- Advertisement -
Nearly 100 respondents to the city’s multi-question digital term limits survey, say elected officials need at least one full year out office after maxing out their service to be eligible for another term.
The outreach campaign started in the final week of 2021, when City Council began examining two sentences that establish term limits in the city charter.
“In no case shall any person serve on the City Council for more than 12 consecutive years. The limitations do not apply to the filling of an unexpired term,” the charter says. But, it fails to address the length of break needed to reset an elected officials service clock.
Oregon state law tasks city councils with deciphering fuzzy language in their city charters to suss out meaning.
Councilors initially decided to leave the question for voters to resolve in May, before changing course at a subsequent meeting.
They continued in March to call for public input ahead of the 2022 election cycle as they grapple with interpreting the city’s charters intent. One member questioned whether the decision is ultimately best left to an independent body.
“At the direction of (the City) Council, community members are being asked to address questions regarding input to inform the Council’s interpretation of the current language of section 7 of the charter,” Tigard Communications Manager Kent Wyatt said in an update to City Council.
Mayor Jason Snider, who has continued to recuse himself from discussions, was partway through his second four-year term as Tigard city councilor in 2018 when he resigned to run for mayor.
He stepped down late in the year, leaving a small gap between his last day as a city councilor and his first day as mayor. Another successful bid would push him past the 12-year mark in the coming term.
City Council’s interpretation will determine Snider’s eligibility to serve a second term. Both he and Councilor John Goodhouse are eyeing the November race.
“In terms of how we’ve reached respondents we’ve broken it down into three sections,” Wyatt said.
They were asked:
In your opinion, what is the meaning of “consecutive years” referenced in the city charter? Should a break in service reset the consecutive years calculation? If yes, how long of a break is needed?
Should the statement about consecutive years apply regardless of whether the unexpired term was filled by election or appointment?”
More than 90 people had weighed in online by early March, Wyatt said, and the city had also sent a call for opinions to the 30,000 recipients of its weekly digital newsletter, launched targeted social media efforts to reach underrepresented communities, and posted information on the reader board outside of City Hall and on multiple kiosks.
Additionally, city officials met with the 15-member Committee for Community Engagement and participated in a community roundtable discussion held by faith-based non-profit leaders.
“We’re working with the existing text as written,” Wyatt said. “Council is not considering changes at this point nor can they. It’s just the community’s interpretation of what exists in the document now.”
Respondents want no less than a year out of office, with some defining break as a full fallow term and other interpreting the charter limit to mean Tigard’s elected officials, like United States presidents, cannot return to office after maxing out the term limit.
“The voters made it clear more than once that they are in favor of term limits, and this should be honored,” one responded said.
The city is checking respondents’ URL stamps to prevent multiple replies from a single anonymous voice.
Though Council President Heidi Lueb and councilors Jeanette Shaw and Elizabeth Newton continued to express confidence in City Council’s ability to translate public sentiment into an accurate read, Goodhouse lobbied for deferring to an outside body.
“Should we be making these decisions or should a body that doesn’t have any conflicts or motives be making these decisions? …The Mayor is running for re-election. I’ve announced I’m running for mayor,” Goodhouse said. “Both Council President Lueb and Councilor Newton have endorsed the mayor publicly. You look at these different conflicts. What constitutes a true conflict, what’s a perceived conflict? Should we as a council really be deciding this or should we have an independent body of attorneys make this decision?”
Despite Goodhouse’s misgivings, City Attorney Shelby Rihala said the Oregon Ethics Committee has confirmed that no legal conflicts of interest prevent City Council from interpreting the charter.
City Council is expected to interpret the charter language in April.
