We've had a series of posts on public safety, and there will be many more.  But Make Oakland Better Now! also has an active committee looking at Transparency, Accountability and Budget matters -- the "TAB" Committee.  Today Nathan Stalnaker raises the question:  Should city council members be subject to term limits?  Use the comment sections to tell us what you think.

               For those who want to look more deeply at this, there have been quite a number of studies on the effects of term limits, most dealing with state legislatures.  The most recent (which also has references to earlier studies) is Running Unopposed: Assessing the Impact of Term Limits on Competition in Florida and Maine by Eric Prier and Kevin Wagner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  


              Oakland, like many public entities in California,  suffers from gridlock and a crisis budgetary situation that just won’t quit.  In the dire situation that 2008 presented to Oakland, there were five council seats up for grabs.  All but one of those seats were won by the person who was keeping it warm for the previous four, if not sixteen, years.  To someone new to Oakland, it begins to seem that to become an elected official in Oakland, you already have to be or have been an elected official.  A Catch-22?  Sure.  Will an initiative calling for term limits for City Council stir things up sufficiently to get fresh policy thinking in City Hall? 

            Incumbents have a natural political advantage.  They have name recognition; money; paid staff that cement a positive image of the official with their constituents; and long-standing relationships with community leaders that value the access to power.

            The four incumbent council members who ran in 2008 -- De La Fuente (District 5) , Nadel (3) , Brunner (1), and Reid (7)  -- are all serving their fourth consecutive terms.  That amounts to 16 consecutive years of elected rule by half  the council.  Or, it’s  56 years of combined experience in local government.  And what has been the quantifiable windfall to Oakland from their experience?  

            Council members Quan (Dist 4) and Brooks (6)  are serving their second terms.  In 2006, CM Quan ran unopposed, the ultimate in incumbency advantages.  

            Only two members of the council are serving first terms.  While Council member Kernighan (2)  is in her first full term, she has been elected twice, having won the battle to fill former CM Wan’s seat when he stepped down.  And there  is a sense of continuity in the power structure of District 2 given her background as Wan’s Chief of Staff Wan and Legislative Aide for John Russo, who also held the seat. Only at-large CM Kaplan is truly in a first term.  

            The Mayor’s office has a two-term, eight year limit.  The City Council should have the same.  Eight years is enough time to get a bachelor’s degree, if not two, or even a Ph.D in atomic physics.  It is, therefore, enough time to learn the intricacies of local issues and governance.  Anything beyond that time limit turns quickly into complacency and a predilection for the status quo.  If someone shows promise on the Oakland City Council, then after eight years he or she can move on to another one of the many, many elected offices in the state of California. If they do not show promise, then they shouldn’t be able to enjoy the perks of being an incumbent indefinitely.

Posted by Nathan Stalnaker, Make Oakland Better Now! TAB Committee