![[Welcome to NRBBA]](../nrbba_logo.gif){kind=logo}
Links
![[South Bay Community Pages]](../../../qdmedia/images/sbcp1.gif){kind=small}
![[Digital Video Specialist]](../../images/computer_b.gif)
May 11, 2000
Click an image to see full-size version
"TERM LIMITS"
The City of Redondo Beach currently has two charter provisions that apply term limits to two classifications of elected officials, i.e., the Mayor and City Council [Article XXVI, Section 26] and The School Board [Article XVI, Section 16.7]. These provisions put in place a lifetime exclusion from reelection to one of these panels, if you have served two terms on that panel. Two terms are normally measured as eight years, but can, by definitions contained in the City Charter, be as short as six years. A lifetime exclusion from office is not a common provisions in term limits laws on any level of government, excepting the President of the United States. Some of us believe that the life time exclusion is a bit long for offices at the level of City Council and School Board. The life time exclusion does exclude an interested person from further service after a reasonable "sit out period." The question is, "Is it a wise provision in the law for Redondo Beach?"
Before I address that issue directly, I want to mention that the history of term limits law in Redondo Beach seems to be "personality based" rather than "issue based." After I tell you the history of term limits in Redondo Beach, perhaps you would like to get away from the personalities involved in the issue and onto the "issue" of what is the appropriate "sit out period" after service of a specified number of terms on the City Council or School Board.
I should tell you that the basic material for this part of this article is contained in a report to the City Council by Jerry Goddard, City Attorney for the April 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. For more information you can get a copy of that staff report from the City Clerks Office, including copies of the newspaper articles from 1975 when this was the big issue. Now, to the history of the issue as contained in various articles published in the local press at the time the events were occurring and as contained in official City of Redondo Beach records.
The first proposed change to the City Charter ["Charter"] on term limits appears to have been in the spring of 1974. That is when Councilman Tony DeCou (District 4), supported by Councilmembers Lee Soloman (District 1) and Paul Burke (District 2) brought forward and passed a proposal for term limits on the Mayor and City Council. These three Councilmembers were in their first term in office. The term limits proposed at the time were to apply separately to the Offices of the Mayor and the City Council. The term limits would not have been a lifetime exclusion, and there would have been no retroactive counting of terms. The Council passed the measure by a three to two vote. The two opposing votes were from Councilmembers Robert Westerfield (District 3) and Rodney Neilson (District 5), each of who had already served at least two terms in office. Mayor William Czuleger, who had served more than two terms as Mayor, vetoed that proposal. That opposition vote and veto turned out to be a big mistake.
A grass roots citizen's group that supported the proponents of term limits then mounted an initiative campaign. The provisions of the Charter make an initiative in Redondo Beach a very difficult and arduous task. I guess the Mayor did not think that the supporters of term limits could overcome the difficulties, but the proponents of term limits turned out to be one of the rare successes in garnering sufficient signatures for an initiative effort in a Redondo Beach election. At the election in 1975, the provision drafted by a group of citizens then became part of the Charter. That provision is our current Article XXVI. It contained two very significant provisions not in the original proposal. First, it made the counting of terms for purposed of term limits retroactive. Thus, it amounted to a recall election for the Mayor that had vetoed the prior action of the Council and the two Councilmembers that had voted against that action. Second, it put in place a life time exclusion from hold an office that had been held for two terms, if the office was that of the Mayor or as a member of the Council. Now you can see why the vote against and veto of the original term limits proposal were not well advised. Had the prior proposal been put into place, the Mayor and Councilmembers could have served two more terms. Instead, they were OUT. The proponents apparently followed the philosophy of, "Piss me off, pay the consequences!" The Mayor and Councilmembers paid the consequences.
Incidentally, the Daily Breeze on April 13, 1975 took an editorial position against that 1975 ballot provision on the sole basis of the retroactive application of the Charter provision. I think that the Breeze was correct as far as they went. They should also have cited the life time exclusion as a basis of objecting to the ballot proposal. Note that the Breeze did not oppose the concept of term limits. (Neither do I.) They said, "There are merits to imposing a two-term limit on elected officials." They just took a position against the retroactive application of the limitations.
I'm sure that if the original provision that had been approved by the Council had gotten to the ballot, it would have passed, and the language in it would have been drafted by the City Attorney. That would have alleviated the problem that seems to exist with most grass roots group drafted initiatives. That problem is that although the intent may be well known, writing in the legal language necessary for statutes and charter provisions to precisely reflect that intent without ambiguity is very difficult. No matter how well educated, a person that is not accustomed to writing statutes and charter provisions cannot often do a satisfactory job. That lack of a satisfactory job occurred in the term limits provision. The intent to have the Office of the Mayor and the City Council considered separately, is not specific enough in the current Charter provision. At least two attorneys who have read it on first blush have told me that. The history of the application of the Charter, keeping the two offices separate, helps to interpret the Charter in a manner that I believe was the original intent. However, that may not be the final word. The intent needs to be cleared up in the Charter before a court is given a chance to say what the voter passed provision means.
Additionally, it is time to get passed the personality driven initiative of 1975 and back to the original concept of a reasonable "sit out period." Getting past the personality issued will not do anything for the long ago "recalled" Mayor and Councilmembers, but it will keep the anger at those former public servants by a citizen's group in 1975 from continuing to contaminate our Charter for eternity. Twenty-five years should be the term limit for the current provision. Vote for the NEW term limit provision and get back to what was reason in 1974 before the anger of 1975.
Home | Hot Topics | Meetings/Handouts | Business Cards | News