Hear our radio interview with term limits advocates Craig Maxwell and La Mesa Vice Mayor Kristine Alessio: http://kiwi6.com/file/257ktyze5y
By Miriam Raftery
April 12, 2014 (La Mesa) – An ad sent in a mailer to La Mesa residents by the La Mesa Term Limits Committee is sparking controversy. The ad, topped by a no career politicians message, has two photos of convicted former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner – one in 1979, labeled “idealistic, committed, zeal of a new recruit” and the second in 2013 labeled “corrupt, drunk on power, self serving.” The ad then admonishes voters to “keep all our reps honest with term limits.”
“How could the innuendo in this not be profoundly offensive to the current La Mesa City Council?” asks Anthony McIvor, a La Mesa resident, who calls the mailer a “regrettable smear” piece.
Craig Maxwell, a backer of the term limits measure, says supporters wanted to chose a “symbol of a government employee or politician gone wrong who would resonate in the La Mesa area.” He concedes that Filner has “nothing to do with La Mesa” but claims there are “similarities” between Filner and long-serving La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid.
Maxwell previously ran against the Mayor and has been a vocal critic of Mayor Madrid, as has Council member Kristine Alessio, whose family provided most of the financial backing for the term limits measure. Indeed, the measure would be unlikely to affect Madrid, since even if it passes, current council members and the Mayor would be able to serve for 12 more years—which would put Madrid into his 90s.
However, numerous La Mesa residents have reported that the term limits campaign’s paid petition gatherers have approached them outside local stores and stated that the mayor has been in office too long. Asked about the tactic, Alessio said the campaign has asked petition gatherers to stop and insists this is “not about the Mayor.”
If the measure qualifies for the November ballot, voters will determine whether or not it passes.
Supporters argue that term limits were supported by Thomas Jefferson as a means of assuring that elected officials return to being “the governed” instead of being career politicians.
Others point out that while the Founders did vigorously debate the wisdom of limited terms, the consensus they reached was to avoid the imposition of arbitrary limits, leaving it to the voters to select their representatives through open elections. For national office, their decision still stands, save for the presidency which was not modified until 1951 by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Advocates claim term limits would reduce corruption and politicians who simply stop listened to those they are supposed to represent. However term limits in the state Legislature has done nothing to prevent three state Senators from being indicted for crimes very recently, including charges of corruption, conspiracy, and gun smuggling.
La Mesa’s measure would not bar officials from office permanently, but after 12 years on council, as mayor or a combination of these, the official would have to step down for four years. After that, an official could run again.
Would term limits lessen or increase special interest influence on elections? In recent years, money spent on elections has been on the rise in La Mesa.
“Term limits are a method of election reform,” said Alessio, who notes that with money and name recognition, a hurdle is imposed that is hard for challengers to overcome.
On the other hand, ousting a popular incumbent could open the door for special interests to spend big and place a candidate into office.
Mayor Madrid has stated, “We already have term limits. They’re called `elections.’”
McIvor objects to having citizens rights to return incumbents to office curtailed. “Term limits is nothing less than a sly way of imposing limits on voters,” he concludes, “on the condescending presumption that the poor souls do not know what is good for them.”
Comments
The signatures have been
Mr. McIvor -- As with every
Why Won't Term Limits Advocates Face The Real Issue?
Mr. McIvor, Once again: Our
FAQS re La Mesa Term Limits
Term Limit Controversy????
Anthony McIvor's response to Dave Smyle
Note: Anthony is having trouble logging in to his account, so asked us to post his response:
Mr. Smyle – You are well wide of the mark if you believe no one else found your mailer to be a repugnant slur on all (your word and your underscore) elected representatives in La Mesa. It is a mistake to “infer” a reference to Mayor Madrid, as only you did. The text is quite clear. It calls the honesty of “all our representatives” into question.
This is innuendo of the lowest sort and it should be roundly repudiated. Why do you dodge the larger issue which is whether such disreputable tactics have any place in La Mesa’s civic dialogue? Folks are fed up with political trash talk. It is controversial. ECM is to be commended for raising that point.
The democratic way? Many La Mesans were appalled at the spectacle of the Council being exhorted to take the lead on term limits. When did it become a good idea for government officials to promote efforts to curtail the citizens’ right to vote their consciences? The Council wisely demurred, leaving matters of the franchise to the public they serve.
It is most certainly not “the job” of elected officials to sponsor restrictions on our fundamental freedom to select our representatives. If that is the view of your Group, you hold a very feeble interpretation of democracy.
Dave - re the other media and the term limits ad,
A Cure, Not A Cure-All
Anthony's response to bill Jaynes
Note: Anthony is having trouble logging into his account so asked us to post his reply.
Mr. Jaynes – What is incontrovertible is just the reverse – Ms Raftery had it right. Term limits had nothing whatsoever to do with the arrest of the senators now under indictment. That job fell – as it should – to law enforcement. Venal public officials will misbehave according to their consciences and circumstances. Term limits clearly has no bearing on that – save perhaps to accelerate the corruption of those about to be termed out. Instead, it perversely imposes a heavy penalty on the voters.
The answer to political corruption is better candidates and stronger accountability.
Let’s just punish the bad guys, not the voters.
Bill-
La Mesa Term Limits
Anthony McIvor's response to Scott Kidwell
Note: Anthony is having trouble logging in so asked us to post his reply.
Mr. Kidwell – Your regulatory proposal is projected to take effect 12 years from now. So it could hardly be urgent. Further, as your colleagues frequently point out, the terms of the proposal allow for career politicians to serve 24 out of 28 years. Is such a toothless ordinance even necessary? Why does your ad hoc Committee seek to add to the regulatory burden already weighing heavily on our citizens and businesses? Why should La Mesa spend scarce public resources considering and implementing yet more paternalistic restrictions on our basic freedoms? This can’t be fiscally responsible – surely there is a better way.
Well meaning people may disagree
Given the numerous,
Anthony McIver's response to Craig Maxwell
Note: Anthony is having trouble logging in, so asked us to post his reply.
Mr. Maxwell – Actually you’ve got it backwards. The only thing that the term limits initiative is about is restricting the public’s right to choose. The sooner your Committee is up-front about that, the sooner the city can have an honest dialogue on your proposal.
As for the notion that the politicians “have been the only ones to say how much time they spend in office,” that will come as a surprise to La Mesa voters – who, had they only known, could have saved much time and money. The revelation will be of equal interest and utility to our politicians – who can now save themselves the trouble to win voters over. It’s quite an insight: no more community outreach, no more constituent services, no more honorary appearances, no more patiently listening to voter grievances, no more advocacy on their behalf, no more etc, etc. A real game changer – were it true.