Survey results through March 8, 2022
| In your opinion, what is the meaning of "consecutive years" referenced in the City Charter? | Should a break in service reset the consecutive years calculation? If yes, how long of a break is needed? | Should the above STATEMENT apply regardless of whether the unexpired term was filled by election or appointment? | Is there anything else you want to share on this topic? | |
| 1 | Our founding fathers never intended that anyone should have a career as a politician. I know that’s changed both locally, state-wide and nationally since our country was started but that doesn’t mean it’s right. I believe that we should have strict term limits for all politicians. The idea that you could have a 3 or 4 day break in "service" and start the clock again is ridiculous. | As far as I am concerned, 12 years is way too long for anyone to serve but if we’re working with that number then it should not matter if there’s a break in service at all. Once you hit 12 years – or in this case where Jason would hit it during his next term, I say no way. So forget the break in service and just honor the intent and limit everyone to 12 years "total". All my best, Ruppert Reinstadler Tigard, OR | Yes | |
| 2 | Following each year continuously. | Yes. 2 years. | Yes | |
| 3 | Consecutive years start when first elected and ends when one stops serving. | Yes, presuming it is a real break. 5 days between serving as a council person and starting as mayor is hardly a break. Serve, sit out a term, then run again. | Yes | I think what the mayor and city council are trying to do to allow the mayor to exceed our term limits is reprehensible. |
| 4 | Consecutive terms means ongoing | one year-not two days like the Mayor is trying to do. | Yes | The Mayor needs to do the right thing and not run for a term. Stop trying to change the rules and laws to fit your political agenda. |
| 5 | Holding a position consecutive YEARS! Resigning for a few days does not reset the year. | NO, NO NO! This not the intent of the charter. The intent, I believe is to prevent the same person from holding a position in the city for more than eight years. Resigning for a few days should not be allowed to circumvent the will of the people. | Yes | The voters made it clear more than once that that they are in favor of term limits and this should be honored |
| 6 | Definition should still be the meaning of the word. It means to follow continuously. It would mean consecutive years not consecutive days. | It is not acceptable to have a break in service to reset consecutive years. It doesn’t give other citizens a fair chance at running for a position. A break should mean that after an elected term you will need to wait to be re-elected or campaign for a new position. I believe since both council positions and the mayor are public positions that it doesn’t matter if one goes from council to mayor or the other way. The limit is what it says. The only break in service is one that is a resignation or termination. If you voluntarily resign to restart the limit I believe that goes against the charter. Voters have made it clear in the past that we want no more than 2 terms. It’s fair to wait a term before going for real-election. | Yes | Even when a resignation is received to run for mayor it still counts as consecutive years. In the case of Mayor Snider I believe it’s been 10 consecutive years so he would need to wait a term before running for re-election or if there was a 2 year seat on the council he could run for that. |
| 7 | I would point to what I believe is the intent of Section 7 of the Charter, I believe the intent is to prohibit any individual from being continuously elected without a break in elections. In this case, it is the 8 years (two elections every 4 years in a row) as a Mayor or Councilor and 12 years (3 elections every 4 years in a row) as a member of Council (Mayor/Councilor combination). To say that resigning for a day constitutes a break in consecutive years appears to be technically legal and may hold up in court. That said, in my opinion, that is avoiding the intent of the law, which is to keep any one person from maintaining power for too long and allowing others a chance to serve their community. | Under the charter, a break in service does reset the consecutive years calculation. Using my definition of intent where the Charter language is there to prevent consecutive elections every 4 years in perpetuity, and since elections are held every 2 years, that should be how long the break is. If, for example, a person was elected in November 2010 to Council, re-elected to Council in 2014, and then elected Mayor in November 2018, that person would be term-limited at the end of their term on December 31, 2022. That person would need to wait 2 years to run for election in November 2024 and could reset their clock. | Yes | If Council chooses to interpret the break to reset as waiting the two years between elections to reset the consecutive years calculation, I think you will honor the intent of the Charter. If you are leaning towards a solution that leads to someone being able to be reelected every 4 years in perpetuity, I recommend that you ask the voters to change the Charter to clarify the language and, in effect, remove term limits from the Charter. |
| 8 | To me, consecutive years start the day the person took office and end 365 days later (or however many years the term was for). | At least one term. | Yes | The people want term limits for a reason. Trying to circumvent the system by changing semantics, vacating office, etc, in order to reset the clock is not the intent of term limits. To me term limits means it’s time for fresh faces and thoughts after a person has reached the maximum years of office. |
| 9 | back to back calendar years | yes – a full calendar year | Yes | Nit-picking the charter language is ONLY for the benefit of the mayor or council members – not the public. Term limits are appropriate and necessary to good governing. If you are so sure you are doing a good job, you should not be afraid of a break and your ability to be re-elected. |
| 10 | In my opinion, consecutive years is relating to back-to-back calendar years, not a period of a day. | Yes, I think a break in service of at least 1 year before a person can run for election again should reset the consecutive years calculation. | Yes | N/A |
| 11 | One day does not reset the clock, needs to be an entire year. | 1 entire year is a break. Good or bad, not one person should be on the board for this long. Take a break, enjoy family, take a year off and then come back. | Yes | |
| 12 | Consecutive years to me simply means CHRONOLOGICAL year. That said — if a person steps down from office WITHIN his elected period, that person may be allowed to return during his/her term, but no extensions, until next elections. | No. Even if there is a break in service, I believe that the term expires at the end of SCHEDULED calendar, as originally voted for. | Yes | |
