Term Limits for Elected Officials

There will apparently be an attempt to place an article on the warrant for Town Meeting in May of 2012 to impose term limits on at least persons who are elected Selectmen. Whether this comes to pass, and exactly what will be proposed will have to wait until an article proposal is actually submitted.

This could be a thirty page blog, and I wouldn't be able to do true justice to either the pro or con side of this issue (and there are some very valid arguments on both sides). So what you are going to be stuck with are just some general personal observations.

I am not philosophically opposed to the proposition of term limits at any level. That being said, there are certain positions I would be reluctant to apply term limits to at the local level. The Office for Selectman is however not one of them.

NOTE: I have to add that while I do tend to favor the concept, I am not 100% convinced term limits are the best way to solve what ails this country on every level. I am also leery of the concept to a certain degree, there are some major drawbacks to the concept. But I have reached the point where there seems to be nothing else that can be done to light a fire our under our elected officials to do their jobs, that term limits do have a great appeal.

As to the issue in Fairhaven, I believe I read the proposal was to limit a person elected as Selectman to no more than two consecutive terms and a maximum of six years total. If that is what the actual proposal is going to be, I am not sure I could be supportive of it.

When you are on the outside looking in, running government appears to be an easy task. Yet even on the lower rungs of the governmental hierarchy, there are a tremendous amount of things to learn, to grasp and grapple with. There is strong validity to the argument that that institutional knowledge is a key component to an effective government (institutional as in the office not as the term can otherwise be used).

Yet on the other side of the coin, the longer one remains in office, the more entrenched they become, and quite frankly insulated. There is at a minimum a strong perception that there is a certain amount of disconnect with people (unless you are a person who happens to be perceived as connected), while at the same time one does usually obtain an advantage over challengers. The ability to raise money for campaigns increases. Name recognition becomes a very valuable asset. Absent an election with any "hot button" issues, even a legitimate challenger will for the most part have great difficulty in unseating a multi-term incumbent.

On the national level, I think the November, 2012 elections for congress are going to go a long way in quieting the term limit debate. Whether you are a republican or democrat, given the performance of congress over the last two years, and the fact that many will be running in new or altered districts, incumbents face true challenges for the first time in a long time (note all the announced "retirements" throughout the country).

On the local level, if we were to adopt term limits (and I do stress the word "if"), what would be good? As noted two and out doesn't appeal to me. Is three terms enough? I am not convinced about just three.

Personally, I think four consecutive terms would do it. I would add that I would not support a life time ban after that. I think there definitely should be some sit out period, at least an amount of time equal to one full term. To avoid the potential game playing to get around the consecutive term max. You could also add some kind of sit out clause like ten out of the last twelve.

Are term limits the answer? Let me know what you think.