My View of Issue 15: Recall Signatures

I view Issue 15, the consideration for the Reduction in the Percentage of Signatures for Recall, to be a solution in search of a problem.

While I recognize that Greenhills does not currently map to the minimum recall percentage at the state level, the difference between the current language in the Charter and the proposed amendment is 173 (based upon the 2009 election results) signatures.

2009 Municipal Election Ballots Cast: 1735
Current Recall Requirement (25%): 434
Proposed Recall Requirement (15%): 261
Difference: 173

I've worked petition drives in the community, and frankly, for an issue where there is broad support, an additional 173 signatures (at approximately 15 signatures / volunteer petitioner / hour) as specified in the current charter, might be an additional weekend of effort, especially if a modest sized group works the community events during the summer and fall. For the hypothetical scenario suggested by the Committee supporting the charter amendments, an under-performing or incompetent council person would seem to represent an instance where the current percentage requirement would be more than an adequate benchmark, since one would have to assume his/her incompetence would be broadly acknowledged within the community to trigger an energetic recall effort in the first place.

In addition, recall referenda have a real cost. Although the question of cost was raised during the issue forum on Waycross last week, it was largely glossed over, other than an acknowledgment of a real cost for a recall election. From my standpoint, this is a key consideration for the Charter Referendum Committee to address. By definition, the change to the Charter will increase the likelihood of recalls. Consideration of the cost of a recall is insight the Greenhills electorate might benefit from understanding, since a recall might in fact be taxpayer funded.

Do you agree? Let me know what you think.

Vote No on Term Limits Charter Amendment

I will not support Charter Amendment enacting Term Limits for members of Council and the Mayor.

My view is that those who run for office run the risk of being term limited with every election. The electorate, if not satisfied with the performance of a member of council, have the will and ability to vote that individual out of office. There should be no requirement for additional restrictions for holding or vacating office beyond the qualifications specified in the Greenhills Charter to serve on Council.

I believe limiting the term of an individual who has served undermines the will of the electorate by limiting the number of qualified candidates for the office. A common theme that I've heard at local, state and federal levels regarding term limits is that the official takes with him or her the valuable institutional memory and perspective accrued during their tenure, along with the perspective and the complexities that underlie legislation over the arc of their time of service.

I encourage my supporters and others unfamiliar with the legislation to review the amendment language and come to an understanding of the implications of the amendment, and vote against the amendment on November 8th.

Update: I received an inquiry as to why I am opposed to term limits when in the last election, my candidacy might have been successful had others running been term limited. In my judgment, the burden for making the case for my candidacy falls to me, and me alone, rather than an artificial restriction on eligibility. I realized that after the last election, I had not worked hard enough in the community to make that case. In the minds of the voters, I had not drawn a distinction between myself and the incumbents to draw votes from them. I am committed to a better job this time.