| 13 | I agree more with the calendar year interpretation. Resigning for a day feels like a shady loophole. | 1 year, ideally at least a 4 year term. The point of term limits is to not have one person dominating an office for decades. | Yes | |
| 14 | consecutive [kənˈsekyədiv] ADJECTIVE following continuously. "five consecutive months of serious decline" synonyms: successive · succeeding · following · in succession · running · in a row · one after the other · back-to-back · continuous · solid · straight · uninterrupted · unbroken. Not rocket science. | No. Eight or twelve years is more than enough. I don’t want career politicians running the show. We have too many career politicians. | Yes | |
| 15 | Uninterrupted service | one term | Yes | |
| 16 | The Mayor or Councilor would need a full calendar year in order to reset the clock. I can’t imagine that "one day" was the intent of a necessary "break" before resetting the clock. Common sense. | One year, at least. Minimum one year, more if required to wait until the next election. | Yes | Don’t allow contemporary politics to influence this conversation. In general, the idea of having term limits is to limit the influence of any one person of power or perspective. If you allow for "one day" breaks, and "renewal of term limits when taking over a resigned position" you are gaming the system, and that was not the intent. |
| 17 | Serving more than half a term in a council position and continuing to serve multiple terms in that position back tip back | The break between term limits should be at least the length of one term not including interim or temporary time served | Yes | |
| 18 | Consecutive years | No | Yes | |
| 19 | I think the references to 8 years is clear. (8 years, one after the other, with no breaks.) I think the 12 years reference means that someone could be Councilor for 8, then be Mayor for 4, with no breaks, or Councilor for 4, then be Mayor for 8, with no breaks. Or be Mayor for 4 or 8 years, followed immediately by 8 or 4 years as Councilor. | Yes, although I’d prefer a break of at least 2 years, to allow for a big enough shift in perspective to better inform any future service. | Yes | It would be interesting to see how people feel about coming back for another (potentially) 12 years after a break. There’s something to be said about bringing a fresh perspective, On the other hand, solid experience can be really helpful. And a lot probably depends on what the City needs to deal with most in terms of longer term strategy. |
| 20 | Full calendar year | Yes, a break in service should reset the calculation, but the break should be a full calendar year. | No | If I am understanding the question above correctly, I answered "no" because I think that the filling of somebody else’s term should not count toward the 8 or 12 consecutive years. |
| 21 | Calendar year 365 days | Minimum 6 months. Not 1 day. | Yes | |
| 22 | Back to back calendar years. A one day or five day break in service is a manipulation of the law in my opinion. | A minimum of six months. Probably best to be one year | Yes | |
| 23 | I agree with back to back calendar years. | YES! And I believe the break between service should be one FULL calendar year. | Yes | oh yeah .. I think it is shady as (_ _ _ _ ) to take a few days break and call it a "break in service"! We need our councilors and mayor to be above reproach and have the utmost in integrity. |
| 24 | At the very least, it should be interpreted as a calendar year, and in fact, a full year ‘break’ in service seems barely adequate. In order to bring fresh ideas, new perspectives and motivate new candidates to run and serve, limitations on terms must be clarified and enforced. Otherwise residents may tend to vote apathetically for the ‘devil they know’ rather than researching the platform of a new candidate, reaching out to said candidate, etc. In fact, in my opinion, no one person should be able to serve more than 8 *combined* years in any position, consecutive or not. | At least 2 years, and the charter should be reexamined/rewritten to make term limits a combined years of service. | Yes | We need fresh faces and new ideas in this city’s leadership. |
| 25 | Consecutive years should include any portion of a year, resigning a day before the term is over should not cancel the year previously served. That is a VERY shady way of interpretating the intent of the rule. I am extremely disappointed to hear our Mayor thinks that would be okay. Slimy. | No, there should be a break of at least one year, if not two. | Yes | |
| 26 | back-to-back calendar years | at least 1 year | Yes | 1. Whatever the decisions, the finalized pattern on how term limits are defined should also be made consistent/standardized across city boards and committees (i.e., what counts as consecutive years & how limits apply to unexpired terms). 2. The 12-year rule seems intended as an absolute upper limit, regardless of inclusion of unexpired terms. In other words, it feels like "These limitations do not apply to the filling of an unexpired term" sentence modifies the 8-year rule; NOT the 12-year rule. |
| 27 | I prefer the 2nd interpretation. | I prefer a one year break. | Yes | Thank you for requesting input from Tigard citizens. |
| 28 | In my opinion consecutive years would be one year after another. The operative word being ‘year’. So one day into a year would constitute serving for a full year. If you are elected to 4 years stepping down 1/2 through your last year would still count as 4 full years. Resetting the clock would require one full calendar year. Again keying on the word ‘year’ . | Yes it would reset the clock but would require 1 full year before being allowed to service in that capacity again. | Yes | I think it is admirable that someone wants to serve their community especially with current turbulent times. If there is no one else who wants to run for an office then term limits might have to be revisted. I do think time off as a private citizen is a way to avoid burnout, remember to listen to your community and not forget your homelife and those that love you and support you. |
| 29 | Since a mayor or commissioner can only serve two terms, for a total of eight years, that means the a commissioner running for mayor can only serve one term, period. Resigning for a day or two to break ip the consecutive time period is violating the spirit of the law. | Yes but a break should be for at least 12 months | Yes | |
| 30 | Back to back 365 day periods | At least a day. | No | |
