- 9th Ward Democrats "WEAR"N OF THE GREEN" St. Patrick's Party Fundraiser this Friday Night
- Guest Blogger: Sue Kerr on Dan Onorato
- This is it: Health Care For America Right NOW!
- Getting Dirty: Dirt! The Movie Comes to Philadelphia
- Soda Exposes the Festering Toothache of our Politics
- SRC outrage: Cartoons but not violence?
- Lewis Thomas III for State Representative Website Launch
- National Coming Out Day for Undocumented Youth
- Gambling's real winners and losers
- VoicesWeb Interview with Joe Hoeffel, Democrat for Governor
The Negative Consequences of Term Limits? I Don't See Them.
Submitted by Dan U-A on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 9:35pm.
I am increasingly intrigued by the idea of term limits for City Council, brought to a head by Councilman Goode's bill.
I think that there are reasonable arguments to made against them, and that people can disagree, but, at this point, none of the reasons against them on the Philadelphia level are large enough for me to consider the idea anything but very good. Before addressing why I think they are good, let’s start by analyzing why they are potentially bad. I will take them one by one, mostly culled from people in the post below.
1) They are un-democratic, because they take away voter choice.
“When the people are limited in who they can choose to hold office, democracy is limited.”
The biggest problem with this argument is that we limit democratic choices all of the time. We have a representative democracy, which limits our choice, and within that representative democracy, we make all kinds of other choices. On the national level, that means only voting for US Citizens for President, voting age limits, etc. And, on the local and national level, that means term limits for the executive.
We do this all of the time. The question for me is not whether or not it checks some invisible box as less or more democratic, apparently defined as having the most choice possible, but if it furthers the function of a democratic government in our city. We can argue about the potential reward of these things, but, simply saying “it limits democracy” doesn’t make sense. Especially when this would be voted on by the electorate, and overwhelmingly approved.
2) They give more power to the Mayor, in a strong Mayor system, and lessen the power of city council to work together.
Maybe. How do we really know that? It is possible that Councilpeople less worried about getting on the Mayor’s bad side will be more likely to cross him or her? Our three newest Council people quickly formed a block together, and they have brought new ideas to a head even while they just began. And, if the library fight is an example, then the two Council people who most helped were new- Councilwoman Q-S and Councilman Green. In fact, Council's long term members were for the most part excruciatingly quiet on the issue.
3) They give more power to corporations, lobbyists and bureaucrats.
This is one of the most persuasive reasons to not have limits on a national level. Because while a Congressman might go home, oftentimes, his staff does not, and simply becomes new staff or new lobbyists. It feeds on a DC culture that gives a lot of power to corporations and lobbyists, and Washington-based bureaucrats, rather than representatives and staffers based in their home districts.
But, is that a danger in Philly? I don’t think so. The big money people here are the Comcasts of the world, the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliates, Unions and Law Firms. Much of that will not change. The scale of money in our political system is much, much smaller, and focuses largely on keeping incumbents in office (like developers paying large donations to their district council people, who have to sign off on everything).
And, more simply put, we all live here. People will take office with staffers with whom they are comfortable. It won’t be about choosing staff willing to move across statelines to live in DC; it will be about finding staff who are comfortable taking the subway to work.
4) Nothing will change.
Even if we term limit the incumbents, until we have deeper reforms, their replacement aren't going to be cut from a different mold.
Maybe. Even if true, that is not necessarily a bad thing; more a sad reality. But, I am not sure it is true. Open seats lead to more competition, and I think, would lead to more insurgents getting elected. That is just a personal opinion, but, its not exactly a stretch to say that part of the reason Curtis Jones and Maria Q-S won is that they were running in essentially open seats.
5) The lame duck problem
Do we really want the odious problem of political lame ducks invading the legislative level -- people in government who no longer feel the pull of the ballot box in their decision-making, and who are thus less likely to listen to the electorate?
Again, I don’t know how you prove this. Isn’t also likely that if people are dependent on campaign contributions, they will be less likely to do things based on those contributions when they no longer need them?
As for a revolving door between the private sector, which I do think is a legit concern, what about some sort of additional law that, like that which the White House talks about, which would make you wait a few years before you can work for a company lobbying Council, or something like that?
