Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PUYALLUP: Breaks in service needed, not lifetime limits

Letter by Steven Shores, Puyallup on May 31, 2010 at 11:37 am with 2 Comments »
May 31, 2010 11:37 am

Re: “Puyallup City Council doesn’t need term limits” (editorial, 5-27).

Your statement, “Only two of the city’s seven council members have been in office longer than three years,” is currently true, however Mike Deal quit last year after 20 years and Ken Martin quit before him after 24 years.

The proposal of a 10-year lifetime limit for council members doesn’t appear to be intended to make government better for citizens, but rather to take as many members as possible down with the ship.

Term limits are enforced by describing qualifications that must be possessed by a candidate to run for office.

Instead of a lifetime limit, consider one that just creates a “break” in service. This would allow both newcomers with fresh ideas and experienced members to serve together. I propose this language to describe the qualifications: “No candidate having served for the last 8 years consecutively is eligible. Candidates having previously served, but not for the last 4 years, are eligible.”

What would this do? Break up member complacency, collusion, neglect and ties to special interests. Increase odds for newcomers to get elected by eliminating competition from incumbents having greater name recognition. Increase candidate participation due to increased odds of getting elected. Eliminate career politicians seeking only health benefits and other perks. Allow experienced candidates to return to service after a four year break.

And finally, if you accept the philosophical premise of term limits, they must be implemented retroactively.

Leave a comment Comments → 2
  1. Sumner31 says:

    I think term limits are artificial and unnecessary. If the voting public chooses the same official over and over, one of two thing is taking place–either the official is doing a great job and people are satisfied or even if the official isn’t doing a good job his voting constituency wants that official. Either way the system works. Besides, there is no guarantee that you will get a better official in office just because of term limits. Ultimately qualifications and/or popularity get officials elected. I know of no examination required for office holders. So quit fiddling with the election process and if you think you are more qualified than the incumbent, then run for the office.

  2. EthicalPuyallup says:

    Term Limits are the only viable method to remove unethical politicians who have entrenched themselves into the very system that they have created to benefit only themselves. Those who speak against them publicly live under a constant threat of terrorism.. see Puyallup Police case #10-003151… and those who run against them recieve threats against themselves and their property. Many in Puyallup live in constant fear of speaking out against the Mayor and her political machine.. How can this possibly be the American Way?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0