On Nov. 4, the residents of Standish will go to the polls and vote on two referendum questions concerning term limits. Our initial reaction may be that term limits are a good thing, but we shouldn’t let our frustration with the state and federal government cloud our judgment and infer that term limits are a good thing at the local level.

Standish is mainly staffed by volunteer residents who donate their time and resources to serve Standish. Volunteers on committees or boards do not get paid, receive benefits such as health care, nor are a part of a retirement plan. They do it to be a part of the town they live in and to make Standish a better place to live.

It takes time to become familiar with town proceedings and to become an effective volunteer. We shouldn’t set a mandatory term limit that would potentially remove an experienced and willing volunteer. The collective experience our volunteers have allowed Standish to adapt to these ever-changing times. As an example, Standish volunteers have used their experience to keep the town’s portion of the tax rate flat for the last three years, which is excellent considering the recent recession.

Currently there are 14 vacancies on various boards and committees. Some of which have been vacant for several years. We shouldn’t have mandatory term limits when we are unable to find enough volunteers to fill all of our boards and committees. We shouldn’t term out a willing volunteer.

When you think about it, Standish already has term limits. They are in the form of elections. Elected volunteers serve for three years at which time they are subject to re-election. It is at that time when we should be making the choice to term out a volunteer. Don’t give up your right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

On Nov. 4, I ask the residents of Standish to vote ‘No’ on questions 3 and 4. Preserving our volunteers’ right to serve and to protect your right to vote for the candidate you want, regardless of how long they have served.

Steven Nesbitt

Standish