But, again:
Experience bears out that lame ducks listen to the electorate less, even less, in my opinion, than do long-term incumbents.
… that might be true. But, I haven’t really seen concrete evidence of that. I’m not saying it might not be true, but, I really don’t know how you quantify lame-duck versus entrenched incumbent.
6) No more “Lions of the Council,” like David Cohen.
That is a concern. But, for every great Councilperson who stays, there are many who should not. And, in any case, David Cohen left City Council and then returned. Here too, someone could do that, with a one-term break. I don’t think it is really that terrible of a concern, when someone could potentially serve on City Council for 24 out of 28 years.
Anyway, that is my take. The negative arguments just don't feel that strong to me.
»
- Dan U-A's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Government's Purpose Is Policy Outcomes Not Who Occupies Office
I have seen no evidence, historically or among levels of government, that term limits improve government performance. The purpose of government is to achieve the common good. Just rotating people in offices is not an end in of itself, and is reflective of our infantile consumer culture in which newness becomes something sought for its own sake.
Let me suggest a different focus for those desiring change. Come up with policies that improve the lives of the citizens of Philadelphia and improve the operations of the city bureaucracy. The city has an incredibly large number of people living on the margins. How about changing that. If you want city council to function better, how about periodic testing council members' knowledge of policy matters (like Leave No Child Behind), with those doing well being more highly remunerated & those not doing well receiving lower pay. How about reducing the size of our very large city council, thus saving the taxpayers some money. All these would be real things rather than adopting the musical chairs game of term limits.
Further Point.
It is up to the proponents of term limits to prove that it would have a net beneficial effect on the Philadelphia citizenry rather than opponents having to prove their point. The proponents are advocating a change. What would be the policy improvements if the change were to take effect? We elect office holders to achieve policy purposes, which are the only reason to have government. So, what would the city look like in say 2020 with term limits in effect. Would the poverty rate be significantly lower, would the rate of crime drop appreciably, would educational scores improve nicely?
Tell us the expected bang for the buck.
"Before addressing why I
Academic
Professor:
I am an evidence based data centric councilperson. Please share your evidence and data that the current system is the most efficacious compared to alternatives we have not tried. Under the current system poverty has increased and the educational system has failed. Frankly, that is not due to council inaction or action. However, you raise red herrings so I need to shoot them from the sky.
Councilman Goode's bill, which I co-introduced, provides for council to be able to make changes if the desired effects, described ably above and in detail on Councilman Goode's blog do not materialize. That is, we can legislate change by increasing or decreasing the number of terms. Until we try something else, we have no comparative data.
Response
I want to preface my remarks by noting, though I'm in disagreement with you on term limits, I'm a big fan of your efforts to improve the City & you're one of my 2-3 favorite council members. Incidentally, the first campaign on which I worked was as an undergraduate on behalf of your father's reelection.
Basically, I'm opposed to term limits because (like the Seinfeld show) its about nothing. It focuses on who will be the hands on deck rather what course the ship should run. Large numbers of governments now have term limits & I'm unfamiliar with any where the change has actually improved things for the citizenry. There's general consensus that enacting term limits for the California legislature has made things much worse in running state government because very few legislators are around long enough to master policy areas & the revolving door makes difficult strong party/legislative cohesion.
Term limits is basically a Republican idea with some popular appeal. The Republicans/conservatives are in favor of term limits for 2 reasons: 1) they advocate it when Democrats control a state/local legislature because they realize their chances of winning seats are enhanced when there's no incumbency (they abandon their advocacy when they attain power), and 2)they correctly feel that term limits has the effect of weakening government in general by lowering the level of inside knowledge over policies & processes, & forcing reps' attention on their next career rather than working laboriously with their colleagues on a festering policy problem over a long period of time.
