Why not two?

How likely does it seem to pass?

I'm OK with Council having one more term of institutional memory than the mayor's office as a reasonable course. 3 terms seems quite reasonable.

for all local elected officials?

Some of our most effective and independent public officials have served more than three terms; the late Councilman Cohen obviously standing large among them. On the other hand, there is much to say about ensuring that entrenched power not get too entrenched. So I'm just not sure about this one.

But I am sure about public financing. Particularly in a world in which corporations have been completely unleashed, there will be little opportunity for those without close corporate ties to get anywhere in local politics unless they can find another source of funding. Grass roots fundraising is good, but even to do that effectively requires start up cash. Even Obama started with major commitments from Wall Street before he ginned up his grass roots effort.

So, Councilman, this legislation is interesting, and perhaps worthy of support. I think you would really get people excited, however, if you introduced public financing legislation as your next act.

and it enjoys a wider base of public support.

Public financing would be great but it enjoys a narrower base of public support. Its worth noting that the Supreme Court's recent unfortunate decision exactly mirrors the argument the IBEW put forward against the city's campaign contribution limits. In Philly at least I would not be surprised if some of the building's trades would be opposed to public financing at a local level.

Kudos Councilman Goode on working on an issue that I believe would usher in actual reform in this city.

Those against term limits say that voters can decide to vote incumbents out. Such a position is silly for a number of reasons. The districts are drawn by Jackson Pollock, entrenched patronage supports incumbents and ballot access has been and continues to be a crapshoot with the courts. Though it is not a Philadelphia-only phenomenon, incumbency here is job security. Quick check (I could be wrong), but the last non-appointed incumbent district councilperson to lose a council seat? Dan McElhatton in 1995.

City Council is the board of directors for the city. Unfortunately, it's not looked upon that way. Without casting any individual blame, I think that most would agree that the city needs better management on a number of levels. Almost any corporation with the consistent problems of our city would have had turnover on the Board by now.

Councilman Goode's legislation will at least put in play a way to change the composition of the board, since in no way can the electorate be expected to do so. However, twelve years on council is too long. I believe the terms should be limited to eight years total. Eight is enough years to serve as councilperson, push an agenda and get out. No one should be in a position to control a city or at least a slice of it for any longer than that.

People in power will cry sour grapes for those who complain about this issue, but this issue put to the voters would pass 8-1, if not higher. Let's see it on the ballot and let's reduce it to 8 years total.

(I have a column about this issue pending for the Daily News).

I don't know about others here, but I never get any reports of my constituents laying awake at night worrying that the Mayor of Philadelphia doesn't have enough power. Many of them were quite happy that Mayor Nutter did not have the power to shut down the branch libraries; that Mayor Street did not have the power to execute his idea that the city wage tax be like the Social Security tax, with incomes over a certain amount of money not being taxed; that Mayor Rendell did not have the power to aggressively fight city unions in his second term; that Mayor Goode did not have the power to set up a ridiculously expensive trash to steam plant with a high danger of air pollution in South Philadelphia; that both Mayor Green and Mayor Rizzo did not have the power to raise wage taxes to the degree they tried to; that Mayor Tate did not have the power to build the Germantown Expressway and the Crosstown Expressway, knocking down many houses in the process.

American government is based on a system of checks and balances. Checks and balances slow down the process of government, but generally work to have government make better and more widely acceptable decisions.

The Mayor of Philadelphia is by far the most powerful county or city leader in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and one of the powerful county or city leaders in America. The Mayors of Los Angeles, Chicago, and, in some ways, New York, would think they were in heaven if they had all the powers of the Mayor of Philadelphia. The tens of millions of dollars that both Mayors Rendell and Street were able to raise before campaign spending limits took effect is a testament to the vast power of the Mayor of Philadelphia.

Taking power away from the City Council, as term limits do, only strengthens the Mayor. People who are leaving are more apt to ignore the wishes of their constituents in order to appeal to their future employer. U.S. Congressman Tom Foglietta, appointed Ambassador to Italy, cast an important vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement. State Rep. Joel Johnson, defeated for the state senate, cast an important vote to cut unemployment compensation benefits. Philadelphia is fortunate it has had very few lame duck council members over the years.

I do not begrudge any member of City Council the right to retire if they feel it is time to stop working or their talents can be better used elsewhere. But I like the idea that the voters have a power over City Council members that they do not have over the mayor. I think Philadelphia is a better city as a result.

"Except as the Council may otherwise ordain from time to time..."

What is the purpose of the escape clause at the beginning of the new section?

Doesn't this mean that Council may, by ordinance, simply change the term limits enacted by this Charter Change?

