Sure, Change The Charter . . .

. . . just as long as it doesn’t apply to any current office holder, which is what most responsible elected bodies do:

In a sudden turnabout, Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday there’s still time to mount a ballot initiative this year to revise the City Charter – the likeliest route for altering term limits so the mayor could run for re-election in 2009.

Bloomberg has yet to name a Charter Revision Commission to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the government and recommend changes to put before the voters in a referendum.

Those changes could include extending term limits from eight to 12 years, either for all city officials or just for the legislative branch.

“I just haven’t focused on it yet,” the mayor said of the delayed appointments. “I’ll get back to you in the next few weeks.”

When he first announced plans for the commission in his State of the City Speech in January, the mayor said its work would take 18 months.

But yesterday, he changed the timetable.

“If you wanted to put something on this [year’s] ballot, there’s still plenty of time to do it,” the mayor said.

OK, this is getting silly . . .

If It Looks Like A Duck . . .

How to stave off lame duckness? Float the idea of abolishing term limits and/or a run for governor. But — people! — please don’t pay attention:

As his political team considers strategies that would allow him to remain in public life, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledged with rare candor on Wednesday that he was unsure about what to do next, and whether it would be as satisfying as being mayor.

Associates of Mr. Bloomberg say that while he has not decided to run for governor or seek a way to serve a third term, he has not closed the door on either possibility.

The New York Times reported Tuesday on its Web site that the mayor’s political team had been polling city voters to gauge support for undoing the city’s term limits law, which will force Mr. Bloomberg from office next year.

The poll also tested voters’ views on a Bloomberg candidacy for governor.

“I plan to, I think, stay on in public service in some ways or other — I don’t know how,” the mayor said on Wednesday after a news conference at City Hall. “You know, I don’t see anything for me. …” He stopped himself, looking off in the distance. “My guess is that, like I’ve said before, I will wind up running the foundation along with Patti Harris and trying to make the world better,” he said, referring to his closest deputy, Patricia E. Harris.

“I have no idea whether it’s going to be enough for me or not,” he added. “You can make a big difference in this world and I don’t know what specifically I’m going to do any more than you know what specifically you’re going to do in a year and a half.”

Bloomberg Slacked, Cranes Collapsed

Someone is trying very hard to recast the Mayor’s legacy:

It has become the signature image of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s transformation of the economically fragile city he inherited in 2002: the towers that punch skyward throughout New York, gleaming testaments to the billionaire businessman’s management of an unwieldy urban bureaucracy.

Throughout his tenure, Mr. Bloomberg has taken particular pride in the construction boom, promoting it as the product of his pragmatic approach and the application of high-tech, yet common-sense solutions to the problems of government.

But the deadly crane collapse that killed two people and injured another on the Upper East Side on Friday morning is now threatening to tarnish that legacy. It was the latest in a series of construction-related accidents — including a crane collapse in March that killed seven people — that have left New Yorkers uneasy, with a growing concern that Mr. Bloomberg may have let high-rise construction proliferate without adequate oversight.

Indeed, despite the administration’s recent efforts to improve construction safety, including replacing the commissioner of the Department of Buildings, there are signs that residents — even those who have generally viewed him favorably in the past — are running out of patience with Mr. Bloomberg.

Time Was, They Referred To Them As “Discretionary Funds”

Thank goodness a more accurate label has emerged:

Five weeks into a federal probe of City Council slush funds, Mayor Bloomberg revealed yesterday that he kept his own secret taxpayer-funded cash stash — and used it to reward favored lawmakers.

The mayor’s $4.5 million slush fund had never before been made public — and some council members said they weren’t even aware of it.

After being doled out to selected lawmakers, the money was passed along to dozens of nonprofit groups supported by legislators — including at least one with a checkered history.

The largest chunk, $1.9 million, went to Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn), one of the mayor’s most ardent supporters.

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, who has publicly praised Bloomberg as the greatest mayor in city history, received $900,000 to help fund two popular concert series.

Poor Christine Quinn . . .

No One Knows A District’s Needs Better Than The Local Representative

More on those discretionary funds:

City Council members running for citywide office are allocating “member item” money to organizations miles away from their council districts, a New York Sun analysis has found.

The disclosure is reinforcing concerns that the taxpayer funds are being used to buy political support. It is also undercutting one of the most commonly made defenses of member items in the city’s budget, which is that no one knows a district’s needs better than the local representative.

The disclosure that council members are attaching their names to money sent to organizations miles from their constituents’ homes, in boroughs they don’t represent, is the latest angle in the “slush fund” scandal that began with the news that the City Council was budgeting money for made-up, nonexistent organizations as a way of stashing funds away to be allocated at the discretion of individual council members. After federal indictments of council aides, all four metropolitan daily newspapers in the city have come out with editorials calling for abolishing the grants of taxpayer funds at the sole discretion of individual council members.

The out-of-district grants are raising concern from council members and advocacy groups, who say it’s another sign that the member item system needs to be overhauled or ended completely.

“Why would you give your small discretionary funds to groups outside your district unless you are trying to curry favor for future elections or political purposes?” a council member of Queens who is running for mayor, Tony Avella, said. “It’s not like we get enough money as it is.”

See also: “Longtime Practice of City Council Financing Lands on Speaker’s Shoulders” (NYT, May 11, 2008).