Should Term Limits be Implemented on Local Political Office?

 

A discussion on how long local elected politicians can hold any one office was introduced to members of the city council on Tuesday, where councilman Fleming suggested imposing a limit of three consecutive terms for each elected position.

The suggestion stems from questions raised by members of his district, Fleming said, who have shown an interest in having such limitations set in place for the future.

Council members and the mayor engaged in a brief, eight-minute discussion on the matter, each voicing their piece, all of whom, Fleming excluded, were opposed to the proposition.

“I’m just asking the council to let the public decide this,” Fleming said shortly before lunchtime Tuesday. “What I’d like to do is set a term limit up of three terms for any one position, consecutive terms. It could be as little as five years or as many as six years, but that’s for any one position, so you could technically serve for six years as a councilperson and six years as the mayor.”

Moving down the line from left to right, each councilmember stated their opposition, while citing the public vote as an indicator of who they want in office.

“I think that there are a lot of discussion occurring at the federal level that have maybe only some relevance to the local level,” councilwoman Grindstaff began. “I certainly don’t want to try to bring every discussion that has some federal implication to the local level. I think that local government is very different from our federal system. It’s very responsive.”

Grindstaff stated that council races are not big-money political efforts where individuals raise over $1,000 to push their names. She said it isn’t as if members of the council are buying a seat. 

Councilman Don Vardeman agreed with Grindstaff, adding that serving on the council is not a big-money venture and that members are certainly not in it for the money. His statement was echoed by Mayor Dwain Morrison, who expressed a similar lack of monetary motivation.

“Well, I will admit as 10 years as a city council member drawing $40 a month—and now as mayor I draw 50—I have built a, I am a multi-hundred-aire,” Morrison said. “I see no reason for term limits. If people don’t want us, I guarantee they will vote against us.”

Charlotte Farmer, also opposed, called the length of city projects to the council’s attention, effectively saying that a lack of expertise caused by a rotating door would prove problematic in the long run.

“The real reason I ran this last time…why have term limits?” she said. “Why, if there’s not a depth of knowledge up here as to what we’ve been doing, it’s kind of scary to think that if you set term limits staff really runs everything and makes all the decisions. Why do you need a council? Why restrict them with term limits if their district, their people, are putting them back in office every time? They make that decision without term limits every election.”

Silvas, whose term would have ended at the last election, said he had contemplated not running, but was encouraged to do so by the support of the members of his district. “That reassured me…” he said.

No decision was made on the issue on Tuesday, however council did discuss the possibility of taking a look at the city charter, which hasn’t been updated since 2010.

The discussion will rest with the community, who will have to make their wants and needs known if a term limit is indeed something sought by more than just a few.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

Until more than 15-20 percent of the eligible voters decide to actually vote in these local elections it will be mostly the same faces on the council.
Should Term Limits be Implemented on Local Political Office? Yes, si, yeppers, aye, affirmative, uh huh, roger, 10-4, yessum, absolutely, for sure, certainly, yes most quickly, yes hurry? Yes about time....
I support term limits for all State and Federal elected positions where salaries are paid and benefits are accrued. I do not support term limits for Count and Local City elected positions where it's an elected volunteer position with no salary to speak of ($40 a month, seriously? $50 for our Mayor, really?) and no benefits what-so-ever. And considering those brave folks are elected by (maybe)(on a good day) 7-800 people out of 15,000+ in each district, setting a term limit would be disastrous - what happens at the end of one's third term and no one comes forth to run for the office? we just leave that seat open til someone decides to fill it? We definitely need to seat the charter review committee again - but not to set term limits............
When a government position is unpaid, is the official serving in the position out of altruism or a sense of civic duty? What other methods of reward are dangled to entice an unpaid official? If you're a city government official and find yourself in a position of a conflict of interest according to rules, should you change the rules? Who ultimately determines what is right and wrong in making those rules? If there isn't an ultimate source how is a consensus reached? I think the root of the issues present today aren’t due to term limits or any other form of paid or unpaid government service. I think the problem is the unwillingness to follow the rules because of the lack of consequences or the fear of the same. The voters would be first on that list in determining those consequences but apathy prevents it.

Post a comment to this article here: