Blog Post < Previous | Next >
CityofMIllValley.RS
Honoring the two term limit for City Council Members in Mill Valley - Why our system works
As we all learned in high school, when George Washington was president he declined to run for a third term even though there were no official term limits in our laws, because he felt that two terms were enough for an elected member of our executive branch of government. His leadership on this issue was honored by his successors and eventually became the basis of the term limits in our federal government. Many state and local governments have since enacted term limits for a wide variety of elected offices.
Similarly, in small towns such as Mill Valley, term limits have evolved out of local traditions, but they've never been encoded into our laws. We haven’t needed to do that because Mill Valley’s two term limit for City Council Members has generally been honored by everyone.
In fact, the only person I know of who ran for a third term is Dick Spotswood back in 1988. But that was an anomaly that has not happened since.
So once again an election for City Council members is upon us this year, with three out of five seats up for grabs. And as has become the norm in recent years, almost nobody seems to want the job. We seem to have to work to find people to get involved. And this “getting involved” isn’t just in fielding candidates; it permeates all levels of civic engagement in Marin.
This is a big problem and no one is sure exactly why this is happening. It's certainly not for lack of problems to solve. The short answer, we’re told, is that it’s because everyone is “so busy.”
Part of this may be demographic due to our aging population. But then again, that should be producing more civic involvement rather than less, as Baby Boomers retire and have more time to devote.
Part of it is probably due to the fact that hardly any of our city employees live in Mill Valley anymore. So the logical progression from civil servant to elected official essentially doesn’t exist. Or maybe life in these times really is just too hectic and demanding and no one really has any time. But then, the old maxim still seems to hold true that if you want something done, ask someone who’s busy to help.
When it comes to civic engagement, it generally seems like a small group of people are doing most of the heavy lifting.
Certainly, many people are active in school issues and things that are in the path of their own self-interest, but sadly, what I’ve observed is that it seems like civic participation and caring about our local “tragedies of the commons” is inversely proportional to our “go-go” real estate market, super-charged with house flipping and short term commitments, and the overall increase in wealth and detachment in our community.
Perhaps I’m wrong. I hope so.
In any case, things had gotten so bad that long time civic leaders were worried that no candidates would appear this year and we wouldn’t even be able to muster up an election. I’m told that this is one of the reasons why some of our current City Council Members considered running for a third term. However, as the filing deadline neared, that concern vanished and we now have a field of qualified candidates.
The other concern I’ve heard for why sitting Council Members should run for a third term is the need for passing on what is called “institutional memory” (an understanding of how past decisions were made and relevant context to help avoid “reinventing the wheel” every few years).
Now there’s no doubt there can be advantages to this when trying to carry out long term public policy goals. I’d even go so far as to say that in this day in age, when the challenges and interactions of local government are more complex and regional than ever, we’d probably be better off if we had an elected mayor (with a six year term) in addition to our City Council.
However, that aside, the “institutional memory” defense is an erroneous argument.
There is no need whatsoever to be an elected official to actively participate and impact local government. Many people, ordinary citizens and past Council Members have remained actively engaged in local government decision making and in some cases have, arguably, had even more impact than those holding office. And a great deal of what they’ve done has been to impart that community and institutional memory and historical context.
So bottom line, I’ve yet to hear any reasonable justification for anyone breaking with tradition and running for a third term for City Council.
Now I want to be clear. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has stepped up and served on our City Council or Planning Commission or any other city committee. Being an unpaid City Council Member, in particular, is a sacrifice of time and energy. And it is often, in many ways, a totally thankless job; sitting in meetings till midnight on a weekday, listening to a long line of people complain is no fun. Sometimes, it amazes me that anyone wants the job. It’s one of the reason I’m a proponent of paying our elected officials. They earn it.
But then again, everyone who has held office chose to do it. They “volunteered” and knew what the job entailed so it is what it is.
So with all this considered, we come back to the fact that our system is based on a faith in bringing in “new blood” on a regular basis. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but we do it because it works. Times change and representatives need to be changed along with it.
Unfortunately, it is a frailty of human nature that the longer someone holds office the more indispensable they think they have become; the more they tend to believe they just need more time to accomplish their agenda. This is a belief system that has no end.
I understand that in a time of crisis the rules may need to be changed, as we did when FDR was president. And certainly, if no candidates register to run in an election, you’d have to take that as either a show of incredible apathy or resounding endorsement of the incumbents, in which case a third term would be warranted. After all, we need someone to hold down the fort. But barring these things, I think the “no third term” rule should be honored, at all cost.
It is what keeps us strong and vibrant. And it demands broader civic engagement, which is a very good thing.
I also think that running for a third term, when a field of qualified, new candidates exists, is a bit insulting to those new candidates; as if to suggest they are not up to the task. I know this is unintentional, but it remains true just the same.
I think we have to give new people a chance to show what they can do. I think we have to respect our tradition and support the courage of newcomers to take on the job and make the sacrifices required. And if we are concerned about their lack of “institutional memory,” then by all means retiring Council Members should stay fully engaged and help them in every way they can, along with the rest of us.