Opinion – Is It Time To Consider Term Limits?

Should there be a limit on the number of consecutive terms a mayor or council member can serve?

Of the seven elected members of Council, five have served two consecutive terms, and two — Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and Councillor Paul Sharman — have served four. The mayor’s tenure includes two terms as a councillor followed by two as mayor. What are the advantages of long-serving councils, and do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

Ontario doesn’t limit the number of consecutive terms a mayor or councillor can serve. Gary Carr, Regional Chair of Halton, has held office for nearly 20 years. Gord Krantz, Mayor of Milton, has been mayor for 45 years. The late Hazel McCallion was Mayor of Mississauga for 36 years.

There are advantages to having long-serving elected officials, they know the details and complexities of government. They are oriented in their role. Experience can promote continuity, institutional memory, and a practical understanding of how to get things done efficiently.

New faces bring a different set of strengths: They’re not steeped in tradition and may be open to new ways of working. They bring fresh ideas and a different perspective. They may be more willing to consider alternative approaches to problem-solving. They offer a fresh set of eyes and a different interpretation of issues.

In an ideal world, the best council would be a mix of veterans and newcomers. That balance may emerge on its own. With two councillors vying for the mayor’s office, and Councillor Stolte not running, change is certainly in the air. Should we rely on chance or circumstance to produce meaningful change?

For me, the advantages of term limits far outweigh the disadvantages. Over time, the benefits of additional years in office taper off. Experience can be valuable, but too much of it can also make a politician rigid and resistant to change.

The second concern is the “F + R = C” equation: Familiarity plus Routine leads to Complacency. This can be seen in public meetings when politicians respond to questions. Too often, the concerns raised are similar to those heard many times before, and the responses sound rehearsed and predictable. Sometimes, the answers come so quickly that one wonders whether the question was even heard.

This has been especially noticeable during pre-budget consultations over the past two years. Residents ask about public spending or question why tax increases exceed inflation, only to be told that the choice is essentially between no increases and reduced services or higher taxes and properly maintained infrastructure. Residents are then asked to accept one of two extremes. Perhaps the better question is: why must we be forced into that choice at all?

There is another major advantage to term limits that goes to the heart of democracy: change itself. Whether on a council, a board of directors, or any governing body, turnover creates momentum. New people bring new ideas, energy, and perspectives. Opening up seats to new candidates can stimulate interest, encourage engagement, and strengthen public involvement.

Municipal elections already struggle with low public interest, demonstrated by the 29% turnout in 2022. Incumbents have a substantial advantage through name recognition, visibility, and familiarity. Voters assume the outcome is already decided, and don’t bother to vote at all.

Most people who run for office genuinely want to serve their community. But public service also includes encouraging civic participation, fostering renewal, and planning for succession. At some point, incumbents should pass the torch to new aspirants. Public office was never meant to be a lifelong profession.