The Case for Term Limits in Maplewood Politics

It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them."

In other words, when politicians know they must return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed while they were in government, at least some of them will think more carefully about the long-term effects of the programs they support. Their end-all will not be re-election, because that option will not be available.

Access the full perspective here....

Why Term Limits: FEE.org

What do you think?  and Why? 

Think Beyond - John

There are term limits. Each terms runs a fixed amount of time. Then there is an election. 

What is your proposal Johnharvey8?  How many terms?

yahooyahoo - not certain on the number of terms, but I really like the principle. Ideally, the voters would determine if they believe in term limits for Maplewood, and what the term should be for TC, Planning Board, etc.  Thanks for asking - John

You know you're citing to a pile of Libertarian claptrap, an ideology that, if implemented, would utterly fail to allow for society to exist.  Every man, woman, and child for him/herself.  What a world!  Who needs a water supply?  Roads?  Snowplows?

Brilliant,bramzzojnks.  Thanks for sharing - John

Given that we've had plenty of turnover on the TC in Maplewood over the past 20 years, this is a solution in search of a problem.  The current TC only has one member who has served more than two terms.  And two of the five are in their first month of office.  Why do we even need term limits with that sort of turnover?

I get that you don't like Vic DeLuca as mayor.  But the people of Maplewood keep reelecting him.  And the new TC, even with two new members, elected him mayor unanimously.  You're suggesting that a person the people think is doing a good job, and the other committee members unanimously support, can't run again because we set an arbitrary limit on term in office?

terrible idea.

Why term limits for just the TC and Planning Board.  Why not the Board of Education, the Board of Adjustment and the many other boards and committees that help make the town run.   Could it be that both the Township Committee and the Planning board were instrumental in opposing Mr. Harvey's vision for the old Post Office?  

If the voters feel that a leader has done a good job and want to return him to office I think they should be able to do so.

On another thread there have been posts implying that one person has a "grip" on this town, and that the candidates for TC are decided by a 30 person committee.   The election of Greg Lembrich, and before him David Huemer, and even Vic DeLuca belie that statement.  

These are small town governments, so in fact, as the OP misstated,  politicians do not need to return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed while they were in government because they already DO live in society under the laws passed while they were in government.

I'm in W.O, not Maplewood, but I think the question is generally applicable to all municipal governments?

My feeling is that term limits are an attempt to patch over the real problem with local politics - lack of broad and deep engagement.  In an engaged electorate, term limits aren't needed, as voters are capable of discerning if an incumbent is still serving them well. The case for term limits is that it's an attempt to automatically do the incumbent cycling that lacks when voters aren't engaged enough.

I think the real question is, how do we get people more involved in local elections? This is a hard problem. I'm fairly interested in politics, consider myself at least moderately civic-minded, and I can't even tell you who my town council person is, or even how many people are on the W.O council.  I can name the mayor, and I'm willing to bet that puts me in very small company indeed. So, if even political junkies like myself have a hard time getting invested in local politics, what's the solution here?

One could easily argue that Maplewood wouldn't be what and where it is today were it not for the fact that Grasmere (a Republican!) stayed in office for so long.

I agree with PVW.

sac said:

I agree with PVW.

Yes.

Now, I think you could argue that limiting the President of the United States to two terms is a good idea because of the tremendous power that office holds, but that certainly doesn't apply to lower offices.

The problem is, if you had term limits, you could hypothetically end up with no one filling certain seats, as there are many uncontested elections. I live in SO, but I think this applies everywhere. If I recall, the last BOT election here saw all the candidates running unopposed. I frequently attend meetings of the BOT, Planning Board, etc., and most meetings--even ones with "hot" issues--only get 10-15 people tops, and usually just those that are directly affected by something--i.e. a building being put up near them.

At one time I thought term limits might make sense. There are sometimes feelings of disenfranchisement among some who feel out of the loop or as if they aren't represented. But in almost all cases, those feelings come about because people listen to hearsay or parts of stories or don't listen at all, because they don't have the time to invest in exploring issues more. That is because of life priorities more than anything. I have not ever felt "unrepresented" even when I have disagreed with TC members...and John, I have had my vehement disagreements in the past with some of them. I have even disagreed with how some handled matters when I agreed with them.

We don't need term limits...we need more people with previous community involvement and experience to run, for both major parties and even independently. I have strongly considered and even voted for unaffiliated candidates in the past...if I believe they bring experience to the table. I didn't vote for Greg Lembrich...he seems like a reasonably nice and intelligent guy, but I have not seen any significant local experience in his background. We have opportunities aplenty for people to get involved...committees, Citizens Budget Advisory, and more. Funny thing is, I find it increasingly harder to get people interested in volunteering for committees that don't involve a whole lot of time. How many really want to run and step up and put the time in?

And how many are really capable beyond the time commitment? So what if we have term limits and its one of those years when no one substantive wants to run? Do we elect the Republican default candidate who offered themselves up as a candidate so there wouldn't be an empty slot on the ballot but who really doesn't want to run or hold office (such as this past year)?

By the way, most former TC members seem to still be living in the community, many of them very engaged in various aspects of it. They've returned to ordinary society, well, if you consider our community ordinary.

.

bramzzoinks said:

There are term limits. Each terms runs a fixed amount of time. Then there is an election. 

Absolutely correct.

Johnharvey8 said:

yahooyahoo - not certain on the number of terms, but I really like the principle. Ideally, the voters would determine if they believe in term limits for Maplewood, and what the term should be for TC, Planning Board, etc.  Thanks for asking - John

Which voters?

