Why in the hell do not voters get it, at least informed voters anyway, term limits is the same as zero tolerance which means all of the thinking process is taken away from one and all.
Tom you are so correct, the voters are the best term limits one can have.

"Ever four years the voters get a chance to decide if someone deserves to keep the job," Quirk said. "The voters are the ultimate term limit."

Quirk is absolutely correct.

Easy for him to say, being as he just got a bunch of (D) leaning voters added to his district.

Chuck, just stop at your local supermarket and ask people who their elected officials are? The have not clue.

I have stood at pols and people would say they were going to vote for this one because they liked their looks.

At the height of the Watergate scandal most of the country had never heard of Watergate.

Can any of you spell?

In theory it's true that voters are the arbiters of term limits, and in practice it might even sometimes be true on the local level, but the reality is the voting game is so rigged in favor of the incumbent, and it becomes even more rigged the longer the incumbent stays in office, that they should probably be forced to get on with their lives after a certain number of terms, because few are wise enough to get out before they lose touch with those whom they represent.

Stop being so Pompous Bueller. You don't speak for the people.

Anybody who reads your post can tell you are the one without a clue.

@Buzz Beeler. Throw your computer in the trash and get a life !!

Spot on Robert A.

For the sake of clairity, the first post was mine. The others are not.

The problem as I see it with term limits is that during the 1st term you are learning, by the 2nd term you has a grasp and if limited during the last term you are essentially a lame duck represenative and depending on who the person is could be a problem. Also, with term limits you will hear the argument that he is a great representative why must we lose them? There are many arguments pro and con so I would tread cautiously. As for Buzz's theory that most of the voting pubic do not have a clue, well if that is the case than it does not matter how you do it.

Someone should not be (or want to be) a County Councilperson for more than three terms. This should not be a career, it should be a chance to serve your community and then move on with your life. If you are looking at it as a way to work for 12, 16, 20 years and then retire, then you're not in it for the right reason.

I believe Councilman Quirk is mistaken, in at least one regard. The changes to the County Pension system will not necessarily hinder an elected representatives' ability to enrich themselves. Isn't it still the case that if they move on to another office, they can still accumulate tenure and higher pensions for length of service? I point to Dutch Ruppersberger as one example; he may end up with a pension of $125,000/year once he retires.

The time for the term limit discussion is now. It will allow for those elected to be more accountable to the voters to do what's in the best interest of the communities the serve, instead of focusing their attention on the next election(s).

Until campaign finance is cleaned up the voters are screwed by corporate control of the process..... it's just the way it is..... the vast majority, meaning the apathetic citizens that Buzz speaks of, have contributed to the creation of the way things are today... Until the people take this power away from greed driven corporations all things political will remain the same,,,, A ~ Z

Buck, you are a man of reason and knowledge. Couple that with the ability to articulate and you have a grate combination.

The argument about voters is thin, based on the number of voters who take their constitutional right seriously. The reasonable application of term limits and voters that care is a win, win situation.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

For those who are younger the figures are worse.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues

I believe that term limits aren't necessary, in a perfect world. It would be a better idea if there were more election reform, limited campaigns, both in time and money spent, an end to PACS and at least more transparency in campaign donations. As it stands now, as soon as an official is elected, much of his/her energy goes to fund raising for the next election. I doesn't have to be this way.
But with the politicians receiving what they do from corporations, the rules will never change.
And, anyone who thinks allowing the citizens to vote is a mistake is only advocating dictatorship. Who are we to judge whose ideas are correct? The right to vote is the most important right that we, as citizens, have.

honestly I would like to see many others weigh in on this matter. some very good comments have been made and provoke thought about this issue. I believe that it deserves to be explored even though I am not currently a supporter. I do believe that a requirement should be that you have functioned in the world as an employee, employer, parent, participating community member, etc. real life experience is very valuable and gives a perspective on what those you may represent are experiencing. I believe the conversation is healthy

there was a time when i felt that term limits may be a solution for questionable representattion but after watching newly elected members of government go through the learning period it became obvious to me that it probably was a bad idea. I am one who trust in the ability of the electerate to select their representatives. I am more inclined to question the national elected officials terms since many of them appear to lose touch with their constituens. The locals are only away from the area for 90 days and are in the community the rest of the time.

Fred, cops go through the same process, along with just about every other occupation. I would agree a learning curve is necessary but after three terms or 12 years I think is enough time.

Another issue is that this is one person and their vote among many in the political arena.

As the article points out, I support term limits. If Councilman Quirk and I end up on opposite sides of this issue, I certainly respect his opinion and want to note that Councilman Quirk has been a very important voice of reform on this County Council. He sponsored legislation to post county regulations on-line, and insisted on critical reforms to the often-criticized Planned Unit Development process. I want to again thank him publicly for his work on these issues.

Councilman Marks, you represent hope for change in a system that has far too often put politics before the constituents.

One issue that has an enormous impact on the landscape of the county and it coffers is the PUD.

