Voters to decide term limits
Loomis council votes to put issue on November ballot
Voters may get two chances to decide Loomis council term limits in 2010 – in the June primary and November general elections. The Loomis Town Council voted 3 to 1 to place the term limit issue on the November ballot, while a committee comprised of former mayor Tom Millward and two Loomis residents have gathered signatures and plan to place it on the June primary ballot. According to Dave Larsen, town attorney, it’s all perfectly legal to have the exact same initiative on the ballot at two different elections. He said the outcome of the November election would “trump” whatever is decided in June. Mayor Walt Scherer asked that the initiative being presented by Millward appear on the general election ballot. Scherer and councilmen Miguel Ucovich and Gary Liss voted in favor, councilman Russ Kelley voted against, and councilwoman Rhonda Morillas was absent. “It’s important that the public vote on it at a general election when most people are voting and it’s the most cost effective,” Scherer said. Millward said in a prepared statement given at the council meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 13, that his committee “can’t rely on the council to follow through on this agenda item … you could still repeal it before November 2010, making term limits a dead issue.” The ballot summary prepared by the term limits committee states that “each Town Council member will be limited to two consecutive four-year terms in office” and won’t be eligible to serve again for eight years. The document states that the rules, if approved, would go into effect Aug. 1, 2010. According to Town Clerk Crickett Strock, Scherer and Morillas are both serving their fifth terms on the council, although Scherer took a 4-year break in the 1990s. Ucovich is serving his third term. The council seats of Scherer, Ucovich and Kelley are up for election in November 2010. Millward served one 4-year term on the council, during which he was mayor for one year. He lost in his re-election bid to Gary Liss last November. Town attorney Larsen said the effective date of Aug. 1 would mean that if Ucovich and Scherer run for re-election in 2010 and if the term limits proposal passes during that election, they would not be able to serve, even if they are re-elected. But if term limits passes in June, and fails in November their re-election would stand. Ryan Ronco, assistant registrar for Placer County, said voter turnout is higher in general elections. He said that countywide 70 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the November general elections versus 60 percent in the June primaries. Ronco also said that since the town is already required to purchase ballots for the November election, the additional cost to add the term limit initiative would be one cent per ballot or $40.39 for 4,039 registered voters in the Town of Loomis. “The Board of Supervisors encourages towns and cities to put their items on the even-year November ballots,” he said. The town’s cost for the June election, he explained, would range from 88 cents to $6 per ballot, or approximately $3,600 to $24,000. Kelley commented at the meeting, “As elected officials you tend to get too territorial, too opinionated, you find ways to justify what you do. You can accomplish what you want in two terms.” Ucovich declared, “Every four years people can vote to keep someone there or not keep someone there.” Millward said that his committee has “more than enough” signatures and plans to go forward with the initiative and have it placed on the June 8 ballot. It looks like the voters will get to decide – twice.
|
Change Location:
|
How about Rhonda Morillas.She has been on there the longest
Rhonda was re-elected again last year. Her seat will come up for re-election in 2012. According to the Loomis News, she's currently serving in her 5th term.
I don't care how good a council person is I don't believe that anyone should stay in office that long. We don't let our President stay in office forever, why should it be any different for our Town Council people?
The opponents say that we don't need Term Limits because if you don't want somebody in office any longer you can just vote them out, but the Council people who have been in office forever have an unfair advantage over anyone new coming into even running for office. They have name recognition and a huge influence in the community. Their names and photos have been in the media only zillion + 1 times, so people already know who they are. A new person already has an uphill battle right off of the bat. And with our Council people who have been office for DECADES, who don't ever want to give up their seats for anybody, and well good luck to anyone who would oppose them.
People need to take turns, period.
Term Limits also are needed for Loomis Fire Board and Loomis School Board, South Placer MUD. Fresh ideas, fresh blood are needed.
It is quite clear that this has nothing to do with term limits but rather is an effort to make sure Shearer and Ucovich are not allowed to run again.
