Third in a series

Re “Making the Case to at Least Bat Around Term Limits Cause”

[img]1305|right|Andy Weissman||no_popup[/img]With the next City Council election 14 months away, and two members due to leave office because of term limits, how about revisiting/revising the two-decades-old cap?

One reason City Councilman Andy Weissman recently agreed that Culver City’s two-term limit was “worth having a discussion about” was:

“I don’t personally believe term limits have been helpful.”

After 30 years in public life, meaning the corridors of City Hall, it is cringing to imagine daily life in Culver City without his voice.

He favors turning over the term-limits call to voters.

“I certainly think Sacramento has been adversely affected by term limits,” Mr. Weissman said as he enters his final year in office.

“By the time somebody gets familiar with the position and what it takes to be an elected official at that level, it is either time for re-election or to figure out where you are going to go once you are term-limited.”

Even with the recent reforms that slightly loosened limits for state legislators, “it still imposes an artificial impediment. I believe in allowing the people, the voters, to decide who should represent them. This is more appropriate than a somewhat arbitrary time period.”

Mr. Weissman wants to know:

“Who says that two consecutive four-year terms is the right number as opposed to three consecutive four-year terms or three consecutive six-year terms?”

Leaving no doubt about his stance, “that call should be within the purview of the voter,” Mr. Weissman said.

(To be continued)