That said, I'd like to respond to your individual points:
1)I am an evidence based data centric councilperson... Then the thing to do is look at studies to determine whether term limits actually make a positive difference or look at localities that have adopted term limits to see whether this change has yielded improvements in the lives of the citizenry.
cont'd
I'm as displeased as you are with the makeup of the current Philly council climate but term limits won't change what City Council accomplishes in the future. Generally, the makeup of any legislative body is a product of the financial clout of the big contributors/interests, the orientation of the party machinery, and the political culture of the individual districts. You have some corrupt people, some incompetent or lazy people, some seeking policy changes. Unless you change the underlying factors significantly, ie. involvement of big contributors, party machinery, political culture, you're basically rotating people in city council, nothing more.
cont'd
2)Policy outcomes are determined by people, not the office
Then why am I not able to make council legislation & you are?
My basic point is that term limits is fruitless, with no empirical evidence that it leads to meaningful policy changes. What I suggest is turn your attention to the enactment of good policies. I realize the city budget is tight but this would be a very good time to look at the tons of studies that are out there, from which you can develop some demonstation projects focused on selected subpopulations. Utilize the talents of researchers in different areas, from our major universities. I'd certainly be willing to make suggestions or help you if you wanted my use. Best wishes.
Carter Nails It
Carter nails it. There really is no empirical support for the proposition that term limits leads to better government. California is an extreme case where a state that had a balanced budget before term limits is now sinking in tens of billions of dollars in debt after term limits.
If term limits for the legislative branch are such a good idea, why are only few people running for office across our country on a pledge to implement them? If term limits for the legislative branch are so popular, why have they are they not part of party platforms? Where are the enthusiastic supporters of term limits in the areas that have them? In a number of cases--including New York City--they are backtracking and trying to extend the limits or repeal them entirely.
Term limits create open seats. But Bill Green won without having an open seat, defeating Juan Ramos. The first time Wilson Goode ran for City Council,in 1991, there was an open seat created by the resignation of George Burrell, but he lost anyway. When he ran for City Council in 1999, there were two open seats and he and Blondell Reynolds Brown, defeated in 1995, were elected in part because of being on the sample ballots of John Street and other mayoral candidates.
My father was elected to an open seat in the 8th District in 1967, and defeated three incumbents for councilman at large in 1979. He also ran for councilman at large in 1975, when three other incumbents were defeated, but he was not among the victors.
Open seats do not guarantee anyone's election, and the presence of incumbents does not guarantee anyone's defeat. Anyone who wishes to get support for public office would be wise to follow Carter's advice and focus & act on how government can help people. The lack of fear of defeat that Brady complains about is an opportunity for meaningful change: people scared of their own shadow are not the ones most likely to act boldly.
Mark, again, definite
Mark, again, definite arguments can be made against term limits, but, I don't think it is accurate to use California's dysfunction as a gauge of that. Especially considering what most bloviators seem to think is the real issue- prop 13. For example:
I don't see California's disaster as a persuasive example.
Pick An Area Where Term Limits Have Succeeded
Proposition 13 had been in effect for twenty years in 1998, when California had a balanced budget. It was only when experienced legislators of both parties were forced to leave in droves that fiscal responsibility in California collapsed.
I said above that California was an extreme example. So I challenge anyone here to pick a state or local government that has legislative term limits where there is a general agreement that term limits have improved the legislative process.
Are there any successes anywhere that people would like to brag about?
Alternative?
Let's accept your premise that term limits are an extreme example with no demonstrated success. At best, we could say that the jury is still out on just what impact they have. However, I can point to one large city that has had much of the same leadership for over a decade and, despite some recent consumer-debt-infused improvements, still fails a large portion of its children and citizenry on a regular basis. Again this is influenced by a whole host of social ills, but I think stagnant government plays a part.
If term limits are anathema to representative democracy, will we have a slew of reform-minded bills passed that will improve elections here? They may be introduced, but passage is doubtful. At least term limits offer a chance to see some change, slow as it may be.
I guess it is sad that this is a last resort.
"lack of empirical evidence" is not a particularly good argument
I mean, eight of the ten largest cities in the U.S. limit the terms of their legislators.
All of them, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose, experienced greater growth than did Philly over the last few decades.
Geography and larger social trends certainly played a huge role in the growth of those cities, but still we might learn from them.
To a certain extent, we have to keep up with them in order to keep our citizens from experiencing the greater misery of living in an abandoned city, with fewer economic options and less hope.
It's probably worth noting that Chicago, the only other city in the top ten that does not term limit their council, has seen thirty (!) aldermen go to jail for fraud or corruption since 1974.
