Quantcast

Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Citizens Union
Loading

CITY

City

Make That Three: Bloomberg's Reelection Bid


illustration by Gotham Gazette
Gotham Gazette image by Ya-Hsuan Huang

This story was updated on Tuesday, Oct. 7, to reflect recent events at City Hall.

UPDATE: New Yorkers have debated the subject for more than 15 years, but City Council members on Tuesday said the real conversation on whether or not term limits constitutes good government is now about to begin.

That discussion was sparked by the introduction of two bills -- one extends term limits from two to three terms, the other bans the council from acting on the issue and calls for any change to be approved only by a voter referendum.

The first bill (see our chart below on all of the term limit related legislation and where it stands) was introduced by the request of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and will -- along with several other pieces of legislation -- be sent to the council's Governmental Operations Committee for public hearings. The first of those hearings is scheduled for 3 p.m., Oct. 16.

BILL NUMBER: SPONSOR: STATUS: SUMMARY:
N/A
Councilmember Oliver Koppell
Been abandoned The bill, requested in early September, has since been abandoned, Koppell said, because it's identical to the mayor's legislation, which was proposed a month later. It would have simply increased the city's term-limit cap from two to three terms.
Intro 845
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Introduced Would permanently extend the city's term limit from two to three terms.
Not assigned yet, text available here
Councilmembers Letitia James and Bill de Blasio
Has not been introduced yet, but will have a hearing next week. Would require the city set up a Charter Revision Commission to look into term limits and send the issue to voters.
Intro 850
Councilmember David Weprin
Introduced Prohibits the City Council from acting on term limits legislatively and requires any proposal on the issue be subject to a referendum.
Reso. 1640
Councilmember Tony Avella
Introduced Calls for the State Legislature to require any change in term-limit law be done by referendum.

The first hearing will be dedicated for public comment. A subsequent hearing on Oct. 17 will include testimony from public officials.

While some members criticized how quickly the legislation has been introduced and scheduled for hearings -- saying it has been fast-tracked to stifle dissent -- Councilmember Simcha Felder, the chair of the committee, said hearings have been set up expeditiously so everyone can be heard.

"We want to make sure we act as expeditiously as possible to ensure the public has an opportunity to talk and an opportunity to be heard," said Felder. Because the issue could end up in court, Felder added, the council wants to act sooner rather than later, so it can be settled in time for the 2009 citywide election.

By most measures, the legislation swirling around City Hall has split the City Council. Based on the statements made at today's council meeting, members appear to be divided on whether they should extend term limits from within City Hall or send the item back to the voters during a special election.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn did not reveal whether she supports or opposes the measure to legislatively extend term limits. She said she, and her members, have not decided on the matter just yet.

"I am continuing to consult with my members," said Quinn. "I will be taking a position in the near future. I need to make sure I do enough consultation with my colleagues."

Supporters of extending term limits say it's the most democratic (small d) track, by giving the voters greater choice in 2009. After all, we have a representative democracy and representatives should act as they are charged: To vote on legislation for their constituents.

"We are representative government," said the council's Majority Leader Joel Rivera. "I think we should all recognize this for what it is: the return of democracy to the people."

Some of the proposal's most vocal opponents, however, say it subverts the will of the voters, who approved two-term limits in two separate referenda in the 1990s. Council members Bill de Blasio, Letitia James and David Weprin have introduced -- or will at the council's next meeting -- competing legislation, both of which, in some form or another, gives voters the final say on term limits. Councilmember Tony Avella introduced a resolution calling on the state legislature to approve legislation requiring that any change in term limit law be done by referendum.

"I hope and I pray that no one will try to railroad a bill through," said de Blasio, adding that never in the history of City Hall has a bill been pushed through so quickly. "I'd rather have a couple thousand citizens (vote in a special election), as opposed to 51 self interested people" -- his fellow council members.

For weeks, political observers and officials have mulled over how the city could change its current law -- which allows officials to serve only two consecutive terms.

