Carefree Truth
Issue #748, May 17, 2019
Philip Blumel is President of this Term Limit organization. According to the www.termlimits.com web site:
Philip Blumel is a two-time graduate at the University of Florida with a BA in Journalism and his MA in economics. Phil is a certified financial planner with Raymond James, a diversified financial services holding company primarily engaged with investing. Philip has served on the Palm Beach County Soil & Conservation Board and currently resides in South Florida with his wife and 2 children.
A quick glance at their web site shows they think term limits should be applied at every level of government from - school boards to Congress. Mr. Blumel is an out of state advocate of term limits representing an out of state pro term limit organization.
Hi Lyn,
I saw your Carefree Truth post about term limits. I am looking to interview someone for my podcast about the new law which forced Carefree to recognize the will of the voters. I was thinking the guy to talk to is Mike Farrah. Am I right? Or, maybe someone else. You?
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Philip Blumel, president
U.S. Term Limits
Www.termlimits.com
NO UNCERTAIN TERMS weekly podcast:
Www.termlimits.com/podcast
(Lyn's note: Below was my response to Mr. Blumel's query. You can also see Arthur' Gimson's responses below, then another response from Mr. Blumel. Please note that in his response, much as he advocates for them, Mr. Blumel agreed term limits are not appropriate for all locations. The final response is mine.)
Hi Philip. I think term limits are appropriate at the state and national level, and even for the big cities with a large pool from which to draw candidates, and where the City Council is a paid position. However, I have always been totally opposed to term limits for small towns like Carefree, and this is why.
In a small town like ours, there is a very limited pool of qualified candidates willing to volunteer for an unpaid position on the Town Council. In many Carefree elections, there have been 7 candidates for 7 seats. At most, there have been 1 or 2 extra candidates. If someone is willing to serve, and is doing a good job, as is the case with John Crane, our Vice Mayor who went to court to overturn Carefree's then illegal term limits, they should be allowed to serve for as long as the voters are willing to elect them. Limiting candidates in this situation only serves to limit voter choices.
Mike Farrar vilified John Crane, repeatedly saying that he "violated the will of the voters" by having term limits overturned last summer. Yet Vice Mayor Crane received a very high number of votes in the election despite the attempted vilification by Mr. Farrar and his supporters, because a lot of people know the Vice Mayor and know what a good man he is. Vice Mayor Crane has been serving this community in various unheralded volunteer positions for well over 20 years, and continues to do so.
We have had a number of excellent people running Carefree over the years who have been willing to serve their community, on a volunteer basis, for many years. Like Vice Mayor Crane, many of those people also volunteered with the local non profit organizations. They are smart, community minded individuals, and we have been blessed with an inordinate number of them. With our limited population, why should we remove good people, doing a good job, based on an arbitrary time period?
You may or may not be aware that Carefree is one of the few municipalities in Arizona that does not have 4 year staggered terms. Our Council's terms are 2 years, and they all have to run in each election. This makes term limits even more problematic because it is possible to lose an entire Council at once, or to have one with mostly newbies, which happened here in 2011. They were good people, but were scrambling frantically to get up to speed, a process that takes a while. It wasn't pretty. You might want to talk to Arthur Gimson, who was one of the newbies at the time.
But as the president of an organization that favors term limits, and seeing how you worded the request, I suspect you will not want to have either Arthur or me on your podcast. If I am incorrect in that assumption, and you are interested in differing points of view, I would consider talking to you, and you can contact Arthur Gimson too. He is copied on this email.
Thanks for thinking of me.
Lyn
Greetings Philip:
Lyn Hitchon copied me on your initial email message and her response, so this should not come as a surprise.
I would encourage you to talk to Mike Farrar believing that various points of view are important to gain an understanding that one system may not always work out to be the best considering the differing circumstances.
Having served one 2-year term as a member of the Carefree Town Council, I can tell you that it is undoubtedly one of the most thankless positions that exists. Even if you vote in a way that pleases 90% of the constituents, the other 10% can make life miserable. Having spent over 30 years in the hospitality industry, I have developed a thick skin, but it is still not pleasant to hear the negative comments, which sometimes become personal. Term limits for Mayor and Council in a small town, like Carefree (population 3,400), may not be in the town’s best interest.
I concur with all of Lyn’s comments but would like to add one more. Term limits should not be necessary provided that there is a relatively simple recall procedure. Please don’t ask me all the details as to dates, deadlines, etc. but signed petitions of only 5% of the total votes cast in the most recent election are needed. To the best of my recollection, about 2,600 votes were cast for all candidates for Mayor and Council. That would mean only 130 signatures would be needed. A 2-year term in a small town is a relatively short period of time to vote someone out should the need arise.
