CRAC Review of Term Limits
A two-term limit was enacted for Councilmembers, Mayor Commissioners, and School Board members on a 1975 Ballot measure. The offices of Mayor, Councilmember, Commissioner, and School Board member were treated separately from each other regarding the term limit.
Offices of the City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk were excepted from the ballot measure.
Since 1975 there have been two ballot measures presented to the voters to modify the twoterm limitation. The first attempt was in 1997 and would have removed the two-term limit and replaced it with a "sit out” period of 3 years. An elected official could serve two consecutive terms but then would have to sit out for at least 3 years before becoming eligible to run for the same position. Voters rejected the change.
Again in 2014 a ballot measure was placed on the ballot that would change the two-term limit to three terms. It was turned down by the voters by a 2 to 1 margin.
The Committee first discussed the Manhattan Beach model, where after serving two consecutive terms an officeholder is required to sit out for at least two years before running for office again. During the discussion it was brought up that Manhattan Beach has Councilmembers elected at large with elections every two years for Councilmember positions.
The Committee felt that was an important distinction from Redondo Beach where a Councilmember would have to sit out a minimum of 4 years before being able to run again. In the Manhattan Beach model, it also seemed that much of the Council was dominated by the same people for decades thus negating the intent of term limits. A straw poll was taken of the Committee to determine if there was any interest in recommending this model and there was none.
The Committee discussed the pros and cons of term limits in general. The majority of the Committee favored term limits in some form. Other variations of term limits were discussed, including the California legislature model where a total number of years in office is limited. For Redondo Beach it would be combining the terms of serving as either a Councilmember or Mayor. Discussed was limiting the total to 3 terms . The thought was that it would achieve the goal of extending term limits while at the same time reducing the possible 4 terms that can be served now. It was decided to keep any proposed changes as simple as possible and simply consider extending the two-term limit to three terms.
Some of the arguments in favor of term limits are.
Bringing fresh, new ideas to the governing body.
Keeping elected officials responsive to the needs of the public.
Eliminates the tremendous advantage that incumbents have in an election.
Officials that “term out” have many other opportunities to serve the public.
The talent pool is deep in Redondo Beach of qualified, interested citizens.
Some of the arguments against term limits are.
It may prevent voters from choosing who they most desire to represent them. This would go against democratic ideals. Poor performing leaders should be removed at the ballot box.
Term limits shift power to non-elected staff members since staff often have many more years of experience.
Term limits remove experienced councilmembers that have just begun to be effective.
Results in more frequent changes in City priorities resulting in wasted resources.
Complex projects often take more than 8 years to complete and changing leadership in the middle of a project can result in delays and changes.
The revolving door of elected officials makes representation in outside city organizations less effective.
Rank choice voting may itself remove some of the advantages that incumbents now have.
The Committee recommendation passed by a 4 – 3 vote that the Charter be changed from the current two terms for the Mayor and City Council to three terms and that it will not affect those people in office and who have previously been in office. A term is defined as four years. At a subsequent meeting the City Attorney opined that it might be subject to a legal challenge if the measure excluded a set group of people, as would be the case if current and past officeholders were excluded from seeking a 3rd term. An alternative was suggested that the proposed change would not become effective until some time in the future. The School Board was specifically excluded from consideration in the proposal because of their stated desire to not have any changes made to the Charter that would involve the School Board.