Initially, it was thought the mayor would introduce a one-time only extension, in part because of billionaire (and the founder of the city's term limit movement) Ronald Lauder's support for it. Now, another deal may emerge that would place Lauder on a charter revision commission to review the term limit law in 2010, after the city's election.

If term limits are modified, the mayor, public advocate, comptroller, four borough presidents and 35 council members could seek another four-year term.

As opponents of extending term limits legislatively accused city leaders of fast-tracking the mayor's bill, others, even those that are undecided, said because the 2009 citywide election is fast approaching, potential candidates and term-limited officials need to move quickly so they can plan for their future.

All this could decide the 2009 election before November 2009.

"This is basically the mayoral election in the next two weeks," said Councilmember Peter Vallone, who is undecided on the bills.

In addition to the opposition voiced at the City Council, the Working Families Party also came out against a term limit extension by legislation today.

Original Story Below

Two hours after Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced he would seek a third term if city law was changed, a man sporting shiny sunglasses and a "Heil Bloomberg" cardboard sign marched in front of City Hall.

"No third term for the mayor," he said. "He should respect democracy."

Those sentiments have been echoed across the city. But imagine a different scenario.

Let's say the City Council approves a change in term limits - which they might do as soon as Oct. 23. The bill is scheduled for introduction tomorrow.

Fast-forward another 12 months and see Bloomberg clinching another four-year term (A Quinnipiac poll released last week found 54 percent favored Bloomberg over the other potential mayoral candidates).

Then what?

In what's certain to be a dour economic period, the mayor sworn in on Jan. 1, 2010 (no matter who he or she is) will have to make some tough choices. If that executive is our current one, what could New Yorkers expect from a third Bloomberg term?

Four More Years

After months -- make that years -- of back and forth about term limits and his plans for the future, Bloomberg announced on Thursday he would seek reelection if the City Council approved legislation upping the city's term limit from eight to 12 years.

He previously expressed "disgust" with the idea of extending term limits legislatively.

A few hours after the mayor's announcement, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said the mayor would introduce legislation at the council's meeting tomorrow.

The council remains divided on the idea, and the Democratic caucus will meet this afternoon to try to hash out a majority position. But the legislation has one aspect that will appeal to many council members currently mulling their futures: It would also allow 35 members of the City Council, four borough presidents, the comptroller and public advocate -- all of whom are term limited -- to seek another four years in their current posts.

The extension of term limits, however, also would overturn two voter referendums from the 1990s, when the public overwhelmingly supported the two-term cap.

A change has the potential, given the amount of fundraising that has already commenced for higher office or from those who wanted to get into the council for the first time (a list of more than 90 candidates), to unravel a lot of plans for the 2009 election.

Is Bloomberg the Answer?

Bloomberg has hinged his potential candidacy on his ability to respond to the fiscal crisis. A product of Wall Street and head of Bloomberg L.P., the billionaire mayor has a history of management and economic accomplishments.

"My expertise is in pulling people together and tracking people and compensating them, getting (them) to work together and setting a work ethic," said Bloomberg on Thursday after he dismissed being an advisor to the next administration. He points to his record: He paid down debt, contributed to the city's public health fund and cut spending.

While Bloomberg may have the so-called "perfect" resume to respond to the looming fiscal tumult, he may not have the power.

"A mayor has very limited control over the forces that affect a local economy, especially in a city like New York that's so affected by its neighbors and the world," said Doug Turetsky of the Independent Budget Office. "It's going to be a difficult period and whoever comes in will likely face some serious challenges."

Bloomberg has had to face tough times before. When he first came to office in 2002 with the city reeling from economic downturns and the effects of the 9/11 attacks, he raised taxes 18 percent -- the first time property taxes saw a hike in a decade -- and slashed spending. Turetsky called Bloomberg's response to the first recession of the decade "pragmatic and un-ideological."

Bloomberg also, at that time, pledged to never leave his predecessor in a similar fiscal situation. His eagerness to take on a third term now may be an attempt to fulfill that promise.

