It appears to me that City officials should really start paying more attention to the voters. When you start to see municipal measures that deal with holding City officials more accountable and limiting terms for City officials, people want more from City staff and their representatives.
We should see these measures, in whatever city, as a clear statement of what people want! Thank goodness for the initiative process!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thank you California!
I am home with the flu, and finally have a chance to right a few words about this past election.
By defeating the dishonest Proposition 93 and preserving term limits, the voters sent a strong message to the status quo: We believe in term limits.
We think they work. And we want to keep them.
I was very interested and reassured that despite all the money spent trying to force Prop. 93 down our throats, the voters saw through it. In fact, I’m still celebrating!
Now what does this mean for Patterson? I think it means that we have a lot of momentum to enact the overdue term limit measure. I sense that the status quo here in Patterson is completely panicked.
They just saw all of their arguments rejected, and they are now being forced to actually answer some hard questions. I think the first one we need to ask is this: Isn’t it time that Patterson joined the rest of California and instituted term limits? We need to take back our city halls and our city council chambers.
And here’s a message for my neighbors in Patterson: California supports you and supports term limits. Join us!
By defeating the dishonest Proposition 93 and preserving term limits, the voters sent a strong message to the status quo: We believe in term limits.
We think they work. And we want to keep them.
I was very interested and reassured that despite all the money spent trying to force Prop. 93 down our throats, the voters saw through it. In fact, I’m still celebrating!
Now what does this mean for Patterson? I think it means that we have a lot of momentum to enact the overdue term limit measure. I sense that the status quo here in Patterson is completely panicked.
They just saw all of their arguments rejected, and they are now being forced to actually answer some hard questions. I think the first one we need to ask is this: Isn’t it time that Patterson joined the rest of California and instituted term limits? We need to take back our city halls and our city council chambers.
And here’s a message for my neighbors in Patterson: California supports you and supports term limits. Join us!
Monday, February 4, 2008
Desperate politicians ....
Reading John Fund's must read article in the Wall Street Journal on term limits today, he say's Prop. 93, the phony term limit initiative, is loosing it's luster. Sounds like the politicians who created this measure so they could stay in office longer, didn't take one thing into consideration -- the voters. People are paying attention. They see Prop. 93 for what it is and they want to keep term limits in place.
Another reason to read this article is to see how desperate the politicians are to stay in office. When you read about these antics, it makes you realize why we need to keep our term limits laws in place . This is also a perfect time to call for every municipal district to enact their own term limits measure.
Another reason to read this article is to see how desperate the politicians are to stay in office. When you read about these antics, it makes you realize why we need to keep our term limits laws in place . This is also a perfect time to call for every municipal district to enact their own term limits measure.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Articles like the one in today's L.A. Times are eye opening. It supports why we need keep our present term limits in tact on the state wide level. Also, Nunez who is pushing the Prop. 93 initative is a big abuser of the system and is an example of why we need to keep the present terms limits in place and vote no. on Prop. 93.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Orange Grove: Prop. 93 is a bait-and-switch
So-called reform of term limits allows incumbents to hang around longer
By Norma Jeanne Strobel and Ralph E. Shaffer
Facing the career politician's worst fear – being "termed-out" of office – our legislators now ask us to change the restrictions that voters approved in 1990 on the length of time and number of terms they can serve in Sacramento.
Heralded as a "reform" they would have us support Feb. 5, the real purpose of Proposition 93, the term-limits initiative, is not to assure more qualified and experienced representation, as supporters claim, but to give the present incumbents many more years in the Senate or Assembly.
In 1990, the Legislature was dominated by professional officeholders who had been there for up to decades. Then, as now, incumbents were almost always re-elected thanks to safely gerrymandered districts. To stop that, voters approved term limits by a margin of 300,000 votes.
The result hasn't been exactly what we expected. The 1990 reform limited a legislator to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. That supposedly guaranteed that at least once every six years a district's voters would send a new face to the Assembly and a senator would hold office no longer than eight years.
But instead of a major house cleaning we found termed-out Assemblymen moving up to the Senate, allowing them a total of 14 years service in the Legislature.
The carefully worded "bait" in Prop. 93 mandates a reduction in the maximum years from 14 to 12. That sounds like an even more rigid enforcement of term limits, but it isn't. The "switch" is in the fine print. It doubles the length of time a new officeholder can sit in the Assembly.
While newly elected members can serve no more than 12 years, that doesn't apply to those already in the Legislature.
What seems like a toughening of term limits actually includes a loophole for the present incumbents, possibly allowing as many as 80 percent of them to remain in office for additional years.
