It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Term Limits for Hawaii Reps and Senators.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carol Philips on -
Term limits promote competitive elections, enhance political representation, encourage responsiveness to policy problems, curtail the unbridled growth of government, and open the political system to a multitude of new participants.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on -
I remember once hearing that public office should be akin to Jury Duty, getting drafted for military service, or volunteering for community fire department duty: It's something that we all need to do but we don't make a career out of it.
So what would you suggest the term limit be?
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Andersen on -
Thanks for your kind reply. Should you attend a televised Neighborhood Board meeting, please consider asking our elected official their thoughts on term limits.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Andersen on
-
Similar to Jury Duty! Brilliant. Any opinions on a unicameral legislature like Nebraska?
-
Permalink Reply by Della Au Belatti on -
I am very uncertain about the effectiveness of term limits as a way to ensure better policymaking by our elected officials.
Like with any proposal, we should consider possible unintended consequences. Studies and critics of term limits say that states with term limits have seen declining experience levels of legislative members and the weakening of the legislative branch in relation to the executive branch.
I have heard others comment that term limits diminish the institutional memory and capacity within legislative chambers and really result in bureaucrats (who are truly not accountable since they are not elected) having policymaking power. Finally, another criticism – although this can be said about politicians in states without term limits – is that decisions are driven almost solely by one’s election to another seat. For more on term limits, the National Conference of State Legislatures has good information on-line for further study.
Since I am currently an elected official and before anyone suggests that my opinion is solely self-interested, I would suggest that RECALL may be something to consider as a possible constitutional amendment. Hawaii has a history with recall if you look back at 1985 when Patsy Mink successfully led a recall effort against then-Councilmembers George Akahane, Rudy Pacarro, and Toraki Matsumoto. Some will argue that the ultimate recall is every election and that this is sufficient as the public’s tool for accountability over elected officials. Nevertheless, I think we should look at recall as a possible good government reform.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Andersen on
-
Good Grief! To cite the "The National Conference of State Legislatures" is pure shibai. The function of said body is to insure elected officials stay elected.
"I have heard others comment that term limits diminish the institutional memory and capacity within legislative chambers." Heard from whom? Other elected officials?
"Diminished institutional memory and capacity within legislative chamber." What in tarnation is that supposed to mean? Sounds like pure gibberish, double-talk, and typical of an elected official who wants to continue to wallow and gorge at the public trough.
"Diminished institutional memory and capacity" Obfuscates and diverts attention from the extended terms in office which serve no purpose other than expand the size of the golden parachute. If the Governor of the State of Hawai'i and City Council members have term limits, why not the rest of the elected politicians?
Let the people take back the state government. A good way to do this is by limiting term limits. Get rid of the deadwood!
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Shon on -
I have always been skeptical of term limits on legislators. A term limit creates an official with no future connection to the electorate, or the need to respond. Facing a future election is a context that inherently creates accountabiity.
A Prez or Governor has enormous power and after eight years at the head of a huge government you run out of steam. But legislators play a smaller role and don't administer programs.
Also, keep in mind that no one gets elected without the concent of voters. If you DO believe in democracy, then allowing the voters to decide if they want to continue to re-elect someone they like is in the spirit of representative democracy.
Some reforms seem based on the notion that democracy doesn't work, mainly because we may disagree with how voters decide.
-
Permalink Reply by Al Beeman on -
I started out thinking that the lack of term limits was the problem but I no longer think that that is the heart of the issue. If a community has a representative legislator that is doing a good job that community should perhaps be allowed to keep that legislator. I think the real problem lies elsewhere in "management."
Legislative bodies tend to be very strongly controlled by their internally elected leadership. And once in power the leadership can use the powers of appointment and agenda setting, etc. to reward compliance and punish any resistance. I am not sure how you would do it in the Constitution, but term limits would probably be most effective if applied to internal leadership positions like Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and all Committee Chair positions.
Additionally much though it goes against our collective culture any use of "senority" in leadership appointments should probably be banned as well. Capability of doing the job well, having innovative ideas, and being skilled at forging conscensus should be the criteria by which the members of a committee choose their chairperson and the elective bodies choose their leadership, NOT seniority.
-
Permalink Reply by Al Beeman on
-
"Institutional memory and capacity within legislative chamber" is not gibberish. Perhaps it should have been the word 'capability' instead of 'capacity' but these are an important elements of a legislative body.
Legislation is accomplished by collective decision-making. Why that particular decision was made is important knowledge that if lost will result in having to start all over again on similar matters and can result in a lot of inexperienced mistakes.
More importantly, collective decision-making itself is a very difficult art to learn, it takes a lot of time and practice. These skills are particularly vital in a Legislature that meets for such a short time each year. We do not want to make the Legislature less effective.
I am pretty sure that if institutional memory and decision forging skills are diminished within the legislative body then the entrenched bureacracy and the lobbyists get to fill the vacuum. Knowledge and experience are power.
We should see what has happened in other state legislatures that have implemented term limits. Have these bodies become more responsive? Has the quality of their decision-making improved? Do these term limited bodies govern any better?
-
Permalink Reply by Al Beeman on
-
The "personalities" of the House with its members always thinking of the next election and the Senate with its more secure members are very different.
I like the inherent "radicality" of the House but I have come to appreciate the "wisdom" of the Senate. I think having legislation passed through both of these filters is probably a very good thing. I particularly appreciate them having to work together to get anything done! (The US Congress has forgotten about this part.)
-
Permalink Reply by Kaunaloa on -
I'm extremely unimpressed by the "term limits weaken the legislature and strengthen the executive" argument when in most states and certainly at the federal level **the only ones term-limited are the executive branch folks**. Likewise, relying on recall is a dodge as that should function similar to impeachment -- a last resort to remove those before the term expires who have seriously abrogated their oath of office.
also, re: a unicamberal legislature, not sure i see the benefit. I thnk the brits got it right with an upper and lower house centuries ago, and i see no reason to become only the 2nd state to not adopt that very model.
So, I am very much for term limits. Re: how long -- i do acknowledge that mandating that every couple election cycles to force out nearly everybody could have a negative effect on institutional knowledge. OTOH, it's not liek staffers, party elders, and many others can't keep said knowledge fairly front & center for each incoming group. i posit the limit should be always measured in whole terms within each office. 4 terms worth in one position should be enough, tho i can see 5 terms. that would translate to 8 [or 10] years for state rep., 16 [or 20] years for state senator, governor, etc. ...
© 2008 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create your own social network
