One of 2 longest serving county commissioners in Florida questions proposed term limits
Legislation filed this week (SB 802, HB 679) would create a state constitutional amendment to restrict those local officials to no more than eight years in office.
That hits close to home for Leon County Commissioner Bill Proctor, one of the longest-serving county commissioners in Florida. For Proctor, first elected in 1996 to represent the county's south-side District 1, serving in elected office isn't about power or longevity.
It's about love.
"It is easy to fall in love with public service," he said in a phone interview. "It tugs on the heartstrings to think that you would only be eight and done."
At the same time, he added, "I will play by whatever the rule is," assuming the legislation passes and statewide voters one day OK such term limits. "We can't go beyond the law."
According to the Florida Association of Counties, Proctor is tied with Jackson County Commissioner Willie Spires for length in office among currently-serving commissioners, both completing 29 years at the end of 2025.
With pre-session committees winding down and the regular session set to begin March 4, state Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, and Rep. Michelle Salzman, R-Pensacola, filed the identical bills Tuesday.
"Serving in government should be an honor, not a career," Ingoglia said in a statement. "Our forefathers believed that service in government should be brief. I have a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of Floridians believe so as well."
Salzman added: "For too long, some county commissioners have remained in office for decades, leading to stagnation and limited accountability. By filing this (proposed) amendment, we are empowering Florida voters to decide if eight-year term limits are the right path forward."
Florida currently limits state lawmakers, for example, to eight years, but the law doesn't prevent people from serving in one chamber then bouncing to another and back, leading to some being in and out of the Legislature for years.
School board members were restricted to 12 years total in 2022; similar bills to this year's were filed last year but didn't make it through the regular session.
That's why Proctor – also a minister, political science instructor at Florida A&M University and a law school graduate – is doubtful the latest legislation will go anywhere.
Besides, he said, local voters should be able to decide whether to limit their commissioners' service: "We're local officials and therefore I don't understand why the Legislature would impose upon (us)."
After all, public service is "like fine wine," only getting better with time as commissioners grow their knowledge, experience and ability, Proctor said.
As of later Tuesday, the bills had not yet been assigned to committees.
Arianna Otero is the trending and breaking news reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat. Contact her via email at AOtero@tallahassee.com and follow her on X: @ari_v_otero.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Bill Proctor scoffs at 8-year term limits for local Florida officials
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump approval holds at 40%, lowest of his term, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's approval rating held at 40% in recent weeks, matching the lowest level of his current term, amid weak ratings from Hispanic voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday. The six-day poll was conducted as economic data showed signs the U.S. labor market is weakening and as Trump oversees a sweeping immigration crackdown, while at the same time the Republican has been engaged in intense diplomacy to end a war between Russia and Ukraine. Trump's approval rating was unchanged from a late July Reuters/Ipsos poll, but has dropped seven percentage points since his first days back in the White House in January, when 47% of Americans gave him a thumbs-up. The latest poll showed Hispanics, a group that swung toward Trump in last year's election, have also soured on the president. Some 32% approved of his performance in the White House, matching their lowest level of approval for Trump this year. More: Trump approval rating round-up: Where does president stand in recent polls? More than half of respondents -- 54%, including one in five Republicans -- said they thought Trump was too closely aligned with Russia, even as he ramped up a push to broker peace between Moscow and Kyiv. Trump has appeared to embrace Russia's claim that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia in order for the war to stop. Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, and the poll closed just ahead of the president's meeting on Monday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Just 42% of respondents approved of Trump's performance on crime and 43% thought he was doing a good job on immigration policy. On all policies, Trump's support came overwhelmingly from Republicans. After returning to the White House in January, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown on people living in the country illegally, deploying masked agents to arrest and deport migrants across the country. The policy has triggered mass protests in cities including Los Angeles, where about half the population identifies as Latino and many people have family members who are recent immigrants. More: What is Trump's approval rating? See states where he is most, least popular More recently, Trump ordered federal agents and National Guard troops to aid in law enforcement in Washington, D.C., arguing that crime was rampant there. Statistics show that violent crime shot up in 2023 but has been rapidly declining since. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,446 U.S. adults nationwide and online and had a margin of error of about 2 percentage points. (Reporting by Jason Lange; editing by Scott Malone and Deepa Babington)
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's redistricting move isn't pretty. California GOP leaders are uglier
