I've been saying this for over a year! We need term limits at the local level.
Do you believe the supervisor and council members should have term limits? I believe all elected officials in Amherst should serve no more than two terms in office. I personally feel 8 years total is enough!
What is everyone else's opinion?
I've been saying this for over a year! We need term limits at the local level.
DO ALL COUNCIL PEOPLE GET HEALTH CARE FOR LIFE AFTER (8) YEARS OR IS IT AFTER (10) YEARS? I THINK IT IS AFTER (8).
Is there a term limit for gadflys?? Maybe the voices in your head can answer your idiotic questions, Trick-holy!
Tonawanda just passed 3 - 4year terms as max.
Reduce the benefits, reduce the salary. Make the positions attractive only to those who truly want to serve the public good.
dono
Those who have an ulterior motive, will apply also!
Originally posted by Dvoakley
Reduce the benefits, reduce the salary. Make the positions attractive only to those who truly want to serve the public good.
THis guy gets a gold star. You should do the job because you want to do the job, not because it pads your benes
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
No term limits. They will automatically become lame ducks in the second term and they could really do dammage, such as voting themselves a pay raise or approving that development project or raising taxes. There would be no accountability for their actions because they could not run for re-election. Change the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with no term limit. We would have the opportunity to vote them out sooner if their performance is sub par. A 2 year term would keep them on their toes.
I couldn't agree with you more !!! These are excellent points!Originally posted by Townsfolk
No term limits. They will automatically become lame ducks in the second term and they could really do dammage, such as voting themselves a pay raise or approving that development project or raising taxes. There would be no accountability for their actions because they could not run for re-election. Change the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with no term limit. We would have the opportunity to vote them out sooner if their performance is sub par. A 2 year term would keep them on their toes.
Originally posted by Dvoakley
Reduce the benefits, reduce the salary. Make the positions attractive only to those who truly want to serve the public good.Here are two of the wisest statements I've seen on this board in quite a while and on the same thread - even the same page.Originally posted by Townsfolk
No term limits. They will automatically become lame ducks in the second term and they could really do dammage, such as voting themselves a pay raise or approving that development project or raising taxes. There would be no accountability for their actions because they could not run for re-election. Change the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with no term limit. We would have the opportunity to vote them out sooner if their performance is sub par. A 2 year term would keep them on their toes.
Amh Plng Bd: 1980 - 2001
Amh GOP Comm: 1970 - 2006 (EDs 46, 8, & 91)
Jolly Boys: 1978 - until I am physically unable to show up for Old Home Days
That's an interesting idea. I wonder how much elected officials would get done, though, since they'd be constantly running for re-election.Originally posted by Townsfolk
No term limits. They will automatically become lame ducks in the second term and they could really do dammage, such as voting themselves a pay raise or approving that development project or raising taxes. There would be no accountability for their actions because they could not run for re-election. Change the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with no term limit. We would have the opportunity to vote them out sooner if their performance is sub par. A 2 year term would keep them on their toes.
Then again, I guess they do that anyway.
I think it would also be interesting to make local elections nonpartisan -- strip away the GOP, Dem and other political party machines. That way we could also get rid of primaries!
yes but they woiuld almost be constantly running for re-election. 3 years would be odd in both senses of the term but they'd get a year to get things done, plus look at the national exposure we'd get. i know I'm dreaming but hey, nothing wrong with dreams.Originally posted by Townsfolk
No term limits. They will automatically become lame ducks in the second term and they could really do dammage, such as voting themselves a pay raise or approving that development project or raising taxes. There would be no accountability for their actions because they could not run for re-election. Change the election cycle from 4 to 2 years with no term limit. We would have the opportunity to vote them out sooner if their performance is sub par. A 2 year term would keep them on their toes.
How about no elected board members and just a non political town manager.Originally posted by TheRightView
yes but they woiuld almost be constantly running for re-election. 3 years would be odd in both senses of the term but they'd get a year to get things done, plus look at the national exposure we'd get. i know I'm dreaming but hey, nothing wrong with dreams.
Yeah Right!Originally posted by Pauldo
How about no elected board members and just a non political town manager.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)