Remove term limits
I have always been in favor of term limitations on political offices. The concept on the surface seems to ring true when you consider that some politicians would, if they could, stay in the same office for life.
The idea that making a politician step down through term limitations also seems to guaranty a chance for new blood in politics. While these issues may be true for most political offices, it is not true for special districts. Higher political offices have no problem drawing the interest of qualified candidates, which makes term limitations effective.
But for special districts like Arvada Fire there are many election cycles where there are no interested candidates other than the incumbents. Because of term limitations good people with experience and desire to serve would not be able to because of term limitations. Special district functions are quite limited and do not hold much glamour and do not draw a lot of interest.
This election is not about terms for life when you remember that a person still has to be duly elected every four years. Concerns about being able to beat an incumbent are unfounded when you look at the last several election cycles. In fact, I ran against two incumbents and won. Term limitations will not prevent anyone from running for the office.
By removing term limitations for this special district will only guaranty that
qualified, experienced and dedicated people can still serve, if the people choose to reelect them.