Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council picks second-option term-limits ordinance for more study after heated public debate
Summary
After a contentious public hearing and lengthy council discussion, Mitchell City Council voted to advance the version of a term-limits ordinance that would not count prior terms toward the new three-term limit. The ordinance was sent to a second reading with a split council and the mayor casting the tie-breaking vote.
Mitchell — The City Council voted to move a proposed ordinance on term limits for mayor and councilmembers to a second reading after contentious discussion and public testimony that included neighborhood and civic voices both for and against immediate limits.
City attorney Justin Johnson presented two versions of the proposed ordinance. Version 1 would set a limit of three consecutive full terms and would count prior service toward that limit. Version 2 would also set a three-term cap but would not count previously served terms — giving current officeholders a fresh slate.
Council debate ran more than an hour and included multiple public speakers. Roger Musick urged immediate limits and said the change would encourage new candidates to run. Pam Basky, citing her 2021 run against an incumbent, argued entrenched incumbency discourages challengers and supported immediate limits. Several council members said they were sympathetic but split over retroactivity.
After an initial council vote on Version 1 failed, a motion to send Version 2 to a second reading passed on a roll-call tie (4-4) that the mayor broke in favor. The recorded roll-call vote on the motion to move Version 2 to second reading was: Barrington — aye; Basky — no; Charx — no; Smith — aye; Savers — aye; Goldammer — no; Dolcher — no; McCardell — aye. The mayor then cast the deciding vote in favor.
Mark Genigis, city planning staff, suggested one compromise discussed during public comment: require a petition or contested candidate before a termed-out incumbent could be prevented from appearing on the ballot. The transcript records that suggestion but the council did not adopt it as part of tonight’s action.
Councilmembers said they will bring Version 2 back for a formal second reading where they may refine language, including whether to require a petition threshold before preventing a termed-out incumbent from reappearing on the ballot. The ordinance’s differences hinge chiefly on whether current and past terms count toward the three-term limit.
The question of term limits drew sustained public turnout: commenters cited the advantages of incumbency, recruitment of younger candidates, and concerns about losing institutional knowledge. The council’s procedural vote now moves Version 2 forward for additional review and possible amendment before a final vote.
No final term-limit policy was adopted tonight; council approved moving the alternative (Version 2) to a second reading.