New York City enacted term limits, by popular initiative, in the 1990s. The voters re-affirmed that vote at the polls. But the New York City Council passed an ordinance to exempt themselves one time from the operation of term limits. If this Charter Change is enacted, couldn't the Philadelphia City Council do the exact same thing?

Either we have term limits. Or we don't. What's the point of having term limits if the people supposedly limited by them can just adjust them whenever they want?

I've never loved term limits, even when they're sometimes popular with some progressive reformers, and even though I definitely desire turnover on City Council.

Simply put, it's the law telling voters they can't vote for whom they want to, which from a small d democratic perspective sucks.

Trusting the electorate even less than we do presently seems to me regressive, not progressive, even if there were short term benefits to the left.

Do we really want the odious problem of political lame ducks invading the legislative level -- people in government who no longer feel the pull of the ballot box in their decision-making, and who are thus less likely to listen to the electorate?

I think in general it's more progressive to seek government that has to listen to the electorate more, not less.

Experience bears out that lame ducks listen to the electorate less, even less, in my opinion, than do long-term incumbents.

I'm all for changing election laws to make City Council races WAY more competitive.

I imagine local politics would benefit immediately if the current logjam on Council were broken (but politics ain't pop music; just because it's different doesn't mean that it's better; hard to believe as it may be, but it could get worse).

Term limits seem to me an unnecessary evil that's enticing in periods of political discontent -- when Center City progressives REALLY want to prevent Northeast Philly voters from re-electing Joan Krajewski one more time or Northwest folks from sending back Donna Reed Miller. But that's less democracy, not more.

Term limits were all the rage in 1994 among resurgent conservatives who thought they could finally realize their dreams of killing Social Security, Affirmative Action, and the public school system...if they could finally dislodge Ted Kennedy, the most powerful Dems and the most entrenched moderate Republicans.

They probably could have then, if Congress had been term-limited.

I definitely agree that the logjam on Council has been the result of (among other things) non-competitive elections. That's not good for democracy either. We should consider ways to make elections more competitive.

But I'm not convinced that limiting people's choices, and thus the voice of voters in the ears of term-limited legislators, is the answer.

as legislatures often need solid relationships among elected officials -- voting blocs, if you will -- to negotiate with strength and a coherent voice with executives.

So I'd be careful about supporting term limits if you don't like a City government dominated by a strong mayor.

Term limited legislatures also can lead to chaotic City governments: see Cincinnati.

Sam wrote: "I just think we could end up creating a lot of long-term problems if we opt for term limits."

I think just the opposite. Long term problems are created by politicians who build machines to keep themselves in power. Los Angelas has term limits and it seems to work just fine. Good council people interested in continuing to serve can then seek other posts in government. Only the best can make a career out of it.

Term limits may prevent corruption, but they must apply to lower level jobs such as ward leader, which from what I hear, might just be the dirtiest job in town. Term limits at the council level without term limits at the ward level would make ward leaders the kingmakers (or queen makers).

George Washington was an obvious believer in term limits. I vote to accept his leadership on this issue.

I kind of feel right now like it's a diversion from the real key to cleaning up politics, and that's public financing. If candidates, whether incumbents or newcomers, have to raise a gazillion dollars from people and corporations who are out only for themselves, you have candidates in thrall to private rather than public interests. Term limits don't stop the buying of candidates, because there will always be a fresh, new face willing to be bought. So, it's not so much that I'm either sold or not sold on term limits. I just think it's a distraction from the real issue; i.e., getting the dirty money out of the game.

Campaign financing is certainly part of the problem. Buying a candidate is considered a long term investment. I believe it would be much easier for candidates and incumbents to maintain integrity and passion when their time in office is limited, and they haveto develop new careers based on their reputation.
More candidates might result in a spreading of the money, and level the financial playing field.
Our system as it currently stands needs improvement. I think this may be a step in the right direction.

My story on term limits in meeting with a to be unnamed state rep for Philly whom I met shortly after his first election:

We met around whether he would support the historic education funding formula. After a lot of complaints about how he's just one of hundreds of votes, he basically laid out his strategy. He was most vulnerable in his first re-election run so he wasn't going to support something that would be controverial. By his second re-election run he had a more than 60% chance of being re-elected but that wasn't fool proof. And by his third term, he had a more than 90% chance of being re-elected. My response: So we should come back in six years for anything meaningful? His response: Those are the numbers, he shrugged.

Term limits. Period.

There is an old joke about political conventions: by the second day everything has been said but not everyone has said it.

I'm going to try not to exemplify that joke and simply say that term limits are a terrible idea and Sam has shown why.

1. They are undemocratic.
2. They reduce the power of the Council by removing members who have a depth of knowledge and the relationships with in the city--citizens, bureaucrats, other members our Council that give them the information and trust with which they can challenge a Mayor.
3. They reduce the electoral pressure that keeps Council members responsive to the voters.

