The smell of sulfur is wafting through Palm Beach Gardens.
Four of the five council members there are scheming to overturn the citizen’s term limits initiative that passed with 70% of the vote in 2014. The self-serving crew are looking to put a term limit weakening measure alone on the low-turnout March ballot to see if they can convince a small sliver of cronies to undo what the mass of voters decisively did in November three years ago. The stakes are high as an extra term is worth approximately $200,000 per council member in salary, pension, perks and slush fund money.
In the first reading of the new anti-term limits measure last month, the council was aghast as council member Matthew Lane voted against the measure, arguing that the standalone election in March was a deceptive move that would unnecessarily cost the taxpayers money. Citizen after citizen took the lectern to tell council members to “leave our term limits alone.” They cheered Lane’s vote and his moving call for honesty and measured deliberation.
But council member Carl Woods would not hear of it. Instead, he essentially offered the citizens a deal: You give me an extra term and $200,000 and I’ll give you a bonus term limits measure to vote on. This new measure — up for first reading at Thursday’s (Dec. 21) council meeting — would create a lifetime ban. After a council member served nine years, they would be banned from the council for life.
Council member Carl Woods is offering the voters a ‘lifetime ban’ to entice us into giving him an extra $200,000.
Woods’ attempt at pandering is not only craven, it shows a complete misunderstanding of why citizens love term limits.
Currently the term limit in Palm Beach Gardens is six consecutive years, permitting a council member to sit out a term and run again in the future as a non-incumbent if they choose. The idea of term limits is not to ban participation but instead to encourage it. Term limits provide open seats and competitive elections, allowing more citizens to participate in the process. The term limits also sever the relationships that naturally rise between the decision-makers and special interests and permits new faces and ideas to be represented on the council.
This devil’s bargain should not even be considered. The voters have spoken decisively. Woods and the others — who ironically owe their jobs to term limits — should thank the voters for giving them the opportunity to serve in these positions and enjoy the perks of the job as offered instead of grasping for more.
Philip Blumel