EDITORIAL ON THE MAYOR'S TERM LENGTH

By as early as next month, Ripon’s Common Council may pass a charter ordinance to amend the city’s bylaws, extending the mayoral term from two years to four. If passed, the change would take effect with the April 2010 election.The public will have an opportunity to weigh-in on the issue during a March 10 listening session at 7 p.m. in City Hall.Aldermen seem to favor the idea, which Ald. Dan Luskey first introduced at the Jan. 13 council meeting. None have spoken out against doubling the mayor’s tenure.Most popular argument for moving to the four-year term is that it gives the mayor time to learn the job and to then preside over the city without having to assume “campaign mode” so soon. The longer the term, the thinking goes, the less political the office, permitting the mayor to be more of a statesman, less a politician.After making a few comments in favor of the four-year term at the council meeting last month, Mayor Aaron Kramer wisely said nothing when the council revisited the matter last week and, in fact, had council President Ald. Barb Miller preside during the discussion while he remained silent.One need look no farther than Kramer, and whoever will one day succeed him, for best reasons why a two-year term is not only desirable but preferable to a four-year term.Ripon’s current mayor is a winner.Kramer is knowledgeable, creative, accessible, innovative, entrepreneurial, articulate, sensible, conservative, funny and proud.If he continues to govern as he has in the past, his mayoral seat should be secure. As the city’s CEO, Kramer surely has many issues that may keep him up at night, but re-election likely is not among them.So whether his term is two years or four should matter very little. As long as voters continue to agree with Kramer’s leadership, governing style and policy declarations, continued incumbency seems to be his for the foreseeable future. Every two years, he is accountable to the city. And with his seat as well as four aldermanic seats up for election, that means every two years more than half the Common Council turns over. Not a bad thing.Because when the day comes that Kramer steps down, voluntarily or otherwise, his successor may not be as talented. Or as selfless. Or as effective.His successor could have the best of intentions but govern Ripon poorly, resulting in a divided council, overindebtedness and a demoralized staff.The new mayor might be as honest as the day is long, but just have no idea how to govern. Absent evidence of malfeasance, taxpayers would then be stuck with that individual at City Hall for four years. That’s a long time to endure a non-leader in so sensitive a position.But what about the ultimate chief executive, the president? He or she serves a four-year term. True, but presidential candidates are vetted far more thoroughly than are people who run for Ripon mayor. They attend a League of Women Voters forum, are interviewed on the radio station and fill out a newspaper questionnaire. Then voters decide whether to elect them to lead a council that controls a $5.2 million annual budget. A recitation of promises and a resume of experiences offers insight into candidates’ policy goals and more broad, philosophical inclinations, but they provide limited evidence as to candidates’ ability to govern. Kramer’s been terrific. But he could just as well have been a flop. Ripon voters won their gamble in 2004 and 2006. (Kramer was first elected mayor in 2003 by council members to fill the remaining term of former Mayor John Reinsch, who had moved out of town.) But if electors are not so lucky with their next choice, they’ll only have to wait two years for the opportunity to revisit their decision. This is once instance when four years are not twice as good as two. — Tim Lyke