vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.28.2006

How long?

Should Vermont give its governors four years in office or keep it at two? Is two years long enough to concentrate on the issues at hand? Is four years too long a leash to be giving anybody?

Those are the questions being pondered tonight at a discussion between University of Vermont political science professor Frank Bryan and former Gov. Madeleine Kunin. It's at 7 p.m. in Memorial Lounge, Waterman Building, UVM.

It'll be debated some more next legislative session. Don't expect the Legislature to just go granting the governor four-year terms without trying to do the same for themselves, or at least some of themselves.

The argument for the change: leaders need more time to sink their teeth into complicated issues.

The argument against: the voters need all the say they can get.

What do you think? And separate your thoughts from the individuals who hold these offices now because changing terms requires a constitutional amendment. If the Legislature acts on this forthwith, the earliest you'd see longer terms is 2012. By then, Jim Douglas will be president of Middlebury College and Gaye Symington will be head of Green Mountain Power's turbine division. (I made those last parts up completely.)

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 5:07 PM |

Comments:

It should absolutely be kept at two years. It's good for the voters to get out and learn about the people representing them as often as possible, and it's good for the officials to face the public as often as possible. Four years is good for the Presidency, but state positions should stay two years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 AM, November 29, 2006

The idea of 4 year terms has been surfacing every few years since the 1960s. The problem with giving the gov 4 years while the legislature stays at 2 years is that the balance of power will shift drastically to the executive branch. Another problem proponents fail to acknowledge is the money issue. They say it will lead to less money spent on those elections. Bull! Has anyone ever known any politician to stop fundraising? All this would do is give incumbents more and more time to raise more and more money, making them more entrenched than ever. There is only one way I would ever support 4 year terms, and that would be to limit the officers to one term. That, obviously, is something no politician will go for.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:04 AM, November 29, 2006

Keep it at two years. Keep them accountable and accessible.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:18 AM, November 29, 2006

I mostly agree with what the third commentor said, however I do believe four year terms are a very good idea. I also believe though that the state senate should be upped as well. Along with a little re-districting. What county is it? Orange I think that doesn't have a state Senator? Or is it Orleans? Errr - one of them. Two years is good, but if they are seekng re-election during the second year, I'd rather not pay the Incumbent governor if he spends half his time campaigning. Less time getting things done.

Maybe the really question should not be about length of each term - but maybe a longer session?

Last year, everyone thought that there would be a decision on health care - instead, what was it... two days... that they spent talking about cropping dogs ears?

Maybe i'm just being immature and stupid? GET THINGS DONE!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:49 AM, November 29, 2006

I would make statewide offices and senate seats 4 years. The statewide offices would be on the off years re the presidential election. The senate seats would be split 50/50 every two years, but only if all senate districts were changed to include either 2 or 3 seats to make them equitable across the state. Too much money is raised and spent in campaigns, and 4-year terms would give us a welcome respite while our elected leaders could do the people's work instead of fundraising.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 11:56 AM, November 29, 2006

Re-districting is done every 10 years. It'd be a terrible precident to do it more often.

The NE Kingdom has very few senators because they have a very low population.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:46 PM, November 29, 2006

Vermont Senators got a TON of mail regarding ear cropping.

You might think that it's a waste of time -- but when legislators get that much mail from a well organized group, they tend to act.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:48 PM, November 29, 2006

2 year terms, 3 term limit. State government is closer to home and I'd like to keep the freedom of ousting bad apples every two years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:54 PM, November 29, 2006

If you want to limit their terms, stop voting for them after 3 terms.

We don't need big brother dictating that we can't vote for someone (especially if that someone is doing a bang up job.)

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:50 PM, November 29, 2006

If a term is two years, and the pols complain they have to campaign for one year of that, all a four year term will do is lengthen the campaign to two years. And we already have term limits; only they're called elections.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:58 AM, November 30, 2006

Keep it to two year terms.

In my opinion, all this talk about needing four year terms and the like is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem to fix.

The argument against is not so simplistic as defined within the blog post, as there is much more to it, including the fact that going to four year terms will bring about the justification those who have been wanting the legislature to become full time and more professional in order to keep up with and provide balance to a stronger administration at all levels.

Not only would the state government bureaucracy expand, but then the legislature would demand bigger staffing for the legislative council in order to keep up.

One wonders how all this would be paid for and, more importantly, would it actually help to effectively and efficiently resolve the matters supporters of the measure suggest it would.

The argument for the change mentioned within the blog post is rather simplistic as well, since it is only an excuse and, if the state were to eventually go to four year terms, then there would be those who would find new or different excuses for not dealing with certain issues, much like is done in states with four year administration and full time/more professional legislatures.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:13 PM, November 30, 2006

My first read of the blog post was a speedy one and I only noticed the second sentence of the third paragraph (i.e., Don't expect the Legislature to just go granting the governor four-year terms without trying to do the same for themselves, or at least some of themselves) after I posted my initial comment on the subject, which feeds into what I believe is one part of the arguments against four year terms.

That aside, I do not see anything good or positive coming from four year terms, nor to I worthy justification to making such a change.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 PM, November 30, 2006

Had meant to write (last sentence of my 2nd comment post):

..., nor have I yet to hear any worthy justification for making such a change.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:33 PM, November 30, 2006

Incumbents always seem to get re - elected so why waste so much money on these campaigns every two years.
I say four years with term limits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:02 AM, December 02, 2006