Other publications including this site along with The Sun have criticized this system pertaining to the potential conflicts that can result between connected developers and politicians.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-28/news/bs-md-co-thistle-landing-20110628_1_councilmanic-courtesy-council-chairman-john-olszewski-county-council

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-06/news/bs-ed-planned-unit-development-20110706_1_community-input-pud-process-unit-development-process

We are are all familiar with Yorkway PUD and are now waiting for the potential issues pending in Fort Howard, and possibly looming in the government center in Dundalk and the Seagrams property.

We need strong leadership in the council to offset the present administration that has been at the helm for the last 16 years in Baltimore County in one form or another.

Sean, I would have to research the issue of the relationship between honesty and the last fifty years of leadership regarding our governors. I don't think this issue would impact ones moral conduct or ethics in their particular field of a political endeavor.

Do you think that Jack Johnson would have stopped if he had not been caught in his second and last term. Term limits are not the where-for-all in the honesty department. Spiro Agnew was a good example of that.

I would defer to the highest office in the land which is governed by term limits. We have seen the impact of those nations that allow leaders unlimited access to power which has repeated itself over the course of history. I believe they call it a dictatorship.

Has anyone noticed that Councilman marks is one of the few elected leaders to join in this exercise of the constitutional process. Has anyone heard from Olszewski, Sr., Kamenetz or any other county leader?

Sean, I would agree if we had voters that took their civic responsibility seriously. Look at the results of the recent elections in the city. It was an embarrassment and reflects on some of the current trends in this country.

Sure FDR was a great president, but Truman was no slouch either. You think that Strom Thurmond was effective at his age? Do you think that people who voted for him actually knew his true capabilities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Sean, the one point that I think you are missing - the one I would agree with you on - deals with the true comprehension of our voters and the subsequent lack of them showing up at the polls.

No one has the right to tell us who has the right to vote and who doesn't. It is the right of every citizen to vote, and how dare anybody try to impinge on that right because they feel that the others aren't smart enough, or don't know all the facts, etc.
How dare anyone think they have the moral authority to impinge on anothers right to vote.
The many who don't show up are probably the same ones who don't keep up with the facts. They have made their own choice whether to vote or not.
Once we start trying to decide who should vote, it starts that slippery slope of poll tests and taxes, and then heaven only knows what comes next. You're slipping into the realm of dictatorship.
And when it comes to Strom Thurmond, he might not have been everyone's cup of tea, but he was still a very powerful voice in Congress, and his constituents were fine, thank you very much, with his representation.

Bart, what I don't understand is why aren't you speaking out against comments like the one that appeared here last night.

I don't mind the heat, I'm used to it, but it's embarrassing to those of us that attempt to practice discourse in a mature manner. It's embarrassing when Councilman Marks takes the time to interact with us and share his thoughts and he has to read remarks like those.

You become so indignant because you don't agree with me and yet when a comment that is rightly indignant goes right over your head. Where is that outrage when comments like that threaten the creditability of this site and belittle those of us that respect the opportunity to voice our concerns in an adult manor.

Don't you think that at some point those leaders will feel it's not worth the time to speak out to us when they see some acting like children.

I would have expected more from you. Why would you not want to protect the integrity of the very site that you use?

Sean, read my comment above. People like yourself should stand up and protect this site from those who attempt to bring it down.

It's not about me, but it is embarrassing when someone comes into what many of us value and expose this political leader to this childish behavior.

If it continues not only will our elected officials stop commenting, but so will others. I will choose to stay and hopefully clean up some of the issues that should be addressed.

"If there is a statement I feel is over the line, bullying, condescending ideas I will comment.". That was your quote. The comment I'm referring to clearly violated the terms of use. I would like to think that this site is above that kind of behavior, and you don't feel it crosses the line. That does not say much for your appraisal of such behavior.

I must have missed the part about you indignation over such a childish and immature comment.

Bart that was your response and there still was no comment from you. You made that statement because I made it a point of concern. You said nothing about the remark which does violate the terms of use. It could have been made against anyone and it is WRONG!

This has nothing to do with Mr. Marks other than exposing him to this type of embarrassment of having to read this stuff.

As for you, again it went right past you.

I would have thought you might feel a little embarrassed for your councilman. Don't you think it leaves an impression that this could degenerate to more of these types from making future comments like this.

Term limits are a waste of time because the people who are really calling the shots don't hold public office. They will just change puppets and keep pulling the strings like they always have.

Bart, it's not about me. It's about the integrity of this site and those who use it, not abuse it.

You seem on the same intellectual level that cannot comprehend the broader issue - INTEGRITY. You miss the point by personalizing it. IT IS NOT ABOUT ME! Did you hear that? I truly don't think you comprehend this situation. That is a major part of societies ills. Its like when someone is attacked and those standing around do nothing.

I would stand up for anyone on this site if those remarks were made, but it appears you aren't quite the adult I thought you might be.

