Why Vote NO on Referendum Question 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.

Sound like Term Limits to you?

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...