Sunday, June 12, 2005
It's about public service, not personal interest
Oviedo voters will hopefully give a lot of thought and attention to some proposed changes in the city charter that were advanced last week by the Oviedo City Council.
The biggest change offered is one that was previously defeated when put to the voters in 2003. It calls for giving city council members four-year terms rather than two-year terms, and the reasoning behind it signifies a large portion of what is wrong with politics in modern-day America.
Simply put, city council members see the two-year terms as being too onerous in terms of campaigning for reelection. As explained by first-term member Jim Greer, elected officials spend too much time worrying about campaigning for reelection during their term in office, allowing less opportunity for them to tend to the public's interest.
Basically Greer is saying is the voters need to ensure officials have four years in office so they can actually focus on why they were voted there in the first place, rather than focusing on their personal desire to stay in office, malfeasance aside.
It's an interesting proposal: give council members four years in office so they can actually perform their duties during two of those years.
Obviously, Oviedo voters should be wary, given their council's history, of extending terms of office by any measure. It is the Oviedo council's contentious history that led to the measure being defeated two years ago and that will hopefully lead to its being voted down this time as well.
Greer has another interesting solution to voters' potential concern over losing control of their council if they grant the extended terms. Greer says along with the four-year terms, voters should have the option of also approving term limits of three successive terms for council members.
To Greer's way of thinking, a limit of 12 years of service for a council member is an adequate tradeoff for voters giving up their right to choose their officials every two years. Given Oviedo's history, any council member capable of winning three successive four-year terms, and 12 years in office, would clearly have no trouble winning six two-year terms. Thus, neither of the changes is necessary.
Oviedo residents will have a chance to address the changes mentioned above and others in a series of public hearings leading up to a September 6 vote at the polls.
Councilman Greer and others need to remember they are elected to office, for whatever term, to conduct the public's business and serve the public's interest, rather than their own. If a two-year term causes a council member to be unresponsive to those obligations of office simply because they are too preoccupied with reelection, that is all the more reason to get them out after two years. It is certainly not a proper reason to extend their terms to four years.
Hopefully, when this matter comes before the Oviedo voters on September 6, they will remind Greer and the other council members that the proper focus of council members is to perform their duties diligently and responsibly from the moment of their election till the end of their term in office, regardless of its length.
Anything less is a shortcoming not of the electoral process but of the person holding the office. The focus is supposed to be on public service, not private interest, and voters need to remind their officials of that whenever necessary.
The biggest change offered is one that was previously defeated when put to the voters in 2003. It calls for giving city council members four-year terms rather than two-year terms, and the reasoning behind it signifies a large portion of what is wrong with politics in modern-day America.
Simply put, city council members see the two-year terms as being too onerous in terms of campaigning for reelection. As explained by first-term member Jim Greer, elected officials spend too much time worrying about campaigning for reelection during their term in office, allowing less opportunity for them to tend to the public's interest.
Basically Greer is saying is the voters need to ensure officials have four years in office so they can actually focus on why they were voted there in the first place, rather than focusing on their personal desire to stay in office, malfeasance aside.
It's an interesting proposal: give council members four years in office so they can actually perform their duties during two of those years.
Obviously, Oviedo voters should be wary, given their council's history, of extending terms of office by any measure. It is the Oviedo council's contentious history that led to the measure being defeated two years ago and that will hopefully lead to its being voted down this time as well.
Greer has another interesting solution to voters' potential concern over losing control of their council if they grant the extended terms. Greer says along with the four-year terms, voters should have the option of also approving term limits of three successive terms for council members.
To Greer's way of thinking, a limit of 12 years of service for a council member is an adequate tradeoff for voters giving up their right to choose their officials every two years. Given Oviedo's history, any council member capable of winning three successive four-year terms, and 12 years in office, would clearly have no trouble winning six two-year terms. Thus, neither of the changes is necessary.
Oviedo residents will have a chance to address the changes mentioned above and others in a series of public hearings leading up to a September 6 vote at the polls.
Councilman Greer and others need to remember they are elected to office, for whatever term, to conduct the public's business and serve the public's interest, rather than their own. If a two-year term causes a council member to be unresponsive to those obligations of office simply because they are too preoccupied with reelection, that is all the more reason to get them out after two years. It is certainly not a proper reason to extend their terms to four years.
Hopefully, when this matter comes before the Oviedo voters on September 6, they will remind Greer and the other council members that the proper focus of council members is to perform their duties diligently and responsibly from the moment of their election till the end of their term in office, regardless of its length.
Anything less is a shortcoming not of the electoral process but of the person holding the office. The focus is supposed to be on public service, not private interest, and voters need to remind their officials of that whenever necessary.
hy