Term Limits, better Voter turnout, and Better District Representation

[council3_rubal]

Subject: Term Limits, better Voter turnout, and Better District Representation

First, let us agree that it is important for elected officials to be accountable and represent all the residents. Second, the electorate must be informed about the issues candidates are expected to address and understand where candidates and incumbents running for re-election stand on the issues.

Regarding term limits, the following points were extracted (shortened) from:
https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/term-limits

Pros for term limits: Foster democratic representation

• Allows for a more diverse pool of individuals to hold public office.
• Prevent entrenched incumbency
• Create opportunities for fresh talent, new ideas, and increased competition.
• Mitigate inadvertent or intentional abuse of power (limited timeframe to serve)
• Discourage complacency,
• Prevents concentration of power and reduce the risk of entrenchment
• Turnover limits the influence of special or entrenched interest groups.
• Fosters a more dynamic political landscape and enhances democratic representation.
• Term limits mean the elected official is more compelled to take decisive actions, fulfill campaign promises, and deliver tangible results.

Cons for term limits: Term limits restrict experienced leaders and disrupt continuity.

• The election process itself ensures candidates are accountable.
• The electorate will not elect a candidate if the incumbent under performs or is too radical, etc)
• For incumbents to be reelected they must convince voters that they are better than the alternatives.
• Term limits mitigate the benefits of electoral selection by making one of the potential candidates ineligible.
• Loss of experience: Long-serving officials may have better understanding of complex policy issues, institutional processes, and networks necessary for effective governance. Term limits may make it harder to maintain continuity and institutional memory.
• Difficulty in implementing long-term policies: Shorter tenures resulting from term limits can hamper the ability to implement long-term policies and initiatives.

Each argument above assumes that voters are informed and that the vote represents the community. How this is done without local unbiased news reporting in today’s environment of social media is a difficult question. Given our City’s low voter turnout, I would like to begin a discussion on this platform for ideas to better inform residents and improve voter turnout. If turnout is not representative of all districts the unbiased representation of voter concerns with districts in our City with diverse needs would be difficult to achieve.

 

[council4_vaughan]

I think looking at districts is warranted. It is difficult for a councilmember to know all the issues that matter to residents in a city our size. If we had districts, it could provide better representation of each area. I believe it would require a charter amendment. I am open to discussing that.

Term limits for municipalities are hard. I get the idea but if you have too much turnover on council it only provides more power to management. It takes time for councilmembers to learn the operations and become effective at providing oversight. Kicking them out based on terms loses some of that effectiveness.

Also, if we went with districts, we may have a hard time finding candidates willing to run from some neighborhoods. Kicking out councilmembers based on term limits alone could cause challenges in those districts.

The idea of term limits is most effective in larger governments where the officials get paid and could have some perverse incentives. With a volunteer council, I don't think we have a major risk of that.

 

[council5_shelby]

I am in the boat of I wish we served 4 years instead of 2. It’s so much to learn and by year two you are finally really getting the hang of it. I don’t think term limits are needed if the community continues to vote someone in they must like them. We don’t have a huge turnout so if you do get the votes that means something. Plus every year is an election and it feels like a lot for such a small town.

 

[council3_rubal]

I have been reflecting on the comments above. I do agree that there are issues in the City that are complex and have long-term consequences. Each new Council does NOT have a BLANK sheet of paper to work with. In many cases, the Council is confined by decisions of prior Councils regarding long-term debt, development projects, and other issues. However, when elected, I believe that Council members have the responsibility to put agenda items before the Council in a timely manner. If Councilmembers do not present motions in this regard, it does not matter how many terms they serve, they are ineffective in representing the views of their constituents.

I also believe that new Councilmembers have a responsibility to present motions consistent with their campaign platforms because this reflects the residents’ concerns who elected them. The rules of the Council in this regard are straightforward. A member presents a motion and IF seconded it is discussed for placement on a future agenda and then with the support of three council members, it is placed on a future agenda.

Secondly, the complex and long-term issues of the City should not take years of study to understand, but rather they should be presented by our City staff in simple and understandable formats. For example, the audit will reveal that our City has incurred debt into 2040’s. Yikes! For votes on annual budgets without the perspective on long-term debt, capital needs, and a mechanism to ensure basic municipal services are met is folly. We must insist that all issues before Council are adequately briefed with alternatives.

I seek support to place on future agendas for discussion:
1) Discussion on changes in Council representation to better represent districts.
2) Term limits of 3 consecutive two-year terms.