Do it More Often

One of the issues on your Mount Dora ballot is the proposed amendment to our City Charter to increase the terms of councilman/mayor from 2 years to 3 years. Let's chat about that.

I served on the Charter Review Committee -- as an appointed citizen -- and spoke out against the change then, preferring to stay at 2 year terms. Last week I made the time to listen to the recordings from the March meetings to hear the conversations again in the event that my opinion had changed. I mean it could. Back then, I was not a candidate or planning to run and now that I am in the race, I do have new perspectives upon which to draw.

I listened to the argument for 3 year terms -- more continuity - more time to be productive and learn -- less time worrying about elections -- all reasonable and valid points.

Here's the thing -- I've talked to lots and lots of people about the 2 year vs. 3 year option - and the only people that have been for 3 year terms are people that have run for office in the past -- and what I am concluding from that is that the only people that really care about 3 year terms are people really close to the process of running for office.

I get it. It is hard work. It takes time, money and a commitment of family and friends. Most candidates would like to not have to run again in, say, 10 years. Or at least 4 or maybe 3 because I think a change from 2 to 3 is something that can be sold. Some on the Charter Review Committee wanted 4 year terms. By the way, we do not save anything on election costs -- we still will have a city election every year going from 2 to 3 year terms.

I just like short terms. It matches our short term memory. Imagine for a moment what 3 years ago was -- Mitt Romney was in what was thought to be a tight race. 2012 is 3 years ago.

Council members can do things at the beginning of the term that you find objectionable -- and you would definitely vote against him/her -- if you remembered 3 years later.

This spring and summer, I and many others spoke up about the issue of the look and character of the downtown in the palms vs. oaks debate. People were mad, upset, sad. To some, that is now a 'long time ago' just a few months later -- imagine if this was at the beginning of a 3 year term.

Frankly, I think that 3 year terms are a gateway to 4 year terms. More importantly, moving the terms from 2 years to 3 years makes you less important. Voters lose. You only get to switch out specific council members every 3 years. I know he wasn't talking about a local election in Florida, but this quote by Thomas Jefferson seems relevant even today:

"A government by representatives elected by the people at short periods was our object, and our maxim... was, 'where annual election ends, tyranny begins;' nor have our departures from it been sanctioned by the happiness of their effects." --Thomas Jefferson to S. Adams, 1800.

Continuity. Remember, we stagger our offices so that there is 'half' of the council up each year. Gives continuity. We also have a city staff that has longevity. Continuity. We also have audio recordings of meetings and minutes and documents that can inform. We have all of that.

We also get the choice to bring in new ideas, new perspectives, more often. We have the opportunity to see if new candidates are getting ready -- reading - participating BEFORE taking office -- to minimize the so-called learning curve.

There are other simple elements to it. Sure, if someone is a 'schmuck' in YOUR BOOK (the only one that matters) you have to wait up to 3 years to replace him/her. Additionally, some people will not -- cannot -- commit to 4 or even 3 year terms of office. People who have served have told me that, without a doubt, the pay is not worth the time commitment.

So for those that view serving on council a service, it is really going to reduce the pool of potential candidates to run. After November 3rd, 2 of the 7 council members sitting -- representing HALF of the 4 districts -- were unopposed. This is not a knock on them at all -- it just shows that it is difficult to get people to want to run -- moving it up to 3 years -- where an incumbent might be the opponent is not going to make for more candidates. Duh! There will be less interest in running. That is not good for Mount Dora.

It's about choice. Do you want to unilaterally give up some of your choice? If so, vote for 3 years.

To be clear, I am not talking about term limits. That is another story -- Leesburg and Astatula had that issue tossed around. Remember? It was 3 years ago. Yep. Memories fade. Anyway, check that out.

I personally think that when you know that your time is limited you act with a sense of purpose and urgency to make your mark and move on. I think that you should be able to make your mark in 1, 2 or 3 terms maximum. But -- that is just me -- you should have the freedom to decide if you agree with that or not.

I am pro-more-choices... With 3 year terms you get the choice of 3, 6, 9, 12 year increments. With 2 year terms you get 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 year increments. That is more options which is good.

The great news for voters is that all terms this election are for 2 years -- regardless of how the Charter may change -- Please review your choices and make the best one for you.

What is beautiful about this country is your freedom -- hard fought for freedom. You are free to do as you choose on this issue. You hold the power. I recommend that you not give up any of it and vote against the extension of the terms from 2 to 3 years. Vote No.

But, again, the wonderful thing is that you have the power to decide this issue yourself. Exercise your right to vote. It is in your hands now.