Re: “You Mean It’s Not ’18 Yet?”
Hold off the mob.
Alert readers to the rescue.
An obvious error is about to be corrected.
It was reported yesterday that a tentative proposal to extend City Council term limits from two terms to three may go on the November ballot. True.
Here is the erroneous portion, as numerous readers pointed out:
“By the numbers, the ’18 race will be more challenging than last month. Only two seats – term-limited Mayor Jim Clarke’s and Vice Mayor Jeff Cooper’s – will be open.
“While it is definite that two seats will be at stake, there is a possibility both Messrs. Clarke and Cooper, instead, will be running for re-election.”
“I don’t know what Mayor Clarke may have told you,” said one well-informed reader, “but the proposed charter revision regarding term limits provides that any change would
not apply to Council members holding office on or before Nov. 8, 2016.
“Mayor Clarke and Vice Mayor Jeffrey Cooper will not be the deciders-in-chief. They will not determine whether Messrs. Clark and Cooper will be eligible to run for a third term in 2018. The proposed revision would preclude Clarke, Cooper, Sahli-Wells, Small and Eriksson from serving three consecutive terms.”
3 Comments on “No, Clarke and Cooper Will Not Benefit”
The questions remain. Why is an extension of term-limits necessary or desirable? Why now? Who originated the proposal? Who is championing it? Is there a sudden lack of available talent? Do the local politicos feel that they are losing their grip on power? Does the Chamber of Commerce see the handwriting on the wall and will wheel out some used-to-bees with name recognition? Are Steve Rose and other luminaries of the past itching to return to the scene?
Where can one obtain a copy of the proposal?
What relationships do the originators and champions of this proposal have with Mayor Clarke and Council Member Cooper? Does either Clarke or Cooper have a plan to return to the Council?
The current City Charter allows for any council member, after serving 8 years, to wait 2 years, after which he/she can run again, and serve 2 more consecutive terms. The Charter Review Committee consisted of a broad spectrum of residents of this City, including several “progressives”. They worked many years on updating the Charter, and then it was put to the Voters to accept or reject. It was accepted. Albert Vera ran for a third term under the current Charter (which revised the term limits from “no limit” to 2 with a 2 year wait), but served only for an additional 4 years, after which he effectively retired from public service in Culver City. Any council member can return and run again (including Paulette’s candidates Meghan Sahli Wells or Thomas Small). Even those former council members who have been off council for many years may run again if they so chose. It is up to the electorate to vote/not vote for them. As to why is it desirable to change to 3 term limits – for some it is, for some it is not. IF the Council determines to put this forth this question/change to the voters (as any changes to the Charter must be voted on) they probably won’t do until 2 years from now during our next municipal election. Anyone who has run for council and lost, can run again and again until they are either elected or stop running. There are no limits on that at all. And who can know what is in the hearts and minds of Council member Cooper and Clarke? Or for that matter Small and Sahli-Wells? Only they do and no one should suggest they know or suspect otherwise unless they have spoken directly to them.
Actually it would benefit our returning councilwoman Meghan, newly elected Thomas Small and future candidates. The question should be would changing to a third term benefit us all in the city? My personal thought is that if we find the need for a change anyone can be voted out of office; the third term is not a free pass. Good council people usually hit their stride on the second term and really begin to get things accomplished.