The absence of term limits is not nor ever shall be a problem for the City of Morgan Hill. The campaign in favor of term limits has yet to communicate what problem it is seeking to solve, because there is no problem.
The argument for term limits is based on a slew of false and ungrounded assumptions. Summarized, they are as follows:
First, it is believed that term limits ensure fresh perspectives and new ideas on the council. A 12-year limit has minimal practical effect in that regard, given that it is more time than anyone can serve in the White House.
It does, however, deprive those leaders seeking to climb the leadership ladder of opportunities to master the craft of governance. They must either forgo ample time as a councilmember and rush into mayoral leadership, or become seasoned district representatives, but forgo the ability to effectively follow through with enough time on their citywide vision as mayor.
Either way, forcing popular incumbents out hurts institutional experience and knowledge.
Second, it is claimed that term limits force incumbents to be accountable to their constituents since the limits allegedly prevent corruption and complacency by providing for a limited time to make a positive impact.
The argument is already counterintuitive. How does limiting a person’s time in office, minimizing their opportunity to make a positive impact, help our residents? They are already held accountable by how they vote, which is public record, and by residents who evaluate their responsiveness to the community’s needs.
Third, it is believed that too much time equals too much of an entrenched electoral advantage. This is a faulty argument since Morgan Hill frequently sees turnover against incumbents. Ask John McKay, Rich Constantine, Larry Carr and the once former and now current Council member Marilyn Librers.
Heavier voter engagement by challengers and/or miscalculating the residents’ priorities have prevailed over incumbency advantages plenty of times. These are just recent examples.
It is important to remember that Morgan Hill is a council-manager form of government, meaning we have a “weak mayor” system. Our mayor and city council each have one vote, and our mayor has no veto and does not directly manage the daily affairs of government. That job is reserved for the city manager.
Therefore, there is no overly powerful elected figure in the whole of Morgan Hill that is in desperate need of a term limit check.
We already have term limits, they are called elections. If we the residents decide someone isn’t fit for office, or their perspective isn’t the proper match for Morgan Hill’s needs, we vote to replace them with another candidate. We’ve done it before, and we can collectively do so again whenever we decide to.
This measure assumes Morgan Hill voters need to be guard-railed against their own free and conscientious decision-making, which is an insult to our free will as citizens in our democratic system.
Vote no on Measure A.
Enrique Navarro-Donnellan
Morgan Hill
