In my seven years on the New York City Council, I’ve witnessed my fair share of passionate debates.

But the spectacle that unfolded during the nomination hearing for Randy Mastro as the city’s corporation counsel — our top lawyer — was a new low, even by today’s standards.

What should have been a professional assessment of his qualifications quickly turned into a witch hunt, revealing just how unserious some of my council colleagues have become.

And as they prepare to vote on Mastro’s nomination Thursday, they should hang their heads in shame.

This wasn’t a hearing — it was a sham, a dog-and-pony show designed to humiliate rather than evaluate.

Mastro, who served the city as deputy mayor under the greatest mayor we’ve had in recent memory, Rudy Giuliani, was subjected to a barrage of personal attacks.

My colleagues dragged his past service through the mud, trying to connect him to the Giuliani of today, rather than recognizing his work during an era when he helped save New York City from the brink of collapse.

It was an absurd exercise in guilt by association, with little respect for facts or decorum.

Time and again, Mastro’s qualifications were drowned out by the noise of ad hominem attacks and political grandstanding.

Let me be clear: Randy Mastro is one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated as corporation counsel.

He is zealous about the rule of law and has spent his career defending his clients — two foundational principles upon which our legal system rests.

And Mastro’s public service goes far beyond his work for city government.

He’s served several significant left-leaning causes, including the Legal Aid Society and Citizens Union, a good-government group that has long pushed for reforms.

Several of my colleagues even admitted that they would hire Mastro as their own personal attorney — so why did their questioning devolve into a spectacle of personal vendettas rather than a sober evaluation of his qualifications?

The answer is simple: it was never about his qualifications.

My colleagues relentlessly attacked Mastro for over eight hours on everything but his distinguished resumé.

This was supposed to be a nomination hearing, a process where we carefully evaluate someone’s ability to serve the city.

Instead, it was nothing more than a scripted, politically motivated inquisition.

It became personal and, for some, even racial.

One council member had the audacity to ask Mastro whether he thought it was acceptable for a “white man” to take the job of a “black woman.”

Judge Silvia Radix, a highly qualified attorney and the city’s former corporation counsel, left the position for political reasons after clashing with Mayor Adams.

This line of questioning wasn’t just inappropriate, it was offensive and unbecoming.

Mastro wasn’t there to defend the mayor’s decision-making process or Radix’s departure, but to be evaluated on his fitness for the job.

But most of the council had decided long before the process began that they would oppose Mastro, and they made no effort to hide their bias.

Impartiality, the cornerstone of any fair hearing, was thrown out the window.

Previously, the City Council never exercised its “advise and consent” responsibility with such vigor, even though that role is limited to only a few positions like corporation counsel and members of certain city-mandated boards.

It wasn’t until Mastro’s name was floated as a nominee that my colleagues suddenly developed a newfound interest in the concept of “advice and consent.”

Now, all of a sudden, advice and consent has become their new battle cry as a way to promote “good government.”

And in theory, it is.

In practice, it can only work if the body tasked with it is reasonable, professional and capable of impartiality.

This council has shown itself to be anything but.

Many of my colleagues in this so-called hearing didn’t even have the decency to pretend to have an open mind.

They were against Mastro from the start, and their behavior revealed a troubling pattern: a lack of professionalism, an unwillingness to listen, and a preference for theatrics over governance.

This should concern every New Yorker.

Advice and consent, when used by a thoughtful and balanced body, is a critical check on executive power.

But in the hands of this council, it’s a tool for petty political retribution.

If this mockery of a hearing is any indication, expanding the City Council’s role would only grind City Hall to a halt — and our city cannot afford that.

We need a functioning government, not one paralyzed by infighting and personal vendettas.

The Mastro hearing was a slap in the face to New Yorkers who expect better from their representatives.

It’s time to get serious about governing — and to put an end to the circus.

Council Member Robert Holden (D) represents District 30 in Queens.