Will "term limit on MoCo Council members" help MoCo schools?

[Anonymous]

I totally agree that developers are currently running this county. Unacceptable. The council members don't seem as concerned our kids education as they do about allowing as much development as possible, as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous]

If you think the county council needs a shakeup, then freakin work to support other candidates! The whole term limits thing is a bad precedent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best thing is to show up to the meetings they are having and to invite your rep to a community meeting. Let them know you're PISSED. Floreen & her cronies are ruining MoCo and it's all because of their greed for developer contributions. Absolutely sickening.

Put Berliner on your list too. He is a master of looking like he is doing everything he can, while supporting an agenda actual adverse to his constituents.

And all of the incumbent school board. That's what will make a difference in this election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think the county council needs a shakeup, then freakin work to support other candidates! The whole term limits thing is a bad precedent.

We have term limits in neighboring Frederick, Howard, and PG counties. Why not in MoCo?

The incumbents in MoCo have cozy relationships with developers and take huge contributions from them. It's difficult for a new person without that power to raise money and put up a good fight against them.

All current council members except Elrich take donations from developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard this "term limit" is on ballot now.

Will this benefit schools?

Anything Ficker is bad

I was told that when I first moved to MoCo, but I don't believe it now. Floreen is a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I've heard is that the existing council members are in the pockets of developers so I am voting yes on B. 12 years is enough for elected officials.

I am sick of Floreen too but I think term limits is a dumb way to get rid of them.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are also tied funding to closing achievement gap. This is partly the reason why MCPS is inventing all these methods to cover up achievement gap. I say vote them off too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are also tied funding to closing achievement gap. This is partly the reason why MCPS is inventing all these methods to cover up achievement gap. I say vote them off too.

Sounds like a reason to vote for new school board and not council members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I oppose term limits in general because they are limits on voter power, not office holder power. You can vote them out any time. And actually voters in this county are more educated and more involved than most, and you "do" vote people out pretty quickly.

But term limits don't let you keep the good ones. Term limits in particular limit knowledge and experience in office. And especially at the local level, that matters. It shifts power to career employees, who you can't fire by voting out of office. In some jurisdictions, it shifts power to lobbyists. Again because they've been around and have the knowledge of how things run. Lobbyists really aren't a problem here. But they are at the state level. Newbie elected officials rely heavily on those advisers who have the institutional knowledge, because they don't have it themselves. That could be good, or it could be bad. But you the voter don't have control over it.

The 12 year limit is better than an 8 year limit in this regard. Not as harmful.

And FWIW, most of those Councilmembers who'd be affected in 2018 are likely running for Executive. So term limits won't matter for them. They'd all be precluded from running for their council seat again.

ALL of them are running. There's only one decent one in the mix.

None of the ones running for Executive are any good. Rice and Katz are the only decent ones, and they will stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are also tied funding to closing achievement gap. This is partly the reason why MCPS is inventing all these methods to cover up achievement gap. I say vote them off too.

Sounds like a reason to vote for new school board and not council members.

Not really. The school can only do so much to close the achievement gap. it is a society wide problem. If the county arbitrarily gives MCPS a task that they cannot do, MCPS was pretty much left in a no win situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I've heard is that the existing council members are in the pockets of developers so I am voting yes on B. 12 years is enough for elected officials.

I am sick of Floreen too but I think term limits is a dumb way to get rid of them.

Why?

It's a blunt instrument-- getting rid of the good ones and the bad ones, so unless you think everyone is a bad one it doesn't make sense. It's basically throwing up your hands and saying people aren't capable of figuring out who is good and bad.

Also, it's not clear the incentives for term limited politicians are any better than others-- maybe they'll decide they need to find soft landing places or otherwise get the most out of their 12 years which will leave them just as beholden to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I oppose term limits in general because they are limits on voter power, not office holder power. You can vote them out any time. And actually voters in this county are more educated and more involved than most, and you "do" vote people out pretty quickly.

But term limits don't let you keep the good ones. Term limits in particular limit knowledge and experience in office. And especially at the local level, that matters. It shifts power to career employees, who you can't fire by voting out of office. In some jurisdictions, it shifts power to lobbyists. Again because they've been around and have the knowledge of how things run. Lobbyists really aren't a problem here. But they are at the state level. Newbie elected officials rely heavily on those advisers who have the institutional knowledge, because they don't have it themselves. That could be good, or it could be bad. But you the voter don't have control over it.

