Once again, the question of term limits for council members appears on our ballots. The first time was in 1992, after the last major Charter Commission made a comprehensive review of the City Charter. This occurred as part of a national grassroots reform movement to achieve good government. The reformers believed that limiting the terms of elected officials would clean out the deadwood, minimize the influence of lobbyists and bring new faces to government.

In 1992, the Board of Directors of the League of Women Voters of Honolulu recommended that its members vote no on term limits. We thought then, and still think, that we already have term limits. It is called "voting."

If you don't like your representative or feel he or she does not represent you, vote for the challenger. This isn't exactly rocket science. It does work. Two incumbent State Representatives were defeated in this year's primary election.

There are a number of arguments against term limits that were set forth then, and are still valid:

1. Without staggered terms, each new council must start from scratch, spending a valuable portion of their limited term learning to be council members.

2. The increasing complexity of our municipal organization makes experience and continuity essential goals to strive for in council composition.

3. The voters should decide if each council member remains in office. Term limits restrict voters' choice.

4. Those running for office for the first time may be hesitant to challenge an incumbent who has only one more term of eligibility, and may elect to wait, thus practically guaranteeing the incumbent another term.

5. Power tends to shift to staff members and the bureaucracy in the years when there is a brand-new council.

6. Lobbyists also have more influence when all representatives are novices.

Before the League adopted its position after a study committee did some research on the subject, they found that council members, as opposed to the mayor, do not have the same capacity to build bases of power and influence. Records showed substantial turnover of council members. In the 20-year period prior to 1992, 32 different people served for various periods on the City Council. None of the incumbent council members in 1992 were in office 10 years before.

In addition, term limits mean you could lose your favorite councilperson(s) simply because they are barred from running again.

Finally, we need to really think about what it means to have term limits without staggered terms. It could mean a brand-new council every eight years. There would be no institutional memory at all. In effect, it would hand over the city government to the mayor, the bureaucracy and the lobbyists. That happened in 2002 because of term limits. Do we really want to have that happen again? And again?

How should you vote? It's up to you. The League of Women Voters supports a yes vote on Question 1. Then think about Question 2. Do you like term limits? Or hate them?

However you vote, you will prove the League's point. Voters are intelligent and can be trusted to do the right thing.

Jacqueline Parnell is former president of the League of Women Voters of Honolulu.