After posting about the fact that reliable reformer Assemblyman Jim Brennan as well as the Downtown Independent Democrats have come out against both of Bloomberg's BS charter amendments, I did some more research and found another reliable reformer who opposes them: our own Dan Jacoby.

From Dan Jacoby, a fellow Daily Gotham blogger:

On charter amendment 1:

Dan Jacoby, Executive Director, GrassrootsNYC
Term limits are the sole reason for the Charter Revision Commission's existence. When Mayor Bloomberg decided to extend term limits to three terms so that he could run again, he made a deal with fellow billionaire Ron Lauder to put Lauder on the Commission, a position Lauder later declined.

1. Roll back term limits to two terms: We understand the public's strong desire for term limits. Term limits, however, are the wrong solution to the problem; they throw out the baby with the bath water, and they don't solve the real problem – the power of incumbency. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2. Grandfather all current officeholders, allowing them to serve three terms: This was inevitable and legitimate; the 1993 referendum that created term limits had a similar clause. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3. Prohibit the City Council from changing the term limits law again: The City Council should have no power to alter the term limits law. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

While we approve of taking the power away from the City Council to change term limits, we believe that these three issues should be separated out. Since they are lumped together, GrassrootsNYC strongly recommends a NO vote.

On charter amendment 2:

Dan Jacoby, Executive Director, GrassrootsNYC
Part I – Elections:
1. Require independent organizations that spend money on elections to disclose their expenditures: This is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

2. Cut the number of petition signatures to get on the ballot: The number of signatures is set by state election law, which takes precedence. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

3. Put the Voter Assistance Commission under the Campaign Finance Board: The VAC should be under the auspices of the Board of Elections, not the Campaign Finance Board. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

Part II - Public Integrity
1. Raise maximum fines for a single violation of the City’s conflicts of interest law from $10,000 to $25,000: This makes draconian fines possible – and likely. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2. Authorize disgorgement of gains obtained as a result of any violation: This one is obvious. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3. Require each city employee to receive training in conflicts of interest law: Training sessions will be ongoing, expensive, and generally ineffective; what is learned is usually not retained. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

Part III - Government Administration
1. Allow the Mayor to reorganize administrative tribunals: This gives the Mayor power to control what is supposed to be an independent proceeding. GrassrootsNYC opposes this proposal.

2. Create a commission to recommend elimination of unnecessary reporting requirements: Again, obvious. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

3. Add to the annual map of the "citywide statement of needs" certain state, federal and private services: These additions will give us a better understanding of what is available. GrassrootsNYC supports this proposal.

Summary
The Charter Revision Commission is grouping all of these proposals together, denying voters our right to choose. GrassrootsNYC supports four, and opposes five, of the individual proposals, and more strongly opposes denying voters the right to choose. Therefore, GrassrootsNYC strongly opposes the combined proposal

I trust Jim Brennan and Dan Jacoby to intelligently and accurately analyze these issues. And I also know Bloomberg himself cannot be trusted on these issues (as evidenced by his own hypocrisy on term limits) and his charter amendment process was completely corrupt and fixed. So I plan on voting no on both charter amendments. I would like to see a GENUINE and TRANSPARENT charter amendment process. But the current farce is not something I support.