Charter Review Committee

Term Limits

Date: January, 2005

Sub Committee Members: Hal Cloer, Michael Riedeman, Keith Massie

Issue Statement:

Should the Mayor and City Councilors have a maximum number of terms that they can serve?

Pros and Cons:

PROS:

1. Long term incumbents may have unfair advantage in re-election.

2. More frequent turnover in political leadership allows for new ideas and less entrenched

city government.

CONS

1. Loss of experience

2. Increased training of elected officials

3. Regular elections already serve as a form of term limits

4. Can lead to more influence for lobbyists

5. Potential loss of committed experienced politicians

Budget Implications:

None

Background:

A largely underestimated component of the term limits movement is local limits. At the municipal level, term limits have spread silently but steadily across the country. From Florida to Alaska, from New York to California, over 58 million Americans live in localities with limits of various sorts, and more than 17,000 politicians serve in 2,890 term limited cities, counties and towns. Virtually everywhere voters are given the chance; they pass measures to limit the terms of city officials. By Danielle Fagre (Former Research Director of the U.S. Term Limits Foundation)

Summary:

1. Is there a problem in the City of Ashland that term limits would solve?

2. Would term limits benefit the City or would the loss of experience outweigh any potential benefits?

3. What would the length of term limits be?