Model City Charter Revision Project - Eighth Edition
Option Memo
Issue: Term Limits
Seventh Edition: The seventh edition of the Model Charter contains
no language requiring or encouraging cities to adopt any rules relating
to term limits.
Analysis of the Issue: The current number of municipalities with term
limits is unknown. However, as of 1992, term limits were in place in
32 percent of America's largest cities (with populations of 250,000
or more) according to a study conducted by Professor Thomas, Dean of
the Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri at Kansas
City. Professor Thomas's study pointed out the following:
- Term limits were adopted principally in cities with the council-manager
form of government.
- The trend toward adopting council term limits was principally a
post-1989 phenomenon.
- In the majority of large cities with term limits, both mayors and
city council members were limited.
- The average cap was eight years.
- All term limit measures were placed on the ballot by citizen initiative,
although in two cases the city council endorsed the plan. In those
two cases, limits passed as part of a package of benefits/raises,
etc., for council members.
Daniella Fagre of U.S. Term Limits conducted the most recent comprehensive
study of local term limits. Her study indicated that as of 1995, term
limits were known to exist in nearly 3,000 cities. Additional facts
noted in the report were that as of 1995:
- Eight of the 10 most populous cities in America had term limits.
- Of the largest 100 cities, 47 had municipal level limits.
- There were local-level limits of some form in 40 states.
- The average length of service allowed in term-limited cities was
7.9 years.
Argument For and Against Term Limits
1. What will give the voters a sense that they have choices?
Proponents
- For voters to feel they have a real choice, elections in this country
must be made competitive. Term limitations force that competition.
- Term limits are the key to breaking the deadlock on other campaign
reform issues. Long-time incumbents, it can be assumed, will not vote
against their own careers and pecuniary interest in the areas of campaign
finance, media access, voter registration, and other privileges. Office
holders who know that they will not be in office when these reforms
take place, however, have less incentive to protect the advantages
of incumbency.
- A seat open every couple of terms will create more competition,
since challengers will not be discouraged from taking on a long-time,
seemingly invincible opponent. PACS and other campaign contributors
will not automatically assume that giving to an incumbent is the only
safe investment.
Opponents
- Voters have a choice. They can vote for whomever they want in primaries,
caucuses and general elections. Voters are returning incumbents to
office in record numbers in part because they like them, and in part
because those incumbents enjoy advantages that have rendered elections
uncompetitive. Those advantages should be subject to reforms that
level the playing field. Limit the advantages - don't limit the choices
that voters make, removing specifically the candidate who has proven
his or her acceptability to the voters.
2. What will create an active public dialogue that will encourage
voters' becoming informed?
Proponents
- An office holder with fewer re-election campaigns will be a more
active and responsive candidate. He or she will have to participate
in debates and candidate forums, make appearances and promote visibility
of campaign issues. This more active public contest will be more involving
of voters than a situation where an incumbent's re-election is so
assured that voters have no need to follow the campaign.
Opponents
- More competitive elections will improve public dialogue on governance
and representation. This can be achieved through real reform, not
through the blunt instrument of term limitation. Those real reforms
include campaign financing, media access, voter registration, and
civic education-reforms that reach out to engage citizens, and broaden
the availability of information and participatory activities. Term
limitations, by removing a choice from the ballot, will further alienate,
rather than invigorate, voters.
What will attract the finest candidates?
Proponents
- The finest candidates for a representative body are citizen-legislators,
people who have proven their abilities in other fields and can bring
that experience to public service. Lack of term limits encourages
and sustains only career politicians; "outsiders" are effectively
discouraged because of the high rate of incumbent return, the high
cost of running an effective campaign against an incumbent, and the
image of government as rife with corruption. This denies the voters
the service of some of the country's most experienced, able people.
If we were to move the obstacle of entrenched incumbents, many capable
candidates would make themselves available for public service.
Opponents
- Limiting the list of potential candidates by automatically retiring
those who have served before eliminates some of the most experienced
people who could serve in that office. A company would not retire
its executives simply because those individuals had help their jobs
a long time-on the contrary, they are especially valued because of
their experience. Government is no different.
What will maximize the officeholder's effectiveness in serving his
or her electorate?
Proponents
- An officeholder who spends less time campaigning and raising money
has more time to spend on the job.
- Few re-election campaigns means less reason for special interest
PACs and individuals to make larger long-term "investments"
in a politician's career. Term limits will produce a legislator less
beholden to the special interests that PACs and big contributors represent.
- A legislator who has been in office only a limited number of terms
will be more in touch with the community he or she has recently left.
- An officeholder who is not constantly weighing re-election prospects
can focus on the overall interest of the city.
- A candidate that emerges victorious from a competitive election
has been tested. The voters view such a candidate with confidence,
because they have had an opportunity to know his or her views on issues
and watch how he conducts himself under pressure.
Opponents
- An individual serving in high office benefits from experience and
expertise in the post he or she will be discharging. Under term limitation,
just when a legislator has developed some expertise in issues, process
and influence with his colleagues, he will be retired.
- Frequent turnover among legislators will leave only staff, bureaucrats
and lobbyist in command of issues, process and political expertise.
This is particularly troubling with city council-members that typically
have little or no personal staff help, and rely on departmental staff
and lobbyist for information and advice on how to vote - potentially
increasing, rather than decreasing, special-interest influence.
- In their final, lame duck terms, legislator's influence with colleagues
and the executive will arguably be lessened. By the same reasoning,
there will be less incentive to be responsible to constituents' concerns.
Indeed, some have argued that a term-limited legislator will spend
most of this time in office arranging for his post-government employment.
Three Options: The Committee should adopt one of the following
options by the end of the March meeting:
- The 8th edition shall continue to make no reference to term limits.
- The 8th edition shall include an 8-year term limitation for elected
officials.
- The 8th edition shall include term limitations in an amount of
years determined to be appropriate by individual charter review efforts.
1. John Clayton Thomas, "The Term Limitations Movement
in U.S. Cities," National Civic Review, 81:2, Spring-Summer 1992,
pp. 155-173.
2. Daniella Fagre, "Microcosm of the Movement: Local Term Limits
in the United States" U.S. Term Limits Report, (1995).
|