Term Limits Contest - Be a Part of History

Here’s your chance to be a part of history.

At the election in November the City has proposed an ordinance that the people will vote on. The City usually passes ordinances without having to go to the people, but in this case the proposed measure must be endorsed by the people because it has to do with term limits – how much time a person can spend as a member of the City Council.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE

The politicians are putting forth a bogus plan that makes it look like we have term limits, but in fact, when you do the math, it turns out that a politician could serve 24 of the next 26 years. That’s no one’s idea of term limits.

I have the honor of being chosen to write the argument against the proposed measure. The politicians who voted in this measure are writing the argument for the proposed measure.

On your ballot in November you will have the argument for (the politicians) alongside the argument against (me). Under each of these primary arguments, there will be a rebuttal argument. The politicians will tell you why my argument is wrong, and I get the chance to tell you why their argument is wrong.

The deadline to produce the primary argument was June 27. Each side then has a week to come up with the counter-argument or rebuttal.

YOUR CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE

I want to invite the readers of the Patch to help me write the counter-argument. Please offer your suggestions by composing your argument and posting it here on the Patch. After I’ve reviewed your submissions, I’ll select the best one, or possibly merge the best characteristics of each into a composite argument.

Here are the two primary arguments. I’ll start with the bogus argument from the politicians and follow that with my own argument against.

THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

On July 2, 2013, the Lake Forest City Council approved placing on the ballot the establishment of term limits for City Council Members.  Pursuant to California Government Code section 36502(b) term limits must be approved by the voters.

If approved by the voters, this measure would:

1. Limit to three the number of consecutive four-year terms a person could serve on the Lake Forest City Council.

2. Require a veteran of three terms on the council to remain out of office for two years before seeking election.

3. Provide that any person who is appointed or elected to serve out the unexpired term of a council member and who, in this capacity, holds a council seat for less than four years can  serve for an additional three full four-year terms thereafter.

Persons favoring Term Limits believe that Term Limits encourage greater participation in local politics and encourage new approaches and ideas.  They also believe that an incumbent is more likely to be reelected as compared to a non-incumbent.

Persons opposing Term Limits say they penalize experience, take away a citizen’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice, and/or eliminate the ability to re-elect a candidate who they are satisfied with.

This measure combines the best features of Term Limits with maximum choice and flexibility for voters and candidates.  At each City general election voters will have a choice of, either electing a new member, or re-electing an incumbent for a second or third term, or electing any former Council Member .

A yes vote offers Lake Forest voters the best of all worlds—the freedom to choose candidates, the opportunity to be represented by experienced council members, and the power to limit their periods of service.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST

DON’T LET THE POLITICIANS FOOL YOU

Politicians are trying to fool you. This “term limits” measure is not really term limits.

The politicians propose allowing a Council member to serve 12 years, take 2 years off, and then serve another 12 years. That’s 24 of the next 26 years and that’s not what people mean when they say “term limits”. Most cities have limits of 2 terms (8 years) or at most 3 terms (12 years).

We don’t want career politicians. Real term limits ensure citizen participation.

Every year a Council member stays in office, they learn more ways to abuse the system. As time goes on, they coerce more and more money from businesses and people seeking favors from the Council and this money goes into their campaign coffers and helps them win the next election. They learn how to pad their expense account and charge the City for their personal expenses. Pretty soon they have been there for 20 years and begin to think of themselves as Kings and Queens.

The best way to stop the corruption and insure that new ideas can survive is to force them out after 8 or at most 12 years.

Vote NO on this measure. Show the Council you are not stupid or naïve. Force them to bring us a term limits measure that really limits the terms.

YOUR JOB

Now that you’ve read both of these arguments, your job is to help me come up with the rebuttal argument to the politicians’ argument for the ordinance. Here are the steps –

1. You should read “The Argument in Favor” and come up with 250 words or less that refute the ideas put forth in this argument. It won’t be hard.

2. Post your proposed rebuttal argument on The Patch by July 1st. Post it early so that you can get a chance for some feedback.

3. If you get some good feedback, feel free to change your argument and re-post.

Here’s your chance to participate in the voting process. I hope you’ll join in and help make history.