That other cities have terms limits is not an argument. That George Washington voluntarily retired does not show he wanted term limits. The Constitutional Convention explicitly considered the idea and the leaders of it---Madison and Hamilton--vehemently rejected it.

Term limits is one of those simple ideas that are easy to understand and that sound good and that, unfortunately too often to people who know enough about a subject to embrace an "advanced" and "progressive" idea but don't know enough to understand why the unintended consequences of that idea are seriously problematic.

(Too other examples come to mind: the nuclear freeze and single payer health insurance both of which became / are touchstones of progressive thinking but which were / are opposed by the people who know the most about the subject.)

Here are two ideas to make our Council better.

1. Eliminate the at-large seats.

The at-large seats were meant to give us Council members who think about the good of the city rather focusing on the interests of a neighborhood or two. It hasn't worked that way. When there is a tension between a neighborhood and the city as a whole, at-large members tend to either represent the neighborhoods that are their base in the city or defer to the district members from the neighborhoods that are in conflict with the city.

Creating seven new districts seats would also enable groups whose views are not well represented on Council (for example, the LGBT community, northwest progressives, Asians) to have a better chance of electing someone who represents them to Council. Recall the lesson of the Harvey Milk story.

2. Public financing of campaigns. I've written about this many times. We had a moment--right before the last election--where Council members Vera and Tasco held hearings on the subject. But the idea died. It is likely to stay dead until the economy recovers and tax revenues increase. Then I hope we revive it.

I have seen no evidence, historically or among the different levels of government, that term limits improve government performance. The purpose of government is to achieve the common good, which includes improving the operation of government in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Just rotating people in offices is not an end in of itself.

Let me suggest a different focus for those desiring change. Come up with policies that improve the lives of the citizens of Philadelphia and improve the operations of the city bureaucracy. The city has an incredibly large number of people living on the margins. How about changing that. If you want city council to function better, how about periodic testing of council members on their understanding of policy matters, with those doing well being more highly remunerated & those not doing well receiving lower pay. How about reducing the size of our very large city council, thus saving the taxpayers money. All these would be real things rather than the musical chairs game of term limits.

I am certainly not opposed to the concept of term limits. But we must consider that the job of a Philadelphia City Council Member is a full time assignment for the entir duration of a particular term of service. This means that people who make the commitment to serve--on one hand--gain unprecedented power to affect change in their community, but on the other hand, they sacrifice time they could have been spending building their careers in the private sector. Eight years away from one's private sector career makes for enourmous setbacks for sthat person professionally.

I worry that with two term limitations for service, the only people we will find who would be willing to serve are extreamly wealthy people or older retired people. And quite frankly, isnt that already the problem...?

But as I have said, I am not entirely opposed to the concept of term limits. I would say 4 or 5 consectutive terms should be the limit. That is enough time for a lawmaker to save for retirement and have ample time to serve his or her community.
The truth is that it takes over 4 years to fully understand how to navigate through the Bureaucracy anyway. In other words its takes a freshman Councilman pretty much the duration of his first term to understand how to move legislation effectively.

So with that being said, the real question is, how do we draft term limitation legislation that considers Councilmembers professional sacrifice, a council memebers need need for seniority to understand how to best do his or her job, while also making sure that they do not spend to much time in any one seat?

term limitations must address all of those concerns in order to be effective. Whats more is that if you cannot address those concerns you'll never get it through committee...

Any Thoughts?

we have an incumbent Mayor who is a bullying meglamaniac and is killing what could be a great city!
Its about him and his cronies and this city is in the toilet...
a try at term limits lost by a very narrow margin - time for a change...
But we need them!

As many of you know I am a candidate for state representative. Had Kathy Manderino not retired from the seat, she probably would have run unopposed. Instead the Green party has a candidate, the Republicans have a candidate, and by some counts 6 or 7 Democrats are running for the seat. Thousands of people across our district are having their doors knocked on and are engaging in short discussions on this election.
This is good for democracy. Term limits as a principle will benefit democracy. The length of the term is subject to debate. But we must allow each generation to govern itself.

The more I think about the term limits question, the more I conclude it just is a distraction. I'm no longer as opposed to them as I once was, largely because of the arguments made here. But I still don't think they will change the way we are governed in important ways, largely because I've seen no evidence they have ever done that anywhere.

And it seems to me that what we are doing in this debate is what Americans do so often--looking for an easy, structural fix to our politics when the problem is really our entire political culture. We are badly governed because we let ourselves be badly governed. And that means that if we want better government we have to organize ourselves to demand it. In other words, we need a movement for progressive governmnet.

But it is a lot easier to say that than to create it. But it is not impossible.

I've been part of an effort to build such a movement in Philadlephia. We've made only a little progress. I've been part of effort to create a movement for health care reform in the United States and we've done much better.

