Term Limits – Yes Or No?

NOPARKING-1Term limits restricting the number of successive terms of office that may be served by elected officials has always been a controversial issue.

Brea has never had term limits and I, along with a growing number of others apparently, believe it’s time to put it to a vote.

The almost perpetual reelection of career politicians prevents the rise of new voices in government. By instituting term limits, the problems of the status quo can be solved, and more responsible, accountable candidates and Council members may arise.

Here are arguments in favor of term limits that, IMHO, make a lot of sense to me.

Term limits restore rotation in office and government by the people.

It is unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path. It is better that participation in government be brief. Term limits will put an end to municipal politics becoming a cushy “lifetime” job, making elected service more a limited leave of absence from a productive career in the private sector.

Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for decades keeps people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. They pass their “use by” date.

Local government works best when it functions as a citizen council, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter office for a brief time to do their community service, and then leave to reenter society as private citizens. The typical agenda of today’s career politicians is only to build their own power and influence base ahead of representing the people they were elected to serve.

Term limits make for better elections and empower new leaders and ideas.

Incumbency provides a huge electoral advantage. Sitting politicians, unlike poor Mr. Murdock, almost always win reelection. Over the past 30 years it had become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent until the grassroots effort of Operation Clean Sweep lit up Brea ballot boxes.

People have a tendency to vote for people they recognize. Donors and special interest groups (in the past I’ve referred to them as the old guard) tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run.

In communities where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst elected officials, giving voters more choice in who should represent them. Ultimately, long term council members using political machines to retain power do their community and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions.

Term limits prevent corruption and exploitation of office.

FINGERS-LWith a few exceptions like Koreagate and the Energy Coalition, Brea has been blessed with a history of well intentioned and ethical leaders. One only need to think of the City of Industry and Bell to realize the magnitude of the risk.

Sure, we’ve seen behavior that danced perilously close to the edge of the Brown Act. Local politics have always been a bit rough and tumble… and personality clashes are unfortunately more commonplace than one would prefer.

That said, when a career politician is firmly entrenched, they may seek to enrich themself at the expense of the public, to shower unearned perks upon family and allies in order to maintain and strengthen their powerful position.

Term limits serve to limit the ability of individuals to put forward self-serving legislation and to retain power indefinitely. Instead, with term limits, elected officials have only a limited time in power, which tends to shift their focus toward genuinely benefiting the public.

Term limits trigger action over apathy.

A major focus of any elected official hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote-getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Elected officials have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so.

An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination (climbing on my soapbox for a moment) is the interminable delays in allowing public comment on the creation of an Environmental Advisory Board.

For almost a year Council has been asked to hold a town meeting to determine how broad an interest, or lack of same, Brea residents have in local environmental issues. A simple word to the City Manager and it could have happened months ago.

When constrained by term limits, elected officials must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as elected officials will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again.

Where do you stand?

Is it time at last to finish what Operation Clean Sweep started and let term limits put an end to career politicians in Brea?

VOTECOUNTS

Brea Chamber Attacks Resident’s Request For Public Meeting.

ChamberChamber board member John Koos, relying entirely upon misinformation and paranoid speculation, lashed out at residents asking Council to hold a town hall style meeting to get public input on an Environmental Advisory Board (see request here).

Instead of contacting the residents to better understand the objectives behind their year long discussions with Council, the Brea Chamber jumped to the false conclusion that the advisory board would be another layer of codes and regulations adding to the overwhelming state and federal oversight already choking the business community.

Had the Chamber spent more than two minutes Googling for information totally unrelated to the topic at hand… had the Chamber not employed a Ready! Fire! Aim! strategy… had the Chamber made any attempt to approach the residents with their concerns… the unfortunate foot-in-mouth comments from Mr. Koos and subsequent embarrassment would likely have been avoided all together.

Who is really being served?

There are 11,000 active business licenses in Brea, 5,000 of which are Brea based. The Chamber boasts a membership of roughly 400 businesses of which, they’ve admitted, perhaps 80 face environmentally based regulations and state or federal agency oversight.

That is 1.6% of Brea based businesses, 0.6% of all business serving Brea. Remind me again who the Chamber represents?

Where there is risk there must be choice.

chamberNo one disputes that there are numerous and varied environmental risks at play in Brea every day. From which industries, in what measure and how great a threat is anyone’s guess. No one at city hall has been able to adequately quantify it.

On one side of the scale we have 80 businesses, on the other 40,000+ residents. Tell me, which way do you see the scale tipping?

Does the Chamber have a right to advocate for it’s members? Of course. Should the other 10,920 businesses have an opportunity to wade in on the matter? Of course. But I can think of 40,000+ reasons to maintain a practical balance when weighing opinions.

What is an Environmental Advisory Board?

After months of going back and forth with Mayor Simonoff, Mayor Pro Tem Marick, other Council members and City Manager Bill Gallardo clearly the advisory board was not going to be a policy making body. All concerned agreed that there are more than enough regulations already.

Though the residents group was launched a year and a half ago to investigate local concerns about fracking, their mission expanded to include all areas of environmental concern. Public health and safety and good stewardship of our air and water emerged to become the central issues.

The deeper the inquiry the more it was discovered how little Brea really understood regarding it’s rights and responsibilities under the laws already in existence. The Environmental Advisory Board was conceived as a think tank tapping Breans with deep experience in environmental sciences and practices.

One concept proposed is for a seven member board including one nominee offered by each councilmember and two At Large positions… one filled by a representative (oddly enough) of the Brea Chamber and the other a command staff officer of the Brea FD.

The residents group has expressed a strong, nonnegotiable objection to the board becoming a vigilante group targeting the oil and gas industry. Also, careful guidelines will be required to avoid appointment as political spoils and block any threat of mission creep as well.

A simple request, a town hall meeting.

As expressed in their formal request to Council, the group believes it is time to move the discussion beyond the persistent lobbying of a grassroots special interest group and to open it up to a community wide conversation. It is the only way to ensure that the majority’s view is the one addressed by Council in reaching a final decision.

The repeated suggestion that “staff has been instructed to get answers to Council questions,” given the lengthy report already provided to Council and the discussions that have followed, are clear indicators that some councilmembers are suffering from analysis paralysis.

The next step just isn’t that difficult or complicated, regardless of uninformed kneejerk reactions like that from the Brea Chamber.

Council should ask the City Manager to find an appropriate opportunity in the near future to schedule a public meeting… just like the one on the downtown parking structure and the upcoming Notice of Public Hearing on Water Rates (218 requirement) to discuss tiered water rates.