Commission debates four-year terms for mayor and council; members urge delay for political timing and compensation discussion

Commission members and Common Council leaders discussed whether to include a proposal for four-year terms for the mayor — and likely for council members — in the charter revision process.

Why it matters: Changing term length alters how often voters choose local leaders, affects election timing and turnout, and is frequently linked to compensation and staggered-term decisions; those changes can materially reshape municipal governance.

Common Council President Barbara Smith told the commission she would recuse herself and leave the room for any discussion that turned to a four-year term because she is an active candidate in that election cycle: "I will not comment and I will leave the meeting entirely, when any discussion turns to the 4 year term," she said. Several council members who joined the commission asked the panel to consider political timing, compensation for longer service, and whether a standalone referendum might be a more appropriate vehicle.

Commissioners and council members said the subject is complicated and noted the last commission had tabled political items to avoid distracting from broader charter cleanup. Several participants said there is no "perfect" time to advance such a substantial governance change, and several urged postponing inclusion on the next ballot to avoid politicizing the charter revision.

Council member Greg Burnett and others stressed that if a four-year mayoral term were proposed, the commission should also address council compensation and whether to make council terms four years as well. "If you're gonna do one, you're gonna have to do both, and I'm not sure everyone's up for that," a council member said, noting board of education members already serve four-year terms.

Commission member Tanya asked the panel to move the item off the table at the next meeting so the commission could make a definitive recommendation rather than revisit the issue repeatedly. The chair agreed to add that as a specific agenda item at the next meeting.

Ending: The commission did not vote to change terms at the March 18 meeting. Members requested more detailed drafting, discussion of compensation and staggering, and a plan for when — if ever — a term-length proposal should appear on a ballot.