Monroe council moves closer to repealing term limits

The Monroe City Council directed city staff to draft an ordinance repealing term limits last week, based on a motion by Councilmember Patsy Cudaback. 

The discussion came on the heels of the council adopting an ordinance to convert its two-year council seat to a four-year position, which passed in its final reading on Tuesday, Oct. 25. 

The conversion opened the door for further conversation about term limits, due to the fact the city’s eight-year term limit negatively impacts a councilmember’s ability to maximize their time in office in certain circumstances. Term limits were established in the city in 2011, after an advisory vote revealed a majority of residents were in favor of them. 

Under current Monroe Municipal Code, no person can serve on the city council for more than eight years, unless they were previously appointed to fill a vacancy for a period of less than one year. A person is eligible to return to elected office after they’ve achieved the eight-year term limit, only after an eight-year lapse since they last served.  

The eight-year term limit causes an issue for councilmembers that have previously served in the city’s two-year seat. A councilperson elected to the two-year seat and then elected to a four-year seat would have a total of six-years in office once their term is up. Because of this, their only option for re-election would be to seek a two-year position. 

The conversion of the two-year seat to a four-year seat, combined with the term limit, prevents councilmembers with six years of service from seeking reelection. 

The city’s recommendation included different options to alleviate this, including an increase from an eight-year term limit to a twelve-year term limit, or an exception to the law that would apply to a councilperson that had previously served in the two-year seat. Examples from other cities included language that stipulated a term limit of two consecutive four-year terms, three consecutive four-year terms and three consecutive full terms. 

The city’s research was exhaustive, said City Administrator Gene Brazel, including analysis of more than 200 cities in Washington to find out which use term limits and which don’t. Municipalities have actually started moving away from term limits, Brazel said.    

“It was interesting to note that a lot of cities went away from term limits in the last five, six years,” he said. “I don’t know why that was, but we did see that pattern.”

While not among the city’s recommended actions, Cudaback encouraged the council to consider eliminating term limits altogether. There was never a need for term limits in Monroe, she said, as the city does not have an issue with entrenchment among its elected officials. There needs to be a compelling reason to limit a person’s ability to run for office or a voter’s right to elect a particular candidate, she said.

“In our instance, for our community, I don’t think there is,” Cudaback said. “In our community the data does not support the need for term limits.”

She referenced previous council discussion that heavily contemplated the results of the 2011 advisory vote, in which 76.4 percent of registered voters in Monroe favored establishing term limits. It’s important, she said, to dig deeper into that data and understand the numbers. A total of 3,431 people participated in the vote, with 2,622 in favor of establishing term limits and 809 people against it. 

In 2011, the population in Monroe was 17,402, with 6,817 registered voters spread across Monroe’s 12 precincts. Looking at the bigger picture makes the numbers less compelling, Cudaback said. 

There was not extensive public input seeking term limits at that time, she said. Residents were not calling, emailing or providing public testimony that this was something that they wanted, Cudaback said.  

“It wasn’t a Walmart, it wasn’t traffic cameras, it wasn’t east Monroe, it wasn’t the wakeboard park,” she said. “People were not asking for this.”   

Cudaback said the idea to implement term limits was brought forward by one councilmember. 

Councilmember Kevin Hanford pointed out that while one person brought the idea forward, it still took a council majority to pass it. 

When the ordinance adopting term limits passed in December 2011, it was a unanimous vote. However, Councilmembers Tony Balk and Cudaback attempted to amend the ordinance during its first reading to whittle the re-eligibility requirement from eight years out of office to two. One councilmember was absent that night, so the motion to amend the ordinance resulted in a tie. Former Mayor Robert Zimmerman broke the tie, voting against the motion to amend, causing it to fail 4–3.  

After the amendment failed, councilmembers voted unanimously to adopt the ordinance as originally written. Cudaback acknowledged the vote, adding she had limited experience at the time, which hindered her ability to articulate her argument. She accepted the results of the advisory vote without a deeper probe into what the numbers actually meant.

 “That is something I regret,” Cudaback said, “not being stronger at that time to really form my argument and look at the data correctly.”

Councilmember Jim Kamp argued strongly for heeding the 76 percent majority advisory vote in previous council discussion and again last week. Although he’s not happy with the term limit, he said, the fact that 76 percent of the voters favored something should be considered. 

“If we want to get rid of term limits, I think it should go to a ballot as an advisory vote,” Kamp said. 

Adding an advisory vote to a ballot can be cost-prohibitive, particularly if it’s added during a special election. The total cost is calculated based on the number of registered voters in a municipality, and is dependent on how many cities are planning to be on the ballot. 

The average cost to be part of a special election ranges from $3-$12 per registered voter.

“On the low end you’re looking at $24,000 to a high end of $96,000,” said City Clerk Elizabeth Smoot. “It depends on how many entities are on the ballot. The more people that are on the ballot, the more the cost gets dispersed.” 

So far, only one entity has an item on the February 2017 special election ballot, she added.    

Because of the high cost, Kamp suggested implementing an interim solution until an advisory vote could be added to next year’s November general election ballot, which would be far less costly to the city than a special election. 

“I’m not in favor of putting it on an advisory ballot and wasting taxpayer money,” Cudaback said.

Cudaback found fault in the argument that the council is bound by  the “will of the people” due to the advisory. Council has made decisions in the past that deviate from what the majority of residents have voted for, she said, specifically, in reference to Initiative 502. I-502, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana, passed affirmatively in nine out of Monroe’s 12 precincts. 

A total of 3,097 out of 7,321 registered voters in 2012 voted in favor of I-502, while 2,710 people voted against it. 

Yet the Monroe City Council has consistently sided with the minority of voters by disallowing recreational marijuana retail, processing and production facilities in the city, Cudaback said. 

Councilmember Kevin Hanford said he is not necessarily in favor of term limits, except at the federal level. When people consider term limits, they likely consider the entrenchment that happens among members of Congress, he said, which could have been a contributing factor to the results of the city’s advisory vote. If the council were to move forward with repealing term limits, he would want extensive public process, including two public hearings, he said. 

Cudaback made a motion requesting the mayor direct city staff to prepare an ordinance repealing term limits, including two public hearings to collect input. The motion passed 5-1, with Kamp dissenting. Councilmember Ed Davis was absent.

The public hearings will be arranged contingent on the completion of the ordinance.