When it comes to the national scenario, more so than the state level, I think that there is a good case for term limits. (The benefits and perquisites are not that wonderful in Arizona. I earn more money from Social Security than I would be paid as a state rep, but at least I paid into the system!) To me, of greater concern is the money situation on a national level. While I don’t mind how much money a candidate raises, I would like to see full disclosure of names and amounts; this includes political action committees as well as those who may contribute (donate) less than $100. It appears that there are far too many congressional representatives and US senators who become full-time politicians, always fundraising while performing their official duties and that fundraising is often including special interests.
Arthur
Philip:
After clicking on “Send”, I did some homework on recall procedures. Like many rules, regulations, etc. the Town of Carefree is required to follow State law, which mandates election dates for municipalities. Years ago, recall procedures allowed for recall petitions as soon as someone had been elected to office, regardless of whether he, or she, had done anything. It was almost the same as having a second election because you didn’t like the results of the first one.
Anyway, below is the current requirement. In the Carefree situation, for the 2018 election, we had 2 candidates for Mayor and 6 candidates for Council. If one wanted to recall the Mayor, of the total votes cast, 1,576 ÷ 2 = 788 x 25% = 197 signatures would be required. For Council, 5,965 total votes were cast for the 6 candidates. To recall a Council member, 5,965 ÷ 6 = 994 x 25% = 248 petition signatures. Neither of those two numbers are difficult to reach. In the little Town of Carefree, with no mail delivery, everyone goes to the post office for mail, so obtaining signatures would not be difficult PROVIDED THAT THERE IS A GOOD REASON. Carefree voters are well informed.
The minimum number of signatures required to recall a public officer is equal to 25% of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all the candidates for that office, even if the officer was not elected at that election, divided by the number of offices that were being filled at that election.
Arthur
I appreciate all the commentary. As you can imagine, I am a committed advocate of grass roots engagement in government.
I might not have the whole story, but wasn’t the election for term limits already held? The thumbnail version I heard is that the term limits measure won but the city would not enforce it, requiring a new state law that specifically mandated that the successful initiative be respected. Do I not have that right? If I do, I am sure we can agree that local officials cannot be permitted to simply ignore an election because they don’t like its result.
Just as an aside, I have actually consulted for a small town in Florida for which I felt term limits were not appropriate due to the population and electoral history. But as you can imagine, that was an unusual case…
On Congress, I am glad to hear we are allies. Please sign our online petition for Congressional term limits at www.termlimits.com.
Thanks!
Philip Blumel
(Lyn's note: The bolding is mine.)
Hi again, Philip. You have been given a very distorted and inaccurate version of the story behind Carefree's term limit Ordinance and its overturn. Term limits were put on the Carefree ballot by Doug Stavoe, who was running for Mayor in 2011. He got the initiative for term limits on the ballot because he wanted to be associated with a buzz phrase that resonated with the general population, most of whom are distrustful of politicians, and which he thought would help him win the Mayor's seat. He did not become Mayor.
As you are probably aware, no one can challenge an Ordinance without standing. Only Mike Farrar and John Crane had been on the Council long enough to have that standing. Because Mr. Farrar chose to run for Mayor, the Ordinance didn't affect him. (Mr. Farrar lost.) Mr. Crane was running for Council again, and was the first to be termed out since the Ordinance was put into place, so was the first to be affected and to have that standing.
Carefree is a Statutory Town, not a Charter Town. Arizona State Statutes did not grant the ability for towns like Carefree to impose term limits. Because Carefree officials felt they were obligated to uphold the Ordinance voted in by the residents, Mr. Crane's only option was to sue Carefree, which he did successfully. He was entitled to reimbursement from the Town for his legal fees, which he forgave, not wanting to cost the Town that money, and it was a significant sum. Mr. Crane just wanted to do what he felt was right.
Mr. Farrar has clear political aspirations at the State and even the Federal level, according to what he has expressed. Before he ran for the Town Council in Carefree, he ran for the State Legislature and lost. He still has contacts at that level, and convinced one of them to put through a Bill that would allow all cities and towns to impose term limits. He has promoted himself lavishly for his involvement in that effort. Draw your own conclusions.
My husband and I are committed to making sure that the residents of Carefree have access to public record facts. Our newsletters in Carefree Truth, contain only public record facts. My husband videotapes the Council meetings and I write about them, using the uncut videos as my map. We both attend all Council meetings. We have been doing this for 10 years. We are about as grass roots as it gets.
Term limits in Carefree are not appropriate for the same reasons you cite for the small town in Florida for which you were a consultant.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain our situation, instead of just running with what you were originally given. I appreciate your fairness.
Lyn
Prepared by Carefree Truth
Visit our website at www.carefreetruth2.com If you know anyone who would like to be added to the Carefree Truth email list, please have them contact me. Feel free to share Carefree Truth with others on your list.
Visit www.carefreeazbusinesses.com to see more info about businesses in Carefree. Please support our merchants.
