December 2, 2021 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.-Term Limits: The Heart of Democracy

A Santa Monica City Councilmember and the leader of Santa Monica’s Transparency project are circulating a petition to put the brakes on perennial City Council members. The initiative proposed by Sue Himmelrich and Mary Marlow holds the ability to be transformative in a city that rarely sees new faces on its City Council. The Santa Monica City Council has refused to limit how long a council member can hold office, and it often appears that members of that august body are “homesteading” their city council seats.

Santa Monica City Council limited the amount of time that their appointed commissioners and board members can serve in their voluntary roles (three four-year terms) in 2013. However, they have failed to adopt the same rules for their tenure. Once elected, the power of incumbency trumps all challengers who wish to serve, by letting those who are in office remain in office perpetually. That’s why thirty-six states have limits on the amount of time an elected official can serve in a single office. In California, term limits exist for all principal statewide offices. In our area, Culver City, West Hollywood, and Malibu are among those who limit the amount of time council members can be in office.

Why not Santa Monica? Term limits have existed since the ancient councils in Athens and Sparta. According to historian Garrett Fagan, office holding in the Roman Republic was based on “limited tenure of office” which ensured that “authority circulated frequently,” helping to prevent corruption. From antiquity to the early American Republic our leaders felt that the rotation of power was essential. George Mason wrote, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation.” Mercy Otis Warren, a female political writer during the American Revolution, warned that the Constitution did not provide “for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by little well-timed bribery, will probably be done.”

A SMa.r.t. look at history suggests that term limits are reasonable and essential for an influx of new ideas into government. While many in Santa Monica argued for two four-year terms as the maximum an elected official should serve, the makers of the initiative petition now circulating throughout our city wisely chose a maximum of three four-year terms. The initiative matches the term limits mandated in the City of Los Angeles for their council members. It allows the women and men elected to navigate the halls of government and become competent lawmakers. It does not allow them to become thoroughly entrenched in their positions. Limiting the time an official can serve is a “mechanism in place to bring fresh perspectives and new energy to the council,” said Lauren Meister, a West Hollywood resident who helped spearhead WeHo’s term limits campaign. “It opens the door to broader public participation in the legislative process in our city, which benefits everyone,” Meister said in a statement.

The prime opposition to Himmelrich and Marlow’s initiative appears to be the same power brokers who have pulled strings behind the scenes in our city for decades. This group also encompasses those who are currently residing as perennial “homesteaders” in city council chairs. In the past 25 years, only two incumbents have been voted out of office in the City by the Bay. It appears that the only way an incumbent can lose a seat in Santa Monica is by retiring or passing away while in office. That’s wrong. The same entrenched ideas and positions lead to stagnant government and an eventual loss of innovation. Also, the outcries against the potential for a corrupt government become louder as the same people reside in office and refuse to give way to the fresh viewpoints of new candidates. Yes, money is also a culprit in Santa Monica elections. $200,000 is now the norm for financing a municipal campaign, and that issue needs to be dealt with as well. However, we need to take steps to “Febreeze,” the city council and the term limits initiative is the first of several vital steps that will lead to better governance by the people and for the people in the City of Santa Monica.

SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) Daniel Jansenson Architect, Building and Fire Life-Safety Commissioner, Samuel Tolkin Architect, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Ron Goldman FAIA, Thane Roberts AIA, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Planning Commissioner, Phil Brock, Arts Commissioner.

Related Posts

Opinion: SB 9, 10: The Rebellion Begins

November 19, 2021

November 19, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist It was inevitable from the moment Gov. Gavin Newsom in mid-September signed this year’s two most...

Sacto Dems Dump Prop. 13 Reforms

November 5, 2021

November 5, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist For more than 40 years, Democrats in Sacramento have talked fervently about reforming the 1978 Proposition...

SMa.r.t. Column: When Water Runs Out

October 15, 2021

October 15, 2021

What happens when a City runs out of water? You have already heard of the torture endured by communities in...

Message From Santa Monica’s New City Manager David White

October 11, 2021

October 11, 2021

To the Santa Monica Community – it is with tremendous excitement that today I begin my first day as your...

Hot Flash: Can You Look Sexy in a CPAP?

September 26, 2021

September 26, 2021

I have sleep apnea.  I wear a CPAP to bed every night.  I look like I am a monster from...

LA County Committee Report Reflects a “Dire” Financial Future for Students of Santa Monica if City of Malibu’s Proposal to Split the District Is Approved

September 14, 2021

September 14, 2021

Editor’s note: the public comment period mentioned in the following letter has ended. The following is a letter from Santa...

SMa.r.t. Column: Stop the Steroids

September 10, 2021

September 10, 2021

Part 2/2 Santa Monicans face the usual fears of crime, Covid-19 and its collapsing job and housing impact including the...