King Gavin is at it again! That's the cry coming from Republicans across California as Newsom pushes the state Legislature to approve a November special election like none this state has ever seen. Voters would have the chance to approve a congressional map drawn by Democrats hoping to wipe out GOP-held seats and counter Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's Trump-driven redistricting. The president 'doesn't play by a different set of rules — he doesn't believe in the rules,' the governor told a roaring crowd packed with Democratic heavyweights last week at the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo. 'And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not good enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil and talk about the way the world should be. ... We have got to meet fire with fire.' California Republicans are responding to this the way a kid reacts if you take away their Pikachu. 'An absolutely ridiculous gerrymander!' whined Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents the state's rural northeast corner, on social media. Under the Democratic plan, his district would swing all the way down to ultra-liberal Marin County. The California Republican Party deemed the new maps a 'MASTERCLASS IN CORRUPTION' (Trumpian caps in the original). National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said 'Newscum' was giving 'a giant middle finger to every Californian.' Intelligent minds can disagree on whether countering an extreme political move with an extreme political move is the right thing. The new maps would supersede the ones devised just four years ago by an independent redistricting commission established to keep politics out of the process, which typically occurs once a decade after the latest census. Good government types, from the League of Women Voters to Charles Munger Jr. — the billionaire who bankrolled the 2010 proposition that created independent redistricting for California congressional races — have criticized Newsom's so-called Election Rigging Response Act. So has former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a fierce Trump critic who posted a photo of himself on social media working out in a T-shirt that read, 'F*** the Politicians / Terminate Gerrymandering.' I'm not fully convinced that Newsom's plan is the MAGA killer he thinks it is. If the economy somehow rebounds next year, Republicans would most likely keep Congress anyway, and Newsom would have upended California politics for nothing. I also don't discount the moderate streak in California voters that pops up from time to time to quash what seem like liberal gimmes, like the failed attempt via ballot measure to repeal affirmative action in 2020 and the passage last year of Proposition 36, which increased penalties for theft and drug crimes. Nearly two-thirds of California voters want to keep redistricting away from the Legislature, according to a POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll released last week. If Californians reject Newsom's plan, that would torpedo his presidential ambitions and leave egg on the face of state Democratic leaders for years, if not a generation. For now, though, I'm going to enjoy all the tears that California Republicans are shedding. As they face the prospect of even fewer congressional seats than the paltry nine they now hold, they suddenly care about rescuing American democracy? Where were they during Trump's fusillade of lawsuits and threats against California? When he sent the National Guard and Marines to occupy parts of Los Angeles this summer after protests against his deportation deluge? When his underlings spew hate about the Golden State on Fox News and social media? Now they care about political decency? What about when LaMalfa and fellow California GOP House members Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa — whose seats the Newsom maps would also eliminate — voted against certifying Joe Biden's 2020 victory? When the state Republican Party backed a ridiculous recall against Newsom that cost taxpayers $200 million? Or when the Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted to pass Trump's Big Bloated Bill, even though it's expected to gut healthcare and food programs for millions of Californians in red counties? Or even when Trump first pushed Abbott to pursue the very gerrymandering Newsom is now emulating? We're supposed to believe them when they proclaim Newsom is a pompadoured potentate who threatens all Californians, just because he wants to redo congressional maps? Pot, meet black hole. If these GOPers had even an iota of decency or genuine care for the Golden State, they would back a bill by one of their own that I actually support. Rep. Kevin Kiley, whose seat is also targeted for elimination by the Newsom maps, wants to ban all mid-decade congressional redistricting. He stated via a press release that this would 'stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.' That's an effort that any believer in liberty can and should back. But Kiley's bill has no co-sponsors so far. And Kevin: Why can't you say that your man Trump created this fiasco in the first place? We live in scary times for our democracy. If you don't believe it, consider that a bunch of masked Border Patrol agents just happened to show up outside the Japanese American National Museum — situated on a historic site where citizens of Japanese ancestry boarded buses to incarceration camps during World War II — at the same time Newsom was delivering his redistricting remarks. Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was there, migra cameramen documenting his every smirk, including when he told a reporter that his agents were there to make 'Los Angeles a safer place, since we won't have politicians that'll do that, we do that ourselves.' The show of force was so obviously an authoritarian flex that Newsom filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know who authorized what and why. Meanwhile, referring to Trump, he described the action on X as 'an attempt to advance a playbook from the despots he admires in Russia and North Korea.' Newsom is not everyone's cup of horchata, myself included. Whether you support it or not, watching him rip up the California Constitution's redistricting section and assuring us it's OK, because he's the one doing it, is discomfiting. But you know what's worse? Trump anything. And even worse? The California GOP leaders who have loudly cheered him on, damn the consequences to the state they supposedly love. History will castigate their cultish devotion to Trump far worse than any of Newsom's attempts to counter that scourge.