| 31 | Consecutive years would mean 2019, 2020, 2021, etc… If I take a vacation for 3 weeks, and 1 week is unpaid, I have still been at my place of employment for 10 years, it doesn’t change my "seniority" or anything like that. I believe the City Charter was correct in limiting the terms and the Mayor and Councilor are trying to undermine the spirit of what was written. I urge the City Council to see through this. | No, especially if they resign to take a new position they were elected to. If you were to take a break from all public service for 1 year or more, then it should reset, since it would not be consecutive. 2019, 2020, (took 2021 off), 2022 starts again. The key to me is that you are NOT running for an office during that 1-year break. | Yes | Term limits keep things fresh for the city. New ideas and such. I have grown up in Tigard, graduated from THS, and now am raising my boys here. I want to not see Tigard stuck with someone who keeps doing something and keeps getting re-elected because they are the incumbent. |
| 32 | I interpret "consecutive years" as back-to-back calendar years. | Under the current terminology, yes. The break, in my opinion, should be a year. However, I believe that the terminology could be changed to something separate. "Consecutive years" leads me to the reasoning of a year long break, however, I believe a longer break could be beneficial to our community and government. | Yes | |
| 33 | Back to back calendar years. The spirit of this rule was not to define this as a single day, rolling from one role to another. The break in service was meant to provide equitable and ample time for other candidates the chance to campaign for an elected office. This is particularly important against a popular or well funded incumbent. How do we attract other candidates who offer diverse perspectives, not the most popular or longest tenured opinion. | No. If we believe in diversity of thought and tout ourselves as being a City that desires citizen participation, then why would we reset the clock to allow the opposite. | Yes | The spirit of why the rule was created is important. New leadership with differing ideas and perspectives is essential to the health and growth of our City. Tigard’s elected leadership prides itself on it’s stance and approach to diversity and inclusion. Changing the language to benefit two elected officials currently in office does not seem to match the idealism the current Council/Mayor state they stand for. The rule was set in place to provide differing views and leadership and to discourage a power vacuum. While one could certainly argue new candidates running for office and attempting to unseat an incumbent is the path towards diversity in thought, politics and leadership; term limits are the absolute to ensuring this happens. Eight and Twelve years are enough time to influence and policies to improve Tigard. Leadership should be about developing the next leaders in Tigard to fulfill these roles, not preservation of ones position by changing long established rules. |
| 34 | Back to back calendar years | 1 calendar year | Yes | I believe there should be a break in service between being a councilor and a mayor as well. |
| 35 | Back-to-back calendar years. There needs to be a break in service of at least a full calendar year in order to reset the clock on term limits. | Minimum of one election cycle. | Yes | |
| 36 | I think it means back to back calendar years. | Yes, the clock can be reset after a break of one year. | Yes | But it is only YES to cover the appointment loophole. I’d really rather not see twelve-year term limits at all. |
| 37 | In a row | 10years | Yes | The bullying of Steve Rymer and Danna Bennett over covid mandates of shots and shoving this DEI down our throats isnt helping. The City is at a all-time low with morale and he insits on making it worse. No Division is working together, its this side of the street and that side of the street. He is a liar, the boots on the ground staff and the carpet walkers are treated differently. In his last Thursday team email he talks about how all shifts are small, liar. Public works has boots on the ground have not been split up. The city talks about safety and DEI, But that only applies to the carpet walkers. The city knows that the Niche isn’t safe(inspectors won’t enter, too many violations). We have a water site that’s being used incorrectly (Canterbury). Green team works out of it, gas and other pesticides are on site to contaminate the water. I wonder how the public would feel about that. I don’t see the city having money to fix the problems. I’m going to be inquiring with OSHA and BOLI about unsafe work environments the discrimination of the labor force. I want Steve and Dana’s resignation!!! I want an internal meetings/survey with leadership and council so Tigard staff and give our invite about Steve Rymer, Dana Bennett and Mayor Jason Snyder. Do you even know what’s going on with staff? My bet is your getting smoke blown up your ass. How do supervisor your managers,directors and the Mayor, my guess you just take what they say instead of talking to the staff(Teammates). Help us (City Staff) help you (Council and the Public) by taking care of The City of Tigards public. Mayor is to busy with photo opportunities with the City of Tigards minority citizens population. |
| 38 | Consecutive years in the Charter means, "back-to-back calendar years" | Yes, from the Charter history and the previous discussions about this topic in the document you provided, a break in service is needed to reset the consecutive years calculation. The break should be, "at least a full calendar year in order to reset the clock on term limits." The other option noted, a one-day break in service, sounds like an attempt to circumvent the Charter requirement. In my opinion, it doesn’t sound like a one-day break was the intent when the Charter was prepared. | Yes | There is a lot of effort to clarify what looks to me like straightforward information. Ethically, using an interpretation that takes what is meant to be a break from service and boils it down to one-day separation, is questionable at best. |
| 39 | Terms that run together without a break. | If another entire term has passed, for example a four year term, would require a four year break. | Yes | Term limits by the citizens of Tigard mean they (we) want turnover. |
| 40 | The entirety of the term in which the candidate was elected | No. Regardless of the officials decision to vacate the office, the public voted them in for the full term. | Yes | The intent of the lawmakers should be interpreted correctly |
| 41 | Full years | > 365 days, which is only 25% of a term. | I like Mayor Snyder, but the intent of this law is to force seats to be vacated to get new candidates. Resigning for a few days does not do that. | |
| 42 | Back-to-back calendar years. | No. | Yes | |
| 43 | "consecutive years" meaning continually in a row 1,2,3, and so on. | NO | Yes | |
