Term Limits

Designing a new system of government is hard work. It took our founding fathers months of contentious debate and compromise before deciding that our Congress should consist of members elected both by local district and by state rather than, for instance, an appointed House of Lords and an elected House of Commons. In contrast, the Board of Education Study Commission met briefly over two months and decided, with allegedly little debate or outside input, that elections aren't really as good as executive appointments.

The Howard County commission established to address some citizens' concerns about racial and geographic diversity on its school board decided Monday night to place term limits on the two appointed seats that it is recommending be placed on the board. The county's School Board Study Commission was formed last month by county executive Ken Ulman, who had given the panel until Monday to craft a final recommendation. The commission voted last week to recommend the board be changed from a seven-member, at-large elected body to one comprising five members elected by districts and two appointed members.

Similar to the situation today, confidence in American political institutions was flagging roughly 20 years ago. Our economy was undergoing a recession, and there appeared to be a widening disconnect between our elected officials and the citizenry. The George H.W. Bush administration appeared tone deaf to the pocketbook concerns of many Americans, and Congress was mired in the House banking scandal that further fueled the case for reform. Populist candidates and causes found a very receptive landscape.

The five Howard County Council members came into office at almost the same time, and if they all choose to run for re-election, the current crop of local legislators will also leave office as a group, thanks to a three-term limit written into the county charter and approved by voters in 1992. That means a new, inexperienced council would begin work in December 2018 without benefit of any institutional knowledge, as Courtney Watson, Jen Terrasa, Mary Kay Sigaty and Greg Fox did in 2006.

Several concepts that The Sun and its reporters seemingly fail to recognize are "illegal" and "affordability. " I was amazed to read in the article "Tuition bill takes a step forward in Senate" (March 10) by Annie Linskey that roughly two dozen illegal immigrants watched the debate from the Senate gallery on Wednesday. Let's get this straight now — two dozen people who are illegally in this country are watching our state Senate debate a discount for them to attend colleges in a state that has a severe financial problem.

Newly re-elected Howard County Executive Ken Ulman is thinking about his impending second-term swearing-in Dec. 6, but since term limitations prevent him from running again, others are already thinking ahead four years. "I think a lot of people are thinking about it, but I think it's way too early," said County Councilman Calvin Ball, an East Columbia Democrat. The field will become clearer after the 2012 presidential election, he said. "The Republican Party needs to get organized for 2014.

I was stunned by the contradictions between two recent editorials published by your newspaper. In the first ("Term limits are back," Sept. 2), you bemoaned new calls for legislative term limits in Maryland. You stated that term limits would suck the experience out of the legislature and transfer more power to the governor, staff, lobbyists and political parties. You called it a "formula for machine politics. " You then declared that frustrated voters could overcome the lock entrenched politicians have on their offices by simply voting them out. In a subsequent editorial about redrawing political districts ("Drawing a line," Sept.

A call for legislative term limits has once again entered the political fray in Maryland. Among the more vocal proponents are state Sen. Andrew Harris, a Republican candidate for the First District congressional seat, and any number of General Assembly candidates. Although talk of term limits seemed to peak in the 1990s, its revival is hardly surprising considering the difficult economic times and the rise of populist candidates seeking to tap into voter frustration. Term limits have a certain appeal — if one's chief desire is to throw the rascals out. The problem is that term limits tend not to accomplish what its supporters are seeking.

The news media is always covering stories about disasters large and small that were in some part due to someone not doing their job properly. The BP fiasco is the latest. Then the finger pointing starts, and believe me there is enough blame to go around. Everyone shares in this blame in one way or another, and I include myself in this group for my waiting so long to speak my mind. A major part of the problem is career politicians who get too powerful and look out only for their self interest and a select few who are instrumental in keeping them in power.

The bottle tax is an example of why we need term limits — not because city officials were considering it but because it appears they will not pass it ("Bottle tax goes into the can," May 20). We need our elected officials to make tough decisions, but when they are worried about getting reelected, they are more apt to bow to public pressure induced by money and advertising. In this case, the money and advertising has been provided by the beverage industry. While a regressive tax, the bottle tax is not on staples but on items that could be considered luxury items.