In general I don't like limiting democracy, but ignoring political realities is even worse.
Changing underlying factors
One of the underlying factors that contribute to the dysfunctionality of politics in Philadelphia (although it is not unique to Philadelphia) is the tendency for electoral processes to center around personality and to be driven by the ability of individuals to deliver "constituent services." That focus on personality and individuals results in issues-based politics falling by the wayside.
Your conclusion seems to be that term limits would shift the focus even further towards the link between personality and elections, but I see it differently. To the extent that politicians can amass and consolidate personal power, they can attract and cultivate the financial clout of big contributors/interests, and protect entrenched party mechanisms from outside interference in their merry-go-round. My thinking is that term limits would structurally restrict the ability of individual politicians to amass and consolidate power. I don't see that as a universally good thing. There are benefits that can come from politicians having clout; but I have to feel that given the specifics of City Council in Philadelphia, that consolidated power has resulted in a largely ineffectual entity. On many occasions, Councilmembers fail to determine what their constituents even want on issues-based questions, and on many occasions they actually seek to implement legislation that is in direct opposition to what their constituents have said they wanted. They can do this and still get re-elected because they don't run on issues-based platforms. They run on their ability to leverage their personal power.
To the extent that term limits would reduce the power of individuals, there is room for electoral politics to become more issues oriented. I think that is not coincidence that the fresh blood in City Council are more issues-oriented than the long-term members who are more machine and constituent services oriented. The lesson to the electorate is that issues-oriented Councilmembers implement better policies. When, after term limits are in place, the current Councilmembers step down, the electorate will be that much more likely to demand issues-oriented candidates as replacements.
Are their other things that could be done that might, in some best of all possible worlds, be more instrumental in fixing what's wrong with Philly politics? Sure. But that's not a reason to reject the potential advantages of "rotating people."
Evidence-based: emperical studies of the impact of term limits?
A quick tour around the Internets suggests that there is a lack of empirical research to support conclusions about the effects of term limits one way or the other. I'd appreciate a few links if it is your contention that there is a deep body of research which supports your strong conclusions.
Interestingly
All of the cities that dropped out of the U.S. top ten (in population) in the last fifty years don't have term limits for their city legislative bodies: Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis and Washington DC (DC had them for six years but their Council repealed voter-enacted limits right when they were really going to matter, yeesh).
Not a list Philly wants to join.
I know many factors are involved.
Still, taken together with the fact that almost all of the growing large cities in the U.S. have term limits for their councils (including Boston, which fell from the ten largest 60 years ago but experienced something like 6% growth recently) it does give one pause.
Another Detroit or Boston choice?
Hello
Policy outcomes are determined by people, not the office.
I am getting the feeling
I am getting the feeling that you don't like term limits, Carter, but, you have to spell it out with a little more gusto so I am clearer.
By the way, do people on this blog really not provide suggestions for policies that they would like to see enacted?
First Salvo
Each year, thousands of middle-class families hightail it on outta Philadelphia. Some move here too, but a lot flee. The reasons for this flight involve a lot of personal decisions, some that are chided on this board rightly, some not so rightly. I'm smack dab in the middle of this demographic right now. While I'm entrenched on my block, I know a lot of people who've made the move or are contemplating the move out. On a basic level, I get a little sad when someone splits town for greener pastures in the burbs, especially when my friends move somewhere far out that I have to drive an hour to get to just to see them. I used to kid them that they're giving up. But, on a larger level, I see their points. Why would you take your chances on Philly, when it's on a downward spiral and the same people have been in charge for so long? It's an awful lot to ask someone to do, to invest their futures with a city that has real, systemic problems and a bizarre compulsion to keep things the same. I see why some people look at the odds and walk away from the table. Now, the suburbs are no sure thing, but I guess they feel like it's easier to roll a seven than snake eyes.
This is the first shot across the bow, so to speak, in the form of council reform. Term limits legislation gets the ball rolling. Citizens would vote to adopt them or not. If they did, citizens could look at City Council as something a bit more dynamic, something that could be a light at the end of the tunnel. It could be a signal to the couple looking outside for the move when their kids hit school-age that maybe, just maybe, this place is getting it's act together. Maybe, I'm being a bit optimistic, but the collective acknowledgement by voters that will pass this amendment that we have a problem here is enough for me.
