WWW.QNS.COM RIDGEWOOD TIMES OCTOBER 25, 2018 13
NO BOARD TERM
LIMITS NEEDED
I oppose the Nov. 6 ballot proposition
to provide term limits for community
board members. Why? Because
term limits already exist.
All community board members
must be reappointed every two years
by their respective borough president
after recommendation from their
local City Council member. This twostep
process is fair and equitable for
anyone who applies, and community
board re-appointments are based on
past service and attendance, otherwise
members are not re-appointed.
Community board members are
dedicated, passionate, hard-working
volunteers who do not see their roles
as honorariums. Many boards today
do not have the full 50-member body
allowed by City Charter.
Even with these current vacancies
and opportunities for new members,
many do not apply as this dedicated
volunteer role is not for everyone.
Term limits will further dampen
encouragement for new membership.
Term limits would cause a huge
loss of institutional knowledge. Many
community board members are valued
experts as attorneys, architects,
engineers, police and fire officials
and these esteemed individuals are
extremely diffi cult to replace.
Civic organizations rely on their
local community boards for this expertise
and institutional knowledge
to protect the best interests of their
neighborhoods.
It takes many years for community
board volunteers to learn and correctly
apply government procedures,
applicable law and public policy. As
the vice chairman of Community
Board 7 Queens, I see many new members
express themselves incorrectly
or abstain from voting because they
admittedly do not understand the
subject matter.
Developers would love to appear
before inexperienced community
boards who would lack the expertise
and articulation to oppose them thus
creating a “developers’ dream.”
Most people do not realize that term
limits do not exist for our U.S. senators,
Congress members, governor, state
comptroller, state attorney general, state
senators, Assembly members or district
attorneys. Yet the mayor wants term limits
for the passionate volunteers that are
gate-keepers of our local communities?
This is why many elected offi cials,
including four borough presidents,
oppose the community board term
limits proposal. They understand and
value the input of their local community
boards who willingly volunteer
their time for the betterment of their
communities.
Chuck Apelian, Flushing
ANOTHER PIE-INTHE
SKY TRANSIT
IDEA
City Comptroller Scott Stringer proposes
a $2.75 fare for all NYC residents
who decide to board at Long Island and
Metro North Rail Road stations in the
Big Apple. There are still signifi cant
unresolved fi nancial and peak service
capacity issues.
The idea is to off er residents of socalled
under served transportation
deserts inexpensive faster transportation
options using underutilized LIRR
and Metro North trains.
Those NYC residents who already
utilize either the LIRR, Metro North,
MTA Bus or NYC Transit Express Bus
are aware the cost is more than a bus
or subway ride. If you agree and follow
the logic of Stringer, there should also
be a reduction in the cost of any NYC
Transit or MTA Express Bus Service
from $6.50 to $2.75 as well.
There are already almost 100,000
NYC residents who travel weekday to
and from work paying extra to ride
the LIRR, Metro North, MTA Express
Bus and NYC Transit Express Bus. All
understand that they are paying for a
premium service.
Larry Penner, Great Neck
Email your letters to editorial@qns.
com (Subject: Letter to the Editor) or
leave a comment to any of our stories
at QNS.com. You can also send a letter
by regular mail to Letters to the Editor,
38-15 Bell Blvd., Bayside, NY 11361. All
letters are subject to editing. Names will
be withheld upon request, but anonymous
letters will not be considered for
publication. The views expressed in all
letters and comments are not necessarily
those of this newspaper or its staff .
LETTERS AND COMMENTS
OP-ED
Reject two city ballot proposals
BY HENRY EULER
On Election Day, voters will be
asked to consider three proposals
put forth by the NYC
Charter Revision Commission. These
proposals were developed following
public hearings that were held across
the city regarding changes to be made
to the City Charter.
I have opinions on Proposals No.
2 and No. 3. These opinions are my
own, and not necessarily the opinions
of any of the civic or community
organizations that I belong to. For full
disclosure, I am a member of Queens
Community Board 11 for 13 years.
Proposal No. 2 deals with the establishment
of a Civic Engagement
Commission, which will promote participation
by city residents in certain
aspects of decision-making in terms of
making recommendations for projects
in communities. Participatory budgeting
will come under the purview of
this commission. Also, the mayor will
be able “to assign relevant powers and
duties of certain other city agencies
to the commission,” according to an
online abstract.
It seems to me that this makes the
city agencies involved less eff ective
and less relevant, with more power
being given to the Commission.
The mayor will be appointing 8 of
the 15 members of the commission, a
majority of the seats. The City Council
speaker will get to fi ll two of the
seats, and each of the fi ve borough
presidents will appoint one member
to the commission. One of the mayor’s
appointees will be the Commission
chair and this chair will employ and
direct the commission staff .
Doesn’t this give the mayor extraordinary
control? I believe we should
be decentralizing power in the city,
not giving the mayor, whoever he or
she may be, more power. I think that
this proposal needs more review and
reassessment before it is put before
the voters.
Proposal No. 3 seems to be getting
the most public attention. It would
term limit community board members.
The reason to do this, given by the
proponents, is the need to expand diversity
on boards throughout the city.
This is a worthy goal, however,
when I look at my own board, I feel
that we are already well on our way
to achieving this goal. We have been
adding new members each year, so
we do have a board with diverse backgrounds,
ages and beliefs.
As a community board member, I
appreciate the wisdom and knowledge
of many of my fellow board members
who have served their communities
on the board for long periods of time.
We have vacancies on my board, so
what would be the sense of removing
long time members and losing all of
their experience and know-how with
board concerns like land use matters
and other community issues?
Our newer members do not necessarily
have this type of knowledge.
They are learning, just as we all learn
from interacting with each other.
Removing longtime members would
weaken boards, in my opinion.
Board members are unpaid volunteers
who spend many hours at
monthly meetings and various committee
meetings. Board members must
reapply every two years and are appointed
by the borough president with
the input from local Council members.
If a board member is not doing a
good job, he or she may not be reappointed.
Board membership is not a
lifetime position.
Term limits for community board
members do not make sense, in my
opinion. I will be voting “No” on Proposal
#3 as well as Proposal # 2. The
proposals are on the back of the ballot.
Mr. Euler is a resident of Bayside.