Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 3
VOTE NO ON QUESTION NO 3
The ballot question says that the current charter does not specify the minimum time that a term limited council member must be out of office before running again. Is this true? We think not and that the Ballot question is misleading.
- The current charter states “No individual shall be elected to the office of council member for more than two (2) consecutive full terms.”
- It has been interpreted that the 4th District Court of Appeals in deciding Levy v. Woods determined that 2 consecutive terms IS the limit and that term-limited Council Members may not run again.
Rationale for proposing this ballot item rests on the supposed lack of candidates wanting to run for the office and the need to retain qualified and experienced (meaning term-limited former Mayors and Council Members) involvement in the community, by allowing them to run again after a sit-out period of a term. The interruption in their consecutive term of office would lessen their overwhelming electoral advantage as an incumbent, and sever perceived ties with those with interests with the City. (Note: Council passed this 4:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO)
However passage of this question 3, along with Referendum Question No 2 (expanding term-limits to 3 consecutive terms), would allow Council to serve indefinitely, with a 3-year sit-out between limited-terms. So serve 9 years, take a break, serve another 9 ad infinitum.
(Update – with Question 2 ruled invalid – a Yes would allow a council member to serve 6 years, take a break, serve another 6 ad infinitum).
Sound like Term Limits to you?
Thank you pbgwatch.com. Your service is most valuable. This question #3 is most difficult and not reducible to an easy answer. Your description of presumed down-side outcomes is a bit loose as you make the implication that ‘ad infinitum’ would prevail even though an duly authorized vote would take place after a sit out period. Same lack of exactitude in the language of the current charter has led to the law suite you refer to in your piece to declare that 2 consecutive term IS the limit. This would allow a motivated citizen to throw their hat once again into the ring for an other cycle. I am sure history is full of instances where it has been shown to be a good thing for former good politician to re-enter the fray after a hiatus due to term limits, opposite findings could be also cited one presumes. Democracy is served by those with generosity of public will yet constrained by terms limits to not hogging all the service time, all the time. I will support this Proposal and vote Yes. Thanks so much for bringing it to mind just the same.