There may be no hard evidence that term limits will accomplish anything. They could set up scenarios where aides take over for councilpeople, like Marc and others have said. However, isn't our current system doing that right now? We're being asked to look at this issue by some of the opponents like we're in a vaccuum. I fear that a lot of progressive groups will walk out on this issue, because they're against term limits in theory. Perhaps I would be against them too, if, theoretically, I had any confidence in this city or its electorate to change things. There's an awful lot of evidence that it has not.
That's not what it's about at all
That's balderdash. The idea behind term limits is to kick out people who are entwined with entrenched interests while, at the same time, have such name recognition and done so many favor that they can act with impunity and relatively little fear of ever losing their seat. It leads to real stagnancy.
I don't know if you've ever run a political operation, but it's depressing when you are an electorally active non-profit and you look at the map of political races in which you have any hope of making a difference in and know that the overwhelming majority of them are just safe, safe, safe. That does not yield a vibrant democratic life.
---
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
More thoughts about term limits.
1. There is a political science literature on term limits. Last time I reviewed it, there was evidence that term limits on legislatures weakened them vis a vis executives. I wish I had time now to look for it but I don't. This is one of those cases where the fairly obvious reasons that something might be true are not trumped by something else no one thought of.
2. Dan gives some reasons to think that that at least two of the other arguments I made yesterday maybe weaker than I thought. I argued that the culture of council is a real problem and that term limits won't cure it because we will elect people from teh same mold. But, as Dan points out, the three new council members elected in 2007 have started to chip away at this culture. And Maria Q-S and Curtis Jones won in part because the seats were mostly open.
So thinking again about this issue, I may have been too quick to say that nothing will change if we term limit out people. Especially in district races, there may be more possibliity for change than I realized.
But that also makes me think that combining term limits with the elimination at-large seats might be a rally potent combination for changing Council.
I still worry about the strong Mayor problem. Maybe we need to add a third piece to a package of reforms, reducing the Mayor's power to essentially impound spending without Council approval.
I like the short-term benefits of Council term limits in Philly
I really do.
My distaste for term limits in general is very much tempered by my distaste for the current state of Philadelphia City Government.
Currently, our longest term Council members seem less likely to govern well than do our newest Council members, although I'd point out: that's probably because our three newest Council members are Maria Quinones-Sanchez, Curtis Jones, and Councilman Green, dedicated and exceptional legislators all.
I wonder if term limits would have seemed like such a good idea two and a half years ago, when our three newest Council members were Carole Campbell, Danny Savage, and Jack Kelly.
That said, I also think the biggest governance problems caused by adopting term limits (compared to the very real governance problems we have now) might well take a decade or more to surface.
Still, I think they're real and worth considering.
To answer Dan's points:
1) we limit democratic choices all of the time
Sure we do. If we look at history, for a long time we limited democratic choices to white men (heterosexual white men, all laws taken together). That doesn't mean we should, or that we shouldn't practice extreme caution when considering limiting democratic choices.
The traditional progressive position has been that you don't take away democratic choices -- you don't limit democracy -- unless you absolutely have to.
Maybe in order for Philadelphia to have a functional government, we need to now. I consider that a possibility.
But to people on the left the burden of proof should always be on those who want to limit freedoms and democracy -- or take away democratic choices -- not the other way around.
2) RE: term limits and mayoral power
I was thinking of the example of New York City.
NYC term-limited its Council in 1993. Most observers I've read think NYC government has become more mayor-centered since then. The mayors who followed, Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, have been extremely powerful by modern standards and faced relatively limited opposition enacting policy changes, despite both coming from the vastly outnumbered minority Republican party.
It's unlikely a Republican could govern as effectively in Philly with so many entrenched Democratic Councilmembers who are both adept at writing/passing legislation on their own, as well as blocking that of a political opponent.
Signs of an overly-empowered mayor may have surfaced in NYC with Bloomberg's successful overturning of his own term limits.
That said, I'm well aware of the flip side of the New York example too: most political observers likely would say NYC is better-governed since the implementation of Council term limits.
