Term Limits Not What’s Needed : Prop. A would merely sidetrack the debate vital for true city government reform

With the San Diego City Council only now returning to relative calm after a divisive year of redistricting wars and pre-election posturing, it’s no surprise that local voters may be looking to get even with incumbents. These days, the electorate’s paddle of choice in the political woodshed is term limits.

But don’t be fooled. The term-limits measure on the June 2 ballot will punish very few officeholders. Its main effect will be to sidetrack the debate on real reforms. And local term limits may not be enforceable at all. The legality of municipal term limits is in question because the state legislative counsel’s office has warned that charter cities don’t currently have the power to impose them.

The first clue that Proposition A is slap-on-the-hand reform is that the politicians themselves are its supporters. The measure was put on the ballot by a unanimous City Council vote. The ballot argument in its favor was signed by Mayor O’Connor, Deputy Mayor Ron Roberts and Councilmen Bob Filner and Tom Behr.

Proposition A would prohibit the mayor, city attorney, and all City Council members from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms in office. In reality, it would have very little practical effect.

Since the current City Charter was adopted in 1931, only four council members have served three or more full terms. No mayors have held office that long. Only the city attorney’s office has been home to two long-term incumbents, and there’s something to be said for continuity in that sensitive legal post.

In truth, a third term in local office is viewed as a political dead end. Everyone’s eager to move up and out--a practice that still would be allowed under Proposition A. Witness the current council: O’Connor is retiring, Roberts is running for mayor, Filner is campaigning for Congress, and Judy McCarty is pursuing an open seat on the Board of Supervisors.

Indeed, the election process itself is doing an effective job of cleaning house. In the past four years alone, a majority of contested council seats have gone to non-incumbents. Does this sound like a city government at the mercy of arrogant incumbents?

The city needs reasoned debate about strengthening mayoral powers, an expansion of the City Council, campaign-finance reform and the establishment of an independent redistricting commission (as called for in Proposition C). But rather than face up to these critical reforms, proponents of Proposition A are asking voters to slap the politicians with term limits and go home happy.

That would be a mistake. We support the effort in Sacramento to change the law so local voters can impose term limits. Certainly, while The Times has been opposed to extreme term-limit measures, such as Proposition 140, we do believe the voters should have the right to decide to have them--in cases where it’s good public policy. In San Diego, it’s not--at least for now. It’s counterproductive to sidetrack the debate over government reform by rushing to pass a punitive, ineffective, legally fuzzy ballot initiative that might make voters feel good but that solves little or nothing.