HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - LOCAL TERM LIMITS (2)CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: October 27, 1992
SUBJECT: Local Term Limits
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
BACKGROUND
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented y.
Michael Murphy
Term limits for elected officials, at all levels of government', has increasingly
become a major topic of discussion as voters become more frustrated with a
perceived lack of government responsiveness to citizen concerns. Mayor Klajic
has requested that the issue of local term limits be presented to the City
Council for consideration.
In June, 1990, California voters approved Proposition 140, which among other
provisions, placed limits on the terms of office for members of the Legislature.
and the state's constitutional officers, with the exception of the Insurance
Commissioner. Terms of state constitutional officers and members of the state
Senate are limited to two four year terms. Members of the Assembly are limited
to three two year terms. Proposition 164, an initiative measure slated for the.
November, 1992, ballot, proposes to exclude from .the. ballot any person who has
represented California as a Senator for twelve or more of the previous seventeen
years. Any person who has served as a member of the House of Representatives
from California during six or more of the previous eleven years will also be
excluded.
Proponents of term limits argue that voters want new candidates who reflect new
ideas and desires of the community. They also believe that term limits properly
reflect the intent of the framers of the constitution who supported "citizen
politicians" taking time to serve their country for a short period as opposed to
"career politicians." Proponents suggest that term limitations is one method by
which gerrymandered "safe" districts and incumbent fundraising advantages would
play a lesser role in the electoral process.
Opponents of term limits cite the lack of continuity and experience resulting
from a constant elected official turnover. They note that ineffective
representatives can be voted out by recall or at the next election. Term limit
opponents further argue that as an institutional history is built, it may
demonstrate that term limits is not the best solution to perceived
non-responsive elected officials.
A legal debate currently exists as to whether or not local governments are
empowered to establish term limits. While some cities have enacted -term limits,
recent court rulings have declared these measures illegal in general law
cities. Charter city enacted term limits have yet be adjudicated. The
Legislative Counsel has rendered an opinion that charter cities are prohibited
from enacting such measures.
Appfloffl Agenda Item: C 20
Local Term Limits
October 27, 1992
Page 2
It is believed that the State Legislature must pass -enabling
legislation before local jurisdictions may impose term limits.
Legislative efforts during the 1991/92 session to grant term limit
authority to local governments were defeated. It is anticipated
that new measures in this subject area will be introduced during
the next session of the California Legislature.
If the City Council were to enact an ordinance to limit City
Council terms, it would likely invite legal challenge. Therefore,
it may be more appropriate for the City to wait for authorization
from the California Legislature via enabling legislation.
Support state legislation during the 1993/94 session of the
California Legislature which makes it permissible for general law
cities to implement term limitations for City Council members.
MPM:385