From today's (10/26/19) UCO Reporter (November 2019
issue)
Petition
on Term Limits
“Proponents believe term
limits will make it easier for new candidates to run.
Opponents do not want to
keep experienced officers from running.”
On three counts – election slates, CV
Bylaws, the Delegate Assembly - the first sentence is a
questionable, if not mistaken, rationale for term limits.
First: Election Slates. Term limits or
no term limits, elections for President and Vice-President have
always been a game of musical chairs: more candidates than seats. The
Delegates rescinded term limits in March, 2013. Our Village Blog has
a search box allowing access to past UCO Reporters. In 2010 and 2012,
elections with term limits had three candidates for President.
Our last election, in 2018, without term limits, had, guess
what, three candidates for President.
For the two Vice-President positions,
term limits, 2010 and 2012, 5 and 3 candidates, respectively;
2016 and 2018, no term limits, 6 and 4. Ironically, without
term limits, more Veep candidates ran than with! And there have been
multiple candidates for corresponding secretary, recording
secretary, and treasurer. Conclusion: the absence of term limits has
not stopped multiple new candidates from contesting for positions.
Second, CV Bylaws already make
candidacy easy. All a resident owner need do is say five words to
the Election Committee: “I am running for office”. That's it.
This brief declaration guarantees, along with all the other
candidates – challenger or incumbent - your mug shot and resume in
the Reporter, a seat at the Candidates' Forum, and your name on the
ballot, alphabetically listed – not by seniority or service.
Third, UCO already has an efficient
term limiter – or term lengthener: the Delegate Assembly. This
group interacts with incumbents and challengers before, during, and
after Assemblies, at forums and Town Halls, committee meetings, and
office hours – twenty a week. Consequently, the delegates are able
to assess, and vote for, the most competent contestant, be that
person challenger or incumbent.
In summary, then, for Century Village,
term limits are not only detrimental – keeping experienced members
from running – but unnecessary: new members are always saying the
five magic words that make them candidates.
Richard Handelsman
It is hard to get people with knowledge of the workings of our village. When people run you have the right to VOTE for whom ever you choose. If don't want someone that is there don't VOTE for them Term limits would keep some very good and knowledge people from running. We have a millennium agreement come up in the future and we best have people in there who know how to negotiate and have the experience of dealing with WPRF.
ReplyDeleteI am in total agreement with you, Barbara. If the candidate is not your choice, don't vote for him/her. Why take the vote away from competent persons? I am responding as a unit owner.
DeleteRichard, your points are well taken, except.....not only do you need to say the five words to be a candidate, but you must add that you're a unit owner and reside in CV for a minimum of 9 months out of each year. That got me a seat on the Executive Board and a VP 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I prefaced the quintet with "All a resident owner....."
Delete