Are you in Favor of Term Limits for City Council?

What do you think of term limits for our local elected officials?

In recent years there was much turmoil regarding the Mayor and Council choosing not to hold special elections and keep the seats empty to control the votes.

Both Councilwoman Stephanie Endres and Chris Coughlin campaigned on a Citizen Charter Commission, to fully review the charter and make recommendations.

Mayor Bodker was vehemently opposed to a Charter Commission and alternatively cherry picked the Charter Task Force which was composed of a few of his campaign supporters: Johns Buckett & Cleve Gaddis. Susan Grissom was also on the task force and is unknown if she donated to Mayor Bodker.

Chris Coughlin wanted to be on the task force and was advocated by Bob Gray, Stephanie Endres & Lenny Zaprowski. Not enough votes to override Mayor Bodker, who was opposed to including Chris Coughlin.

Nonetheless, the task force moved on with Bodker’s chosen few and has completed its recommendations, which conveniently omitted term limits.

Councilwoman Endres and Councilman Lenny Zaprowski brought the issue up.

The Mayor stated in the Work Session February 13th that he was VERY opposed to term limits because the position is part time. Mayor Bodker felt it took 7 years before he had developed the relationships to become effective.

This Monday Night at City Hall is a Public Hearing regarding the proposed Charter changes.

Would you like to see Term Limits or other changes not proposed?

Come speak at the public hearing or email City Council

R2017-02-05 – PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of Resolution for Legislative changes to the City Charter
Source: City of Johns Creek

12 Responses to Are you in Favor of Term Limits for City Council?

  1. Anonymous says:

    we should definitely have term limits

    it eliminates career politicians

  2. EJ Moosa says:

    Term Limits at the local level could also have a very beneficial impact on elections at the County, State, and Federal Levels.

    As we see today, the only time there is a flood of candidates for a position is when one resigns or takes a cabinet position or something similar.

    Politicians do not want to give up what they have for what they have a 90% chance of not getting when running against an incumbent.

    But would happen if politicians only had two terms in their current offices? Would we then seem them more inclined to get back in the game and run for a higher seat even with an incumbent?

    I happen to think so. With nothing to lose, term limits could actually provide us the competition for other elected positions we so dearly need. Not only will we be doing ourselves a favor, but we could be doing the rest of the State a favor as well.

    Let’s be a guiding example of good governance and enact term limits as soon as possible.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Term limits? Yes! Perhaps that will keep the politicians focused on what is best for the residents as opposed to what do I need to do in order to keep my job indefinitely. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Yes, and 6 months with good behavior.

  5. Michael says:

    Nope. If you don’t like your representative, vote him/her out of office. No business would survive for long if it were constantly being run by people with no experience in that field.

    • EJ Moosa says:


      The difference between a business and the government is that representatives can only be “fired” once every four years.

      You can fire a business by taking your business elsewhere instantly.

      Businesses cannot demand more of your dollars for “products” you have no interest in, either.

      The rate of reelection for incumbents is extraordinarily high. And it’s not because they have been necessarily doing a great job.

      There’s a reason that Congress has a 90% re-election rate and a less than 10% approval rating.

      The advantage of incumbents has been documented time and again.

      That advantage? Money-and not necessarily from voters who will be casting votes.

      There’s an enormous financial advantage enjoyed by incumbents. That’s one of the reasons re-election rates are so high — incumbents generally don’t have to work as hard to get their name and message out.

  6. Anonymous says:

    It’s a good thing for more citizens to get involved in their city govt.


    !. Eliminates Career Politicians

    2. Promotes New Ideas

    3. Fights Corruption

  7. Anonymous says:

    Yes, term limits are definitely in order. Also JC’s residents/voters will eventually wake up and oppose councilmembers having to run city-wide for their districts. Councilmembers should be voted in or out by residents of their district; like most governments. Fayette County or Fayetteville saw this same flaw in their system, sued, and it was changed….

  8. RHS says:

    Absolutely !!!!

  9. Anonymous says:

    We have a Mayor and six City Council posts, but all are considered “At Large”, meaning they represent the whole city. Under that scenario, nobody on city council is responsible for representing the residents in Seven Oaks who are about to be impacted by the proposed widening of McGinnis Ferry Road (as one current example). I’m sure those residents impacted would like to have someone dedicated to representing their interests.

    “That government is best that governs least” – Thomas Jefferson
    “The government closest to the people serves the people best” – Thomas Jefferson

  10. CT says:

    Absolutely!!!!! Ditto on all comments above, except Michael.