Term Limits can benefit Local Government too

By Mayor Anna C. Little

Muncipal officials rely upon the operation and advice of many volunteer boards and commissions while establishing law and policy for a township, borough or city. Too often public perception is that a reward is given to persons who supported the local candidate in his or her campaign when individuals are appointed to provide volunteer service on a local board or commission. This jaded public perception of these individuals produces a lack of trust by the public in the operation of the entire board or commission. The impact is strongest in planning and zoning boards, sewer authorities and housing commissions because decisions of these bodies are binding. However, recommendations by advisory boards or commissions can be construed as politically driven if the public does not have faith that the individuals are volunteering for the right reasons.

Elected and appointed officials should strive to become public servants. We should take office in service to our neighbors temporarily using everyday common sense and then return home to live under the laws and policy that we create. Holding elected or appointed office should not be looked upon as a career activity. To the contrary, a citizen government is most trustworthy to work efficiently and in the best interests of their peers. I believe this is what our founding fathers intended.

The concept of a citizen government is most important at the local level, or the ground floor of government. If members of the public trust local officials, people are encouraged to speak up in a grass roots fashion. A true collaboration of ideas becomes the focus of public meetings with a goal toward ensuring that decisions are made properly to benefit the whole community. Elections could become more of a competition between candidates to demonstrate who will lead government to best serve the people and by what agenda. Surely the founding fathers would not have approved of the mudwrestling match that elections have become in this country, and the manner in which candidates attempt to win on the basis of who is less dirty.

Critics of term limits object to a restriction of freedom to vote for the candidate of their choosing. I recognize this argument, however, balanced against the distance that develops over time between the elected official and those they serve, and the human desire to continue to serve in a status position, I believe the term limit is a solution to corruption, rather than an example of overregulation. Furthermore, if term limits are constructed with a focus on consecutive terms, it is possible that a candidate could return to the same office after experiencing life as John Q. Public again for a while. I propose that this experience would be enlightening for the elected official, and beneficial for those he or she serves in future office.

Term Limit opponents also cite selection for regional advisory office, especially at the state and federal level as a lost benefit if term limits are imposed. Arguably these regional advisory offices are based upon length of service and notoriety among legislators. However, I believe that if term limits are embraced by government at all levels, the criteria for these regional advisory positions would be adjusted to focus on the experience and talents of the individual rather than the period for which they may have marked time at the expense of the taxpayer.

Elected officials at all levels should continuously be encouraged to prove the measure of their service to the people. Shorter terms increase the intensity of focus and perhaps the speed with which an agenda might be accomplished. Shorter terms also encourage elected officials with long term agendas to bring junior statesmen alongside them in preparation for the moment when they will need to take over where an elder statesman leaves office. The public can only benefit from such a pattern.

To endorse a change so basic yet so instrumental in the reform of government requires courage. To follow through on an endorsement with commitment requires perserverance. It has been said that a journey begins with but a single step. I submit that the first step has been taken at the Freeholder Board by establishing a rotational directorship. It is up to us at the local level to provide a foundation encouraging the freeholders and others to persevere. We must find courage in the example of government reformers who have gone before us.

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question,'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor [perhaps] popular but because conscience tells one it is right." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.