City leaders defend elected officials’ term limits
Honolulu Charter Commission leaders say there’s a legitimate argument for allowing the mayor and City Council members to serve up to three consecutive four-year terms instead of the current two terms.
Charter Commission Chairman David Rae and commission member John Waihee, the former governor, told a gathering of Honolulu Star-Advertiser editors and reporters last week that it takes time for elected officials to come up to speed with their jobs, and that eight years may not be enough time for more intricate plans and projects to be completed.
Two-term limits have been around for decades, Rae said. “Maybe with the (issues) of today like homelessness and rail and things like that, a steadier hand might be appropriate.”
But if voters don’t like what they’re seeing, “every four years, you still have the chance to change,” he said.
If Honolulu voters approve Charter Amendment No. 15, someone now in office would be able to serve a third term. Council Chairman Ernie Martin, who is now midway through his second consecutive term, would be eligible to run for a third term in 2018. Mayor Kirk Caldwell, if he wins re-election next month, would be eligible for a third term in 2020.
Caldwell, in an interview, told the Star-Advertiser that he opposes the charter amendment. Asked if he would run for a third consecutive term in four years if he wins re-election next month, the mayor said he is focused on this re-election campaign and that 2020 is too far away for him to think about.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with breaking news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Waihee, who termed out after two four-year terms as governor, said he personally doesn’t believe in term limits for any elected legislative offices like city councils and state legislatures.
Capping City Council terms at three consecutive four-year terms, as proposed in the amendment, was a compromise to satisfy those who feel Council members and mayors should have the same term limits, he said.
“For me, the responsibility for the type of government you have is dependent on the voters,” Waihee said. “I find the argument for term limits a little elitist … in the sense that there are people who don’t like certain (elected officials) and they think that the rest of the public is too dumb to see why they don’t like them.”
Rae agreed. “I believe that people have the right, the absolute right, to elect whomever they want in the legislative capacity,” he said.
Waihee said that in the California State Assembly, the number of years an elected official can serve in one office is so short that politicians are constantly “changing seats” or “looking for jobs as soon as they’re elected.”
He added: “You talk about lobbyists being able to control the Legislature. …”
To some extent, office-swapping is already happening on Oahu, where city and state lawmakers are jumping between Council and legislative seats because of the two-term limit at the Council level, Waihee said.
Five of the current nine Council members have held office in the state Legislature — Carol Fukunaga, Ann Kobayashi, Joey Manahan, Ron Menor and Kymberly Pine. Several state lawmakers — Sens. Donovan Dela Cruz, Breene Harimoto and Donna Mercado Kim, and Rep. Romy Cachola — were formerly on the Honolulu Council.
But Waihee and Rae both said there should be limits placed on those elected to executive offices like governor and mayor because people in such positions may otherwise be able to gain too much power in office.
“Three terms seems to be when people maximize their effectiveness,” Waihee said. “After that, there is maybe a tendency for people to get lazy (and) tired.”
While there are currently two-term limits on the mayor and Council members, the elected Honolulu prosecutor can serve an unlimited number of terms. The amendment would impose a three-term limit on the prosecutor’s office as well.
The initial proposal that led to Charter Amendment No. 15, submitted by commission member Paul Oshiro, included imposing a limit of six two-year terms for members of Oahu’s neighborhood boards. But that part of the proposal was dropped after a string of neighborhood board members said the city already has a difficult enough time finding people to fill the all-voluntary seats on their boards. Opponents also argued that neighborhood boards are advisory in nature.
While there was ample testimony on why there should not be term limits on board members, there was scant opposition to the three-consecutive-term section of the proposal.
Downtown resident Lynne Matusow submitted testimony against three-term limits for mayors and Council members, arguing that no other Hawaii county allows 12 years. Matusow said that because the prosecutor’s position requires unique qualifications, she was opposed to placing a limit on the terms for that seat.
33 responses to “City leaders defend elected officials’ term limits”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
GTFOWFBS. Vote out all these crooks.
“8 years is not enough time to get “up to speed” is the utter shibai Charter Commission Chairman David Rae and commission member John Waihee would have us believe. What they are really admitting is some elected bureaucrats are so utterly incompetent it would take 12 year for them to learn their job. Really? 8 years good enough for the President, good enough for everyone else.
Lets be totally honest. What we have are self serving bureaucrats with only one priority, taking care of #1 than serving the people. Elected bureaucrats are exactly like baby diapers. Full of it, must be changed often.
If longer term limits does pass, we must change the pension laws. Putting all elected bureaucrats under 401k plans to ensure they are not just hanging on, coasting to retirement. With a 401k, when they leave office, taxpayers no longer have to subsidize their retirement.
We absolutey can’t afford even a second kirk caldwell term. Rail = billions wasted
So so so so so TRUE, localguy!
Would have liked Caldwell in a two year term. Four years was more than enough. Just go away already.