An Economic Response

The mayor's announcement and the editorial endorsements from the city's three major dailies that preceded it led to a feeling among many New Yorkers that the whole thing was, if not a plot, a series of carefully orchestrated events. Some said the mayor based his decision on the opinion of several billionaires and near billionaires, rather than on the will of the people.

"The mayor only consulted an oligarchy in the city of New York of millionaires and billionaires," said Councilmember Letitia James, who plans on introducing legislation with Councilmember Bill de Blasio that would require any change in term limits be studied by a charter revision commission.

Bloomberg's widespread support from the city's business elite, some say, is a sign that Bloomberg may be the best choice to handle a fiscal crisis. But some political experts question whether his credentials really would put him at an advantage to deal with the downturn more effectively than any other potential candidate for mayor in 2009.

"If you say, 'I come from Wall Street and therefore I know how to manage the economy' -- well, some people will say, 'Look at what Wall Street has done to this country,'" said J. Phillip Thompson, a professor at MIT and member of the Dinkins administration. "The important thing about democracy is to build strong institutions. If no one else can lead this city, maybe he didn't do such a great job of building the institutions in this city."

Thompson supports term limits.

Beyond that, some of the city's experts do not commend Bloomberg for the first two terms. Policies in the third term would need some revisions, said Nicole Gelinas, a senior policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.

"The mayor has not made substantive progress during most of this two terms on any of the long-term issues that bedevil the budget," said Gelinas, referring to pensions, health care costs and the city's debt. "These are things that he calls uncontrollable costs."

Those expenses, Gelinas said, have increased 57 percent during the Bloomberg administration and now make up 40 percent of the total budget. Bloomberg may not have had control of these costs during his first term, but by his second he should have been using his leverage to reduce them, she added.

"These are only uncontrollable now because the mayor has chosen not to control them," Gelinas said.

Bloomberg deserves some criticism for letting the city depend so much on Wall Street, according to Jonathan Bowles, executive director of the Center for an Urban Future. Bloomberg could have made steps to diversify the economy, Bowles said, but instead he relied too much on the financial sector, thus setting the city up for serious consequences when Wall Street stumbled. Approximately 20 percent of the city's revenue is attributed to Wall Street.

"For the most part, we're extremely dependent on the financial services sector, but that's something that gets us in trouble," said Bowles. "I don't think diversifying the economy was as high a priority in his economic development strategy as some of his real estate development."

A lot of that real estate development, a hallmark of Bloomberg's first two terms, said city experts, could be put on hold because of the economy. That leaves many wondering what Bloomberg would focus on if he were given four more years.

The Reform Agenda

Bloomberg's appeal is in his steady hand and his candor, observers say. He has been typically seen as an outsider open to reform and transparency.

That perception could be tainted, and for some even destroyed, in a third term, because of Bloomberg's decision to revise term limits. While Bloomberg has pushed campaign finance reform and government transparency, observers say his latest gambit means Bloomberg will no longer be known as the reform mayor.

"It rips his reputation as a reformer to shreds," said Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "I think history will be very unkind to the mayor."

Good government groups in the city, including Citizens Union -- the sister organization to Gotham Gazette's publisher -- have called for a special election to decide term limits, instead of legislation. Many have equated the legislation as a run around the voters and have called it self-serving.

Those groups, though, have said if Bloomberg won another term, they would still want to work with him.

"This is a significant disagreement," said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union. "But I hope that, win or lose, that we both will be able to work together like we have in the past."

Placing Bets

There is no guarantee the City Council will approve the legislation. And there is no guarantee that even if the legislation is approved, that the mayor will win reelection.

Many in the city, from labor unions to nonprofits to academics, have expressed real concern about extending term limits inside City Hall, without going to the ballot box.

"Given that the voters have so clearly spoken, I find it problematic at the very least that Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council would seek to operate this way," said Bruce Berg, a political science professor at Fordham University.

