Redmond City Council

Redmond voters will likely have at three questions before them on the May 21 election ballot.

Voters could decide if the city should update its charter to institute term limits on its councilors, if it double the length of the mayor’s term to four years but limit them to just two consecutive terms, and whether or not to prohibit members of the same household from serving together.

Currently, there are no term limits for either mayor or city councilors and there is no prohibition against family members serving.

Councilors are expected to finalize the language of each question before a March 1 deadline to get the amendments on the ballot. At the next regular city council meeting on Feb. 13, members of the public will have a chance to weigh in on the matter.

How to be heard

How to be heard

The public can comment on the proposals at a regular city council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 13 at 6 p.m. at Redmond City Hall.

City attorney Keith Leitz said that, if council send the measures to the ballot and voters approve them, mayoral term limits would not go into effect until the beginning of the mayor’s term in 2026. The other two amendments, if approved, would take effect Jan. 1, 2025.

If passed by voters, starting in 2025 city councilors would only be able to serve two consecutive term before they are barred from running for re-election. Leitz said the amendments would not prohibit people from serving as mayor or council for as many times as they are able, as long as those terms are not consecutive.

All councilors would start with a blank slate in 2025, meaning that current councilors could run again even if they had served two consecutive terms.

“No matter how many terms someone had served up to this point, their term limits would start after this goes into effect,” Leitz said. “You wouldn’t be precluded from running for one of the other offices. If you did two terms as a councilor, you could then run for mayor at that point or vice versa.”

Leitz said he looked at model charters from the League of Oregon Cities when crafting the language for the amendments. He said while charter language concerning nepotism is less common than term limits, he said cities like Beaverton had similar prohibitions.

Bend, however, has neither term limits or prohibitions on spouses or domestic partners serving on the council at the same time, said Jacob Larsen, community relations manager for the City of Bend.

Barring family members from serving together

Leitz said the draft language at this point would bar spouses, domestic partners, or parents or children both serving as mayor or on city council. Other relationships could be considered in violation of city charter, were the anti-nepotism question to pass.

“Ultimately the decision for that relationship is council itself and that is true for any of the qualifications for council,” Leitz said. “They, as a body, have the authority to make that judgment call.”

The anti-nepotism language came about after former mayor George Endicott and his wife, former city councilor Krisanna Clark-Endicott, served together on the council for years.

Current mayor Ed Fitch said the arrangement made it awkward during city council meetings.

“We experienced that for four years with George and Krisanna, and I am not criticizing them. They were duly elected, but it created a strange dynamic in the council discussions,” Fitch told The Spokesman. “I’ve never seen two people from the same household being on the council in the 45 years I’ve been here in Redmond. It was just different. I didn’t particularly care for it.”

Former mayor Endicott said Feb. 6 that he does not agree with any of the proposed amendments. He said voters should have the decision on whether to keep someone in power or replace them, not mandated term limits.

“If you are not doing a good job for the people then my opinion is they should toss you,” Endicott said. “Ultimately, the voters are smart enough to know what they want and what they don’t want.”

Endicott said he and his wife acted independently while serving together as mayor and councilor. He did not think the arrangement caused problems.

“I didn’t influence my wife. She made her own decisions,” Endicott said. “I do not see any issue with it and don’t forget, secondly, you are two of seven. If two of you are conspiring the other five can say, ‘Hold it, enough is enough.’”

He said during his time as mayor he would assure the council that he and his wife were not discussing city matters in private.

“Look, we are newlyweds. Do you really think our pillow talk has to do with the next vote on city council?” Endicott said. “Changing charters because you don’t get your way is a bad approach.”

He said he believes the amendment was proposed because of personal issues certain people on the current council have with him and his wife.

“I think it is ridiculous to even put that on there, because I don’t think it really matters,” he said.

Endicott has not decided if he will again run for mayor again, a position he won seven times.

“I have had many people come up to me and ask me to run again, so I am sort of torn on the issue,” he said. “I don’t know what I am going to do.”

On Feb. 8, Endicott sent a letter to the city council suggesting council leave the current charter the way it is.

Current councilor perspective

City councilor Clifford Evelyn said he is in favor of all three amendments. He said it is important to give elected city officials enough time to complete what they promised voters, but also to limit the number of terms in order to prevent officials from getting too settled into their position.

“No one should be there long, because what happens … they become complacent and they are not as dedicated. Because now the power has gone to their head,” Evelyn said. “The term limits is a basic thing. It is like the president. A president gets four years and then they get another four years.”

When it comes to anti-nepotism, Evelyn said such practices are common in the business world, and in the law enforcement field where he spent his career.

“No person that is related to someone should have authority over that person,” he said. “It could work both ways. It could create favoritism and it also it could create friction.”

City councilor John Nielsen said he does not necessarily support all three amendments would make, but he believes they should be put before the voters to decide.

“I don’t like the idea of limiting people’s rights to vote for somebody just because they happen to be married to somebody else. It should be up to the people to decide if that is what they want,” Nielsen said. “The flip side of that is I don’t think you get good representation if you have two of seven on the council vote sharing the same kitchen table.”

Nielsen said he doesn’t believe the word nepotism is being used correctly in the context of the possible charter amendment, and said such amendments could lead to further issues.

“I think it is a slippery slope, and when you start ruling out who can and cannot run, that list gets really long really quickly and I think it is a bad idea,” Nielsen said. “If anti-nepotism is really what we are looking for, to me, that is too narrow a definition. Because if you had two business partners, two real estate agents, or two lawyers that owned a law firm together, they have at least as much shared interest in that as a husband and wife or as a father and daughter.”