Here’s your last chance to be a part of history. Below we have a copy of the bogus ordinance which the City Council is trying to pass in November, and under that we have proposed rebuttals from 6 people who posted their comments on The Patch or sent them to me privately.
Please vote for the rebuttal you think does the best job. If no single rebuttal looks great, tell me which parts of which arguments you like the best. If no single one stands out, over the weekend I will stitch together a rebuttal and then post on Sunday for you to review and comment on. On Monday, July 7, I’ll submit to the City Clerk and in November you’ll see it on the ballot.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
On July 2, 2013, the Lake Forest City Council approved placing on the ballot the establishment of term limits for City Council Members. Pursuant to California Government Code section 36502(b) term limits must be approved by the voters.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
If approved by the voters, this measure would:
Limit to three the number of consecutive four-year terms a person could serve on the Lake Forest City Council.
Require a veteran of three terms on the council to remain out of office for two years before seeking election.
Provide that any person who is appointed or elected to serve out the unexpired term of a council member and who, in this capacity, holds a council seat for less than four years can serve for an additional three full four-year terms thereafter.
Persons favoring Term Limits believe that Term Limits encourage greater participation in local politics and encourage new approaches and ideas. They also believe that an incumbent is more likely to be reelected as compared to a non-incumbent.
Persons opposing Term Limits say they penalize experience, take away a citizen’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice, and/or eliminate the ability to re-elect a candidate who they are satisfied with.
This measure combines the best features of Term Limits with maximum choice and flexibility for voters and candidates. At each City general election voters will have a choice of, either electing a new member, or re-electing an incumbent for a second or third term, or electing any former Council Member .
A yes vote offers Lake Forest voters the best of all worlds—the freedom to choose candidates, the opportunity to be represented by experienced council members, and the power to limit their periods of service.
REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS
LF LEGAL EAGLE
The City Council says this offers “the best of all worlds” but in truth it offers the worst of all possible worlds.
If you are against term limits, as some people are, then vote “NO” on this proposal because it offers term limits.
If you are in favor of term limits, as some people are, then vote “NO” on this proposal because the limits it offers (24 out of 26 years) are not really limits.
LIONEL
The politicians who want to stay in office forever, except for a brief 2 year break every 26 years, are urging you to let them. Don't.
Defeat this proposition and ask them to bring back a new measure with an absolute maximum of 12 years. If you can't get the job done in 12 years, you're not going to get it done at all.
MERIJOE AXE
We have such a depth of talent and resources in this community and we're really selling ourselves short by just keeping in the same people.
Term limits ensure citizen representatives instead of career politicians, and Lake Forest is a city that definitely needs them. Every politician should ultimately have to return back to private life and live under the laws and regulations that they have promulgated while in office.
Special interest groups so dominate the political process that often an election to office would become a lifetime gig, as their special interests keep re-electing incumbents. With term limits in place, instead of attracting career politicians, we attract citizen representatives who are more in touch with the people.
MFRIEDRICH
Two terms is the limit. If it's good enough for the President of the US then it's definitely good enough for that perennial clown show called the city council.
SM
The way the ballot argument in favor reads, three consecutive terms and one two year hiatus allows another set of terms if re- elected. Thus 24 of 26 years. But as written, term limits could be circumvented.
It is worse than 24 of 26 years. Here's how.
If one is elected, does not run for reelection but is reappointed for three years, this makes seven of eight years. Then if reelection takes place for two more four year terms, that would make 15 of 17 years and but never three consecutive terms.
Assume another hiatus of one year and a three year appointment to an unexpired term, that makes 18 years of 21 in office. Now let's assume another set of re-elected terms takes place, adding eight more years. So far there are not three consecutive terms but already 26 of 29 years in office and never the three term limiting consecutive terms. It is an un intended, but never ending cycle possible by a career politician in the proposed language as it is written. As proposed, no true limits exist, as written.
It is better to establish an absolute term limit of a total of 8 or twelve years whether elected two or three terms whether consecutive or not. It seems any combination of two elected terms and filling the balance of one unexpired term, for a maximum of eleven years or three elected terms absolutely for a 12 year maximum should conclude one person's time limit on the council.
The language should clearly state an absolute maximum of either 11 but not more than 12 years on the council. Vote no on the proposed ordinance, it allows too many re elections and reappointments to continue over and over again, so long as no more than three consecutive terms occur.
TRUTH BE TOLD
This ordinance will allow council members to serve 24 out of 26 years.
It is being enacted by politicians who are trying to deceive you into believing that it offers “the best features” but it fact it offers the worst features.
If you are against term limits you should vote “NO” because the ordinance requires incumbents to step down after 12 years.
If you believe in term limits, you probably want an absolute limit, such as 8 or 12 years. So you should vote “NO” because 24 out of 26 years is not really term “limits”.
Voting “NO” on this ordinance will send a message to the politicians to give us a real term limits choice.
NEXT STEP
Tell me which of these rebuttal arguments you like the best. If no one single argument stands out, I'll stitch together the best from each of them and on Sunday I'll produce the final argument. Please review and comment. On Monday I'll submit their to the City Clerk and this argument will appear on the November ballot.
