Wong Gets Green Light on 3rd Term

A court decision allowing Mayor Daniel Wong to run for a third term has failed to sweep away all the questions surrounding new curbs on council tenures.

Although a Superior Court judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that contended Wong’s candidacy was illegal, the judge appeared to uphold a recent City Charter amendment barring City Council members from holding office for more than two consecutive four-year terms without a two-year hiatus.

City Atty. Kenneth Brown nonetheless says this week’s ruling is too narrow to have any bearing on future incumbent bids for reelection--thus setting the stage for more court battles over the meaning of the 1986 amendment, which takes effect with the April 12 council election.

Opinion Not Changed

In concluding that the term limitations could not stop Wong from pursuing a third term, Judge Kimball Walker pointed to the effective date. Since the restrictions don’t become law until April, Walker reasoned that Wong could not be prevented from running, only from serving. It would be nonsensical, Walker continued, to allow Wong’s name on the ballot, only to forbid him to take his council seat. The judge therefore ruled that Wong should be permitted to run, and if he wins, should be permitted to serve a third term.

Although Walker indicated that the restrictions, once law, clearly barred council members from holding office for more than eight years at a time, Brown says that does not in the least alter the legal opinion he gave the City Council. Brown argues that the amendment’s wording is so imprecise on the matter of incumbents that only terms begun after April can be counted against them. As far as the amendment is concerned, terms served in part or whole before next month’s election don’t exist.

If Councilman Barry Rabbitt decides to pursue a sixth term in 1990, Brown says he will tell the city clerk to put Rabbitt’s name on the ballot. Brown contends that Walker’s ruling dealt only with Wong’s candidacy, adding that the decision carries limited authority since it is a lower court ruling, not an appeals court action.

Rabbitt, having spoken briefly with Brown about the matter, says Walker’s decision would not stop him from running again.

Smiling broadly after the Norwalk court hearing, Wong said he was “very happy” about the ruling and would immediately start campaigning in full force. The lawsuit put something of a damper on the early stages of his campaign, he said, forcing him to postpone the printing of election posters and leaving some supporters reluctant to give him contributions.

Wong asserted that the lawsuit was filed by people engaging in “dirty political games,” and once again declared his dislike of the charter amendment, known as Proposition H. “I wish it didn’t happen.”

Margurette Nicholson, one of two amendment authors who brought the suit, said she was confident Wong will lose.

“I’m not unhappy by (the) decision; we don’t pretend to know the law,” Nicholson said, criticizing Brown for not raising questions about the citizen initiative before it was put up for a communitywide vote.

Calling the charter revision “poorly drafted,” Walker said it was not sufficiently explicit and suffered from various flaws, chief among them the effective date. Had the amendment taken effect upon adoption by the voters, it would have created far fewer questions, he suggested.

The term restrictions won approval in November, 1986, despite a well-financed opposition effort by four of the five council members, who insisted the amendment could only work against the city by booting out seasoned leaders. Amendment supporters, who included unsuccessful council candidates, promoted the limitations as the only way of breaking the power hold of longtime incumbents.

Two-term councilman Donald Knabe is not running again because he is seeking a state Senate seat, making Wong the first to test the amendment’s application to incumbents.