Led by the same Council members who tried to do away with the city’s current two-term limit five years ago that was rejected, the city council this time voted at their June meeting 4-1 to instruct staff and spend the funds necessary to get a new proposal to voters on Nov. 5.
Council member Nitesh Patel and Mayor Marshall Goodman attempted to facilitate a discussion on the issue in 2019 but reportedly backed away after residents filled the Council Chamber protesting the move.
Back in 1996, almost 80 percent of La Palma voters approved a measure that limits Council members to serving two terms, with a four-year cooling off period, then they can run again.
Since then, La Palma, like other cities in Orange County, reluctantly agreed to switch to by-district elections rather than allowing candidates at-large.
Supporters of districting have said one of the main purposes is that historical evidence suggests it will produce more candidates by allowing candidates without the resources to run at large to compete for office in smaller districts.
Yet, four members of the La Palma City Council are not seeing it. Now, using the changes to the district as a justification, they’re back, and the Council voted 4-1 to move forward with a proposal to change the two-term limit.
“We have not seen a lot of people showing up to lead in this city,” Goodman reiterated on Tuesday.
At their last meeting, they floated a proposal to allow Council members to serve four terms.
Robert Carruth, a long-time resisent who opposes term limits, suggested the proposal was written for “self-interested” Council members. Under the original proposal, “Mr. Patel could be in office for 24 consecutive years from 2018 to 2042.”
“In that same time period, a person could conceive a child, raise them to adulthood, watch them graduate with a Master’s Degree,” with the same Council member, said Carruth.
Council member Janet Conklin said the Council should maybe consider three terms, with a four-year waiting period, but that the city should also offer citizens a range of options.
“I think the public is smart enough to figure out what they want,” said Conklin, but “we have to give them the options for it.”
Patel said he would be fine with three full terms and a four-year cooling-off period.
“The proposal that Councilwoman Conklin gave is great, so I would like to change my proposal to three terms with a full, four-year cooling period,” said Patel.
Council member Debbie Baker said she would be okay with allowing a member to serve three terms with a four-year cooling-off period.
“In the last election, three people were running for two seats and that’s not a lot of choice,” she said. “Now that we’ve been forced to go to districts, the pool of candidates is much smaller,” she suggested.
Mayor Pro-tem Mark Walkman, who previously served two terms, sat out for four years and was re-elected to the Council has been slow to support the move, but said Tuesday he now embraces it.
“In the final analysis, we don’t have any authority to make any changes whatsoever. What we can do is put it on the ballot so that residents can speak: they could say yes, they could say no, they can say well, maybe it’s sensible to go for three times considering moving to districts,” he said.
“I’m generally not in favor of term limits. but with the advent of the districts, it’s going to be tougher, based on the experience of some of our neighboring cities,” he said.
Monty Baker, the husband of Council member Debbie Baker, said he supported giving residents a chance to vote on the issue but agreed with Conklin that four terms was too long.
“You’re using the same old red herring arguments today you did in 2019,” complained Carruth. “You speak about continuity of leadership when your primary concern of continuity of your leadership,” he said.
“You complain about declining public engagement, while you seek to fortify and entrench yourself and vainly worry, that there are too few capable residents to replace you,” said Carruth, noting the Council’s action belies the fact that most people attending the April 4 ‘Conversation’ voted against increasing term limits in the straw poll.
“This is a measure of you, by you, and for you,” said Carruth, complaining that the city is ignoring 80 percent of the people who voted for term limits in 1995. “Mayor Goodman and city manager Connell McNamara have said that this was 28 years ago in an attempt to dismiss the integrity of our term limits, and as if the passage of time invalidated them,” he said.
Keith Nelson, a former Mayor and sometimes critic of the Council, was angered by the Council’s refusal to answer a question. “This is bullshit,” he said.
“However, since you refuse to answer your questions, I’m going to answer my own questions for you,” said Nelson. An attorney, Nelson pointed out errors in the city’s draft that needed to be corrected.
“The language that’s been drafted by either the city manager or the city attorney is not clear,” he said. “Don’t go forward with this,” he pleaded. “You’re going to lose and you’re going to look foolish.”
“This is not providing leadership. Leadership grows from within,” he said, noting that
“There’s not another city in Orange County that allows four terms in office.”
According to Patel, it is “democracy” by allowing voters to choose.
“We received input from both perspectives, and it is important to bring this matter to the public to let the voters make the final decision,” he said.
“We haven’t resorted to anonymous postings, or any tactics aimed at frightening people into supporting one side or another. I’ve noticed several Flyers opposing the extension or adding their moments, but the creators haven’t had the courage to attach their names to them,” said Patel.
“Taking the issue to the voters is a democratic approach,” said Patel. “Many of the people who lived in La Palma back then may have moved and more importantly, the circumstances have changed so why fear taking it to the voters?”
“Moving to districts can both be a blessing and a curse. With the district-based elections, voters will choose from candidates within the specific area, and it has always been challenging to get people engaged,” claimed Patel.
Patel said connections and relationships made by him and other members of the Council have influenced decisions to bring millions in revenue to the city.
Mayor Goodman repeated his concern of not seeing any other leaders in La Palma rise to the fore.
“In no way has it ever been said from my mouth that any of these leaders on this wall did not do a great job,” said Goodman. “All I’m saying is that the leadership pool we have right now in the showing of situations from back when I was on the cap committee to the recent election shows that there is a lack of leadership,” the mayor said.
“We did have people show up for the Citizens Academy and I was very happy and hopefully they will all apply to our committees or run for council,” said Goodman. “Maybe we’re on to something but the main part is that we have got to address this somehow.”
“In my opinion,” the mayor said, “one of the easiest ways to do that is to allow the leader who are serving now to serve a bit longer.”
Patel then changed his original proposal to allow a council member to serve three full terms, with a four-year cooling-off period. Patel refused to add other options such as a two-term lifetime limit or variations to allow voters to make whatever decision they wanted.
Because of the lack of options being presented to voters, Conklin voted no on the ballot measure but the Council’s 4-1 vote authorized all of the resolutions and funding to secure for the proposal a place on the Nov. 5 ballot.
City Clerk Kimberly Kenney said nine citizens had either written to the city or sent an email. Every single one of them opposed any change to term limits.