When the time is ripe, movements grow and become successful. But it takes patient organizing, skill and resources to build the organizational infrastructure that can take advantage of such a moment.

Rather than worrying about term limits, we should be thinking about how to build that infrastructure.

but I think they can help as part of a broader package to deal with the overarching power of money in politics. Citizens' United just highlighted the extraordinary power that concentrated wealth is now playing in our politics. It has to be countered through an effective campaign reform regime that has as its centerpiece, public financing. But to encourage new and insurgent campaigns the benefits of entrenched incumbency should also be dealt with. I think there's usefulness to experience and know-how, so I don't think term limits should be extraordinarily short. Three terms for Council members is probably about right.

But again, the key reform, without which nothing else will accomplish much, is creating a robust system of public financing. Of course, we'll never accomplish that, certainly in Philly, without a powerful progressive movement, so I do agree with you Marc, that we have an absolute need to build that movement.

unless you think Philadelphia runs just fine on the patronage system.

It's literally part of the difference between functioning cities (such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix) and non-functioning cities like Detroit and Baltimore.

Look, I'm philosophically opposed to limiting democracy, which is why I've always opposed term limits...BUT I'm evolved enough to investigate whether my personal philosophy works out in the real world.

Upon investigation, I found that functioning large cities term limit their City Councils to avoid the mire of non-competitive elections and the status quo.

In practice, it turns out, non-competitive elections limit democracy in big city governments more than do term limits.

It's just too easy for councilpeople to use the patronage system to insure non-competitive elections. Non-competitive elections lead to long, long leisurely legislative careers of decades in City government. Such legislators become adverse to change, since the system and the status quo treats them so well.

The patronage system and non-competitive elections make people cynical about government. Cynicism kills political participation and social movements.

At certain points, reform is necessary to restore people's faith and interest in governments.

Philly, it seems to me, is at such a point.

***

In a larger sense, Marc, I think you're off in your assessment of the way political movements work, if you're allowing your purview to include different kinds of governments, such as national, state, and municipal.

The key is to think of governments, and the social movements that participate in them and change them, as an ongoing (unlike a human life, never-ending) process, and not acting like a narrative with a beginning, middle, and ending. The thing about government -- and power in general -- is that while there are climaxes (such as getting legislation passed), there aren't really endings, except in connection with individual people and careers.

Movements happen when problems are identified, and people are pissed off enough, or inspired enough, to do something about them.

People in social movements get in trouble when they try to orchestrate movements in the way you're suggesting ("rather than worrying about term limits we should be thinking about building..infrastructure").

People will -- and need to -- work on the movements that inspire them and seize moments and change things when opportunities occur, not according to some longterm master plan (strict Marxists found out the hard way that you can't accurately predict longterm how EVERYTHING will play out).

Longterm plans aren't the problem.

The problem is telling inspired people to NOT work on an issue because of a longterm plan, especially when an opportunity occurs (such Councilmen Goode and Green's bill).

On a purely practical level, people can work on getting term limits in City government AND other issues such as health care with a public option in national government.

Plus, issues that get people involved and inspired build infrastructure all by themselves.

Indeed, a more participatory City government would be a great asset to building a progressive infrastructure in Philly. More people would run. More people would get elected. More people would feel empowered and inspired enough to participate in their community.

The end result would be a more activist-friendly Philly.

No one told the LGBT community that the longterm political narrative of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s was reactionary and conservative, so they shouldn't expect to make political gains during those years. Instead they kept working, making gains despite overall political trends, and so the first legal gay marriages happened while George W. Bush was president.

You can't orchestrate social movements in the way you're suggesting, Marc, and that's probably a good thing.

Coucilmen Goode and Green are pitching their term limit bill now, and I say go for it.

Unless it's been changed:

Except as Council may otherwise ordain from time to time, a councilman shall not be eligible for election for more than three successive terms, provided that a councilman who was elected to a four-year term in 2011 shall not be eligible for more than one succeeding four-year term.

"Not more than one succeeding term if elected in 2011" kicks in at the 2015 elections, meaning members couldn't run nine years from now.

Would that be a big change?

Let's put it this way: nine years ago, thirteen of the seventeen current members were on Council.

A majority (of all current Councilmembers) was there nine years before that.

If we pass the Goode-Green bill, in nine years we will have a completely different Council.

If Councilmen Goode and Green are offering an opportunity to pass term limits now, we should help them. Other cities thrive with them. More people will run for City government with them. More people will be elected. More people will feel empowered.

Philly will have a more active democracy, and Philly will be a better place for activism at the municipal level.

If we want public financing now (we do), and the current City Council is unwilling to pass it, term limits can get us a new Council in nine years.

Better yet, let's try to get a new Council sooner.