Don’t limit voters’ options by ordinance

Palm Beach Gardens has had term limits since its inception: elections.

Those holding office are accountable to the electorate. If they do a good job, they will be re-election; if they don’t, they will be turned out of office.

So why the residents of Palm Beach Gardens voted two years ago to limit service on the city council to two three-year terms is unclear to me. But now we have a term limits ordinance, and all we can do is amend it to better serve the city and its residents. Questions 2 and 3 on the March 13 ballot address improving the terms limit ordinance and deserve “yes” votes.

Question 2 addresses the number of consecutive terms a council member may serve. There are three reasons to extend the term limits to three three-year terms. First, individuals, local businesses and communities want the continuity and stability that have been a hallmark of our city government and one of the keys to our city’s success. Stability and solid longterm relationships with our elected officials help us plan for our future and make better decisions.

The second reason to extend the term limits is to help strengthen the council’s institutional memory. Limiting service on the council to two three-year terms only diminishes its institutional memory.

Third, running our city is a very complex undertaking; the learning curve for a new council member is steep. By the time a member learns the intricacies of city governance, much of their first term has passed. The taxpayers of Palm Beach Gardens deserve a return on their investment.

Question 3 deals with whether or not a termedout council member should be permitted to stand for election again after sitting out at least two elections. Council members who have termed out should not be forever prevented from running again. After they sit out for a term, they should be permitted to get back in the game if they so choose.

There is no reason to limit voters’ options by ordinance.

JANE FEINSTEIN, PALM BEACH GARDENS