Philly may well want to follow suit because of the New York model.
But we ought to be aware that that model includes putting more power in the hands of the mayor.
3-4) Basically we agree re: professional Council staffs coming from lobbyists, the corporate world; nothing will change or not.
I agree that, at the local level, corporate/professional staffing isn't likely to be much of a problem. Eventually, it might be perhaps.
I wish there were more large businesses/employers to worry about.
I think the example of NYC suggests change will happen more rapidly if we adopt Council term limits.
I think that's the strongest argument for term limits.
5) Lack of quantifiable evidence of the lame duck problem in City government
Here, we differ. This might be quantified locally, if we consider the amount of new policy legislation (outside of budgets) passed by the last three mayoral administrations that were term-limited, those of John Street, Ed Rendell and the elder Wilson Goode.
Still, such quantification of legislation is often misleading: it frequently counts the least important legislation the same as the most life-changing.
Suffices to say however, in synopsis, that the biggest changes to Philly over those years pertained to school district governance under Street, to budget practices and delivery of services under Rendell, and to building in Center City under Goode; all initiatives pushed and passed -- I believe -- in their first terms.
In synopsis, all three were less effective in their second or lame duck terms.
I continue to believe the ballot box is the most effective way of ensuring that government listens to citizens (democracy in a nutshell), and second term Councilmembers limited to two terms will have no ballot box in their future forcing them listen to their constituents.
A real problem, I think, but one to balance with the current lack of competitive elections, especially for many district Council seats.
6) Council lions v. lazy lambs
Not quantifiable, but in practice, I think the most effective legislators and legislative coalitions develop over time, time that would be severely restricted with a two-term limit.
I believe the example of NYC's Council's inability to put up roadblocks to Giuliani and Bloomberg bears this out.
Brooklyn Councilmember David Yassky argued last year in overturning NYC's 8 year Council limit that doing so "would help strengthen future lawmakers in the face of strong mayors."
Again, the example of NYC likely still argues the short-term benefits of term-limiting Council.
But it also suggests doing so likely will empower future mayors.
That seems to me a risk we shouldn't take lightly, as we shouldn't take limiting democracy lightly.
I wonder if the best way to do this is not by a charter change
petitionl
I'm not sold yet, but I'm warming to the idea. But I don't see Wilson Goode getting 12 votes in Council.
I believe that if do a charter change petition, he only needs 9.
It's too soon to get started as we need to figure out
(1) What's the best way to do term limits
(2) Whats the way to do term limits that has a chance of passing council
(3) Whether other major charter changes should take place at the same time.
But it's worth keeping this route to reform in mind.
Technically only 9 votes are needed
to put charter change on the ballot if a petition with 20,000 signatures is submitted to Council. However, Council also needs to pass an ordinance setting the date for the referendum, and any ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, requiring an override vote of 12. In this case, however, it's probably unlikely that we'd have a veto to worry about.
Thinking this through with all the great comments on this thread, I think the proposal's greatest selling point is that, bottom line, it actually makes Council more powerful in one way, by giving it the power to regulate term limits. Right now it can't do that. Also, I think most term limit provisions in effect currently, including in NYC, provide for 8 year limits. This one would provide for 12 years, with additional years possible after an interruption of 4. I don't think terms of that length would by themselves significantly weaken Council's power vs. a mayor whose own term is limited to 8 years.
If Council term limits wouldn't empower mayors
would the two Councilpeople pushing for them still be named Wilson Goode and Bill Green?
Two exceptional Councilpeople, I admit.
But coincidence...or future candidates?
I don't know about this one
This point seems a little far-fetched.
Even if enacted, the bill wouldn't get rid of any current councilpeople until the 2019 election at the earliest.
Talk about playing ten moves ahead of someone. Especially since anyone who would be pushing this would be upsetting their colleagues that aren't on board for whatever reason for a little too long in the interim.
Of Course Council Term Limits Empower Mayors
Let's assume half the City Council could not legally run for re-election in 2011. Where would they go to get a job? Probably to the Mayor's office. And they would be especially interested in winning his favor, so they would find it hard to resist bad ideas like selling the libraries threatened with shutdown.