This is one ammendment that should never have been proposed. No, no….no, no. If I had my way, one term is enough. They are supposed to be public servants, not gaining job entitlement. Any public servant that wants a longer term is probably someone that we should vote out automatically after the first term. I don’t buy this argument that they need more time to become effective. All Waihee did in his second term was spend money foolishly and give jobs to his friends.
Most of them should never have made it. They expand the size of our government enormously.
I like 1, 6 year term!
Exactly. Total loser in office. Waste of tax payer’s money. Didn’t have a clue how to be a professional and a leader.
These amendments were introduced and worded in such a sneaky manner that the goal was to confuse and overwhelm the apathetic citizens into giving them what they want
Totally agree, this should have never made it on the ballot. For Waihee to say it takes time to get up to speed is a total joke. Eight years and he was never close to being up to speed. He was one of the worst governor’s, from a surplus he took us to a huge deficit. Some in the democratic party is pushing for this, who is the one who suggested that this be on the ballot?
If they cannot do their jobs in the 2 terms they were elected for, then time to get someone in there who can, real simple. BUT, unfortunately, people keep voting them in, time after time. So, basically it’s the voters who are at fault.
These people want TOTAL CONTROL and we the voters need to say NO !!
The lazy and incompetent legislators need more time at the money trough. If it takes up to eight years to get a ” hang ” of their jobs then perhaps they should not be
in the job. If you and I took up to eight years to get a ” hang ” of our jobs , I don’t think that we would have the job very long. Needing more time is a bunch of hog wash
which is consistent with what most legislators say. Everyone that I know will vote NO to city Charter No. 15. I do not think that most of the legislators are crooks or dishonest,
I think that they are just incompetent and completely out of touch. One term is too many for most of these so called legislators.
Term limits are nothing more than Government telling you who you can and cannot vote for. There should be no term limits. There should be public funding of elections though which would result in much more competition and hence more turnover
And what are ‘no term limits”? The government is not telling us anything, the people are speaking!
In a perfect Utopia where citizens actually vote and are well informed.
Ain’t gonna happen here anytime soon. So…..
TERM LIMITS!!!
I agree. Publicly financed elections and no term limits.
Term limits should be mandatory! Without term limits you end up with what we presently have in Congress, gridlock, cronyism, and corruption. Politicians, lobbyists, and government officials get to cozy with each other over time.
The same can be said for our legislature.
Fully agree. 100 %
We have gridlock because the party of No has no ideas except tax cuts for the rich. They hated the fact that they lost to a black man and they will be even more cranky when they lose to a woman. Why anyone would support such a bankrupt party is beyond me. The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower has long ceased to exist.
8 years is not enough time to get “up to speed”? Then we have the wrong people in office! Auwe!
If they can’t do it in four, get another job!
No to extending term limits. Unless-maybe, these politicians are required to be more transparent and restricted on all forms of compensation they receive and they’re not allowed to receive any special interest campaign money. Yeah Right. That will never happen. No to extending term limits.
Just say and vote No to extending term limits from 8 to 12 yrs. Propose and vote yes to add term limits to those offices that not currently have (e.g. state legislators and city prosecutor).
Facebook went from nothing to one of the biggest companies in the world in 8 years. Apple went from two guys in a garage to an advanced technology company with worldwide respect in 8 years.
If these bozos can’t solve the problems of this little island in 8 years then they should be gone.
Vote NO, as often as you can.
Have some compassion…
Hawaii politicians are Special Needs kids…
This was a deal brokered to satisfy Caldwell. He could never beat Ige for Gov so he wants another 4 to destroy whats he hasnt already. Waihee is a big clown.
I guess they came up with this proposal because Hawaii’s government leaders cannot do things in a timely manner. Not only will they gain too much power while in office but also after they leave office. IMO they should be a law that prohibits government leaders from being lobbyists or contractors that deal with the government for 5 or 10 years after leaving office.
I doubt any local democrat believes in term limits, they like 30% of the population keeping them in office forever. It appears nothing will ever change until it must.
The public worker unions will eventually bankrupt the city and state with their influence over the corrupt local democratic party.Elected officials represent their interests, not ours.
David Rae is a “for rent” Government insider. he himself and does do much hard to the City via rail and his Campbell estate dealings. can believe his is even on the commission.
slow to get up to speed? proves inability to get the job done given the individuals skill level! if can, DO! if no can, DON’T! WORK SOMEPLACE ELSE! constituents NEED PEOPLE WHO CAN HIT THE GROUND RUNNING! sorry, this is not an on-the-job-training type position!!!! nor is it a part-time position! if one puts in the required time and has the proclivity to learn quickly at a high degree of effectivity – that’s whom i wil vote for. 3 terms is too long! get in, DO THE JOB, then get out!
This is the worst Charter Commission I have ever seen because the amendments selected mostly STINK and I will need to vote know. They are also made a mess of the whole election because oif the excessive number of questions. I hope voters don’t forget to vote for the candidates they support. Or the voters may give up and not vote at all.