Town term limit change needed
READER INPUT
It is disturbing to me that Mayor Walt Scherer would have us believe that hatred is the reason promoters of term limits would put forth the issue to voters. He seems to fear it so much that he tries to intimidate voters by citing the expense of an election. Now Miguel Ucovich tries to convince us that we don’t need term limits because only a few cities have it. Is this all self-serving or what? Signing a petition cannot restrict our right to vote. The petition allows voters to decide whether we want a change in our town government. The petition first allows citizen input. If enough signatures are collected, the petition goes before the town council. The council can accept the petition or refuse it. If they accept the petition, term limits go into effect. If they reject it, the issue goes before the voters in an election. As their current terms expire, Mayor Scherer and Rhonda Morillas will each have served 20 years and Miguel Ucovich 12 years. We’ve all seen the use of political power and control at its worst, whether it’s at the local, state or national level. Change is needed. Joyce Kelley Loomis
|
Change Location:
|
Thank you Joyce Kelley for being able to see all of this for what it really is regardless of the letters that some Councilmembers may write, or the way the the Loomis News slants their articles. This is not a grudge match between a prior councilman not getting re-elected; it's not about expenses; it's not able how many cities have term limits; it's truly about having term limits now and in the future.
At the Town Council meeting in October the Council decided to vote to approve a Term Limits Initiative in November 2010, although our committee is circulating a petition to see if we can place it on the ballot in June 2010. That means Loomis registered voters will be required to vote for Term Limits twice in the same year, for it be approved. See it for what it really is.
Change for the sake of change may not be a good thing. What specifically have they done to merit not letting them run again.
I think keeping developers at bay and maintaining the rural lifestyle has been outstanding, we certainly don't want to become another Rocklin or Lincoln.
If there has been wrongdoing, please spell it out, present facts not just time served.
Time served is the bottom line. No one should stay in office for that long, ever.
As long as the residents are satisfied with the results why not? Overall I think that past and present tow councils in Loomis have done an outstanding job. Perfect? No, but who is perfect.
BTW, I disagreed with the Concil's position on the hunt so it's not that I'm a super fan of them or related or anything like that. I just think that having kept developers at bay and showing fiscal restraint is good enough to thank them and pat them on the back for a job well done. Unlike other cities and even the County, Loomis is in good financial shape.
We see it for what it is only too clearly. If term limits really was the main purpose of this initiative, the Term Limits folks would let it take its course in November's election. But now it's obvious they really only want two very popular, capable, and effective politicians, the people's choices, removed. Otherwise, they would say, "OK, go ahead with the Term Limits vote in November."
It is so obvious that this is a vengeance initiative. The Town Council is trying to save the town money, but the Term Limits people are obsessed with getting rid of two officials, they are trying to do it via the back door. Since they cannot oust two good officials by running good candidates (without violating the FPPC rules anyway), they cannot/will not even concede to having their term limits vote in November.