How much do you love your city councilors? So much that you want to keep them around twice as long?
Tonight, the City Council will take up a proposal that, if approved by voters, would length councilors’ terms from two years to four. Ward 4 Councilor E. Henry Twiggs is sponsoring the home-rule legislation which, if passed by the Council, would then go to the state Legislature for approval. If approved there, the question would come before city voters on the November 2013 ballot. If voters approve the change, it would go into effect with the 2015 election.
In 2009, voters approved, 69 to 31 percent, a ballot question that increased the mayoral term from two to four years. Proponents of that change argued that it would give an incumbent more time to develop long-term plans for the city, without feeling the constant campaign pressure of the two-year election cycle. That change went into effect with last November’s election, with the re-election of incumbent Mayor Domenic Sarno.
Lengthening the councilors’ terms is likely to be a harder sell. Councilors’ roles are less big-picture-planning and more responding-to-timely issues, from deciding on zoning issues to approving, or not, a municipal budget that’s drafted by the mayor and City Hall financial staff.
They also—ideally, at least—should have to spend less time and money running for re-election; if councilors are working hard and speaking up, their constituents should be able to track and evaluate the job they’re doing by watching or attending Council meetings or following the Council’s business in the news. That should be especially true of ward councilors, whose role was created specifically to ensure that certain councilors would be closely connected and accountable to specific neighborhoods. At-large councilors, of course, can also avoid some of the pressure of the campaign by simply being engaged and vocal; case in point: long-time Councilor Tim Rooke, who routinely runs low-cost, low-profile re-election campaigns but whose positions are nonetheless well-known by any voter who bothers to follow the news.
Last year, at-large Councilor Kateri Walsh sponsored a similar proposal, which went nowhere. This time around, the proposal doesn’t seem to be generating much voter support, at least based on the (admittedly limited) anonymous comments posted on MassLive in response to an article by the Springfield Republican’s Pete Goonan.
“In my opinion, the quality of our city council is such that the more frequent the chance to elect more highly qualified people the better,” wrote one reader.
“How about proving your worth before giving yourself a extra two years. Any councilor supporting this measure will lose my vote,” warned another.
