Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for July 30, 2022

Corte Madera made good pick for town manager

I am writing in regard to the article published July 19 with the headline “Corte Madera council selects interim town manager.” The Town Council made the right decision. Adam Wolff is the best choice for town manager.

Wolff has the ability to see and understand different points of view and the creativity to develop solutions that work. Corte Madera couldn’t do better.

— Roy Fray, Corte Madera

Enact term limits for Congress, Supreme Court

With a nod to IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood’s recent commentary on term limits for local elected officials (“For the sake of innovation, adopt term limits for all Marin positions,” July 13), let’s expand the discussion to two of democracy’s greatest enemies at all levels, our corrupt practices for drawing congressional districts and an absence of term limits for some federal officials, including Supreme Court justices.

In many states, who wins a House seat is dependent on how a district is drawn and by whom, and wouldn’t you know it that in most places the “whom” is the party in power in that state. Talk about the wolf guarding the hen house. The most hopeless, hapless victims are the citizens of Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Illinois and Oregon.

The wolves are both Democrats and Republicans. Either party tries to erase the other. It’s called gerrymandering.

Ordinary citizens should draw the lines, of course, and California voters are fortunate to have less imperfect maps because we have commissions that are genuinely independent.

With term limits imposed on members of the House and Senate, we would take a huge step forward to reducing the undue influence of many longtime “residents,” some of which appear to be entrenched, lazy, misinformed, bought-and-paid-for incumbents.

In the Senate, nobody needs more than one six-year term. In the House, three two-year terms is plenty. With the Supreme Court, let’s give them eight years and get them the hell out of there. Whoever said these are supposed to be lifetime appointments made a dreadful mistake.

Professional politics has been the ruin of this devolving country. Our citizens, through their indifference, have allowed this situation to take place.

The sheep can’t blame the wolves any longer.

— Craig J. Corsini, San Rafael

Reasons for continuity in local elected office

I am writing in regard to IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood’s recent commentary arguing that Marin needs term limits to revitalize our democratic institutions (“For the sake of innovation, adopt term limits for all Marin positions,” July 13). While this is an attractive idea, it ignores some telling issues that are chronic problems in Marin County.

As a former member of a town council in the county, I can say that we have a very short supply of people who want to serve in public office, elected or appointed. We should impress on our youth the need for a vibrant democracy. It demands new people to volunteer and bring new ideas and knowledge.

Spotswood suggests that the current situation breeds a lack of separation among agencies and lack of open discussion. I do not see those issues, except when people get appointed to boards and commissions, in some cases without experience or qualifications, and that cronyism stifles innovation. Even here, I think there are effective reasons for the aspect of continuity, a subject author David C. McClelland dealt with in his publications, best in the book “The Achieving Society.”

Education and experience do count. The question of what qualities define and operate to produce achievement, real progress and innovation still is a problem.

As for term limits, I am opposed for the simple reason that it denies me the right to choose whoever I want to vote for in any office.

— Niccolo Caldararo, Fairfax

Rise in polarized violence traces back to our leaders

People follow leaders. That’s the very definition of leadership. When leaders support violence — such as it appears some elected officials did during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, or legal attacks against women or other groups or support authoritarianism (and so on) — it encourages similar aggressive behavior from followers. So naturally we are seeing more tribalized violence, not just in Washington, but all the way down the coattails to the local level.

Members of Congress don’t tote automatic weapons — so far as we know. But some of their followers certainly do. With so many gun-carrying unstable people out there, if I were a young family man with children, I’d think twice before running for office. It’s too risky.

How much personal security should we provide to candidates, and how effective is it anyway?

I sometimes wonder how our public discussion process can de-escalate this rising polarized violence, when that discussion process is itself adversarial, often fueling the fires of division it is meant to quell.

— Barry Phegan, Greenbrae

Prosecute Trump for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021

Those of us who have served know that, upon entrance to any U.S. armed service, they must take an oath which includes the words pledging to defend the United States “against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” Presidents of the United States, including Donald Trump, take this oath.

With that in mind, I think it is especially disgraceful that Trump incited an armed mob to attack the U.S. Capitol and demanded that followers be allowed to listen to his speech without having to pass through metal detectors. He knew that if they carried weapons, the protesters weren’t there to harm him. Apparently, he didn’t care to think exactly who they were there to harm.

It is clear to me that inciting the mob and permitting members to enter without metal detectors resulted in death and injury. This was an act of treason, endangering the U.S. and its constitutional government. It needs to be prosecuted. Destroying evidence, in disobedience of orders by the Secret Service, headed by a Trump appointee, must also be prosecuted.

We have to defend our constitutional government and its laws.

— Brian Stompe, Novato

Do not strip Supreme Court of judicial review

In his recently published Marin Voice commentary (“In Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe, problem is within Constitution itself,” July 19), Robert Ovetz highlights some of the various interpretations that can be given to the words in the Constitution.

His conclusion that the court “is the ultimate roadblock and barrier to changes demanded by the majority” misses a few important points. For example, if something is really a majority belief, Congress can pass laws to implement these beliefs, but in the case of legalized abortion, it has not done so.

Also, the two branches, executive (president) and legislative (congress) can be representing the same political party, so they may not be real checks on each other.

The framers were well aware that the worst thing that can happen in a democracy is rule by a tiny majority over a very large minority, so they set up things like the Senate and the Electoral College to help prevent majority overreach. The Supreme Court is a mostly independent balancing mechanism.

From my perspective, the only thing that may make sense is giving the justices staggered term limits so that no one president can nominate more than two. To “strip the court of judicial review,” as Ovetz suggests, would put the United States on the road to oblivion.

— Nick Clark, San Rafael