While the City Council is known for following the administration's lead and its speaker, Christine Quinn, is a close ally of the mayor, several members -- from John Liu to de Blasio to David Weprin to Melissa Mark Viverito -- have said they would vote against the bill.

"Some believe we have been co-opted by the mayor of the city of New York and we are not exercising our constitutional right and that explains why two in five New Yorkers live in poverty," said James, who pledged to vote against the bill. "We as members of the City Council really need to flex our muscles."

 

Stated Meeting: Tax Breaks for Industry


Looking to save millions — albeit years from now — the City Council approved legislation on Wednesday that revises the city’s industrial and commercial development incentive program to further limit what type of projects can receive a tax break.

The new program is expected to save the city millions in future years.

The council also approved a street renaming bill and designated nonprofit recipients for several discretionary, citywide initiatives, which had not been solidified at the time of the city budget’s passage in June.

Tax Breaks

Following the state legislature’s lead, the council approved the Industrial and Commercial Abatement Program ( Intro 822-A) – formerly the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program – by a vote of 49 to 1. Councilmember Vincent Ignizio cast the lone opposition vote.

City officials had long criticized the older incentive program as being expensive and not cost effective. In 2007, according to a report from the Independent Budget Office, the program cost the city $500 million in tax revenue.

While the city would like to continue to encourage commercial and industrial development, officials believe the program had to be revised and pared down. At the behest of the Bloomberg administration, the state approved a revised program in June, and the council followed last week.

The newer program will change how tax breaks are disseminated to commercial or industrial developers. Under the old program, tax breaks were based on a project’s assessed value – like a standard deduction on income taxes. Under the new program, a break will be based on a property tax bill and act as a tax credit. It will also be set by the property tax rate when a building permit was first issued, unlike the old program which fluctuated with each year’s tax rate.

The program will also limit what kind of retail establishments are covered and no longer cover utility companies. While utility companies account for 1 percent of exemptions, according to the Independent Budget Office’s report, their breaks comprise 19 percent of the cost of the program.

The disqualification of utility companies sparked this reaction from Con Edison:

“The council’s action (last week) merely reflects a bill passed by the state legislature in June,” said Joe Petta, a spokesman for Con Edison. “We believe that bill could have a negative impact on our ratepayers, but we haven’t yet determined to what extent.”

The new program decreases, from 12 to 10 years, the amount of time a development located in between Murray Street and 59th Street in Manhattan could qualify for the tax break, under the presumption that area is already a desirable place to develop.

The program is concentrated in the outer boroughs. Any industrial or commercial building that is rehabilitated, modernized, constructed or renovated is eligible. For more on the program, go here .

Financial Disclosure

The City Council approved several budget modifications last week, which formally earmarked discretionary funding to scores of nonprofit groups for initiatives, such as domestic violence, empowering women and afterschool programs.

The modification also rescinds funding for seven groups that originally had been slated to receive discretionary funds. Groups that lost funding are: Alliance for Community Services, City College of New York Center for the Study of Harlem, Queens Community Board 3, Bergin Basin Community Development Corporation, Council of Jewish Organizations of Flatbush and the HOPE Program.

Most of the modifications, according to a council spokesperson, were misappropriated initially or were done at the request of the sponsoring member. The allocation for the Alliance for Community Services, which was sponsored by Councilmember Maria Baez, was rejected by the Mayor's Office of Contract Services.

These appropriations have been under greater scrutiny lately, because of the council’s slush fund scandal.

The council appropriated nearly $4 million for an afterschool cultural program, as well as programs on financial literacy and healthy aging.

Street Naming

Twice annually, the council approves memorial designations for the city’s streets, often eulogizing fallen heroes. While the street naming process has been controversial – once councilmember unsuccessfully tried to rename a street after the controversial figure Sonny Carson – last week’s bill sailed through smoothly.

The bill was approved by a vote of 49 to 0, with one abstention by Councilmember Jessica Lappin.