The 12 year limit is better than an 8 year limit in this regard. Not as harmful.

And FWIW, most of those Councilmembers who'd be affected in 2018 are likely running for Executive. So term limits won't matter for them. They'd all be precluded from running for their council seat again.

ALL of them are running. There's only one decent one in the mix.

None of the ones running for Executive are any good. Rice and Katz are the only decent ones, and they will stay.

Rice? Seriously? He is the embodiment of an empty suit. And a bit of an arrogant jerk as well.

Elrich is the only good one on the council. He is probably the only one that seems to truly care about the county, the residents and the future. The rest are interested only in furthering their own agendas and doing whatever their developer fundraisers want.

Katz seems okay too. But Rice, no effin' way.

On the school issue, there are two/three main ways that the council can influence schools. The main one would be to approve higher capital budgets for more school construction, perhaps also through issuing more bonds. After that, the council has a lot of authority to curb development to ensure that schools are not overburdened.

The problem right now as I understand it, we don't have the money to approve more capital projects and issuing more bonds would affect our fiscal outlook and then on the second part, they are so in the thrall of developers that they refuse to say no. They will be voting on a new subdivision staging policy next week (conveniently after the election) that is basically a giveaway to developers. The amount that developers pay in impact taxes don't even come close to offsetting the costs to the county in terms of schools and roads. They are asking for slightly more for schools, but cutting impact taxes for transportation. So it's a net wash and means that for every new development, the county actually loses money. It's a disaster that will drive us to a breaking point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I've heard is that the existing council members are in the pockets of developers so I am voting yes on B. 12 years is enough for elected officials.

I am sick of Floreen too but I think term limits is a dumb way to get rid of them.

Why?

It's a blunt instrument-- getting rid of the good ones and the bad ones, so unless you think everyone is a bad one it doesn't make sense. It's basically throwing up your hands and saying people aren't capable of figuring out who is good and bad.

Also, it's not clear the incentives for term limited politicians are any better than others-- maybe they'll decide they need to find soft landing places or otherwise get the most out of their 12 years which will leave them just as beholden to developers.

The lame duck council member who is more concerned about their next job and feels no obligation to the people is certainly a concern. But I think its a risk worth taking.

The problem is that the bad ones now, are really, really bad. Getting rid of Floreen and Berliner especially are imperative to ensuring that we have a functioning, responsive and competent government. We also need to break the lock that Takoma Park has on the At-Large seats to ensure that there is better representation from around the county.

I would support a charter change to add a more district in the south (Chevy Chase-Bethesda) and remove an At-Large seat. But that doesn't seem to be on the cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are also tied funding to closing achievement gap. This is partly the reason why MCPS is inventing all these methods to cover up achievement gap. I say vote them off too.

Sounds like a reason to vote for new school board and not council members.

Not really. The school can only do so much to close the achievement gap. it is a society wide problem. If the county arbitrarily gives MCPS a task that they cannot do, MCPS was pretty much left in a no win situation.

The "achievement gap" is an MCPS/BOE issue. Overcrowding is a council issue. The council has not provided enough funds to MCPS for school construction to prevent this. On the other side, I hear that MCPS has been both incompetent in projecting growth and are playing political games on this issue, for some reason I do not know.

[Anonymous]

The BOE is saying...

On June 1, the MCEA Representative Assembly voted to recommend the following candidates for Board of Education in Montgomery County’s general election on November 8:

District 2 – Rebecca Smondrowski
District 4 – Shebra Evans
At-Large – Phil Kauffman

VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL B

What Proposal B says

Proposal B would limit all present and future County Council Members and County Executives to 3 terms. Anyone who filled a vacancy mid-term would be treated as having served a full term.

Motives behind Proposal B

Last year Montgomery County Council, for the first time in 9 years, unanimously voted to increase property taxes, resulting in $40 million more for our children and schools. Opponents of public school funding are fighting back this year with Proposal B.

The Truth about Term Limits
?We have the power of term limits already: it’s called a vote! Creating term limits is saying that you, as a voter, don’t have the right to make your own decisions regarding whom you elect.
?Term limits do not increase the number of women and minorities elected to office. Elsewhere, more women and minorities were term-limited out of seats than were elected in. *
?Term Limits increase taxing and spending. Constant turnover creates a short-term fiscal view, leading to poor budgetary decisions. *
?Term limits do not decrease the numbers of career politicians. Studies have shown that 80% of term limited officials end up back in public office.

*please see: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/crc/Resources/Files/termlimits20160810.pdf