9/08/2011Posted by MJ
The LUSJ has reported that Chapman has resurrected his Term Limit quest prior to leaving city office at the end of this year.
An attempt by 4th Ward Alderman Andy Chapman to force a Common Council vote on his old term-limits proposal failed Wednesday.I still feel the same way as when this was first brought up. In the city we get to vote on all alderman every two years. There is ample opportunity to vote in new people. It is our responsibility to try to put the right people in office. Based on a lot of the commenting on this blog, I'd be surprised that term limits would make mush difference based on what people's main concerns are about candidates.
The proposal, tabled by the Council in February 2010, would limit the mayor to serving two consecutive terms of office and aldermen to three consecutive terms. Officers would be allowed to run for the jobs again, but only after a full term out of office.
I do see some benefits for higher levels of office (state) where seniority plays a large role and certain members can gain a stronghold that affects the whole state whereas the whole state has no opportunity to get rid of them. It is possible (probable?) that party lines would still hold back any type of change brought out by plugging in any new "individuals".
Here is the post from 2010. Rocketboy where have you gone?