City Council Term Limits?
The Political Buzz blog at the TNT has reported on a discussion from the Committee of the Whole meeting at City Council. Councilmember Ladenberg has proposed extending or removing the term limits for Council. Currently, Council is limited to two, four year terms, but under Ladenberg’s suggestions, the limits would be changed to three or removed all together. Her justification is the inability of Councilmembers to truly see projects to fruition.
Julie Anderson expressed concern that the possible move to a full time Council, and a removal of term limits would create career Councilmembers, who may be driven by a combination of incumbency, a big salary, and endless terms.
What do you think? Are Councilmembers unable to be effective because of leaving office? Or is the turnover necessary for new ideas?
Link to the Political Buzz
Filed under: City-Council
14 comments
T tressie May 7, 2008
What makes them think they are effectual? For all the citizens in town? Hmmmm? I vote for turnovers, or waffles, apparently. I vote contrary.
….who may be driven by a combination of incumbency, a big salary, and endless terms…..said ms. anderson….Now, that’s comedy.
I think the problem with the council, is that too many Anderson’s are in charge of attracting Rich People to our fair city. And that seems to be all that ever really gets done.
I smell a Ladenberg Century. geez, those 2 want to run everything on the Northwest Coast, or something.
D Dave May 7, 2008
I am willing to consider the idea of lifting the term limits, but not on Ladenberg. She needs to go just as soon as we can get rid of her.
R RR Anderson May 7, 2008
the council needs more anderson involvement, and not so much a removal of limits.
Anderson Power!
T tressie May 7, 2008
I knew RR would say that…or type that….nice set up eh gracie?
M morgan May 7, 2008
Based on my observations, council members are barely able to keep up with weekly reading material. Because most (all?) of the council members have other jobs, they are by default not thinking about city issues on a full time basis.
Over the past few decades, running a city has become complex and interconnected with global issues. It’s hard to keep up with things let alone come up with solutions if you are only working on it part time.
Get rid of term limits? What would be the incentive to get anything done then?
E Erik B. May 7, 2008
What do you think? Are Councilmembers unable to be effective because of leaving office? Or is the turnover necessary for new ideas?
Extending it another term seems reasonable.
Some issues like the Billboard issue clearly were hurting from term limits. An earlier council voted to ban most of them and they had a 10 year waiting period. There was a question of whether the new council could carry the water for the task.
Also, two limits makes it difficult to find a decent mayor. The restriction between the mayor and council terms should not be there for term limit purposes. That’s about the worst part of it.
Get rid of term limits? What would be the incentive to get anything done then?
I think you are right in that term limits may speed projects through as councilmembers want to see them be done. However, 8 years is hardly enough time to learn the job and push through many larger projects.
I think terms limits does help some councilmembers take some political risks and try to get something done knowing that they can’t run again.
O Old Timer May 7, 2008
Ladenberg would be the one to bring this up considering she is now a short timer. As far as the mayor is concerned that is just a figure head position anyway. Now if we want to do something positive for T-Town lets go with the strong mayor set up. Then we as citizens can hold the mayor accountable. Ladenberg’s distict in the south end is just waiting for her to leave anyway, Nice try though.
M michael g. May 8, 2008
I’d like to see a strong mayor, a full-time council, and no term limits (i.e., a normal type of government for a decent sized city). Let the voters decide when it’s time for a council member to go.
M morgan May 8, 2008
a normal type of government for a decent sized city
Hmmm, are we ready for a “normal” type of government?
L lisa May 8, 2008
I have to laugh at Mrs. L justification for this proposal “ the inability to see projects truely to fruition”. So when they fail at doing their jobs to begin with in the first term or two we ought to reward them with a full time position? Please, please let the Ladenburg reign end here in PC.
Justice would be at least waiting until the L’s are out of any office before considering making any change.
D DavidS May 8, 2008
With term limits the power stays with those who are not limited out – such as a City Manager. Removing term limits or moving to a full time council means the power starts to shift back to the Council. I have no idea which is better: an elected career politician who only changes when there is a big screw-up/promotion or an appointed professional management staff who only changes when there is a big screw-up/promotion.
Regardless, I do think each council member needs a staffer though. A staffer would allow a council member to keep at least a partial day job while having someone to handle day-to-day tasks as well as sorting through the chaff. Full time council members would move this way too, but I think an aide is a better starting point.
Note: County Council members are full-time, term limited, and each have a staff member.
R Rob Collins May 8, 2008
Hats off to Lisa for her comment.
I have to laugh at Mrs. L justification for this proposal “ the inability to see projects truely to fruition”. So when they fail at doing their jobs to begin with in the first term or two we ought to reward them with a full time position?
In my humble opinion, term limits are put in place for a very good reason. So the council doesn’t get too comfortable! When you mix long term politicans with money and power it can be a very tricky thing. History should prove that!
I feel the current council understands that time is of the uptmost importance. If we continue to push items off, watch them pile up, get back logged, it will do nothing but increase our costs and push the patience of the very community that helped council get elected. If you can’t get something done in 8 years, you obviously didn’t try very hard.
S Squid May 8, 2008
I’d be more in favor of term limits for things like School Board where incumbent inertia really plays itself out (e.g. how long has Debbie Winskill served?). Very little press and low level public visibility/scrutiny mean incumbents have a much easier time of it.
City Council is visible enough that voters have less excuse for not paying attention. We shouldn’t need term limits, but then again there are lots of things we have to protect ourselves from, right or wrong.
S Squid May 9, 2008
Answer to question above is that at the end of her current term, Ms. Winskill will have served 24 years on the Tacoma Public School Board.
Just so’s y’all know.