To the Editor:
As a resident of Carefree I read with interest the proposed amendment providing for term limits for our council members and mayor. There are pros and cons to such a measure, and I would like to share my perspective.
The current amendment as it is written states that “term limits return power to the voters and prevent the ill effects of having the Town electorate represented by the same people for an overly lengthy period of time.”
Over the years, I’ve had experience in a number of organizations and associations where we elected board members and officers. More often than not, we had trouble finding enough qualified candidates willing to run to fill all of the positions. My concern about term limits is that a small town like Carefree could run into the same problem.
I don’t know a lot of the voting history, but I’m pretty sure that in the last several elections, there have been very few, if any, opposing candidates. In a situation like this, the idea of term limits would restrict the willingness of those people who want to serve.
The current amendment wishes to limit council members and mayors to two two-year terms, and make it retroactive for terms that have already been served or are currently being served. This raises several questions:
If this were to pass in the August vote, would it completely wipe out our entire council? Would there be no continuity in the town’s leadership? Would all of that prior knowledge disappear all at once? Would the council turn over completely every four years forever? When would new council members be voted in? Would there be enough time to find qualified candidates to fill all of those positions? And what happens if there aren’t enough qualified candidates to fill all of the positions? Would prior council members be banned for life from serving ever again?
I’m unclear as to why the issue of term limits is coming up in the first place. If there is an obvious problem, why not identify what it is, address the issue and solve the problem instead of kicking somebody out after so many years. Unless there’s some glaring grievance or obvious wrongdoing, is there really a need to limit someone’s term?
If the majority of voters feel that there is, my suggestion would be to structure an initiative that clearly defines the path and preserves some continuity and critical knowledge base. Stagger the terms of the council members. Each term could be four years, and three of the six positions would be elected every two years.
I would also suggest that if someone does complete a term, they could sit out a cycle and then run again. If they were doing a good job in the eyes of the majority of citizens who continued to vote for them, why restrict their willingness to serve?
To be clear, I am not entirely opposed to the idea of term limits. But we might want to “hold your horses” and think this through carefully and thoughtfully before jumping on the bandwagons of “drain the swamp” and “throw the bums out.”
Respectfully submitted,
Darrell Doepke
email
