No To Term Limits

Posted by MJ

The council voted down term limits 4-2 last night. The LUSJ reported:

Andy Chapman’s term limits proposal for city office holders was downed Wednesday in a 2-4 vote by Common Council members.

Chapman, 4th Ward alderman, and Jack Smith, 2nd Ward alderman, cast the two “yes” votes for the proposal, which would have required the mayor to take a break from the office after serving two consecutive terms, and aldermen to take a break after three consecutive terms. The proposed law did not prohibit former officers from running again, so long as they sat out one term....
I could have went either way with this. I had not found to many supporting documents on the local level showing large benefits to term limits. In my mind, 2-yr terms for alderman and 4-yr for mayor are more than enough opportunity to remove someone from office. Personally I would not want to risk the chance to keep a "shining star" in if they were actually to be found.

As the levels of government go up, I can see the allure especially when someone we don't get to vote for runs things because of seniority. It turns replacing representatives into a "set back" as seniority is reset not allowing them to be as effective from the start even if they were full of great new ideas.


Post a Comment

Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.