A proposition on the August ballot would impose term limits on the Council and Mayor of two-two-year terms.
Many lawmakers view Councilman work as a career and not a temporary position, spend much of their time posturing and voting on issues in a manner that will be favorably viewed at election time.
Our term limits are called elections. The Council and Mayor – must face their constituents every two years and get their approval. Currently, we have a Council member who has served since 2006, who has no legislative accomplishments and who concentrates on self-service rather than public service. Vote him out.
— Term limits bring new people into elected offices.
— Term limits take choices away from voters,
— Term limits can increase polarization. Relationships and experience tend to allow for coalition building and compromise necessary for governing.
— Term limits often are seen as a way to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interest influence by reducing entrenched relationships with officials.
— Term limits mean officials are less experienced, making them more dependent on those with deeper institutional and policy knowledge — lobbyists, unelected staffers and policy wonks — to deal with complex issues. This can put more public business into the hands of people we haven’t elected.
The drive for term limits is largely based on opposition to creating a governing class, concern that time in office can make leaders distant from their constituents and the assumption that greater time in office will make political figures corrupt. Public servants argue otherwise, and there are other effects to consider when casting your ballot.
Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.
Reg Monachino
Cave Creek