It is a very bad mistake to look at the City of Philadelphia and see it as the worst possible city imaginable. The public wins battles with City Hall, and City Hall recognizes the power of the public in decision-making. The population is growing for the first time in over 40 years, and the population is growing among whites, blacks, Asians, and Latinos alike.
The population growth has something to do with state innovations like charter schools, school district innovations like magnet schools, city innovations like wage tax cuts and tax abatements. It has to do with falling crime rates, and housing prices that fell a lot less from their peak than in many other cities. It also has to do with extensive state subsidies for the Philadelphia school district, the Pennsylvania Convention Center, and the sports stadiums, keeping Philadelphia far from bankruptcy.
If they are all looking for
If they are all looking for jobs with the Mayor's Office, then perhaps that is a bad sign?
There is nothing wrong about staying in City Hall after leaving, but, I would hope it is a goal that we have a diverse group of people, from a diverse set of backgrounds, with a diverse set of options of what to do if they weren't in Council.
It's Good and Bad
People who care about city government and are removed from City Council while they still have a desire to serve would often like to be employed in some other capacity in city government. People who have gone this route include former 5th District Councilman Tom McIntosh, former 7th District Councilwoman Patricia Hughes, former Councilmen at Large George Burrell, Bill Boyle, Edgar Campbell, and Edward Cantor. Former 9th District Councilman John White worked for the city-controlled Housing Authority, and former 1st District Councilman Joe Vignola worked for the city-influenced Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority.
Being an effective and responsive councilperson is hard work, taking far more than 40 hours a week. It is hard for me to see how one can be on the cutting edge of any profession after a dozen years in City Council, unless one treats City Council as just a meaningless hobby, and does City Council business between real estate sales or law cases. Breezing in and out of City Council meetings in between career obligations is hardly in the city's interest, and is not something that should be encouraged. Inherently, service in government limits career options because one is not spending one's time in career development.
Even if one serves in the private sector, or in state government, the goodwill of the mayor is vital to hiring in many cases. "Where do you stand with the mayor?" is perennially one of the key questions among those concerned with city decision-making.
Strengthening the office of the mayor would be OK if mayors of Philadelphia had similar agendas to the public as a whole. But the need to raise millions of dollars to get elected mayor greatly affects mayoral agendas and distances to a substantial degree whoever is elected mayor from popular concerns. Giving the office of mayor the power to determine the livelihood of many members of City Council is far from a step towards a more responsive city government towards the concerns of average Philadelphians; it is a step in the direction of less responsiveness.
How About Some Changes That Empower Citizens?
Why not cut the term of City Council and the term of the mayor from four years to two years?
Why not require all mayoral appointees to win City Council confirmation?
Why not require at least one City Council budget hearing to be held in each City Council district?
Why not require each District Councilman to maintain a district office, and each Councilman at Large to maintain at least two Philadelphia offices?
Why not require that all that the transcript of all City Council testimony and all Council sessions be posted on the Internet?
Why not require City Council to take public testimony after each meeting from any citizen who has something to say?
Why not require City Council to email copies of the bills it considers, and the dates they will come up for any votes or public hearings, to any member of the public who joins a list of people who want this information?
I agree with most of these.
I agree with most of these. But, I don't think that necessarily means term limits are bad.
If the short-term benefits of Council term limits are worth it
the best proposal, it seems to me, would realize those benefits as soon as possible, not in 2019. Nothing is gained by postponing them.
So why not get rid of the successive term clause, making 2011 the last term for those who have served three?
If term limits could somehow pass before the 2011 primary, why not eliminate the exception for 2011 altogether?
Since that would be a lot for sitting members to swallow, lifetime medical benefits and faster vesting would seem like fair trade-offs.
An electorate anticipating such immediate change might be more likely to support more generous benefits.
And since we're painting on such a wide canvas, someone should cost out a NYC-style public financing plan, so participation in more competitive races might be open to more people.
Why Wait For Utopia?
Sam makes good points above.
City Council members do not even need to vote on the subject.
Any City Council member who has served three or more terms who believes the public interest requires that he or she not continue to serve can simply either resign from office or not run for re-election.
Offer the carrot of lifetime medical and faster vesting
and see who bites.
Fair ones
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100204_Eight__years__is_enough...