Four-Year Council Terms Would Benefit City

The debate over the length of Cincinnati City Council terms is an old one in our city. The last drive to extend the current two-year council term was lead by former councilmember Paul Booth in 2000. As old as the debate is, the city has never had anything but two years terms for its councilmembers.

A primary reason why many Cincinnatians have supported 2-year terms is a belief that shorter terms increase accountability. Since they are never more than 2 years away from an election, 2-year term supporters argue that the constant threat of being voted out of office makes politicians more responsive to the voters.

Accountability is a hotly debated topic recently, as both officially and non-officially sanctioned commissions study electoral reform in Cincinnati. Many residents feel that a move to district representation – where the city is divided into voting districts and one councilmember is elected from each district – would force councilmembers to be more responsive to individual communities. Any move to 4-year terms without district representation might be seen by district supporters as a further erosion of accountability at city hall.

On its face, the argument appears to have merit, but the debates over term-length and district representation should be considered independently. District representation is a complicated issue that even expensive polling and analysis by the Electoral Reform Commission could not resolve. It involves many minutiae like, how many districts should there be? Should we have some councilmembers elected at-large and some from the districts? If so, how many should be elected from districts and how many at-large?

On the other hand, the debate over extending council terms from two to four years involves only one simple question: are four-year terms better than two? If four-year terms can improve the state of city government now, we should not wait for a resolution to the more complicated debate over district representation.

There are many reasons why four-year terms are superior. For starters, while shorter terms might seem to increase accountability, shorter terms can also lead to what I like to call perpetual campaign syndrome (PCS). PCS causes politicians to be reactive decision makers, constantly shuffling their positions to align with the latest public outcry. Instead of crafting thoughtful and fact-based policy that could benefit the city in the long term, councilmembers act like a bunch of frenzied plumbers trying to plug one more leak than they have arms. For this reason, a side effect of PCS is a lack of long-term planning and vision emanating from City Hall.

Additionally, for those who are unfamiliar with City Council elections, candidates campaign for the better part of a year running up to election night. This means that there is only one year in which councilmembers can devote all their time and energy to their duties at City Hall. The entire second year of office comes with the distraction of having to spend time fundraising and campaigning. This further erodes thoughtful decision-making by local government.

Another benefit of four-years terms is stability. When you look through the city’s database of legislation, you can’t help but notice that the exact same solutions to the same problems get tried over and over, year after year. A big reason for this is that turnover on City Council is so high. Councilmembers don’t learn from mistakes that were made only months or years before because the persons who made those mistakes are no longer around to tell them. There is a learning curve to being a councilmember, and shorter terms compromise the stability that is necessary to learn from past mistakes.

An obvious benefit of longer terms is fewer elections. Turnout for council elections is already low, and forcing people to come out every two years probably hurts turnout even more. In addition, every election costs the taxpayers money – around $300,000. This is money that could be better spent helping the city cope with budget shortfalls projected in the future.

Another potential benefit of longer terms is that it would make the job more attractive to some of our best and brightest citizens who might be turned off by the idea of having to campaign every two years. This is especially significant to potential candidates with families and young children who might not otherwise make the sacrifice of holding public office.