Paul Levy and Shawn Fitzgibbons have announced that they are running to replace Ruth Goldman on the School Committee.
Ruth Goldman won’t be running because she has “term limited” out of the School Committee. Since 1971 School Committee members can serve for a maximum of eight years (four terms). Curiously, the School Committee members are the only Newton officials subject to term limits.
The recent effort to update the City Charter failed to pass, primarily because of the change to the size/makeup of the City Council. Among the many other changes that were proposed with that Charter update were instituting new term limits – 16 years (8 terms) for the City Council and 12 years (3 terms) for the mayor.
At this point there is no ongoing active effort to re-visit City Charter changes again. That said, I’d still like to hear what folks think about term limits in general.
- Should all elected offices have term limits? Should none?
- Does it make sense to only have term limits for the school committee? Is so, why?
- Does any old-timer or historian remember what inspired adding term limits for just the School Committee in 1971
From my research on the Charter Commission, I can solve the mystery of why there are term limits on the school committee but not the council. If memory serves me, there was at least 1 city councilor on the charter commission in 1971 who voted for term limits for school committee but not for the city council.
Term limits and voter suppression are each anathema to democracy. If one believes in democracy, then there is no intellectually justifiable argument for taking any actions which fail to maximize the opportunity of the most voters to express their preference for the most candidates.
Elmo: Agree thoroughly that there should be no term limits, but only for those officials that must face the voters in periodic elections. I think it’s corrosive and harmful to public trust and confidence when applied to appointed judges who have lifetime appointments. In terms of voter suppression, this is the only western “Democracy” I can think of where a variety of shameless methods have been put in place to depress voting or cut citizens from the voting rolls. One of many reasons we keep dropping in several annual surveys of 170 or so nations that measure democratic health.
Judges are not (or at least should not be) elected. They should be appointed for long but fixed terms by our elected representatives who are then held responsible for these choices by their constituents in periodic elections. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the conservatives in this country, one really must respect and learn from their success in developing and implementing strategy for re-fashioning the judiciary in this country over a 40 year time frame.
Lifetime tenure in any job is a concept whose time has long passed. From judges to teachers to academics, there is a not a job in this world to which the holder is entitled for life.
Elmo, in theory you’re right about voter choice. In reality, due to the power of name recognition, low voter engagement and the fundraising advantage of an incumbent, lack of term limits suppresses voter choice because incumbents are so rarely challenged…even incumbents who’ve clearly reached the stage of completely phoning it in. I can’t remember exactly, but at the time of the Charter Commission, the average tenure on Newton’s City Council was something like 12 years. A healthy organization has a good mix of institutional knowledge and fresh perspectives, and term limits help to ensure that.
I am also supportive of term limits. The power of incumbency is very strong in local politics, as Rhanna points out.
I welcome the entry of new candidates into municipal races. For example, with respect to the School Committee, while I do believe the SC members tried their best, NPS performance has been poor this year, both on an absolute basis and relative to comparable school districts. We need new perspectives and a new approach to dig NPS out of its crisis.
Municipality-level term limits without state-level term limits, both at Beacon Hill and those sent to Washington DC, would seem to be an exercise in self-cutting.
If there were a state-mandated term limit on elected city officials and not one on elected state officials, I wonder how many proponents would not object to the implied power play …
Note that the School Committee term limits are for 4 consecutive terms. I know at least one individual who served for 8 years and then ran and won two years later.
I am in favor of continuing Newton SC term limits – in theory I agree with Elmo’s arguments against but in practice I agree with Rhanna regarding the difficulty of breaking the power of incumbency. As a board of directors, which is essentially what the SC is, I believe that regular turnover is very good. The break after 8 years insures this turnover, introduces new energy and ideas into the committee on a regular basis, yet still allows for able committee members to continue contributing over the long term.
In the unsubstantiated narrative department, a term limit for Newton SC members was passed as the only way to remove a very-long-serving SC chair who would not step down and kept winning reelection. I don’t know if this is true or not but by all means spread it!
Am in favor of term limits and agree with some of the comments above, but what I wonder is, at the local level, would there be enough candidates to fill all these seats. Nov will be here before you know it and not one person has raised a hand to run for mayor… not one.
Most all our elected positions are “volunteer” yet require vast time commitments if performed well. As I recall there are stipends and benefits eligibility, but only the Mayor receives a true salary. I think that this is fine, even desirable, but given these circumstances I struggle with adding term limits. It’s important that our elected officials have time to learn with experience. I think that Rihanna Kidwell is right about the advantages of incumbency, yet for this year’s City elections in November I’m not sure that incumbency will help anyone (think School Committee).
Whether you agree with him or not it can be valuable to have Councilors like Lisle Baker who add historical memory and legislative experience in many areas.
I’ve no idea why SC should have term limits? It seems strange and inconsistent. I can see limits on being SC Chair or CC President, but not on serving altogether.
I think with School Committee it is helpful to have kids actually in the school system during the time you are serving. It is also useful to have some experience as a parent in the school system before you step up to serve serve because you have have an idea of how the system works. Thus unless you have kids spaced a certain amount apart it, there is a bit of a sweet spot of time to serve where you have some knowledge on how the schools work and still have kids in the schools. I would say Paul Levy is a bit of an outlier but I think even though his youngest is just beginning in the system, his business experience would actually help at this point in time since the schools have been a fiasco from the decision making perspectives. I think he will also have many people seeking to share the ins and outs on what is going on right now.
As Steve mentioned, the 1971 Charter Commission included term limits because one person served for decades and as a result accrued more power than was appropriate or healthy for NPS.
It makes sense to have term limits for the SC because, without them, it’s possible and even likely, to have an entire committee of people who don’t have children in the system. In fact, at one point in my elementary career, not one member had a child at the elementary level and we felt it keenly at the school level. IMO, it’s best for the city to have a Committee with members who represent a range of experiences in the system – institutional knowledge is critical as well.
As I look at the current city council, seven councilors are in their first or second term and that number will rise to nine in March, a small number appear to be approaching the 16-year mark, and two are long time members. Seems fine to me.
As for Mayor, I’m a firm believer in the 2-term limit, with a 10-year total limit. Set your agenda, get done what you can done then it’s time for new energy and ideas in the corner office. In the recent past, the third term has not served the city or the incumbent mayor well.