The main push to go to 4-year terms seems to be a feeling that longer terms will lead to more effectiveness among commissioners and staff. More time together leads to a better working relationship and a better understanding of the issues.

I can’t argue with this point. The town manager and commissioners are in a better position to know than I.

However, the point is not whether commissioners (and the mayor, by the way) should serve longer terms. It is whether our elected officials should be accountable to the people every two years, or only every four years.

As I pointed out at the chat, there are two ways to serve for four years. One is to change the terms to four years, and get elected once. The other, and in my opinion, better way is to keep the current two-year terms, and do a good job and get re-elected.

Town Manager Leamon Brice presented information showing that the average length of service of a town commissioner is eight years. While sitting commissioners periodically choose not to seek re-election, it is rare that a commissioner who seeks office is not re-elected. Thus, even with two year terms there is longevity in service. There has been a lot of turnover the past two elections, but all of this turnover was because sitting officials chose not to seek re-election.

Another argument that commissioners made for going to four-year terms is that they would not have to go through the election process so often, thus saving money. Mr. Brice talked about developers who have tried to influence the political process by making donations (I think that’s called free speech), and commissioner Williams mentioned that she has always financed her own campaigns because she does want to be beholden to a contributor.

I think that going to four-year terms would make our elections more prone to someone trying to buy influence. If someone is going to serve four years instead of two, that elected official will have more power, and consequently someone will spend more to influence that person.

Also, while I commend commissioner Williams’ well-intentioned position, I don’t think we want to restrict public service only to those who can afford to pay for a campaign out of their own pockets. I want people who have good ideas to run for office regardless of their financial position. If we go to four-year terms, each election will be more important to the candidate and thus more expensive to run. I don’t want to raise the financial barrier to seeking public office.

I’m all for effectiveness and gelling as a team. I’m also for consensus, although I think at times our leaders need to be more open to frank discussions and seeking out opinions from those who disagree with them. If our current leadership team wants to stay together longer, I think the answer is simple: do a good job!

Switching to four year terms, even staggered four year terms, lessens the accountability of the elected officials to the voters. In this regards this suggestion makes our process less democratic, not more. For that reason, it should be rejected.