| 44 | Back-to-back calendar years (meaning no breaks) | No, it should be an overall calculation so that no one person can continuously break the consecutive years and then serve for more than a maximum amount of 8 years. | Yes | It is nice to have changes in leadership for fresh ideas and energy. It would be good to have an interpretation that doesn’t allow for loopholes. |
| 45 | No one day reset. This should be a full year at least | A minimum of one year or more | Yes | I understand the effort to resolve these issues in a timely matter but trying to squeeze this into a December meeting just prior to Christmas was wrong! |
| 46 | o: Tigard Mayor and City Council Public Testimony: 1/23/22 (for the public hearing on 1/25/22) Regarding Elections of city councilors and a mayor: 1. Any elections charter change agenda item at public meetings should have been advertised and scheduled early last Fall, NOT between Thanksgiving and New Year’s (when virtually Nobody is paying attention). That, by itself, is suspicious — and as to the motive. There’s a history of Tigard city councils sneaking through radical [unsupported] measures during that time period (and also in the middle of the summer, when folks are focussed on vacations, etc.). That is corrupt. | not answered | No | |
| 47 | The dictionary definition provided by city staff in the memo linked above. | Yes. At least one day. | No | I am speaking in my capacity as a private citizen and Tigard resident. I am concerned about how the questions on this form are framed. In my opinion, given the proximity of the next election, the council should strictly be interpreting the charter as it’s written–rather than engaging in the normative question about what "should" apply (as the questions are written). My answers to what "should" apply are different from what I believe the charter language actually says. The discussion about what "should" apply ought to occur during an official charter review process, which I understand the council does not have the time to complete prior to the next election (but I hope it will happen after the next election). You all are in a tough position. This portion of the charter is poorly written. However, I feel strongly that it should not be re-interpreted in a stricter way this close to an election. Based on the memo provided, it appears clear to me that based on the definition of year provided city staff, a break in service resets the count. Perhaps the charter *should* say "calendar year" — but it does not say that now. It also appears there are historical examples (like that of Mayor Dirksen serving for 9 years) that indicate interpreting this charter language in an exclusionary way would be a departure from past precedent. Departing from past precedent should occur during a charter review process, not an isolated council vote. At the very least, a person who has only served 10 years on City Council should not be prohibited from at least serving two more years (again, if Dirksen served for 9 years as mayor, past precedent seems to indicate that a person should be able to complete a full term, even if it goes beyond the "total year" count). Ultimately, if there is ambiguity, which there clearly is, the decision should be left to the voters. When the election is over, engage in a full and proper charter review process to fix the language and provide greater clarity. |
| 48 | Back-to-back calendar years. | Yes, one calendar year. | Yes | |
| 49 | The term is ambiguous. | If it is decided that a break is necessary it should be clearly defined. | No | The current mayor should not be restricted from running for reelection . |
| 50 | In my opinion the intent of the Charter language is that if a person is elected fro a term of years and serves any time within that year – the year qualifies as a consecutive year. If a person resigns early, the full year counts as a year of service. The language of the Charter that was added to require a resignation before seeking another position that has a portion of its terms concurrent with their term was not intended to create a break in the consecutive years of service. That should be your question not the two options presented. The council and community should be looking at the intent of the Charter and the sequence in which the language was written or revised. The requirement of a resignation was added when or after the mayoral term was increased from 2 to 4 years. The present situation where the mayor cannot run for a new term because he will have served for 10 years at the end of 2022 was anticipated and understood. He cannot run as a new term would be in excess of 12 years. The requirement of a resignation of at least one day before taking a new term was not intended as a "reset". To determine that there is a "reset" serves to undermine the intent of the Charter language to have term limits. The city has term limits. The intent is to make way for new members of the community to serve. Interpreting the language either way this question is worded is wrong and does not honor the Charter. I submitted earlier comments before the questions were changed. | No break in service should not reset the consecutive years calculation. Being elected for a four year term should be counted as four consecutive years regardless of how long the person serves. The person’s elected term when added to any other consecutive elected term (not one filled by appointment as the Charter excludes this) equals consecutive years of service. A resignation to address the requirement of the Charter (to run for another office) is not a break in service regardless of whether it is a day (the minimum required by the Charter) or longer. There was no intent for the Charter language requiring resignation to void the term limit requirement. Its intent was to eliminate the possibility someone would have a "safe seat" when running knowing if they lost they still had two years remaining in their term. The intent was to take away one advantage an incumbent would have in an election. Term limits were established to encourage community members to be involved and to seek election allowing for openness and the ability of young, new, and newly interested people to seek elected office rather than have the community perceive that the same few people with political war chests and established campaigns are the only people likely to win. It was to level the field and encourage involvement in the process. The present city council must honor the intent of the Charter not look for loopholes to stay on council and exclude new candidates. Remember: equity and diversity. | Yes | |
