8,425 / 58.1% Yes votes ...... 6,075 / 41.9% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

• a mayor to eight consecutive years as mayor, without a break in service of at least two years.
• a councilmember to eight consecutive years as a councilmember, without a break in service of at least two years.
• a person serving as both mayor and councilmember to sixteen consecutive years of service in both offices combined, without a break in service of at least two years.

The term limits established by this measure may only be changed by a vote of the People of the City of Livermore.

s/DANIEL G. SODERGREN City Attorney, City of Livermore

s/MARSHALL KAMENA, Mayor
s/DALE TURNER, Former Mayor

You know if your elected officials are doing a good job or not. You have the power to limit their terms every time there is an election. Why would you need complex and confusing rules and regulations? Officials who have gotten stale or are not acting in the best interests of their constituents don't get re-elected. It is as simple as that.

In California, term limits have caused major turnover and a brain drain in the legislature without the slightest proof that the ever- changing crop of lawmakers is any better, more effective, or more responsive to voters. In fact, based upon the recent budget fiasco, the exact opposite seems true. Term limits have caused more problems than they have solved.

In Livermore, why should you be deprived of your right to elect a person who has gained the hard-won knowledge and experience to do a better job for you?

Don't let a clock or calendar take away your right to vote for the Mayor or Council Member of your choice. You can make a difference. Vote no on term limits. Vote no on Measure B.

s/JOHN D. STEIN, Twice Defeated Incumbent
s/CAROLE BUMPUS, Human Service Commissioner
s/JOHN SHIRLEY, Former Mayor of Livermore
s/ANNE E. WHITE, Trustee, Livermore Schools
s/WILLIAM R. STEVENS, Zone 7 Water District Director

Every two years, two positions on the City Council and the Mayor's position are on the ballot. These elections give you the opportunity to impose term limits on any incumbents who are seeking reelection and to change the majority of your City Council. And it works. In the most recent election, two long-term incumbents were defeated, one long-term incumbent was reelected, a newcomer was elected and a former Council member who held office more than a decade ago was elected.

You, the voters of Livermore, had a wide range of choices. Why would you wish to restrict your future choices by making rules about who can ask for your vote and who cannot?

Our current system works. Nothing is broken. This measure addresses a non-existent problem.

Preserve your opportunity to choose among all the candidates who are willing to volunteer to work for you on the City Council. Vote NO on Measure B.

s/CATHERINE L. TONNE, Member, Livermore General Plan Steering Committee
s/MAXINE BROOKNER, Concerned Livermore resident
s/VAN RAINEY, Member, Alameda County Republican Central Committee
s/STU FLECK, Member, Alameda County Democratic Central Committee
s/LORRAINE DIETRICH, Member, Livermore City Council

New ideas are good for our city. Unfortunately, fresh young qualified people have been scared off from running in our elections due to the stranglehold wielded by the long term incumbents.

We should not have to wait long enough for incumbents to lose touch with the electorate before they are finally voted out of office. By then the damage is done.

The opposition's argument that Livermore has had "a wide range of choices" doesn't quite ring true. From time to time we have had elections in which the incumbent ran unopposed in Livermore. This was due to the power lock on one's own political career a very long time office holder can have.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have candidates who had a level playing field? They would not answer to the old guard evident in many of the 10 to 19 year incumbents.

This measure would limit a person to a total of 16 years, 8 each as council member or mayor. A 2 year break in service is all that is required to start again.

If an incumbent is doing a good job, please believe us that 2 years off would be quite a refreshment.

Isn't 16 years enough? Most cities in our region think so!

Please vote yes on Measure B.

s/MARSHALL KAMENA, Mayor
s/DALE TURNER, Former Mayor

2.04.040 Term limits.

A. No person who has served terms totaling eight consecutive years as mayor shall be qualified for further service in that office until he or she has a break in service in that office of at least two years.

B. No person who has served terms totaling eight consecutive years as a councilmember shall be qualified for further service in that office until he or she has a break in service in that office of at least two years.

C. The disqualifications imposed by this section shall not prevent a person who is disqualified from serving as mayor from serving as councilmember or a person who is disqualified from serving as a councilmember from serving as mayor. However, any person who has served terms totaling sixteen consecutive years in the offices of mayor and councilmember shall be disqualified from further service in either office until he or she has a break in service from both offices of at least two years.

D. As used in this section, a person shall be considered to have served a "term" of office if such person has served one-half of a full term of office plus one day.

E. Time spent in office prior to the enactment of this section shall not be counted in computing consecutive terms in office.