Course of Cerritos at Issue in Ballot Question : 2-Term Limit Would Stir Winds of Change

There is one thing the two sides contesting Proposition H agree on:

If voters on Nov. 4 approve the measure, which prevents City Council members from serving more than two consecutive terms, it will forever change this city of 55,000.

How much depends on which side is speaking.

Proponents believe that the two-term limit will break the hold that a clique of well-financed incumbents have on City Hall. They say it will ensure a steady rotation of new council members who will bring new ideas and vitality to the job.

And, they argue, it will lessen the need to accept political contributions to get reelected from interests outside Cerritos.

Opponents, however, warn that passage of the measure will mark one of the darkest days in the city’s 30-year history. They say it will reduce the council to a collection of rookies groping to guide a city with an annual budget of $65 million, and rob residents of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

And, they argue, the proposition is really an attempt to bounce the current council from office.

Amendment to Charter

The two-term limit before the city’s 24,976 registered voters is in the form of an amendment to the City Charter.

The intent is simple: If favored by a majority of voters, council members can serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. However, they would be eligible to run again or serve by appointment after two years.

Of the 82 charter cities in California, Cerritos would become the 19th to adopt a two-term limit, according to the California League of Cities. Five of them are in Southern California: Arcadia, Cypress, Huntington Beach, Irvine and Seal Beach.

The charter change would be effective with the next municipal election, in April, 1988, meaning that Mayor Don Knabe and Councilman Daniel K. Wong would be the first incumbents forced to the political sidelines. Both are in the middle of their second terms, and both have expressed strong interest in seeking third terms.

Predictably, Knabe and Wong, along with two other council members, Diana S. Needham and Barry A. Rabbitt, have formed the nucleus of the opposition to Proposition H.

Pushing the proposition is a group of residents, local activists and a handful of council challengers who have been unable to win in recent years. Shortly after the April city elections, the group formed, and by mid-July its followers had walked the city’s 43 precincts, gathering nearly 2,800 signatures to qualify the two-term initiative for the ballot.

Civics Exercise

On one level, the campaign has resembled a civics exercise, with both sides talking in high-principled tones about voters’ rights and freedom of choice at the ballot box. Both camps quote founding father Thomas Jefferson in their ballot arguments, and both have argued long and hard about the power of incumbency in local elections.

On another, more basic level, opponents of the measure say it is a test of the current council’s policies--and popularity.

Rabbitt, who won reelection in April to a record fifth term, said the two-term limit is simply a recall effort in disguise because if it passes, four members of the current council will be removed from office within two years.

Rabbitt and others have come to call it the “Lame Duck Proposition.”

“Those backing this charter change want us out so they can have a better hope of getting elected themselves and controlling City Hall,” Rabbitt said. “It will be a very sad day if this measure passes. . . . It will threaten the positive and progressive direction of this city.”

Knabe said he believes that there are only two reasons anyone would propose a limit on terms.

“Either they are unhappy with those currently in office or they want to create their own situation to run,” the mayor said. “If that’s true, how can I not take this personally?”

Proponents of the initiative deny that their aim is to dump the current council.

The target, they say, is a system that gives incumbents a big advantage at election time. They contend that incumbents use their office to build name recognition and raise money to remain in power indefinitely at the expense of the “little guy” who wants to run but can’t muster the resources to win.

“There are a lot of people in Cerritos who are bright, educated and community-minded who want an opportunity to serve and deserve that chance,” said Councilwoman Ann B. Joynt, who knocked off two-term incumbent Alex Beanum to win election in April and is now the only member of the council backing Proposition H.

“But the ability of the incumbent to draw large financial support makes it, if not impossible, certainly very difficult for the average citizen to run and be successful,” she said. “I’m still $3,000 in the hole. . . . and unless you’re willing to assume that kind of debt, the average person just isn’t going to run. And that’s unfortunate.”

In a bit of political irony, Joynt herself has become an issue in the campaign.

Attempting to undercut the incumbency argument, opponents of the two-term limit point to Joynt as an example of a successful first-time candidate. “She proved you can win and beat incumbents if you campaign hard,” Needham said.

‘Had a Head Start’

But Joynt said she is hardly an “average candidate, with an average background.” She taught high school civics for a decade in Cerritos and served on the Planning Commission for nearly two terms before deciding to run for council.

“The bottom line is I had a head start. I had a lot of contacts, and it still took a strong effort to win,” said Joynt, who finished second in a field of 15 candidates. Needham was the top vote-getter, with Rabbitt finishing third in the race for three seats.

As it was in the April city elections, campaign contributions have become an issue in this election.

Before the two-term limit qualified for the ballot, only Wong said he would personally contribute to defeat the measure. But the prospect of being bumped from office if the proposition passes prompted all four council members in recent weeks to dig into their campaign coffers and loan a total of $3,400 to the fight. Moreover, campaign contribution records show the council received another $7,000 from a pair of outside developers and a large health care facility.

Such contributions in recent years have grown in number and amount as campaign spending in city elections has escalated dramatically.

To win, Knabe said, it will take $25,000, much of it going to a Norwalk political consultant and for a series of flyers that will be mailed to residents before Election Day. The council members said they had no choice but to spend big.

“We wish we didn’t have to spend a cent,” Wong said. “But to preserve my individual and constitutional right to run again, and the rights of all Cerritos residents to vote for the candidate of their own choosing, we had to do it.”

By contrast, the measure’s proponents decided from the outset not to get into a spending war.

So far they have tallied only $200 in expenses, and except for a hand-delivered flyer reminding residents to vote, they are relying almost entirely on telephones and word of mouth to persuade voters. They also say many of those who signed petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot are still behind the idea.

“Why should we spend more?” said Leora Einson, a leading proponent of the measure. “It is a simple issue, and the support for this has been overwhelming. So we didn’t feel it was necessary to match them dollar for dollar.”

The proponents contend that as of Oct. 20, their informal polls, based on telephone calls and precinct walks, show residents favoring the measure by a 4-to-1 margin. But that was before the opposition’s first mailer reached many of the city’s 15,150 households late last week.

Those mailers are expected to draw heavily on a telephone survey of about 350 residents in late September. Conducted by a Long Beach research firm, Needham said, the survey attempted to find whether residents were satisfied with the direction of the city and the current council. She said 92% of those questioned responded favorably, “a clear signal that people in this city are happy. . . . So if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Wong agreed and added that it is “absurd to think” that someone who serves more than two terms runs out of ideas.

“They talk about new candidates bringing fresh ideas to the council,” he said. “What are we? Vegetables?”

Opponents also warn that passage of the two-term limit could lead to instability at City Hall. But Cris Fuentes, one of the proposition’s sponsors and leading spokesman, disagrees.

“To take credit for the stability of the city is pretty egotistical,” he said. “We have a strong city staff and a strong city manager, so to insinuate that the city would somehow fall apart if those four were not a part of city government is malarkey.”

The proponents deny that the two-term limit is really an attempt to set themselves up in power. Although a number of former candidates are backing the measure, Fuentes said the group’s primary motive is to take “control of city government away from development interests.”

Margurette Nicholson, a local activist who has run unsuccessfully for the council three times since the mid-1970s, said her only interest in pushing the measure is “good government.”

“I’m not going to be here forever to do the digging (legwork and research) to make sure our elected officials really represent us,” she said. “So I want to get some candidates who will do their own digging and prove that they are worthy of serving the people of Cerritos.”