The first part of this column left a few gaps for detractors to exploit, so I hope I can close some of the gaps here. We shall see. Maybe I should have drawn up a list of those New York City Council members, who I now see as having outlived their usefulness -as elected officials- prior to doing my last column; but in previous columns during this current term-limits brouhaha, I felt I had made the identities of some of these individuals quite clear to readers. Maybe I haven’t. Maybe someday I will.

Anyone who was elected knowing full well the two term rule when they ran -limiting them to eight consecutive years in the council and no more- should not seek re-election once their time is up. Period. Beyond the culprits already listed, include the likes of Larry Seabrook, Kendall Stewart, Martin Dilan jnr. and a few others we all know. What they have done is dishonest. Period. Anyone who voted for the mayor’s disgraceful bill overturning the will of the voters, should be voted out of office; period; and with no exceptions -including the mayor himself. Hijacking democracy is a capital crime against the polity. It is difficult to imagine that these people are such intellectual midgets that they don’t get all this.

What I tried to get from responders to my last column was something the mayor’s flunkies failed to give us during the public hearings: the dire reasoning behind the justification for an extension. So I will ask it here in more stringent terms.

Given our current economic crisis - claimed as the main reason for this extension- what fiscal expertise do you bring to the table? Please answer this in both individualistic and collective ways. What expertise in the area of economics do you bring to the table? Where, when and why did you study accounting, fiscal-management, budgets, finance and economics? What are your accomplishments in these fields? Why would you give a member of the same class that got us into this mess another opportunity at the helm? Is this common-sense at work? What exactly are the problems you foresee (I bet there is no good answer to this one)? Also: how do you plan to solve these anticipated problems? Do spell it out in tangible and credible ways; especially since at both federal and state levels (and relative to the economic crisis) we are seeing blind men running around with no end in sight.

Further; what projects have you (as electeds) failed to complete that necessitate the extension? Also; why did you fail to complete them? Next up will be: what community initiatives do you now want to attempt that you have failed to do before? Why did you fail to do so before? Also; what program(s) do you want to introduce that you didn’t do before? And again: why didn’t you do it (them) before? What legislation (or pieces of) do you now want to introduce that you didn’t introduce before? Why didn’t you? What piece (or pieces) of legislation that you failed with before, are you seeking to return? Why? Why did it (they) fail before?

Let me continue in this vein. What high-capital development projects are there that you now must get more time in office to complete? Why didn’t you identify them before? Why weren’t they completed on time? Likewise for low-capital development projects; and civic-responsibility projects; and youth-development projects; and educational-development projects; and so on, and so on, and so on. I am sure you catch my drift here.

Further; what community-organization projects that are in the pipeline -or are on the drawing boards- or are in their infancies since conception; that are screaming for existence now, that you feel necessitates your stay/extension? Why didn’t you develop them before? Can’t they be further developed by your successor? What constituent-service issues are there in the “pending” file, needing your unique and undivided attention? What sensitive district-issues (race/ethnicity/religion/police-issues/health issues/and such) are there, that demand only your undivided attention and God-like input? On the committees you serve on, what outstanding issues are there that warrant your expertise? What are your areas of expertise that we will sorely miss as a district/city? Couldn’t you still make public-service contributions to such issues once you are out of office?

The “biggie” is this: can’t your successor(s) follow up on any (or all) of these things I have outlined here?

Let me again go further: what exceptional staff member(s) do you now hold that will be a big loss to the district or city, if you leave office now and they too have to depart? Can’t he/ she/ they/ not work for another council-member based on your recommendation? In this way the loss won’t be severely compounded. What solid advisers do you now have that will be a major loss to the district/city if you leave office as mandated by the people’s will? Can’t those advisers become excellent assets based on your recommendations?

Look; I could go on and on, but I doubt some of these things I have outlined here -or even anymore in my artillery that I could further enlighten you guys on- were even thought up by some of these electeds: as part of the job-description. In my mindset, there are many others. I hate to say the following: but it is true. I have offered the services of myself and many others -who I strongly believed were qualified, capable and competent enough to serve- to many an elected official; only to be shot down, jerked-around, deceived and/or refused, and such. I have now stopped doing this.

In my estimation, most black electeds lack imagination. I also see them as cowards. Many hate to be challenged by anyone they perceive as intellectually developed; it’s too intimidating. Black electeds like to deal only with those they believe they can control. It is not about getting the brightest and the best into their corners -and I am not saying this because I think I am among the best or brightest- it’s because I have seen this play out so many times over the years; and with people who had so much to contribute, so much to offer various communities/issues. They were never hired or utilized. Why?

The other question here is this: once an elected has been in office -or in a position of influence- for eons, why should he or she be rewarded with an extension, when it has been demonstrated that they have failed to deal with many of the real and serious issues facing the district or city? So for people like Al Vann (35 years in elected office); Leroy Comrie (7years in office and countless years in influence); Lew Fidler (first elected district leader about 16 years ago or so, plus 7years as council member); Larry Seabrook (about two decades as an elected on both city and state levels); and many others in the city council (and even those in the state legislature); who lack imagination, vision, creativity, honesty and integrity; the built-in advantage of incumbency should not be a reward, and/or a pathway to their selfish attempts at elected-infinity.

Sure some of them may deserve laterals, whereby they can move to positions in another part of government -if they so choose- especially the better and hard-working ones. But they all need to respect the fact that even the president of the USA is term-limited. So should they; especially when the voters decided twice to vote that way. I honestly believe that all those who voted for the mayor’s term-limit extension bill, know deep down within themselves: they were wrong.

So to my political friend Lew Fidler, let me say this: it is not about your position on term-limits. It’s about the dishonesty of this mayor and his co-horts. You love to express that you have always been against term limits: but that is moot. You see, the voters decided that issue long ago. You and your ilk could have always brought the issue back up for a referendum, but you didn’t in seven years in office. And now you won’t do it at anytime over the next seven months: as you could. Why?

Don’t lie and say that the window for having this referendum is closed. It can be still be done anytime between now and the end of May -and you all know this. It can be added to any of the many special-election ballot initiatives we will be having early next year, to fill vacancies in the council. You know this; so too does Speaker Christine Quinn, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The collective behavior here is despicable. This open display of dishonesty is obscene.

Don’t be an apologist for all this Lew; you are better than that. As long as the Supreme Court deems term-limits as constitutional, you and your colleges need to respect the will of the voters. The downsides of term limits have already been discussed and the voters still made their choices: twice. Dishonesty should never be rewarded: never. I could only hope that voters are tuned-in to all this. If they are, then you guys will all get your just rewards (and desserts) if the federal courts fail to end this travesty. I expect the federal courts to shoot down your hijack of democracy.

BTW: I am not finished with all you guys yet. And Lew; please don’t try to simply dismiss me as a cynic; I am more than that: I am a thinker. Have a nice Sunday sir; you and all your colleagues.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |