Inglewood Group Wants to Limit Terms in Office

A group of Inglewood residents, citing the potential for “stagnation and abuse of power” among incumbent officeholders, has begun preparing a ballot initiative for next June that would limit all of Inglewood’s elected officials to three consecutive terms in office.

Even before the petitions have hit the streets, however, strong opposition is developing. Critics call the measure a political move by a small group of residents to steer their candidates into office and wrest control of city government from the incumbents and the voters.

Organizer Curren D. Price Jr. said the newly formed Inglewood Citizens for Reasonable Reform wants a limit on government service to keep elected officials accountable to the voters and to lessen the stronghold incumbents have on their seats, whether they are effective or not.

“It’s not directed at anyone personally,” said Price, a community activist. “It’s a forward-looking measure. In no way should it be looked at as an attack or a swipe on anyone currently in office.”

But third-term Councilman Anthony Scardenzan, who would be prevented from seeking reelection if the measure goes into effect, called the initiative crazy.

“The community is going to be deprived of the opportunity to select the elected official they want,” Scardenzan said. “A mayor will be out after three terms even if he walks on water. The community should decide that. Not Curren Price.”

The measure would allow Mayor Edward Vincent, first elected in 1982, only one more four-year term in office. Scardenzan and Councilman Daniel Tabor, who were both first elected in 1981, could not run for reelection when their third terms end in 1993. City Clerk Hermanita Harris, first elected in 1985, and City Treasurer Wanda Brown, first elected in 1987, would have two more terms. Council member Jose Fernandez, elected to complete an unexpired term in June, could continue as a councilman for two or three four-year terms depending on whether his unexpired term is counted as a full term.

The proposed City Charter amendment would permit a maximum of three consecutive terms in a single position and would permit those who have reached the limit to run for another office or sit out four years before running again.

“Twelve years is a reasonable span of time for a person to make a contribution,” said Price. “At that point, they should step aside, move up or move over.”

Scardenzan charged that Price, a supporter of Tabor, is proposing the measure as a political ploy to ease competition for future city races. Once Vincent is out of the way as mayor, Tabor would have a better chance of winning that position, Scardenzan said.

Not a Scheme

But Price insisted that the initiative is a step toward more responsible government and not a scheme to take over any politician’s seat. Tabor said he has nothing to do with the ballot initiative.

To get the proposed City Charter amendment on the ballot next June, the group must collect signatures from 15% of the city’s registered voters, an estimated 7,500 names.

The measure’s proponents submitted a notice of intent to circulate the petition last Friday. City Atty. Howard Rosten must now prepare an impartial ballot summary and title in the coming weeks. After a newspaper notice of the measure is published, the petitions can begin circulating.

Price said the initiative must gain widespread grass-roots support because it is not in elected officials’ interest to endorse it. He said the measure is already supported by many neighborhood and civic leaders, small-business owners and former elected officials.

“It’s very doubtful that an elected official would voluntarily agree to place a limitation on their terms,” Price said. He added later, “We hope that enlightened, positive-minded government officials would support this.”

Inglewood’s 100-member United Democratic Club is expected to support the initiative at its meeting Thursday, the group’s vice president, Terry Coleman, said. Citing big-city machine politics, such as the long-term administration of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Coleman said: “I don’t want to see a demagogue or a dictator” in Inglewood.

Neither For Nor Against

Tabor said his position is somewhere between the measure’s critics and supporters.

“At the present, I don’t have a for-or-against stance on it,” said Tabor, who was narrowly elected to his third four-year term in June. “I don’t see it as necessary, but I don’t see it being an evil thing, either.”

Tabor said the limits would “keep different personalities and different perspectives” in leadership positions, but, he added, “I don’t think continuous turnover of elected officials is necessarily good. . . .

“The thing that troubles me the most is that it takes a while to learn how the process works before you can make long-term changes,” Tabor continued. “You’ll be constantly forced to deal with short-term things. Most development projects take five to 10 years to put together.”

Fernandez said he will let the voters decide the issue.

“If they collect enough signatures and it passes, let the will of the people be done,” Fernandez said. “I feel it’s not something I should get involved in. . . . I’m neither for it or against it. It’s something the people have to think about. It’s that kind of issue.”

City Clerk Harris refused to comment on the measure. Neither the mayor nor the city treasurer could be reached.

Lee Weinstein, Vincent’s predecessor who served as mayor from 1979 to 1983, said a limit on terms in office would contribute to the notion of public service and prevent officeholders from using politics for “feeding at the public trough.”

3 Terms ‘Sufficient’

“I’ve observed over the years that there is a tendency to become so dependent on the office you hold that you become corrupt in your efforts to hold that office,” Weinstein said. “Three terms is certainly sufficient. Anything beyond that is an empire. . . . I guess I’m pretty old-fashioned. I always looked at public office as public service.”

Inglewood’s school board already limits its members to three consecutive four-year terms, and supporters of the initiative said more than 125 municipalities across the country limit their elected officials’ terms. Twenty-six states also limit their governors to two consecutive terms.

But a state Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled in April that some local measures limiting terms in office are invalid because eligibility to hold office is controlled by state law.

That ruling concerned general-law cities, those that operate under general laws of the state rather than their own municipal charters, but the ruling’s possible application to charter cities such as Inglewood remains in question.

The court reviewed the case of a councilwoman in South San Francisco who was reelected to a third term in 1987 despite a local law forbidding more than two consecutive terms. In its decision, the court upheld the election of Councilwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia and decided that numerous state code provisions governing eligibility to hold office in general-law cities indicate that the state governs such matters.

In the general-law city of Rolling Hills Estates, Councilwoman Jacki McGuire said she has shelved plans to circulate petitions on a similar initiative in that city because of the recent court decision. Instead, McGuire is attempting to gain support from state officials for a bill that would allow general-law cities to limit their own officeholders’ terms. If that fails, McGuire said, she would consider launching a statewide initiative that would put the issue on the ballot.

Ran for Other Offices

Redondo Beach and Cerritos are two charter cities in the Los Angeles area that have already passed ordinances limiting time in office to two terms.

The Redondo Beach law, enacted in a charter election in 1975, prevented former Mayor Barbara Doerr and City Councilman Archie Snow from running for their offices again this year. The two then ran for other offices; Doerr won election to the council in March, and Snow was defeated in a bid for mayor. Snow has hired a lawyer to challenge the law.

The Cerritos two-term limit was approved by voters in 1986 as a means of preventing long-term incumbents from seeking office again. But confusing wording led City Atty. Ken Brown to issue an opinion that the limit applied only to terms beginning after the ordinance took effect. It has yet to prevent anyone from running again.

On the state level, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp has incorporated a proposed limit on the terms of state officeholders into his gubernatorial campaign. Van de Kamp proposed the state’s first-ever limits on the consecutive years a person may hold a single office--12 years for the Assembly and Senate and eight years for statewide constitutional officers. Van de Kamp’s proposed limits would not be retroactive but would start as of the 1990 elections.