If all you can come up with is "Get over yourself.", then you then you need to look at the broader picture and then within, because I think there is a lot missing.

Councilman Marks, I thank you for taking the time to express you point of view with many on this site who truly appreciate the involvement of our political leaders and apologize for the rude and crass remarks that some find necessary to express themselves.

I hope that you will not be dissuaded from future interaction on other important topics.

Bueller, Wipe that Brown Spot off your nose.

Sean, the issue isn't about me, but about the impact it has on all of us. Some that use to comment on this site have stopped because of this. They feel that dealing with people who write comments like this is foolishness and they don't want to get involved.

I would hope that those of us who care about this forum will take a stand and request the editor apply the "standard of us policy." Those who choose not to abide by the rules should be sanctioned.

Bueller, You ran more people away when you threatened to turn anybody who disagreed with you into the Attorney General's office. Remember, back before they taught how to use spell check?
Do you want to revisit your Racist comments about Hispanics, Bunker?

Armstrong's right. You have driven more people off these boards, and kept people from even posting than all of us put together.
In a recent thread, a person made his first post, and you checked on his history, saw this was the first and accused him of being a government operative. You repeatedly let everybody know that you check back on your previous emails and can pull up their postings from the past. You're keeping dossiers!
You don't like the current administration, you didn't like the previous administration, you vehemently don't like anything they do to try and correct things. You don't like Hispanics, or any other minority or the poor who need our help.
You are unhappy that you were forced to retire, for medical reasons.
You ran for office, and your neighbors said "NO".
You feel you should have the authority to decide who merits the right to vote.

I'm certain Councilman Marks was unphased by Mr. Armstrong's remark, yet you won't let it go, keep bringing it up so even more people will read it.
You are an instigator of trouble; you, sir, are a bully.

Slurring ones name is called racism. Taking a stand against illegal immigration is not. Do you recall the councils stand on the Dram Act? I thought not. You need to think about what you are going to say before making some of the remarks you do, or stop drinking those shoots and beers at the Sea Horse.

Slander and cyber stalking is against the law. You do remember the comments you made Bart insinuating that I had committed a crime a serious felony? I do, I saved them. I think that might refer to the bullying your are referring to.

I can post them so people can see how low you can go. Your other buddy is what he is, as carbon copy of you. He too makes crazy claims such as having three college degrees, speaking six languages, fighting in three wars, and traveling a million miles a year.

I don't think a respected and professional Councilman like Mr. Marks would approve of either of your remarks including the one you friend made on this topic.

As they say you are like the company you keep.

It's easy to spew the vermin you do when you don't have the guts to stand behind what you say. I think you are using what they call a pseudonym. Rather brave of you. A real man.

This isn't your original post. And I didn't accuse you of anything. I spoke only of a Google search in Australia.
And when he first mentioned euthanasia, I recommended you look at "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. It's satire!
And again, more dossier revelations. You scare people away!

Seek mental help Bueller. It's your only hope.

Chuck, it's a capital W as in What's. My typo, it should be Dream Act. That is the act the county council did not support.

Why don't to tell the people what the search was about and whose name you used. Why don't you tell them what you told the school teacher in your private message.

I scare people away. Did I mention your full name and tell someone I was searching on Google for that person who you alluded to committing a heinous crime?

Google searches the entire internet not just Australia, or aren't you bright enough to figure that out.

What would your family, if you have one, would think of that. How would you react to those accusations if someone made the reference to such hideous remarks pertaining to you or your family.

Why don't you let the people decide if they are more "dossier revelations?"

They don't come any lower than that. You made the choice and you think I'm the bully?

When I first contacted you about those remarks and told you I would attribute them to your drinking or childish behavior I thought you might learn something. But apparently you did not. You come out and accuse me of more issues simply because I disagree with you and your buddy who spews racial slurs at me all the time.

Why don't you tell Councilman Marks what it was you were searching my name for?

Accusing one either directly or indirectly is a serious matter that involves slander along with other issues and you have the gall of saying I scare people away.

Go ahead and tell the readers what you said.

I re-posted it to clean up some mistakes. Be a man and answer the questions I posed. Is that the best you can come up with? How many other people have you accused of committing felonies? You thought it was cute and funny and weren't bright enough to know that everything on this site is saved including the message you sent to someone.

Were you shocked to find out it's not so private? All of the serious questions I posed to you and that's the best you can come up with!

Speaking of bullying, the person you sent the message to has not posted again since I'm guessing he thought it best not to get involved in slander and committing a crime. Read the statue under MD Law and answer the question.

Were you drinking like you have stated time and again at the Sea Horse? Were you intoxicated?

If I Google - Bart - to see what kind of person you are or what mark you have left on this earth, what would I find? Nothing, just like your friend. Did you ever read his remarks. Do you know he thinks euthanasia for old people is a good idea?

Answer the questions! Are you afraid? Stand up for your words or cower down in the corner with your buddy.

ROTFLMAO ".....statue under MD Law...." what kind of statue was it? One of those nudie ones?