Op-Ed: The curse of term limits in Ohio

By WILLIAM WEISENBERG

Let me disclose right from the start that I voted against term limits in 1992 and remain unalterably opposed to them.

Having worked in and with the Ohio General Assembly for 32 years, I have seen legislators come and go, and except for a few long-timers (Vern Riffe, Stanley Aronoff, Dick Finan, and Ted Gray), turnover has been regular.

The notion that term limits would solve the problem of one-person rule in the legislature and address some notorious behavior of the late 1980s and early 1990s has given way to a period of instability, absence of civility and collegiality, an almost complete loss of institutional memory, and a thirst for fund-raising and job-seeking that is unprecedented.

The men and women who come to the General Assembly come, for the most part, with good intentions and a desire to serve the best interests of our citizens. Some come with a particular agenda, often with a single issue in mind, but soon find out this is not the road to success.

They do not come expecting to enjoy a gradual learning curve, but recognize the need for a crash course in state government and resume building. Complex problems demand carefully constructed solutions developed over time, but term limits restrict that luxury for today’s legislators.

To say the least, term limits have created an era of instability in the legislature with leadership changing as rapidly as the sports polls.

In fact, leadership in Ohio might be described as a lame-duck game as both Speaker Larry Householder (R., Glenford) and Senate President Doug White (R., Manchester) are term-limited and will exit the legislature in December, 2004. Even before Senator White took over as president last January, the jockeying began as to who would succeed him.

The intensity is so great that Steve Stivers (R., Columbus), the successor to state Sen. Priscilla Mead (R., Upper Arlington), was selected because he was neutral on who a successor might be, having not announced who he might support in 2005, and thus avoiding a veto by an aspiring candidate.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

In the House, teams of second-term members have been laying plans for who would succeed the Householder team at the end of 2004. The amount of time spent on planning for a future role in the legislature and job-seeking in general is one of the unintended consequences of term limits and it takes away from the time required to concentrate on the difficult issues facing the state.

I have had conversations with a number of legislators seeking my thoughts on jobs they could pursue outside the legislature, including judgeships for attorney-legislators and jobs in the private sector. In addition, members are looking at elective offices at the local level when they return home, or representatives are looking at Senate seats, and face the potential of running against one of their colleagues in a primary or general election. This is a fact of term limits.

Term limits have resulted in less collegiality; members do not know each other as well as in the past and do not have the opportunity to truly get to know one another. In the case of the House and Senate, members do not know each other at all.

Civility, or the lack thereof, concerns a number of legislators and those who lobby at the Statehouse. There appears to be more friction today, evidenced by unseemly name-calling and comments reported in the press that "the governor is irrelevant" or "his initiatives are ridiculous." These types of comments were unheard of in the past.

The relationship between the House and Senate, though in the hands of the same party for the past decade, has too many of us scratching our heads. Long-term relationships do not evolve with short-term limits, but that is no excuse for this absence of civility.

Fund-raising and the amount of time devoted to dialing for dollars is consuming too much time and taking away from time that could be better spent addressing the important issues facing Ohioans.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a solicitation for funds in the mail, followed by a phone call reminding me of the event, and an e-mail to further keep me current. I cannot tell you how many times a legislator has asked whether we can "max out," meaning contribute the maximum $2,500 in a reporting period, or help others with a similar contribution.

We have reached the point where it is the practice to be offered suggestions about where contributions should be directed and in what amount. There is no question that the cost of campaigning has increased, but million-dollar campaigns for the state Senate and $500,000 for a House seat? We are about to reach a point where the candidate pool will dramatically shrink because of the cost of campaigning.

Term limits or no term limits, we are facing a crisis with regard to fund-raising and the cost of campaigns. Ask former state Senator Mead why she resigned from the Senate. She will tell you that one of the primary reasons was her discomfort with fund-raising. This problem needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

My final observation is the most serious: the lack of respect for the legislature as an institution.

The Ohio Statehouse, like the capitol in Washington, D.C., and statehouses across the country, represents government as our founding fathers envisioned it - the sanctuary of a free and democratic society where our elected representatives would gather to debate the issues of the day and arrive at just solutions for all the people.

Today, I sense a lack of understanding and respect for the institution, and term limits contribute to this.

With the rush to beat the eight-year clock, there is not time to adequately learn the history of the institution and, for some, no inclination either. What the institution represents is lost to those who see their brief tenure as a mere stepping-stone to another office or the next job opportunity, rather than as a call to public service.

There is also an absence of respect for the institution as it relates to the other branches of government.

Respectful disagreement between the branches of government is a natural, healthy component of a democratic society. But callous disrespect exhibited toward another branch causes a loss of public trust and confidence in our governmental structure. If those in government do not exhibit respect for our institutions, how can we expect the public to do so?

It is incumbent on our elected representatives to lead by example. More time and effort needs to be given to a return to civility and respect so that our institutions of government can function as intended.

Are term limits a cause of the institutional problems we face today? Are they a curse? They are both. Will term limits be repealed? Not in the foreseeable future. But as some have advocated, we should increase the term limit from eight to 12 years. It would be a start, a much needed start.

William Weisenberg is a lobbyist and an assistant executive director of the Ohio State Bar Association. This was originally written for the Ohio Lawyer, a publication of the OSBA.

OFCC PAC Commentary:
This opinion editorial may well strike a nerve with those who are following the ongoing battle to restore the right to self-defense in Ohio.

Term-limited Senators, beholden to a political party from which they hope to secure future nominations, and to a Governor from whom they one day hope to secure a job appointment, have been among the main stumbling blocks to passage of a concealed carry reform bill. The system almost ensures that one will not become House Speaker or Senate President until they are term-limited, and thereby unaccountable to the voters who put them there (unless they plan to seek higher office).

This constant lame-duck behavior also makes things difficult for legislators who have to run again. For instance, since pro-self-defense voters are unable to express their displeasure by voting against those who are chiefly responsible for killing HB274 or (perhaps) HB12, many have already begun focusing on replacing Senators who sat on the committee which heard the bill.
While some may deserve this attention, others were principally opposed to the changes forced upon their committee from the outside. But with such a highly-charged issue as is the concealed carry debate, many voters may not be in the mood to make the distinction.

Click here to read the op-ed in the Toledo Blade.