Multiple people who I admire and in some cases consider friends have spoken out in opposition to term limits for Lehigh County. I respectfully, disagree.

Here is an article on the recent conversation.

A term limit proposal for 3 terms totalling 12 years has been made and presented to the County board. It received support from executive Armstrong at the recent state of County speech.

I am a supporter of term limits. Pretty much across the board. It’s one of the things in government I feel most strongly about. It’s an essential reform.

I have struggled at times with the question whether we need term limits for positions with part time stipends or no pay at all. This was brought up by numerous Commissioners in arguments against County term limits.
The problem is to assume that financial security is the only motivating factor that can lead one to cut corners over time. Certainly, full time pay and benefits supercharges an environment ripe for corruption. The Pennsylvania State House is the ultimate example. Full of warm bodies happily taking a taxpayer salary, benefits and pensions serving for a lifetime without accomplishing much of anything.

With or without a career dynamic when put in a position of power, there is potential to eventually be corrupted by it. Local government does not come with great esteem, perks or broad sweeping power. Nonetheless, important decisions are made and therefore opens the door to bad behavior. (realized or not) Humans accustomed to power do not want to give that power up.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Grammes that those who serve on the local level are for the most part the truest public servants, I am still convinced and concerned that the longer one serves, the more likely decisions are impacted by self interest one way or another. The founders realized this. Which is why our system was concieved with a citizen legislator in mind.

The problem is not just pursuing self interest. There are also cases where genuine desire to accomplish something, even if well intentioned opens the door to a sort of tunnel vision. In other words, end justifies the means traps. In protecting institutions process is everything. We have a very high profile conversation right now at the federal level about this.

A desire to take a machete to bureaucratic red tape is a good thing. But that can’t conflict with checks and balances meant to ensure good, transperent and ethical government. Even the best and most well intentioned of us are susceptible.

By remaining in government perpetually at one position, you acquire the habits of a place, which might differ from those of their constituents. I’m paraphrasing this from one of founders in something I read at some point that stuck with me. Think of it as almost a political stockholme syndrome.

We also have the flip side of this human nature problem dealing with the assertion that “politicians are term limited, by voters”. Another point referenced by one opposing Commissioner.

Ask yourself question: Are 90% of incumbents better than any other challenger who could materialize? Since that’s roughly how many incumbents keep positions.

No. Definitely not. This drives the fact 84% of Americans support limits.

This is the other side of the equation. There are reasons for retention rate of incumbents across the board, despite an overwhelmingly opinion that term limits are needed. It has to do with incumbency protections baked into a rigged game. It’s reality whether someone actively takes advantage or not. The protections are still there and the results the same. It truly is much less about merit than it is a natural tendency and nature to maintain status quo.

Would we lose some good public servants with limits? Sure. There are of course exceptions to the rule. My friend Percy Dougherty is an example. The County is better off because of his long tenured service.  But the flip side of allowing bad folks, placeholders or compromised to languish is more concerning. New blood is an antiseptic. Turnover brings fresh viewpoints. Too many people have a pre-disposition to “this is the way it’s always been done” thinking. 

Another thought, whether consciously or not it’s narcissistic to think that out of a county with a talent pool of almost 400,000 people (or in my case a township of 32,000) that there aren’t others capable of doing a job. Perhaps even at a higher level. 

One last note, for term limited public servants opportunity still exists (and they ought to be encouraged) for higher officer. The cream rises to the top. Where opportunities don’t exist, there are lots of ways to stay involved as a citizen activist or as a formal volunteer on boards, commissions etc. This addresses the question of “losing institutional knowledge”. Someone who genuinely cares, even if term limited still has ample opportunity to participate. To say otherwise implies that there is a different dynamic between being on the “outside” vs. the “inside. I think most will agree in good government that gap should be very narrow if at all. 

The only exception I would say are truly small Boroughs where the talent pool is numerically small. I support a 12 year 3 term limit for all paid positions, for County Government and for large municipalities.