Twelve years after term limits for city elected officials were adopted by referendum, the City Council is making its third attempt to overturn the decision of the public. This time it is a brazen attempt by the incumbents to extend the eight-year limit on their terms to 12 years, or possibly to abolish it altogether, notwithstanding two referenda that have been held on the subject.

The first attempted modification came in 1996, when the council, under the leadership of Speaker Peter Vallone, sent the issue back to the public for a second referendum. When the votes were counted, repeal had lost, by a margin of 54% to 46%. Term limits stayed. It is to the credit of Mr. Vallone, however, that he tried to reverse a public decision by another public decision.

The next attempt was in 2001, the year that a majority of the council would be ineligible to run for re-election. A few had decamped the previous year to the state Legislature, which has no term limits. In fact, the longest serving state senator in America sits in Albany. He is John J. Marchi of Staten Island, who took office in 1957.

Mr. Marchi’s moment of fame came in 1969, when he defeated the incumbent mayor, John V. Lindsay, in the Republican primary. Lindsay went on to win re-election on the Liberal Party line, the first and only time the Liberals elected a mayor on their own. Mr. Marchi, the Republican candidate, came in third, with the Democratic nominee, City Comptroller Mario Procaccino, in second place.

In the 2001 attempt to extend their political lives, the incumbents garnered substantial support in the council. The bill was defeated, however, in the Committee on Government Operations, in a 5-to-4 vote, with the deciding vote cast by the lone Republican on the committee, Stephen J. Fiala of Staten Island. Mr. Fiala is now the Richmond County clerk.

Mr. Fiala was personally opposed to term limits, but felt that in a democracy, a decision made by the people should only be changed by the people, and not by a small group adversely affected by the decision.

In 2003, there was a successful ploy that tweaked term limits slightly to benefit Gifford Miller who had been elected speaker in January 2002 for a two-year term. A midterm council election was required in 2003 because of redistricting that followed the decennial census of 2000. Mr. Miller and the council passed a bill defining a term as four years, so he could serve two more years as speaker. The bill carried a trick provision preventing people who left the council in 2001 from running in 2003, sparing incumbents from challenges by their immediate predecessors.

The Miller bill was successfully attacked in Brooklyn Supreme Court and invalidated there. It was eventually upheld by the Appellate Division, 3-to-1.The revisions were minor and consistent with eight-year terms, although some members who held fractional terms like Mr. Miller could serve longer. There is language in the opinion that the council had the right to change the law, but a more substantial modification may be challenged more vigorously.

This brings us to the present, where Manhattan Councilwoman Gale Brewer will introduce a bill, to be considered after the 2005 election, for the council to extend the two term limit to three. It is possible that others may seek to abolish term limits altogether, or cunningly wait until 2009 to change the three term limit to four.

Why should anyone leave the council, with its six-figure salaries, including fat lulus, permission to engage in business or practice law, the ample staffs, the mailing privileges at public expense for self-serving illustrated brochures, and all the privileges and emoluments that come with good pay and light work, basically intoning “aye” on cue?

The fight is just beginning, and we predict that newspapers and good government groups will oppose this attempt to overrule the people of the City of New York, who have twice voted that eight years is enough for these worthies, and at the end of that time, they should be able to either find themselves another public office or else go to work. But council insiders have no shame. They can be expected to do everything they can to preserve and protect their privileged positions of power and pomp.

Today, the cat is out of the bag. We know what they are up to. And the public discussion can take place during the campaign, rather than after the election, when those elected will have four years in office before they can be held accountable by the voters.

The City Council may not mean too much. It was in 1965 that I wrote, “The council is less than a rubber stamp, because a rubber stamp at least leaves an impression.” It has gained considerable power since then, in great part because of the persistent efforts of Mr. Vallone. It has not improved, however, in terms of the quality or independence of its membership, so the negative evaluation of the successors to the Board of Aldermen remains relevant in the new century.

Mr. Stern is a former New York City parks commissioner and the founder of New York Civic.