ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, May 16, 1996 TAG: 9605170002
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: RAY L. GARLAND
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
THE STATE superintendent of public instruction, Dr. William Bosher, is leaving Gov. George Allen to take the job of leading Chesterfield County schools. Smaller fry are also departing, and others are sure to follow as the focus shifts to the choice of Virginia's next governor, 18 months from now.
While Bosher has been loyal to such Allen initiatives as rejecting federal Goals 2000 in favor of the state's own learning standards and establishing deregulated "charter" schools as competitors to regular public schools, some have speculated he wasn't entirely comfortable. My guess is that given the chance to land a berth leading one of the state's largest and wealthiest school divisions at a substantial increase in pay, he took it.
The inevitable winding down of a governor's team so soon after it was wound up raises the perennial question of whether the state is well-served by denying its chief executive officer the chance to seek a second, consecutive term.
Changing the four-years-and-out rule would require a change in the state Constitution. That has been frequently proposed but has yet to win a second approving vote in the General Assembly after the required intervening election.
One by one, those states denying their governors the chance to serve a second term have thought better of it, leaving only Virginia with a one-term limitation.
In the absence of organized pressure from outside the legislature, which isn't in prospect, Virginia is likely to continue its tradition. I have always ascribed that mainly to the desire of ambitious legislators to keep a high rate of turnover in the state's three top elective posts. That is, with the incumbent governor certain to move on, and the incumbent attorney general and lieutenant governor equally certain to consider a bid for the job, there would be more opportunity for aspiring legislators to land a foot on the greasy pole that might lead to the governorship.
But former Senate Majority Leader Hunter Andrews, who served 32 years and tried several times to amend the Constitution to allow governors a second term, thinks otherwise. In his view, it's mainly a belief that what seems to have served us well ought to be kept. That would be a variation on the old joke of why it takes three Virginians to change a light bulb: One to change the bulb and two to talk about how great the old bulb was.
Andrews expressed his position in a characteristic epigram: "It's not a question of the right of a governor to succeed himself, but the right of the people to decide."
Those in the best position to judge are the former governors themselves. Only one of the five living ex-governors, Douglas Wilder, has strongly pronounced in favor of lifting the limit. There is irony in that because none exercised the same flamboyant independence that marked Wilder's term. This might suggest he is the only recent governor who would have had difficulty being re-elected. The others - Mills Godwin, Linwood Holton, Charles Robb and Gerald Baliles - almost certainly could have won a second term.
Godwin, of course, did win one in 1973 after being out four years. But this didn't change his conviction that the one-term limit should be kept. It's a matter of independence and freedom, he said; a governor who doesn't have to worry about being re-elected will be more effective.
Holton, who succeeded Godwin in 1970 and was succeeded by him in 1974, agrees. He said there were a few issues left at the end of his term he would have liked to see through, but his work was mainly complete. The most important thing was he came into office with a clear agenda to change the way the state did business, and was able to gain the support of legislative leaders, such as Andrews, who were mainly of the opposing party. Because they knew he wouldn't be on the ballot in 1973, he thought their cooperation was easier to enlist than it otherwise would have been.
Holton also discounted my notion the one-term limit makes it more difficult to attract qualified people for top state jobs. "The only problem I had," he said, "was filling positions in the Cabinet, and that was because the bill creating the Cabinet system didn't take effect until my term was more than half over."
Baliles echoed many of Holton's comments, particularly the one about having little trouble securing the services of qualified people. The main thing, he said, was knowing what you wanted to accomplish: "The time available, while brief, is adequate."
Baliles said he did not feel strongly about lifting the one-term limitation but believed a better alternative would be a single, six-year term. That, he said, would afford a governor every reasonable opportunity to accomplish his objectives without introducing the disturbing element of spending most of the first term positioning for a second. It is a very sound idea, but not one likely to find much favor with legislators.
But something as big as state government cries out for the most effective management possible. No modern governor has ever managed anything remotely comparable. The great unanswered question is whether the chance at a second term means better governors or merely fewer.
Every other state now seems to believe the first. While not really comparable, the presidency of the United States may prove the opposite. Only two presidents since Franklin Roosevelt (1933-45) have served two full terms. But the second terms of both Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan fell far below the energy and accomplishments of their first terms.
But standing alone among the 50 states in holding to a one-term limit suggests the General Assembly should at least allow the people to render judgment.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Medium: 100 linesby CNB