I wish I were making this up.

The mayor's term limits extension bill (Intro 845) has already been amended. The addition, slipped into the bill in the middle of ... well, when someone thought nobody was watching, is being called the "Lauder clause" by the Daily News. Unfortunately, the Daily News got it all wrong.

They claim that this addition will create a referendum in 2010 to roll back term limits to the two-full-term limit we have now. WRONG! All this addition does is to say that IF there is this particular kind referendum, and IF the voters approve it, then AND ONLY THEN will the rollback occur.

So what the heck is that little tidbit doing in there? Read on.

Honestly, if it has been put in to appease Ron Lauder, it's incredibly stupid. Anyone with half a brain can read the thing and see that it has no purpose or value whatsoever -- did whoever wrote it (Michael Bloomberg? Christine Quinn? Someone else?) think that it would fool Ron Lauder? Did they think it would fool anyone (even the Daily News reporters) for long?

Or is it just Mayor Bloomberg's/Speaker Quinn's way of playing both sides -- telling first-term Council members that they're covered, while telling Ron Lauder that he's covered too?

I honestly have no idea. Smart people acting like stupid people worries me. Bloomberg, Lauder and Quinn are smart people. For that matter, so is committee chairman Simcha Felder. But this "Lauder clause" doesn't pass any smell test.