Open Thread for Wednesday
Two views on term limits (from the Daily News):It appears we have come nearly full circle in our thinking about the merits of term limits on all levels of government. The great "housecleaning" made 10 years ago seemed the only way to cleanse us of the evils of our bloated, self-indulgent city and state governments. Although it made us feel better at the time, in retrospect, it was an error. We voted to create term limits that were unreasonably short. The consequences have been abysmal. The time is right to make a reasonable correction. As a former board member and longtime member of the League of Women Voters, I applaud the efforts by the league and the Chamber of Commerce and hope they will move this quickly to the November ballot. Los Angeles cannot afford to lose any more members, nor the state its institutional memory, in this game of musical chairs.
FRANCINE OSCHIN
Encino
I object to the plan by the Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters to put a measure on the ballot to lift term limits for the L.A. City Council. The basic premise of those seeking the change is that term limits have not produced better public officials. However, if that is the case, why enshrine these questionable officials by giving them incumbent fundraising and other advantages? Money talks, and the current council members do not deserve to be rewarded with additional terms.
BRUCE CAMPBELL
Los Angeles
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 7/05/2006 12:00:00 AM
7 Comments:
I think we should raise the term limit by one, to three 4-year terms. The way it's set up now you got these councilmembers campaigning the samer year they get re-elected (except for ADV, but that's another can of worms). By extending things to three terms, anyone bailing their current seat in the middle of their second term would be met by contempt by voters. Politicians would have no choice but to go for three terms, and hopefully do good things in those 8-12 years in office.
I'd rather see lifetime term limits: an individual can hold elected office for a total of eight years, period. No leapfrogging from one office to another. Instead, you hold any office, or combination of offices, for no longer than eight years.
Wacko,
That would create inneficient leaders. Our political culture would be even more corrupted than is now, as politicians would have 8 years of pay-to-play, then conveniently walk away into the sunset, never to be public officials again. Too easy...
It would also make it easier to get nutcases like yourself into office, so no. Nice try though, slickster.
Too bad that the nutcases and wack jobs are already in office, e.g., Jackie goldberg, Nunez etc.
11:28 AM,
Too bad you voted for Wacko1
Yeah, the current system is working GREAT. The public would suffer terribly from removing our local statesmen from office.
Do you really think when term limits were adopted that the idea was to have the same people simply play musical chairs?
What City Hall insiders don't want to tell you is that by lifting term limits, a Council Member can get a pension. In the City of L.A., it takes 10 years of city employment to get a pension. Two council terms results in eight years, 2 years too short for the pension. It is possible that people like former Councilman Mike Hernandez work on Councilman Parks' staff to get over the pension hurdle.
Don't be fooled by the term limits removal. It's the same kind of trickery of the 1990 "ethics reform" ballot measure where City Council Members had their pay tied to that of Superior Court Judges. The City Council not only washed its hands of having to fight over a maximum of 10% pay raises per year- the ethics reform gave them an automatic one-time 40% pay increase!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home