All the remarks are against them and not geared toward the value of term limits or the lack of value. If only 10% of cities have term limits it must not be that great of an idea.
To quote our Governor, term limits are "crazy."
The Loomis Town Council members are not "career" politicians--they don't make big bucks. There is no incentive to run for office except to do what is right for Loomis and its citizens.
So far, the apparent "targets" (of this ill-conceived and vindictive campaign) have done a wonderful job in protecting Loomis from being gobbled up by neighboring, developer-controlled cities, or becoming wall-to-wall roads and rooftops. Why take away my right to vote for candidates who can/do the best job? If passed, essentially, that's what this term limits campaign is going to do.
Loomis is a small enough town that a good candidate should be able to run on his/her own merits and integrity. But no, the term limits campaign people do NOT want to give democracy a chance. Term Limits takes away my freedom to vote for the very candidates we believe are doing a good job and will continue to do so.
If you don't like a candidate, run an honest campaign and vote your candidate in, but don't throw out the democratic process--that's what Term Limits does.
I guess the people who are posting on this story have not read the Ballot Summary for this Petition:
BALLOT SUMMARY
If this measure is approved, each Town Council member will be limited to two consecutive four year terms in office, after which, he or she will not be eligible to serve as a Town Council member for eight years.
If this measure is approved, it will apply to Town Council members tht have served two consecutive four year terms as of August 1, 2010. However, each Town Council
Two terms on, two terms off, then you are eligible to run again. It is unlike the presidential term limits, where if you are in office for two terms, you can't ever be elected again.
This Petition is not geared toward anyone in office, it's only geared toward the fact that we don't want anyone to hold an elected office in Loomis forever. We don't canre how good of a job they have done. Getting re-elected should not be considered a payback or a reward for doing a good job. If people think that they've done a good job, why don't they moved up to other elected offices (i.e., County Supervisor, Assemblyperson, etc.)?
Dear Firewatcher, I am the newest director on the SP Mud board. I have to tell you, in my opinion, SPMUD is one of the finest organizations that exist. If you were to attend the meetings once and awhile, you might learn something. The other board members are COMMITTED to making it the best Municipal District around. Yes fresh blood is fine, but you have people that have served the district better than you can imagine. The prolem with your comments: you lump everyone together. You don't take the time to really know what you are talking about. You then diminish your credibility.
Mr. Markey- With all due respect, you should not be blowing your horn too much as a SPM board member, but I do hope you do more for SPM board than you did for the Loomis Fire Board. You fsiled to produce any positive results at the fire board and lacked support for the fire administration. If you would have stepped up, Loomis Fire could have been the finest organization that exists ( too quote you).
So bouncing from board to board does nothing for the improvement of community. A bad board member is a bad board member.
It time for a change.... Loomis 'good ol boy' politics need to change for the better whether at the fire board, town council, sewer board.
TL for L just shot him/herself in the foot. For a terrific show diminished brainpower, read the last paragraph: "We don't care how good a job they have done." REALLY, well most everyone else DOES care about elected officials doing a good job.
TL for L then says, "Getting re-elected should not be considered a payback or a reward for doing a good job." Are these people (or this one bumpkin for real? You bet I vote to reward and re-elect for doing a good job.
It's obvious that TL for L sees elected office as a stepping stone to "move up" and not a dedication to serve the public. TL for L wants to cycle inept wannabe politicians through the Town's turnstile. Evidently, TL for L see politics as mere stepping stones Huh? That's exactly why we do NOT want term limits. We want people who will dedicate their good skills and judgments to the Town. We don't need the Sara Palin quitters or "move uppers" any more than we need a hole in the head.
Thank goodness TL for L does not have the common sense to hide their ulterior motives. If ever we need to squash term limits, it's now!
Dear firewatcher, fair enough. However, to critisize me for leaving the board does nothing to explain what was going on. You sound like an astute person. Why don't you tell me who who are and why you are attacking me so I can defend myself? If you are going to make these kind of comments, you need to I.D. yourself. Otherwise, who cares what you've got to say.