Laurel City Council President Ed Ricks and fellow council members have stepped away from discussions on extending council members' term lengths, saying there was disagreement in how the change would be made.
At a council work session last month, Ricks suggested extending council terms from two years to four years through a charter resolution without asking voters to participate in a referendum on the change, stating that two-year terms limit the work of council members.
According to City Council Clerk Kim Rau, a charter resolution requires two public hearings, with a summary of the charter resolution advertised in the newspaper four consecutive times over 40 days after the passed legislation.
However, Ricks said that there was some "re-thinking" among council members and Mayor Craig Moe that led to different opinions, specifically, in allowing residents to vote for the change through a special referendum.
"I just decided to drop the whole thing," Ricks said. "It just seems like I was in the minority. Even though I had support, at one time, from all five council members, they rethought the process, so I'm not doing anything."
Extending term lengths of council members was also part of a 2009 special referendum vote, as well as proposals for early voting, moving city elections to odd-numbered years, voting by ward and increasing salaries of the mayor and council members.
Although the referendum results were not binding, the voters in 2009 voiced disapproval to changing the council term length.
With the support of at least two council members who agreed with Ricks on making the change through a charter amendment, Ricks said any discussions that arise in the future would have to be proposed by other council members.
"I'm not going to create a battle I know I can't win," Ricks said. "I'm still committed to it. I think it's the right thing to do. Other jurisdictions are doing it and I've proved that."
At-large Councilman Mike Leszcz said he supported making the change by charter, looking at the decision from a business perspective.
"It becomes a political football," he said. "It's probably 500 hours [of work] a year for a council person, 600 to 700 hours for the council president and the mayor I'm sure is over 1,000 hours a year. This is for a part-time job."
The change would also decrease election costs, Leszcz said. Every two years it costs the city $26,000 to $27,000 to hold an election, he said, excluding costs to candidates in their campaign.
"It turns out the easiest way [for candidates] to reach the most people is through mailing to the 6,000-plus registered voters," Leszcz said. "If you do the arithmetic, it gets expensive. It costs more money than it did 20 years ago to run for a seat on the council or the mayor's seat."
Councilwoman Donna Crary said she also agreed with Ricks and Leszcz, describing the change as "smart."
But Councilman Fred Smalls said the decision should be left up to the voters.
"My feeling in terms of how we get there would be through referendum, putting it to the voters who put council members into office," Smalls said. "I feel very strongly that the voters should be the people who decide not only who their representatives are, but also how long their representatives are there."
Smalls said he agrees with an extended term length, whether it is a three- or four-year term, as the city and its council members become involved with more issues and development projects.
"I think it gives the council member the opportunity to learn the job without having to have reelections on his or her mind after just a year," Smalls said. "With a two-year cycle, it becomes a little difficult."
While unaware that Ricks has stopped discussions on term lengths, Moe said he also disagreed with the change by charter.
"Since I've been around here, we've always [made changes] through a referendum question and that's what I felt was the best way to go," Moe said. "Any time you have the people, who you're representing, involved in government, I always think that's a better way to go."
Also for the extension, Councilwoman Valerie Nicholas said the final decision is for the voters.
"I think a four-year term would be good for the council," Nicholas said. "But, the voters need to make their choice."