The bill (Intro 825 ) names a corner in Brookyln after fallen firefighter Joseph Graffagnino, who died in the Deutsche Bank blaze last year, and 145th Street in Harlem after the late A. Phillip Randolph, a civil rights and labor leader. Other advocates and community leaders received the honor throughout the city. A full list is available here.

Arbitron Resolution

The City Council also approved a resolution (Reso 1583-A) calling for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the biases of Arbitron’s radio data collection system.

Arbitron, which collects ratings data for radio stations, has been a target of the City Council’s ire. Its people meters – which are worn by surveyors and pick up local radio stations -- are biased and disproportionately benefit top 40 stations, according to Speaker Christine Quinn.

Amicus Brief

The council also approved a resolution (Reso 1612) giving Quinn the go-ahead to file an amicus brief in favor of plaintiffs suing the city’s Rent Guidelines Board. The council alleges the board overstepped its power by applying an extra increase on certain renters who have lived in their residences for more than six years, which, they argue, effectively creates a new class of renters.

Only the council can approve new classes, it argues.

Due to an error in documents distributed by the City Council, when this article was first published it said a corner in Queens would be named for Joseph Graffagnino. The corner is actually in Brooklyn.  

 

Rating Health Care Behind Bars


 

Six months ago, Prison Health Services -- the private, for profit company that manages health care in 10 of the city's 11 jails -- got a raise.

The Tennessee-based corporation, which has a virtual monopoly on health care in prisons nationwide, saw its payments increase by more than 10 percent -- a figure that has been adjusted for inflation -- since its previous agreement with the city in 2005.

That boost, which city officials attribute to cost of living increases, came despite the company's failure to meet at least 15 percent of its performance standards set by the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene between 2006 and 2008. On several occasions, the company did not meet a quarter of its performance indicators, which include completing intake histories and conducting physical exams, according to quarterly review reports from the department.

Because of this poor performance, the city has fined Prison Health Services for the past three years in a row.

While many advocates agree that care on Rikers Island has improved since it was run by a private hospital a decade ago, others say the city's jails still do not provide quality health care. Whether it's a lack of leadership or the challenges of dealing with a transient, often mentally ill, population, quality health care is as isolated from Rikers' inmates as the island itself.

The Quality Gap

Prison Health Services just kicked off its third, three-year contract with the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The price tag: $366 million.

As part of that contract, the health department issues quarterly performance review reports, evaluating whether the corporation has substantially met or failed to meet certain health care criteria. The reviews measure the quality of women's health, asthma care, confidentiality, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and more.

The measurements are gleaned from a review of 9,000 records per quarter, said Louise Cohen, deputy commissioner for health care access and improvement at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. These records assess Prison Health's performance through 40 indicators, some of which are analyzed by a random sample.

In its last two years of service to the city, the time leading up to the contract renewal, Prison Health Services has continuously failed to meet a handful of city standards -- some more than others. In six of the eight quarters from January 2006 through December 2007, Prison Health Services did not properly follow up on certain HIV treatment testing. Some inmates, Cohen said, received follow-up tests several days late.

For five consecutive quarters, until mid-2007, the corporation did not meet standards for taking inmates' histories when they arrive at Rikers, skipping over parts of the mandatory paperwork, said Cohen. On average, Prison Health complied with the department's intake standards about 61 percent of the time during that period.

Now that the department is rolling out an electronic intake system, Cohen said, that process should run more smoothly. The Bloomberg administration requires that every inmate receive an intake physical within 24 hours of arrival on the island . According to the Mayor's Management Report, more than 89,000 intake exams were given in fiscal year 2007 -- that out of approximately 100,000 annual admissions.

For three out of four quarters in 2007, Prison Health also did not meet standards for follow-up care for inmates in segregated housing. Cohen said this was due to security concerns in one facility that may have skewed the entire performance results.

Due to all of the unmet criteria in 2007, Prison Health was fined $244,000. In 2006, the corporation was fined $299,500 and $249,500 in 2005.

