|
LAST WEEK, City Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. introduced a resolution calling for a ballot question that would ask voters whether Council members should have a three-term limit. Unlike a number of other big cities, Philadelphia has no term limits for Council.
But that's not really a problem for us since the city is run so well, and we have no long-standing problems that continually get passed on from year to year.
Sarcasm aside, this legislation should not be seen as a personal insult to current members.
They've served our city, and we should thank them for that. But term limits would inject a much-needed check on generational control over the way our city is run. A couple of terms is enough time to enact meaningful legislation, improve the city, be proud of your service - and move on.
Ask almost anyone in office about term limits, and they'll tell you that we already have them, that elections are term limits. In Philadelphia, though, this isn't true. The elections we have are not clashes of ideas and leaders where people make an informed choice (or even an uninformed one) between the old and the new.
Here, multiple factors make facing an incumbent almost as fair as a Little League pitcher trying to whiff the Phillies' Ryan Howard. The odds are more than stacked against a challenger; they're off the board. Philadelphia has a government where the same ideas and factions have ruled for generations and the system of elections makes it almost impossible to have any meaningful change.
A centuries-old patronage culture, an overarching threat of ridiculous petition challenges and district gerrymandering that would make the original gerrymanderer blush are just some of the factors that reward incumbency. Other than Dan McElhatton, who lost his 7th District seat in 1995, exactly zero nonappointed district Council incumbents have lost an election in 15 years.
And only two at-large incumbents, Angel Ortiz and Juan Ramos, have lost since 1999. Ortiz would still be on Council except for some personal mistakes, and Ramos would not have replaced him. So it takes special circumstances to see change even at the at-large level.
Almost every cycle, four or five members run unopposed or with token opposition. You could say that all of the members must be doing a great job, but the skeptic would say that something else must be at work.
Those against term limits will tell you that they don't work, and they interfere with the usual checks and balances. Some may say that term-limit advocates are crying sour grapes, or that limits won't do anything in the short term and could hurt Philadelphia in the long term by driving out experienced and knowledgeable members.
But ask yourself two questions: "If I wanted to change the direction of the city, where would I start?" and "Is it currently possible to do that under our election system in Philadelphia?"
Your answers will likely be "City Council" and "No."
Two terms is enough for a mayor to run a city. Why isn't it enough for someone to represent and advocate for a district or the city as a whole? Why should a Council seat be a lifetime appointment? Again, even the best members should be able to recognize that in a city of 1.5 million, someone else can offer good ideas and constituent service.
On many levels, I don't fault members for believing they do a good job. In many respects, they do. They work long days with many meetings and time away from their families. It pays well, but in many ways it's thankless. They put their time in and do their best. But an elected office shouldn't be a lifelong career.
We wouldn't need term limits if we had real elections here. But we don't. Every four years, we pretend we do, but we don't.
Are term limits the only answer to what ails our city? Probably not. Are they a good start and, more importantly, a signal to the thousands who throw up their hands and leave the city each year in frustration because we can't get our act together? Would they show we're starting to admit we have a real problem here in Philadelphia? Absolutely.
AT THIS POINT, Goode's bill is seeking to limit terms to 12 years. But I believe two terms is enough for anyone.
Combined with a rotation of Council elections by districts every two years, moving Council elections to the mayoral midterms and rotating ballot positions both citywide and by division in district elections, term limits can open the floodgates to real reform.
Reach A.J. Thomson at
|
