Mitchell council votes to advance term-limits measure to second reading after lengthy public debate

The Mitchell City Council voted to bring an ordinance establishing term limits for mayor and council members to a second reading, choosing the version that would not count past terms toward the limit.

Council members debated two draft versions of the ordinance at first reading. One version would have counted all previously served terms toward the proposed three-consecutive-term limit; the other would have started the limit only for terms served after the ordinance takes effect. After debate and public comment the council failed to approve the version that counted past service and later voted to move the “clean slate” version to second reading. The motion advanced after a 4-4 split and Mayor Hansen cast the deciding vote.

Supporters who spoke during the public-comment period urged immediate limits and argued incumbency advantages discourage challengers. Roger Musick, a resident who addressed the council, said, “I’m all for the term limits. I think it’s something that we should have, and I would like to see it go into effect and count the past terms,” adding that without counting past terms “nothing would happen for 9 years.” Other residents, including Pam Basky and several who identified as younger professionals or parents, urged term limits to bring new voices onto council.

Opponents said voters should decide in elections and warned unintended consequences. Speakers pointed out that incumbents often bring experience and institutional knowledge; one commenter warned that if no challenger appears, a disfavored individual could still win. Several council members said they favor some form of limits but differed on whether to count prior service.

What the ordinance would do: the draft before the council would set a maximum of three consecutive full terms for the mayor and council seats; it defines a “full term” as service longer than half a regular term and includes an 18-month break-in-service provision that would reset a person’s eligibility. The two versions differ only on whether previously served terms count toward the limit. Language in the drafts also addresses movement between seats (for example, moving from a council seat to mayor) and provides an exception that would allow a termed-out incumbent to run again if no other candidate files.

Council procedure: the council approved moving the second-version ordinance to a second reading; substantial edits would require a second reading again. Council also discussed adding a provision suggested by a resident that would require two petition signatures or some additional step before an incumbent would be barred from running, but no amendment was adopted at first reading.

Next steps: the ordinance will return for a second reading at a future meeting. If the council adopts the version that does not count past terms, the effective start date and implementing language (for example, how to handle petitions and candidate filings) will be finalized in later sessions.

Ending: Councilmembers and members of the public indicated a continuing interest in refining the language; several asked staff to return with alternatives for how to trigger an incumbent’s ineligibility and whether an intermediate appeal or review body should be created if the council chooses to add further procedural controls.