Issue #748, May 17, 2019
Philip Blumel is President of this Term Limit organization. According to the www.termlimits.com web site:
Philip Blumel is a two-time graduate at the University of Florida with a BA in Journalism and his MA in economics. Phil is a certified financial planner with Raymond James, a diversified financial services holding company primarily engaged with investing. Philip has served on the Palm Beach County Soil & Conservation Board and currently resides in South Florida with his wife and 2 children.
A quick glance at their web site shows they think term limits should be applied at every level of government from - school boards to Congress. Mr. Blumel is an out of state advocate of term limits representing an out of state pro term limit organization.
Hi Lyn,
I saw your Carefree Truth post about term limits. I am looking to interview someone for my podcast about the new law which forced Carefree to recognize the will of the voters. I was thinking the guy to talk to is Mike Farrah. Am I right? Or, maybe someone else. You?
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Philip Blumel, president
U.S. Term Limits
Www.termlimits.com
NO UNCERTAIN TERMS weekly podcast:
Www.termlimits.com/podcast
(Lyn's note: Below was my response to Mr. Blumel's query. You can also see Arthur' Gimson's responses below, then another response from Mr. Blumel. Please note that in his response, much as he advocates for them, Mr. Blumel agreed term limits are not appropriate for all locations. The final response is mine.)
Hi Philip. I think term limits are appropriate at the state and national level, and even for the big cities with a large pool from which to draw candidates, and where the City Council is a paid position. However, I have always been totally opposed to term limits for small towns like Carefree, and this is why.
In a small town like ours, there is a very limited pool of qualified candidates willing to volunteer for an unpaid position on the Town Council. In many Carefree elections, there have been 7 candidates for 7 seats. At most, there have been 1 or 2 extra candidates. If someone is willing to serve, and is doing a good job, as is the case with John Crane, our Vice Mayor who went to court to overturn Carefree's then illegal term limits, they should be allowed to serve for as long as the voters are willing to elect them. Limiting candidates in this situation only serves to limit voter choices.
Mike Farrar vilified John Crane, repeatedly saying that he "violated the will of the voters" by having term limits overturned last summer. Yet Vice Mayor Crane received a very high number of votes in the election despite the attempted vilification by Mr. Farrar and his supporters, because a lot of people know the Vice Mayor and know what a good man he is. Vice Mayor Crane has been serving this community in various unheralded volunteer positions for well over 20 years, and continues to do so.
We have had a number of excellent people running Carefree over the years who have been willing to serve their community, on a volunteer basis, for many years. Like Vice Mayor Crane, many of those people also volunteered with the local non profit organizations. They are smart, community minded individuals, and we have been blessed with an inordinate number of them. With our limited population, why should we remove good people, doing a good job, based on an arbitrary time period?
You may or may not be aware that Carefree is one of the few municipalities in Arizona that does not have 4 year staggered terms. Our Council's terms are 2 years, and they all have to run in each election. This makes term limits even more problematic because it is possible to lose an entire Council at once, or to have one with mostly newbies, which happened here in 2011. They were good people, but were scrambling frantically to get up to speed, a process that takes a while. It wasn't pretty. You might want to talk to Arthur Gimson, who was one of the newbies at the time.
But as the president of an organization that favors term limits, and seeing how you worded the request, I suspect you will not want to have either Arthur or me on your podcast. If I am incorrect in that assumption, and you are interested in differing points of view, I would consider talking to you, and you can contact Arthur Gimson too. He is copied on this email.
Thanks for thinking of me.
Lyn
Greetings Philip:
Lyn Hitchon copied me on your initial email message and her response, so this should not come as a surprise.
I would encourage you to talk to Mike Farrar believing that various points of view are important to gain an understanding that one system may not always work out to be the best considering the differing circumstances.
Having served one 2-year term as a member of the Carefree Town Council, I can tell you that it is undoubtedly one of the most thankless positions that exists. Even if you vote in a way that pleases 90% of the constituents, the other 10% can make life miserable. Having spent over 30 years in the hospitality industry, I have developed a thick skin, but it is still not pleasant to hear the negative comments, which sometimes become personal. Term limits for Mayor and Council in a small town, like Carefree (population 3,400), may not be in the town’s best interest.
I concur with all of Lyn’s comments but would like to add one more. Term limits should not be necessary provided that there is a relatively simple recall procedure. Please don’t ask me all the details as to dates, deadlines, etc. but signed petitions of only 5% of the total votes cast in the most recent election are needed. To the best of my recollection, about 2,600 votes were cast for all candidates for Mayor and Council. That would mean only 130 signatures would be needed. A 2-year term in a small town is a relatively short period of time to vote someone out should the need arise.
