If Wichita mayor and city council want to stretch their term limits, put it to a vote

No matter what you think about political term limits — common-sense reform or unnecessary constraint — one thing is clear about a new push to increase the term limits for Wichita mayor and City Council members:

There hasn’t been a obvious public clamor to revisit this issue.

Wichita leaders on Tuesday will consider a proposal to amend an ordinance that limits the mayor and City Council members to two consecutive four-year terms.

Voters approved that measure nearly 30 years ago. Although the vote was reasonably close — 52 percent to 48 percent — there hasn’t been the slightest push to take the matter up again. At least not publicly.

Now some council members want to stretch the limits, citing vague “constituent feedback” over the past several years. The proposed change would increase the limit to three consecutive terms — 12 consecutive years — in office.

Besides forgetting about the idea altogether, which is a fine option, the council has two choices:

▪ If five members agree, the council could go ahead and extend the term limits, then brace for a protest petition that could force a public vote.

▪ Or, they could go directly to a public vote.

If they’re determined to pursue the issue, we strongly favor the latter option.

Putting a term limit question on the ballot is the best way to let the public decide how many terms are enough for public officials. This is no time for council members — three of whom are serving or about to begin their second terms — to arbitrarily and unilaterally double down on the advantages of incumbency.

We can and often do debate the pros and cons of term limits for city leaders.

Opponents say they’re unnecessary because we have a perfectly fine system for limiting an elected official’s time in office: They’re called elections.

Supporters argue that term limits encourage new people to pursue public office, lessen the potential for corruption in government, and spur elected officials to get things done because they’re not so focused on winning the next election.

It’s OK and perhaps even wise to have that debate, to consider whether term limits have worked well at the local level and whether they should be changed or scrapped altogether. But it’s not enough for the discussion to happen only among those who stand to benefit from a change.

Voters have the opportunity to choose who they want in office. They also should have the option to decide how long those leaders can serve.

This story was originally published December 8, 2019 at 5:02 AM.