While some areas of care are problematic, the company has met criteria in others. For instance, women's care has received nearly a 100 percent compliance rate over the entire two-year period. This care includes cancer screenings, prenatal care and sonograms.

Prison Health has also consistently tested for sexually transmitted diseases during an inmate's admission to Rikers.

"We're more concerned than anyone in making sure that we have the right quality of care," said Cohen. "We are actually meeting the community standard in many cases and exceeding it in a number of others."

A spokesperson for Prison Health Services refused to comment for this story and referred any comment to the city's health department.

The Measures In Context

For all of 2007, according to city health records, Prison Health Services met the standards for documenting suicide watches approximately 95 percent of the time.

But, that doesn't mean there were no suicides on Rikers Island. There were three, according to the mayor's management report.

This is one indication of how performance standards can miss measuring actually quality of care. Prison Health may receive a mark of 100 percent in some areas where advocates continue to receive complaints about poor health care.

Dale Wilker, a staff attorney at the Prisoners' Rights Project at the Legal Aid Society, said by far the most serious complaint from prisoners who have serious ailments, from HIV to heart conditions or asthma, is failing to have continuous access to needed medication.

"The biggest complaints I have heard, not in terms of volume but in terms of seriousness, was medicine people are taking and are required to take are interrupted and not started for a period of time," said Wilker. "Since the city got away from using teaching hospitals and went to providers that are in some way to make money and to serve their stockholders, complaints have become much more frequent and much more serious."

According to city records, Prison Health Services has met criteria outlined by the health department for several standards that deal with medication or prescription delivery, including long-term medication for asthmatics, the availability of medication within 24 hours after it is prescribed and the timeliness of medication orders for mental health patients.

This is not the only area where anecdotal accounts of care contradict measurements by the city. The most frequent complaint of inmates, according to some advocates, is waiting times to get into one of the island's many clinics.

Inmates have told the Gotham Gazette they have waited for hours before receiving care, regardless of their condition. On the other hand, the mayor's management report contends for the past three years inmates have waited about a half hour to receive care.

A Quality Measurement

Some say the department's quality performance reviews, while worthwhile, are not an accurate reflection of the quality of care on Rikers nor do they measure what is most important in providing correctional health care.

It is difficult to determine whether the compliance record is a result of one box unchecked on an intake form, some say, or more serious failures by Prison Health Services.

"For our purposes, in terms of our role, they are not the best items to be using to assess (whether) the things that we care about are being met," said Hildy Simmons, the chair of the city's Board of Corrections, which oversees the city's correctional system.

Considering Prison Health Services' contract was just renewed, advocates contend the system must not be so atrocious that Rikers needs another provider -- as was true during the days of St. Barnabas in the early 1990s.

"That suggests to me that things weren't bad enough for the department of health to not want to contract with them at all, or maybe they couldn't find another provider," said Wilker, who would like to see the city contract with university-affiliated hospitals.

This is partially true. When the city requested contract bids for some of its independent borough facilities last year, no local, nonprofit hospital bid on it, said city health officials. Like any other city contract, Prison Health Services contract goes through a procurement procedure. This three-year contract was a renewal and was not put out to bid, said Cohen.

"We think PHS is performing adequately," said Cohen. "We would love to have a local, nonprofit partner. One just isn't stepping up to the plate."

The department does review all of its performance criteria on an annual basis to determine, which indicators to concentrate on. And, said Cohen, in any area the corporation fails, it is required to come up with a correction action plan, which the department continues to monitor.  



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: East New York Rezoning, One Year Later East New York Rezoning, One Year Later Gotham Gazette: City Council Members Opt Out of Campaign Finance Program City Council Members Opt Out of Campaign Finance Program Gotham Gazette: Cuomo Contradicts Bharara on Prosecutors & Government Oversight Cuomo Contradicts Bharara on Prosecutors & Government Oversight Gotham Gazette: De Blasio Attempts to Clarify Latest Media Insult De Blasio Attempts to Clarify Latest Media Insult


Comments
Comment(s)

The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.