Suppose the voters of Maplewood were to vote today that any TC Member elected in 2016 could serve only three three-year terms. At the end of that time, nine years from now, many of the voters who passed that law will have moved away or passed away. There will be a new set of voters who have moved into Town or have become old enough to vote.

What right do the voters of 2016 have to limit the choice of the voters of 2025?

Another tactic whiners use when they can't get their way through the regular democratic process is redistricting. Perhaps if we redraw the election map to include a chunk of Short Hills things will turn out more to John Harvey's liking. 

Im happy to take the conversation on a general level even though like some of you, I think the root of John's question is more specific.

LOST said:
What right do the voters of 2016 have to limit the choice of the voters of 2025?

this is the most compelling argument yet.

ml1 said:

LOST said:
What right do the voters of 2016 have to limit the choice of the voters of 2025?

this is the most compelling argument yet.

Thank you. Frankly I thought the argument you made on the other thread was excellent but I did not have the time to post my point at the time I read it.

For those who didn't see it this is what ml1 posted at about 8:00PM last night:

"Term limits are inherently anti-democratic.  It's telling voters that they're a bunch of stupid sheep who would unthinkingly reelect the same people over and over, regardless of whether or not they're doing a good job.
To take this out of Maplewood and people's visceral reactions to local politicians -- let's take the U.S. presidency.  We have an experienced president in office, but he can't run for reelection because of term limits.  Instead we have about a dozen clowns and charlatans from one party, and from the other party, an uninspiring frontrunner and a long shot challenger.  The one national politician we can't vote for is Barack Obama, the guy who would probably trounce any of the current contenders.  I'd prefer Obama over anyone currently running for president, but I can't vote for him.  Why not?  Term limits. 
Term limits are the worst idea for a country that supposedly believes in the democratic process.  It's telling voters -- you can vote for anyone, except that experienced person who's in the job right now that you think is doing a good job".

Am I naive in thinking that the TC members that I see around are still comfortably members of our town's "ordinary society?" Presidents, governors, perhaps members of Congress might lose touch with regular folks due to their special privileges, inside information and big-money lobbyists currying their favor. I think past and present TC members have day-to-day lives fairly similar to mine, except with more headaches.

Even if a 30-person cabal were the primary driver of Maplewood's direction, that would be about one-eighth of one percent of the town's total population, including children. Transpose that to a national level, and you're talking about a cabal of 400,000.

The only "cabal" are the citizens willing to put in the time and effort to help run the Town Government and to convince a majority of those who lack the time or inclination to support them in those efforts at election time.

at least the political party's district leaders are elected.  If you want to consider anyone in town who's politically active a "cabal," I think it describes a group like the Village Keepers more than it does the Maplewood Democratic Party.

Johnharvey8 said:

It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them."

It may have already been said but it is worth repeating that the part-time members of the TC and the part-time members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board, etc. do not have to "return among the latter" they are already here. They are not professional office holders in a distant State or Federal Capital.

So in response to the title of this thread there is no meaningful case for term limits in Maplewood politics.

Stoughton said:

Am I naive in thinking that the TC members that I see around are still comfortably members of our town's "ordinary society?" 

Yes, you are naive if you think that a $5,000 annual "salary" and the fielding of complaints about nail salons, stop signs and snow removal doesn't put you out of touch with your constituents. I mean, come on, that's power to be abused!

Interesting how the intelligence of voters can swing in these discussions, between either making them pillars of Tocquevillian democracy or marking them as dupes who don't know what their lawn signs mean.

LOST said:

Johnharvey8 said:

It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them."

It may have already been said but it is worth repeating that the part-time members of the TC and the part-time members of the Planning Board and Zoning Board, etc. do not have to "return among the latter" they are already here. They are not professional office holders in a distant State or Federal Capital.

So in response to the title of this thread there is no meaningful case for term limits in Maplewood politics.

+1

It's not clear to me why many of them volunteer for these thankless roles   

dave23 said:

Stoughton said:

Am I naive in thinking that the TC members that I see around are still comfortably members of our town's "ordinary society?" 

Yes, you are naive if you think that a $5,000 annual "salary" and the fielding of complaints about nail salons, stop signs and snow removal doesn't put you out of touch with your constituents. I mean, come on, that's power to be abused!

Exactly.   

Some voters are engaged and informed, others are not. Has always been thus, as you well know. Not sure what your point is? The Oh No candidate for TC won, but I don't see any Post House supporters impugning the democratic process because they didn't get their way.

DaveSchmidt said:

Interesting how the intelligence of voters can swing in these discussions, between either making them pillars of Tocquevillian democracy or marking them as dupes who don't know what their lawn signs mean.

A few practical reasons to be opposed to term limits, at least at the local level:

It can take a full term or more for a newly elected official to come up to speed on all of the issues facing the community; the factors and precedents impacting these issues; the case law and legislation restricting possible outcomes; the successes and failures at home and elsewhere resulting from trying to deal with these issues previously, the agenda of each special interest group pressing for a given outcome; the abilities of those who would be part of any solution to actually implement the proposed cause of action; etc.  

Elected officials constrained by term limits tend to think in the short term when making decisions. Without term limits, elected officials are more likely to take a broader, long-term approach in the decisions they make because it is possible that they will still be in office when the long-term ramifications of their decisions are felt. 

If enough voters don't like the way an elected official is performing (or not performing) the duties of his/her office, that person can easily be defeated at the next election.