| 51 | For the term of office a consecutive year should be 365 days or any part there of. If during any part of the year a resignation is tendered the part shall count as a whole year. If the resignation occurs during the second year then the eight year term limit shall be considered fulfilled. The candidate may not again run for the same office. | No. Not if there has been one year of holding the office. In no case shall an office holder serve more than eight total years as Mayor. | It seems that eliminating the word "consecutive" would solve all of the problems. The City Council position should just be limited to eight years. | |
| 52 | My interpretation is back to back 365 day periods. | Yes. If a current council member is required to resign his position in order to be a candidate for a different position that would be concurrent to the one held, that would seem to be an adequate break in terms of term limits. | Yes | I believe that term limits are important. I think they properly put the focus on community service and not on "career politicians" for example. I also think, especially at the city level, experienced public servants may offer a lot of value in the way of historical knowledge and a broader understanding of community issues. Voters still get to decide, at the ballot box, whom they want. It is unfortunate, that the language in the city charter, leaves so much room for interpretation at this time. In the cloudy time frame that this is being decided, I would prefer to have the voters be able to choose between two candidates, rather than have 4 council members decide if one of them is not eleigible to run. |
| 53 | Calendar year. The intent is to not have permanent council members. | At least 2 years. | Yes | |
| 54 | It is just a corrupt meaning that allows a politician to resign right near the end of their term so that they can circumvent the intended definition of serving more consecutive terms than allowed. | No. Change the language of the charter to be a max consecutive elected terms – not years. For example, if you are elected counselor once and then twice as mayor, resigning as mayor during your second elected term means that you will have to wait at least one more complete term before running for election again. You cannot run in the next election which would follow the end of your normal full elected term. | No | I cant believe you all are making this problem bigger than it actually is. Simply get rid of the years and replace it with terms. This removes the whole issue of corrupt politicians resigning right before election so as to circumvent the intended definition of consecutive terms. |
| 55 | Back to back years with no break. Retirement in any part of a year still counts for the entire 365 days . | At least one year from the end of the year of the term or if one resigns at anytime during the year , the year wait will commence at the end of the year of the retirement (365 days) . If one retires 3 months into a year the one year wait begins at the end of the 365 day of the year and not from actual retirement date. | Yes | |
| 56 | back-to-back calendar years – at least a full calendar year needs to pass before resetting the service clock | A reset should not be given if the break is due to resignation. If someone quits their current position in order to run again, their service should be counted through the end of the current calendar year. Otherwise they could serve 11 years and some months and then immediately serve up to another 12 years. I do not believe that is in the spirit of the charter language on term limits. | Yes | |
| 57 | The term "consecutive years" in my opinion means two fiscal years without at least a fiscal year between. | A break in service of at least one full fiscal year should reset the clock. | No | The statement should be "No councilor or mayor may be elected to more than two consecutive terms". This would allow a person to be appointed to a partial term and then run for two additional consecutive terms. Has anyone checked with the members of the original committee that drafted the Charter. That would get a reading on the "legislative intent" of the original language. Are there any original committee members still available to be interviewed? |
| 58 | Full calendar year. | Full calendar year. | No | |
| 59 | Council is parsing the language to gain their desired outcome that the Mayor serves another term. Just be honest. The intent of term limits is to prohibit the same individual(s) from serving year after year, term after term. 12 years on City Council is long enough. Governing stales with the same ideas, perspectives and agendas. After a resignation, a Council member needs to sit out a full election cycle. Otherwise, given your limited definition, a person could serve indefinitely. The timing of this charade disadvantages other candidates. Let us be open to new faces governing and give the mayor’s campaign war chest and Tom Brian’s political consulting a rest. | A full election cycle | Again, your question is misleading. There are 2 parts to this section. The limits to lengths of terms and council’s ability to fill vacancies. The entire break in service question arose because Jason had to resign from his seat in order to be sworn in as Mayor. If a Council member has to resign because of illness or work or whatever reason, they should have to wait until the next election. That is what should be considered as break in service instead of a way to game the process. I find it hard to believe that Jason did not consider this when he ran for Mayor. After all, he has fellow council members. the City attorney and the City recorder in a box and no doubt lobbying from other Washington County pols. And this is leadership. Looks like Trumpian desperate attempt to hold onto a seat, with the $40k salary and benefits to boot. | |
| 60 | Consecutive years should mean back to back years. IMO, a break of a few days or even a few months IS NOT within the spirit of the charters intentions! | No, unless such break is the equivalent of one full term! | Yes | The city council should not try to split hairs here. The idea that a break in service of a few days should reset the clock fly’s in the face of the charters intention and that intention is clear. No more that 2 conservative terms in either position and no more than 3 consecutive terms total. If a position is appointed to fill a vacancy it’s still a term, even if it’s not a complete or “whole” term. The elected positions of representatives were never intended to be career positions. The city charter was put in place to reinforce and guarantee this! New people bring new ideas! Our country is self governed from top to bottom! We elect representatives to represent us, not lead us!!! Somehow this has been lost! |
| 61 | Back to back years | Yes. At least 4 years. | Yes | I believe term limits are a must in order to prevent ingrown power bases. |
