
Then, amid the swirl of hearsay and fact, and before a bank of cameras as large as anyone could remember assembled in the Blue Room at City Hall, came one of the mayor's many references to the Council: "And so, should the City Council vote to amend term limits, I plan to ask New Yorkers to look at my record of independent leadership--and then to decide if I have earned another term."
Bloomberg's announcement touched off a flurry of private discussions, according to people with knowledge of the conversations, most of them dominated by even more questions: What does the mayor want? What will this do to the Council? Which measure has support in the Council? Which measure has the support of Speaker Christine Quinn (D-Manhattan)?
Woven through those questions, as well, was an undertone of resentment at what some perceived as the mayor's audacity in, first, reversing himself without consulting rank-and-file members of the Council--or even its majority leader, Joel Rivera (D-Bronx)--and, second, putting the question of what to do squarely on their shoulders.
Opponents and even some supporters groused privately that the speaker, a Bloomberg ally, had been too willing to go along with the mayor's plans too quickly, fundamentally weakening the Council's ability to bargain throughout the next year and perhaps for the following four. That members of Quinn's staff have met with the mayor to discuss his proposal and decide whether the changes should be temporary or permanent, including an evening meeting after the Democratic caucus earlier this month, has not helped assuage these concerns. "It's getting harder and harder to see which piece of this is coming from which side of City Hall," said Council Member Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), who has emerged as one of the leading voices of the opposition.
Council Member Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), who has introduced a bill demanding a referendum on term limits with de Blasio, added that what happens on the bill will have a large impact on whether the Council comes to be seen as a rubber stamp for Bloomberg.
"I think it raises serious questions with respect to our independence," she said.
But not everyone who favors or opposes a legislative rewrite has been as willing to speak out publicly. Some have lashed out at the mayor, others have been outspoken in their support, but a third, less vocal group has expressed quiet disapproval of the way the mayor and the speaker have handled the deliberations, even as they consider supporting the legislation.
Council Member David Yassky (D-Brooklyn), who is currently a declared candidate for comptroller next year, told the caucus that he was "disappointed" with the way the mayor's plan had unfolded, but acknowledged that it may ultimately be good for the city, according to those in the room, who shared notes on the meeting on condition of anonymity. He echoed the impression, held by many in the Council, that a deal was all but certain.
Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens), who is undecided, said that he "wishes it had been done a different way," but that people were right on both sides.
Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan), one of a handful of Council members who would not be term-limited out of office next year, said he opposed revising the law legislatively, but agreed that standing in the way may prove futile.
Whatever the outcome, the debate has injected a fresh sense of uncertainty into the remainder of the legislative term, and instilled anxiety in more than a few members of the Council who have yet to etch their own political legacies.
The mayor's flirtation with upending the city's term limits law over the past few months worked as a useful gambit to push through his legislative agenda and solidify his political legacy as his term drew to a close, according to both Council members and mayoral aides. Dangling the question of whether he would seek to remain in office--or the idea that he might run for president, vice president or governor--allowed him to offer meaningful trade-offs and bargain with members of the Council more effectively.
Such was the case in February, when the mayor resolved the debate over the fruit and vegetable cart legislation by offering concessions to certain members of the Council that he normally would not have been able to guarantee if he were on his way out. Those Council members ultimately voted for the legislation, despite their reservations.
But now that Bloomberg is done flirting and fully on board--and the prospect of the mayor remaining in office after 2010 is indeed a strong possibility--some Council members fear that the advantage they may have had in dealing with a lame duck mayor has evaporated.
Aides to both the mayor and the Council said the Council may find it more difficult to pursue meaningful trade-offs with the mayor after he succeeds, and after he has ridden a crest of popularity through a dire financial crisis to re-election.
Aides to the mayor see several admittedly ambitious policy items on the horizon if the Council amends term limits, including a potential revival of congestion pricing and a renewed vigor in the mayor's economic development agenda.
"In this case, time is on Bloomberg's side, in that he now doesn't have to worry about some running out the clock on economic development projects," said Jonathan Greenspun, a political consultant and former commissioner of the community affairs unit under Bloomberg, who has advised the mayor in the past. "In some cases, Bloomberg is strengthened in that those who are opposed to the development have lost their card."
He added: "Extending term limits is a new lease on political life and his relevancy."
Council Member James Vacca (D-Bronx), who opposes a legislative extension of term limits and has often been a vocal opponent of the administration, agreed that merely talking about term limits had afforded the mayor unprecedented bargaining power with the Council.
"I think he's been effective in pushing through his legislative agenda," he said, "even though he's a lame duck."
sgentile@cityhallnews.com
