Term limits

From BeyondVoting

During the summer of 2005 two city council members were approached about strengthening the community boards' role in planning and governance. Both were negative on the subject. One, an avowed supporter of community-based planning, suggested creating an entirely new structure to undertake land-use planning, further scattering local responsibility and diminishing the effectiveness of community boards.

The other suggested that many of her colleagues would sooner do away with Community Boards than fund a Board 60 (the support organization being proposed).

After hearing from these "supporters," one attendee dreamt about term-limits and throwing out the rascals, but then realized that term-limits (which limit NYC council members to 2 consecutive 4 year terms) had already tossed out the old rascals and there was no reason to believe any new rascals would be more favorable to community planning boards.

So the challenge turned to finding a way to get the current council to support community-based governance. How can this be done? Begin with three assumptions.

• First: Some council members see the boards as threatening their domain. One expressed his concerns this way: "It's difficult enough getting anything done in the city, the boards are too often just another bureaucracy level." And, "It's a breeding place for challengers."

• Second: Some community boards don't function very well and all could benefit from the training and support of a Board 60.

• Third: Council members hold princely positions: decent salary, staff, honor, respect, budgets to dole out to the favored, power, no boss, limited hours, receptions, long vacations, and the opportunity to achieve. It's no wonder that once in office they don't want to leave.

[edit] The Bathwater Plan

Suppose council members were offered a trade: Provide a structure and budget to empower communities and the community boards, and in turn, term-limits will be eliminated.

Knock! Knock! Who's there? 42 anxious members 
of the council facing term-limits in four years.

Let's imagine the city council sets about making changes that will result in the elimination of term-limits. But rather than ram through a plan that will end up in a court challenge, sunk in a vat of perfume, or minimally, serve as fodder for an opponent, they approach the public with a "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach.

The Bathwater Plan's premise is that the original support for council term-limits was the invisibility of the council's operation. And the people, frustrated with an unsatifactory "feel" for government in general, blamed it on the semi-invisible council members and their seeming life-time terms in office.

[edit] What If

What if this perception could be obliterated by the introduction of a more transparent and open operation of the council and community boards? The Bathwater Plan would have three key provisions:

• Transform the operation of the council, its members, and their 51 district offices into transparent and open operations. Voting records, calendars, meetings, finances, policy positions...would be readily accessible.
• Provide community boards with a suitable budget for communication (websites, wikis, blogs...), training, expert staff (legal, planners...), and a support structure to make these a reality, e.g., Board 60.
• Provide a mechanism for close cooperation between council members and community boards: closely linked websites, complaint resolution processes...

The goal would be to create a bottom-up governance process one might imagine working as follows:

• Change begins with a resident bringing an idea to a community board via an appointed or council member, via a presentation at a monthly meeting, or online through an email, discussion, or a suggestion box.
• This suggestion is entered into, and trackable, via an Envisioning Governance mechanism.
• The suggestion is assigned by the board's executive committee to one of its area or function committees.
• The committee reviews the suggestion, does research, holds a public meeting if appropriate, and provides a recommendation to the full board.
• At a monthly meeting, the full board reviews, discusses, and provides the community consensus to its council members. (Local council members are currently members of community boards.)
• Thereafter the local council members (assuming they agree with the issue) guide the suggestion through the council's review processes, reporting back to the community on a regular basis.

It's been observed by cynics that council members treasure community opinion since following it assures their re-election.

Now let's imagine this Bathwater Plan is implemented - with speed that only a term-limits deadline can bring. And in 2008 (with the 2009 election approaching) the council says:

"These are new times. You can see everything we do.
 We're working with civics and CBs like never before.
 We've make all our actions visible on the web. We've 
 taken steps to eliminate the media ghettos. 
 We're totally above board. We're experienced. 
 Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
 Give yourself a choice and vote Yes on Proposition 1 
 to eliminate term-limits."

Some believe council members would sell their soul for the deal. Prince for life. Wow!

Should the idea be proposed? Promoted? Accepted? Participate in the discussion.

January 2006 - The new council has enacted a series of changes to implement some of the above. See the article from the Gotham Gazette for details.

The BeyondVoting Wiki

- key pages -

Preface - what's a wiki?

BeyondVoting - overview

Opportunities for Change - summary of possibilities

New Tools for Democracy - plugging Plato into the net

Impact on Existing Institutions - from local civics to city hall