Term Limits and Appointments

I’ve been outspoken in the past on the concept of appointing open Council seats and I understand why some people disagree with me on my request for special elections. Some say that a special election yields less than 20% of the registered voters, which isn’t an accurate representation of the electorate. Some also indicate that the cost of a special election isn’t easily justified, especially in an economy where we argue $100K budgets for Shop Simi Valley First or the Business Advocate.

I asked for Bob Huber’s position on political appointments, and also about term limits since that was a recent topic of conversation in our recent live chat and podcast. Bob Huber provided the following response from his campaign.

Bob supports term limits and opposes the appointment system.

Bob Huber supports term limits of (2) 4-year terms for City Council and (4) 2-year terms as Mayor. Bob does not support the current appointment system to fill vacant seats on the council either. Bob believes that the current appointment system ” thwarts the will of the people and the practice should end immediately.” Bob would be in favor of an interim appointment that would not run for election as Moorpark recently did to fill their vacancy.

Bob is also calling on all incumbents and challengers to pledge to end the current appointment practice as well.

I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on appointments and term limits.

11 thoughts on “Term Limits and Appointments

  1. Mike,

    The discussion you had the other evening with the challengers brought up the idea to select the 3rd runner up for the vacated seat. That is an interesting option.

    Like

  2. I agree with both Mike J and Bob H on both the appointment process and term limits. I’m thinking 3 terms City Council and 3 terms
    Mayor, but democracy allows for good ideas to be worked out through the process.

    Like

  3. Becerra and Sojka are gonna tell you they favor the election process, but it costs money to hold an election, so they won’t commit to the democratic process under the guise of saving money. NOTE: the election costs less than the annual salary of the business tour guide. Also, for the cost of Brian Gablers salary ( the man whose full time job is to do the job of the tour guide) we could hold 2 elections. Go figure.

    Like

  4. I believe that a term limit of 2 terms is more than enough. For City Council that is 8 years and 4 years for Mayor. Anything more than that you just end up with entrenched politicians who owe those who donated money to their campaigns.

    I could not agree to a no appointment pledge, BUT that is due to reality of the cost and other issues. I do not think that the City Council should be the ones deciding who to appoint as that is a clear conflict of interest. Using the 3rd Candidate would be an appointment, for example. Getting the neighborhood council to nominate people would also be a way to get a person to appoint, as long as the City Council does not get involved in the process. I do agree that the appointment should not run in the next election, but could run in future elections.

    The appointment should only last until the next scheduled election.

    The cost of an election, both on the part of the City AND on the part of a candidate is a real issue.

    It is quite true that the City is wasting money which is more than an election would cost. That should be fixed, but it does not mean that we should waste other money. The “system” clearly needs to be fixed and if there is no good solution, then an election should be held. I am just open to other solutions.

    Like

  5. Not taking sides for anyone here, but I do remember Bob Huber trying to get appointed to the City Council twice, I think in 1986 and again in 1992. The Council rejected him in 1986, and deadlocked 2-2 in 1992.

    Like

  6. Personally, I don’t think that the real issue is the appointment itself, but how it is done. Shouldn’t it be discussed in public instead of behind closed doors? By the time it comes to the public, it will be a done deal.

    I doubt that the current City Council wants have anyone who does anything different than what they currently do. I seriously doubt that they want someone who is going to say that they need to work full-time in order to get full-time benefits, which means quitting their other jobs or losing their benefits (which I think should include paying back the city for benefits not deserved since they are not working full-time). This is part of the reason for the need for term limits. All these types of issues are hidden from the public.

    Like

  7. Term limits have negatively impacted us in California. Too much turn over when it takes time to see projects through.It is forcing people to run for other positions and has not been a positive outcome. Having been a supporter previously, I will no longer support term limits. The voters can elect who they want, and if someone is doing a great job then I think they should continue. Term limits have contributed to the crisis we are in today.

    Like

  8. Term limits have not caused the problems and if you look back in history, it was expected that people serve their community and then go back to what they are doing. Now we have professional politicians who have to scurry from one position to another rather than getting a real job.

    The problems have been created by these people getting entrenched and doing anything in order to stay in office. They also seem to stop serving the will of the people and instead serve their own personal interests and special interests.

    In some cases, the term limit rules allow a person to be a write in candidate, so if the people really want them, they can write their name in. Often people don’t bother to learn what these people are doing (or not doing) and just vote for the name that they know. That is why signs are put up all over with just the name and without saying anything else.

    Those in office also have an advantage in getting campaign donations. Look at the articles regarding Barbra Williamson’s campaign donation issue where the person said that he donated because he wanted to be left alone. What does that imply to you?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s