Senators ready to be termed-out at the end of this coming session because they have served eight years would be allowed, under Prop. 93, to serve an additional four years in the Senate. Assemblymen, having served six years, would be allowed to run in three more elections, serving an additional six years.
Instead of being termed-out next year, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez could continue to hold their seats. A former assemblyman who had served six years in that house, then moved to the Senate for eight years, would now be entitled to seek an additional four year Senate term, extending his Sacramento service to 18 years. That's hardly what voters expected when they adopted term limits in 1990.
Proponents tell us that it takes years to develop legislation that will resolve our "urgent issues" – underperforming schools, global warming, inadequate health care, etc. If these are "urgent issues" – their term, not ours – giving an assemblyman six additional years to dilly-dally with proposed solutions hardly seems like the speedy approach proponents say we need.
They tell us that term limits produce a "rapid turnover" of lawmakers before they have a chance to gain leadership skills or gain expertise in policymaking. A more realistic solution is for candidates to possess those talents before election to the Legislature.
Anyone who hasn't developed the skills required for office before election doesn't belong in Sacramento.
Proponents mislead voters by claiming we need to "reduce the number of years that new members may serve to prevent members from becoming entrenched and to promote the opportunity for others to serve."
Their proposition does just the opposite. Prop. 93 is an incumbent's dream. It allows them to become even more entrenched and increases the time they can sit in the Assembly and Senate, enjoying their power and perks while discouraging new members.
Reaffirm term limits. Reject this turkey
See this article
By Norma Jeanne Strobel and Ralph E. Shaffer
Facing the career politician's worst fear – being "termed-out" of office – our legislators now ask us to change the restrictions that voters approved in 1990 on the length of time and number of terms they can serve in Sacramento.
Heralded as a "reform" they would have us support Feb. 5, the real purpose of Proposition 93, the term-limits initiative, is not to assure more qualified and experienced representation, as supporters claim, but to give the present incumbents many more years in the Senate or Assembly.
In 1990, the Legislature was dominated by professional officeholders who had been there for up to decades. Then, as now, incumbents were almost always re-elected thanks to safely gerrymandered districts. To stop that, voters approved term limits by a margin of 300,000 votes.
The result hasn't been exactly what we expected. The 1990 reform limited a legislator to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. That supposedly guaranteed that at least once every six years a district's voters would send a new face to the Assembly and a senator would hold office no longer than eight years.
But instead of a major house cleaning we found termed-out Assemblymen moving up to the Senate, allowing them a total of 14 years service in the Legislature.
The carefully worded "bait" in Prop. 93 mandates a reduction in the maximum years from 14 to 12. That sounds like an even more rigid enforcement of term limits, but it isn't. The "switch" is in the fine print. It doubles the length of time a new officeholder can sit in the Assembly.
While newly elected members can serve no more than 12 years, that doesn't apply to those already in the Legislature.
What seems like a toughening of term limits actually includes a loophole for the present incumbents, possibly allowing as many as 80 percent of them to remain in office for additional years.
Senators ready to be termed-out at the end of this coming session because they have served eight years would be allowed, under Prop. 93, to serve an additional four years in the Senate. Assemblymen, having served six years, would be allowed to run in three more elections, serving an additional six years.
Instead of being termed-out next year, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez could continue to hold their seats. A former assemblyman who had served six years in that house, then moved to the Senate for eight years, would now be entitled to seek an additional four year Senate term, extending his Sacramento service to 18 years. That's hardly what voters expected when they adopted term limits in 1990.
Proponents tell us that it takes years to develop legislation that will resolve our "urgent issues" – underperforming schools, global warming, inadequate health care, etc. If these are "urgent issues" – their term, not ours – giving an assemblyman six additional years to dilly-dally with proposed solutions hardly seems like the speedy approach proponents say we need.
They tell us that term limits produce a "rapid turnover" of lawmakers before they have a chance to gain leadership skills or gain expertise in policymaking. A more realistic solution is for candidates to possess those talents before election to the Legislature.
Anyone who hasn't developed the skills required for office before election doesn't belong in Sacramento.
Proponents mislead voters by claiming we need to "reduce the number of years that new members may serve to prevent members from becoming entrenched and to promote the opportunity for others to serve."
Their proposition does just the opposite. Prop. 93 is an incumbent's dream. It allows them to become even more entrenched and increases the time they can sit in the Assembly and Senate, enjoying their power and perks while discouraging new members.
Reaffirm term limits. Reject this turkey
See this article
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Term Limits
I plan to give a history of term limits and how it serves a crucial purpose in perserving democracy.
More to come ...
More to come ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)