When it comes to the national scenario, more so than the state level, I think that there is a good case for term limits. (The benefits and perquisites are not that wonderful in Arizona. I earn more money from Social Security than I would be paid as a state rep, but at least I paid into the system!) To me, of greater concern is the money situation on a national level. While I don’t mind how much money a candidate raises, I would like to see full disclosure of names and amounts; this includes political action committees as well as those who may contribute (donate) less than $100. It appears that there are far too many congressional representatives and US senators who become full-time politicians, always fundraising while performing their official duties and that fundraising is often including special interests.
Arthur
Philip:
After clicking on “Send”, I did some homework on recall procedures. Like many rules, regulations, etc. the Town of Carefree is required to follow State law, which mandates election dates for municipalities. Years ago, recall procedures allowed for recall petitions as soon as someone had been elected to office, regardless of whether he, or she, had done anything. It was almost the same as having a second election because you didn’t like the results of the first one.
Anyway, below is the current requirement. In the Carefree situation, for the 2018 election, we had 2 candidates for Mayor and 6 candidates for Council. If one wanted to recall the Mayor, of the total votes cast, 1,576 ÷ 2 = 788 x 25% = 197 signatures would be required. For Council, 5,965 total votes were cast for the 6 candidates. To recall a Council member, 5,965 ÷ 6 = 994 x 25% = 248 petition signatures. Neither of those two numbers are difficult to reach. In the little Town of Carefree, with no mail delivery, everyone goes to the post office for mail, so obtaining signatures would not be difficult PROVIDED THAT THERE IS A GOOD REASON. Carefree voters are well informed.
The minimum number of signatures required to recall a public officer is equal to 25% of the number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for all the candidates for that office, even if the officer was not elected at that election, divided by the number of offices that were being filled at that election.
Arthur
I appreciate all the commentary. As you can imagine, I am a committed advocate of grass roots engagement in government.
I might not have the whole story, but wasn’t the election for term limits already held? The thumbnail version I heard is that the term limits measure won but the city would not enforce it, requiring a new state law that specifically mandated that the successful initiative be respected. Do I not have that right? If I do, I am sure we can agree that local officials cannot be permitted to simply ignore an election because they don’t like its result.
Just as an aside, I have actually consulted for a small town in Florida for which I felt term limits were not appropriate due to the population and electoral history. But as you can imagine, that was an unusual case…
On Congress, I am glad to hear we are allies. Please sign our online petition for Congressional term limits at www.termlimits.com.
Thanks!
Philip Blumel
(Lyn's note: The bolding is mine.)
Hi again, Philip. You have been given a very distorted and inaccurate version of the story behind Carefree's term limit Ordinance and its overturn. Term limits were put on the Carefree ballot by Doug Stavoe, who was running for Mayor in 2011. He got the initiative for term limits on the ballot because he wanted to be associated with a buzz phrase that resonated with the general population, most of whom are distrustful of politicians, and which he thought would help him win the Mayor's seat. He did not become Mayor.
As you are probably aware, no one can challenge an Ordinance without standing. Only Mike Farrar and John Crane had been on the Council long enough to have that standing. Because Mr. Farrar chose to run for Mayor, the Ordinance didn't affect him. (Mr. Farrar lost.) Mr. Crane was running for Council again, and was the first to be termed out since the Ordinance was put into place, so was the first to be affected and to have that standing.
Carefree is a Statutory Town, not a Charter Town. Arizona State Statutes did not grant the ability for towns like Carefree to impose term limits. Because Carefree officials felt they were obligated to uphold the Ordinance voted in by the residents, Mr. Crane's only option was to sue Carefree, which he did successfully. He was entitled to reimbursement from the Town for his legal fees, which he forgave, not wanting to cost the Town that money, and it was a significant sum. Mr. Crane just wanted to do what he felt was right.
Mr. Farrar has clear political aspirations at the State and even the Federal level, according to what he has expressed. Before he ran for the Town Council in Carefree, he ran for the State Legislature and lost. He still has contacts at that level, and convinced one of them to put through a Bill that would allow all cities and towns to impose term limits. He has promoted himself lavishly for his involvement in that effort. Draw your own conclusions.
My husband and I are committed to making sure that the residents of Carefree have access to public record facts. Our newsletters in Carefree Truth, contain only public record facts. My husband videotapes the Council meetings and I write about them, using the uncut videos as my map. We both attend all Council meetings. We have been doing this for 10 years. We are about as grass roots as it gets.
Term limits in Carefree are not appropriate for the same reasons you cite for the small town in Florida for which you were a consultant.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain our situation, instead of just running with what you were originally given. I appreciate your fairness.
Lyn
Prepared by Carefree Truth
Visit our website at www.carefreetruth2.com If you know anyone who would like to be added to the Carefree Truth email list, please have them contact me. Feel free to share Carefree Truth with others on your list.
Visit www.carefreeazbusinesses.com to see more info about businesses in Carefree. Please support our merchants.