I've already written [1] about the conflict of interest problems involved in the New York City term limits dispute. But now the dispute is over, according to an article on today's New York Times website [2]: the NYC Council chose to allow current elected officials to run beyond the term limit rules approved by citizens twice in referendums, And a New York Times' editorial earlier today [3] called for this decision.

The Times has long disapproved of term limits, but this should be irrelevant to the issue of the Council overriding voters' wishes. The Times feels that the people should have the opportunity to vote for a candidate they highly approve of. I agree. And losing Bloomberg would possibly have changed people's minds, so that term limits would be voted out at a future referendum, at least for the mayor. But a rule's a rule, the government ethicist in me says, and the rule is that the will of the people is clear, and the procedure is clear for seeing if the public has changed its mind (in addition, polls show it hasn't changed its mind yet). And the rule is also clear that it is bad for officials to vote themselves a chance to run again when the law says otherwise.

A front-page article in today's paper [4] made it clear that even Mayor Bloomberg's former aides and close allies are disillusioned with the way the mayor has acted throughout his successful attempt to run again. Acting out of character sadly happens a lot when one's own future is at stake. Yes, the city's future is also at stake, but no man is indispensable, and there is no reason why Bloomberg could not play an important role outside the mayor's office. Non-mayors in New York have saved the city before; why not after Bloomberg's term is over at the end of next year?

No matter what is said about the need for continuity in a crisis situation, this is really about private interest over public interest. Apparently, no law has been broken, even though the mayor promised a position on a future charter revision commission to keep fellow billionaire, and term limit supporter, Ronald Lauder quiet. But there is something other than law, and Mayor Bloomberg and the Council majority have broken it.

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone else were elected mayor next year? It's possible that a man who could have been elected president could lose a municipal position not because of his position on issues, but for going too far to help himself.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics

203-230-2548