Nothing ambiguous about term limits; let voters decide — again

The conclusion is simple: There is nothing ambiguous about term limits. The charter is very clear on this matter: Three terms for two years for each member of the council, including the mayor. But lately the issue has become clouded, even acrimonious. What was once merely common sense is being interpreted and re-interpreted by lawyers.

So here is the better solution:

Rewrite the charter entry on term limits, make the description as specific, ironclad and lawyer-proof as possible, and call for a referendum. Let the people decide once more, even though the issue was settled years ago. 

Let no one ever again claim the charter is ambiguous about term limits. 

There are pros and cons where term limits are concerned. On the plus side, they prevent the rise of political dynasties and ensure that fresh blood is added to the council.

On the other hand, some would argue they force leaders to leave city government while projects and initiatives are not yet finished, replacing the outgoing, experienced council members with wet-behind-the-ears newcomers.

In Marble Falls, however, the people spoke at the ballot box the last time the charter was revised and voted to reaffirm term limits. 

While the citizens’ wishes seem clear, the issue refuses to die. The matter has surfaced time and again, beginning with Nona Fox’s tenure as mayor to last year, when Olivia Cribbs was named to fill the council seat of an ill colleague even though her own term had expired.

Today the Concerned Citizens of Marble Falls argue Mayor Raymond Whitman has overstayed his welcome by violating term limits. The city attorney counters Whitman is only serving his second term as mayor, not a fourth term as a council member.

Whitman, a local insurance agent, served three terms on council and has been elected mayor twice.

The issue is probably more complicated than it needs to be.

Here’s the history: More than a decade ago, a committee of volunteers revised the charter and put the document to Marble Falls residents for a vote.

This is the wording of the term-limits provision later approved by voters:

“The council shall be composed of the mayor and six council members. The mayor and all council members shall be elected from the city at large and each council member shall occupy a position on the council. The mayor and council members shall be elected in the manner provided in Article 5 of this charter to serve for two-year terms and for no more than three consecutive terms. Whenever this charter or other city document refers to ‘councilperson’ or ‘council member,’ it is understood that this term includes the council member occupying the position of mayor.”

On the surface, there seems nothing at all ambiguous about the wording. The mayor is a member of the council and council members get to serve up to three terms for a total of six years.  That should be that — finis. Not quite, others say.

C. Robert Heath, an attorney hired by the city out of Austin to report on term limits to the council, has a different opinion. His interpretation, based on cases in other Texas cities (Marble Falls is not unique in this, not by a long shot), led him to this opinion: “The charter permits an individual to serve up to three consecutive terms each as mayor and/or council member.”

He calls the wording of the charter ambiguous and also notes the council voted to let Fox run for mayor after she served three consecutive terms as as council member, thereby creating a precedent that still resonates today.

Mind you, Heath is paid by the city. And it seems his research is merely an end run around what the voters originally wanted. This was not the intent of the framers of the City Charter.

Yet agree or disagree, the citizens must resolve this issue themselves; they can’t go running to the attorney general. In a similar case in Brazoria County, the state Attorney General’s Office declined to get involved unless the charter “raises a question of federal or state law.”

The sad thing is, the argument over term limits is overshadowed by a deeper problem: political apathy. The last two city elections was canceled because no one other than the incumbents or solitary candidates ran for office. That’s a pretty bleak state of affairs for Marble Falls.

Maybe all the concern over term limits and anger over a 28 percent tax hike passed last month by the council will convince new candidates to run for office in May. It’s high time city politics got interesting again. Maybe someone else can do a better job than the incumbents, but no one will know unless he or she tosses their hats in the ring.

Meanwhile, one thing is clear: Now is the time to make the wording stronger in the charter, so no one will ever again say the definition of term limits is ambiguous. That’s just lawyer-speak.

The candidates hopefully running for office this spring and the city’s citizen-involved planning group should make this a priority.