The leading public reason so far for imposing term limits on Bangor’s School Committee is that the Bangor City Council has them. One of the supporters of putting the question of term limits to a vote asked recently, “Why don’t

we have some unity here?”

Until recently and with rare exception there was unity: It was generally agreed that the School Committee did a fine job, and its members who ran for re-election generally were successful, demonstrating that their work was valued. With an issue as contentious as education, that’s about as close to unity as a city gets. What the city does not have is sameness between the council and the School Committee, but that’s hardly a reason for a vote.

Rather than fret about unity, it might be more productive to try to understand the potential effects of what is being proposed by asking, for instance, “What evidence is there that the city has profited by limiting the terms of the City Council?” Or, “Why was it decided 25 years ago to limit terms on the City Council but not on the School Committee, then an appointed board?” or “How have other school boards benefited from term limits and how have they been hurt?”

After the unity argument, an even less persuasive one is that members of the public asked for a vote on this issue and therefore should have one. Certainly a responsive council is an asset to the city, but members of the community also recently asked, for instance, for a council vote on a building moratorium around the mall but didn’t get one – maybe they should have asked for a referendum question or maybe responsiveness is highly selective. And maybe that is for the best: Imagine what would happen if word got out that residents could get a citywide vote on any number of issues simply

by making a request to a council member. A question that requires councilors to wear funny hats at all public events -for the good of the city’s morale, naturally – might get enough votes to pass. Then someone would also want them for the School Committee.

The group pushing for the term limits says it has nothing in particular against the current committee, but it seems unlikely that this much effort – there’s a public hearing on the issue scheduled for tonight – would exist if the group was content

with the status quo. If, as is possible, residents are unhappy with decisions made by the committee or with the process used to

make those decisions, they should say so.

If they’re mad at long-serving committee chairman Martha Newman, they should explain why and describe why a far-reaching policy like term limits is an appropriate response to a personal disagreement.

If, however, it really is just that idea of unity, here’s an alternative: Why not also consider removing the term limits on the City Council and forget about them for

the school board? Then, informally, councilors might decide on a standard for bringing forth a proposed referendum question, perhaps something higher than the seems-like-a-good-idea line of argument. Remember the funny hats.