Councilwoman Helen Sears (25th District, Jackson Heights) defended her vote last year to extend term limits in a recent interview with the Times Ledger. Among her statements was something that caught the eye of the Daniel Dromm campaign, Sears’ main challenger:
Sears said that she “would have preferred to see the [term limits] decision go to a voter referendum.”
We get it. Extending term limits was an unpopular vote. One way of softening it is to claim that you too were uncomfortable with the process, but felt that it needed to get done no matter what. And Councilmembers had a chance to vote in favor of an amendment calling for a referendum.
The problem is, Sears voted against that amendment. Azi P. of PolitickerNY asked for a response from the Sears campaign:
A spokesman for Sears’ campaign, Joe Reubens of the Parkside Group, emailed an explanation:
“The Council Member voted against the amendment because holding a special election on the referendum would have cost taxpayers between $10-15 million, public monies that could better be used to improve our schools, hospitals, parks, libraries, fire and police departments. Given the dire economic circumstance our City has found itself in due to the national recession, holding such an election would have been fiscally irresponsible.”
Elections are indeed expensive. But why should overturning the will of the people be cost free for politicians? As Melody Lopez, campaign manager for the Daniel Dromm said: ”Saying that she actually wanted to leave the decision up to us when she clearly voted not to is just insulting.”
Discussion
Leave a Reply