Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Term Limits Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated debate, Millbrae council adopts interpretation of term-limit "break in service"; mayor dissents
Summary
On a 3-1 vote the council adopted a resolution interpreting the city's voter-approved term-limit provisions and defining the required "break in service" as equal to a single elective term (currently four years under district elections). The decision followed lengthy legal briefing, public objections, and disagreement among council members about whether to leave the question to voters.
Millbrae City Council on July 7 adopted a resolution that sets an interim interpretation of the city's term-limit provisions and the required break in service before an otherwise term-limited member may seek reelection. The measure passed 3-1, with Mayor Rinaldi recorded as dissenting.
Special legal counsel Tom McMorrow told the council that Measure F (1997) originally limited successive service and Measure FF (2024) added a third successive term but did not define how long the statutorily required break in service must last. McMorrow said the city historically treated a required break as equal to a full elective term and that, with district elections now in place, a term for most seats is four years. He advised that the council may provide an interim interpretation so candidates, the clerk and voters have guidance in the current filing period; he emphasized that an interpretation records past practice and does not amend a voter-approved measure, and that any substantive change must return to voters.
Several residents and former officeholders urged the council not to adopt an interpretation. Former mayor Anne Schneider called the resolution a "dangerous rewrite" that could retroactively disqualify a candidate, said the council was bypassing voters, and urged the council to remain silent and let electors decide. Dan Stegnick and Ken Smith argued the council should not act now and that historical practice supports different interpretations.
Council debate split on procedure and principle. Mayor Rinaldi moved to refrain from adopting an interpretation and to leave the matter to the voters; that motion failed for lack of a second. Council member Riley moved to adopt the resolution as provided; Vice Mayor Fung seconded. Supporters of the resolution said issuing an interim interpretation protects the city by documenting the pattern of past practice for this election cycle; opponents said the question belongs with voters and criticized the special-meeting timing and retroactive appearance.
The motion to adopt the resolution carried 3-1; the council recorded Mayor Rinaldi as dissenting. Counsel and staff said the voters remain the ultimate decision-makers and that any definitive change to term limits would require a ballot measure.