| 62 | I don’t think it matters what my opinion is. The language should be eliminated and a designated period of time defined that constitutes a break in service. | Charter language should be changed to state no less than one year is considered a break in service. | No | Because the language is subject to interpretation and has yet to be resolved, this should not impact the 2022 election. Let the citizens of Tigard decide who they want as mayor. Having said that, this language should be defined by specific days so less is subject to interpretation. Additionally, I would be in support of allowing for up to 16 years when an individual transitions from councilor to mayor. Four years goes by quickly for those learning a new role and I believe eight years of service will best serve the citizens of Tigard. |
| 63 | I would accept the first interpretation…back to back 365 day periods. | Once leaving service, for whatever reason, any break should allow for starting a new term of 8 years. | No | No matter the "break in service", the mayor or councilor would have to go through the election process. At that time, the citizens decide if they want the candidate to continue or not. Ultimately, the votes become the term limit and the voters decide if they want the candidate to continue serving the city. |
| 64 | Break in service is a FULL calendar year. Council knows this. They should do their jobbs. Make the decision. | No | Yes | Stop embarrassing yourself Council. YOU AREN’T FOOLING ANYONE. Community knows what you are trying to do. Trying to get Snyder elected again. I know for a FACT that Lueb is misinforming the community. Stop making it seem like it is not about term limits. Luaeb is not a real leader, real leaders would not have wasted community time asking questions we already know the answer DURING A PANDEMIC. Zero trust in the city. Super shady. When can we vote Lueb and others out for not doing their job. Such a charade. Ever thought about focusing on what the community actually needs. Two years into a pandemic and Council is yapping about term limits, not support for us. HOW about help those who are getting kicked out of housing or CANNOT AFFORD childcare or BUSINESS is GOING UNDER. |
| 65 | 1 full term, ele Tedappointed nted. | Yes. 1 full term. | No | 8 years max for any position or combined positions |
| 66 | Full year or ‘term of office left’ to reset. We NEED fresh people. Set REAL limits please. | No. Limits are needed. Fresh eyes and no one should ride the wave of office without a limit of power by a true break in office. | Yes | Thank you for offering the survey! |
| 67 | Back-to-back calendar year. Break would need to be at least a full calendar year. | A break of at least 3 years to reset the consecutive years calculation. | Yes | |
| 68 | back-to-back calendar years | 1 year | No | My interpretation of the charter does not mean that I agree with the charter. I think there is great value in having public servants (Mayor) who have a solid foundation of service and history to the community. I am in favor of 2 elected terms for each category of of Council member. Appointments to the Council in any capacity should not apply to the term limits. Understanding the basis for the 1990 wording could have an impact on this discussion. The roles for the councilors and Mayor and the levels of duty expected may be very different in 2022. Tigard is a larger and more diverse and robust city than 40+ years ago and an amended charter with more explict language is due. |
| 69 | After reading the materials, it is clear that there are multiple ways to interpret the phrase and it should not be left up to the body that is the most to benefit from s definition they form. | yes–break of at lest 6 months | No | A charter review commission of Tigard residents needs to be formed and their suggestion sent to the voters. The term consecutive should not be defined by the people it most effects, nor should it be pushed by outside groups with an alternative motive. |
| 70 | Consecutive years should mean 12 month periods with a break. The chater should limit "Total" years served in a lifetime. | No. | Yes | Elected officials should be limited to total years served. 8 total for council, and 8 total for mayor. |
| 71 | I think the term limits need to reflect “anytime a person holds an office”, period. That person would then need to run again after an appropriate time, yet to be determined, possibly 3-5 years. Having breaks of service is a loop hole that needs to be plugged. | No! A break in service, such as a day or two, totally defeats the purpose of term limits. This is a way back in for person(s) not doing a good job and would allow them to continue their jobs in a sub par manner. Term limits help to weed out people who are not doing an acceptable job. | No | Sadly, in this day and age, people are entering into the area of local, state, and national governments to promote their own personal agendas. There needs to be a way to “freshen the pot” so to speak and get new ideas generated by a variety of people who represent the thoughts/voices of the general population. |
| 72 | Should be changed to total years to be more clear. | No | Yes | |
| 73 | There are term limits, they should be followed with fidelity! | NO, that’s not a thing! That would be bad for Tigard | Yes | |
| 74 | Back to back years | A calendar year or full term cycle | Yes | |
| 75 | First, I own a rental house in Tigard and have paid taxes on that for many years. To me "consecutive years" means time without a break. | Yes, a break should reset if filing for a different office. Unsure about the length of time. | Yes | I think this charter language is hurtful to continuity of governing. It will frequently result in one term mayors. The mayor’s role involves forging many relationships throughout the area and nation. We lose much if we terminate successful mayors after only one term. An eight year limit on each office would be much more effective in terms of the stability and influence of Tigard. |
| 76 | back-to-back 365-day periods | As long as charter does not specify, it seems as though a single day would be sufficient | Yes | Given the lack of specificity in the charter language, I believe the most legally defensible position is the one that restricts council/mayoral participation the least. If the author(s) wanted to be more specific they could have been. I also tend to think an update of the problematic language for greater specificity would be wise. |
| 77 | Back to back calendar years | A break of at least a year seems appropriate. | No | I feel like it’s clear to anyone not currently on the city council that the break means more than one day. |
| 78 | To me, a "consecutive year" means one calendar year starting with the first day the Mayor and Councilor takes office. For example, if the Mayor took office October 1, 2022, then one consecutive year would be October 1, 2023. Also, I think the definition should include "one day up to one calendar year." In other words, if the Mayor takes office October 1, 2022, and resigns October 5, 2023, that would give the Mayor two consecutive years. | Yes, I think a break in service should reset the consecutive years calculation. I think two consecutive years (meaning two calendar years from the date the Mayor or Councilor has left office) is needed for a break in service. (I would even be open to a longer break in service – four years, but that might be too long.) | Yes | I might be interested in participating in future discussions on the City Charter, but I would be curious to know what that actually would entail. Also, I like a limit of eight consecutive years for both Mayor and Councilors, regardless of when/how they took office. I think we should remove the 12 years limit language. Thank you for soliciting feedback! |
| 79 | My opinion would be option 2 as it is now written in Section 7. To me the key is “Consecutive Years.” If a person has only resigned for a day, a week or even a month from council, I would not consider that to be a real break from serving on council which seems to be the intent. Tigard not being a city that has the same people serving 20, 30 or 40 years. I did live here in 1990, but I don’t remember any discussion on the meaning of this section, so this is purely my opinion. | Yes, it seems fair a break in service would reset the consecutive years calculation. Ideally, I feel 5 years would be a good amount for a break, but at the very least it should be a full 365 days/year | Yes | |
| 80 | Back-to-back calendar years. | The break service should be the period of a council term – for four years. | Yes | It is healthy to have changes in leadership and fresh perspectives. That’s the spirit of these rules and the spirit should be followed when the letter is unclear. |
| 81 | Back-to-back calendar years. | Yes. At least one year. | Yes | It should be plainly stated that the mayor is a member of City Council. I’m in favor of a longer term limit, specifically three, for any member of the council, not solely a person who’s served as councilor and mayor. |
| 82 | consecutive years means back-to-back calendar years | at least one full calendar year | Yes | term limits should be interpreted to encourage more opportunities for others to seek elected office |
| 83 | Back to back calendar years – would need a break from service of at least a full calendar year. | Yes, one year at a minimum. One day does not meet the spirit of the clause. | No | If the eight consecutive years applied to appointments, how could twelve consecutive years ever be a possibility. If a councilor was appointed one year into a four year term, they could be elected for two more consecutive four year terms. Language certainly could/should be more clear. |
| 84 | The meaning is clear…at least a full calender year break would be required..further more additional realities is also to be implied…trying to game the system so as to run again sooner that should be allowed is corrupt/innaproprpriate..I E . Resigning a year before the end of a term, so as to be able to run again for the next concurrent 4 yr term..not appropriate, illegal, ect..should be obvious.. | A non-manipulated break of at least a year should required. Further more it is obvious that no person is allowed to serve more than 12 yrs cummulative..period, I .E. you can’t take a year off, and get to serve another 8 years..again the intention appears to be clear/obvious. | Yes | |
| 85 | Calendar year | A year | Yes | No |
| 86 | The first interpretation listed above is how I understand this. | According to how it’s currently written, it sounds like one day. | Yes | |
| 87 | 365 day years starting on the day of service of a normal election cycle. | Yes based on charter language, a break in service equal to the term length of the office is required (4 years for Mayor). Exception would be prior officer returning to fill partial term of an officer who resigned, was removed, or died in office. | Yes | |
| 88 | consecutive years should be continuous service, but what consideration is given for vacations or medical emergencies? | 1 year | No | Is there a difference between the Oregon constitution and the Tigard charter on the term limits |
| 89 | To be honest the "one day reset" interpretation seems ridiculous. A break should be that of the stated term, which in this case would be four years. In the event the position came open it should be possible to "appoint" the former officeholder although in the event the interval was less than a year the appointment should be examined to make sure, as much as possible, that the vacancy was not pre-planned. | I would say yes, that a person, having served two four-year terms should be off at least the next four. At that point they should be eligible for two more terms, subject to winning their elections. I would also interpret a year as the basic 200 working days and a shortage of one or two insufficient to reset the count. | Yes | If the voters haven’t learned their lesson in 8 years they pretty much deserve what they get. We’ll try to do what we can with education. |
| 90 | Back to back years. So, they would need a full calendar year to reset term limits. | Yes, at least a year. | Yes | |
| 91 | Literal. Consecutive years per true definition | No. The length of a term would be needed to qualify as a break. No short cuts. | Yes | |
| 92 | years that run back to back / one right after the other. | A Term is determined as 4 consecutive years, (ie. an election is held every 4 years). One term (4 years) for the length of the break time. At the end of 2 terms, a break would be 1 Term. | Yes | Any length of a break that is shorter than 1 year, in my opinion, is an underhanded way to manipulate language and disparage the intentions of the authors/framers. With all the upheaval in our society that’re disrupting every aspect of life, why would this challenge to the Charter even be before us. Where is the humanity of these elected/hope to be elected people? I’d like the challengers to take the year off from public service and use the time to develop the next steps which are a benefit, the highest and best good for everyone. |
| 93 | no break in between years | this all depends. We want the right people and if one is bending too much to the will of what businesses need over public wants, needs, and safety then yeah there needs an ability to say no more of you because current law means businesses buy campaigns. | No | just that somestimes they are working toward finishing an issue and that issue could be a stress relief for the community so issues sometimes are more important. also I think getting money out of politics is the most important part of who can be elected. |
- Advertisement -
