Hamilton’s Leadership in Focus: Term Limits - ft Councillors Kroetsch and Pauls

Further to our recent article in The Hamiltonian on the topic of term limits in municipal politics (which can be found here), we reached out to each City Councillor and Mayor Horwath to gather their perspectives on the issue. To ensure consistency, we posed the same set of questions to all and set a deadline of August 8, 2025, for the return of their responses.

We have already received two replies: one from Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch and the other from Ward 7 Councillor Esther Pauls. Given that these two Councillors hold differing views on term limits, their responses provide for an insightful and thought-provoking read.

We would like to express our gratitude to Councillor Kroetsch and Councillor Pauls for their participation. The intent of our approach is not to square councillors off , but to learn from their individual thoughts on this topic.

Below, we present their responses in the order in which they were received, with Councillor Kroetsch’s answers first, followed by Councillor Pauls’.

1 Greater transparency and accountability in municipal government are concepts often advocated for. . Do you believe term limits would strengthen those principles in Hamilton? Why or why not?

Clr. Kroetsch:  I believe term limits would increase accountability. I think accountability, for many, looks like electing people from the community who they feel represent them. What I've heard from community members who are seeking to run is that reducing the barrier of incumbency and allowing for more regular open elections would make a huge difference in terms of their willingness to put their names forward.

Clr. Pauls: Term limits do not necessarily strengthen transparency and accountability. The right and privilege of the people’s vote becomes diluted by imposed limitations to their voice, which is how I see term limits for Councillors and the Mayor. Regardless of one’s past history, current term length, or possible future prospects, elected officials of all kinds should be bound by transparency. That said, one could also argue that devoid of the prospect of future opportunities to serve in an elected capacity, one’s “last term” could, in fact, become problematic. It really boils down to the integrity of the person who has been elected, which the voter’s own research should illuminate.

2. Some argue that regular elections are sufficient to hold politicians accountable. Others say entrenched incumbency creates barriers for new voices. Where do you stand on that debate?

Clr. Kroetsch: It's very difficult, especially at the municipal level, for candidates to undertake a campaign. To be successful you often have to dedicate yourself to a municipal campaign full time, especially if you don't have name recognition. Up to now, this has often meant taking leaves from work and putting personal and family commitments aside. For some, it can be a huge financial risk. Many are not willing to take this risk when they know they're facing an incumbent. Incumbency is a major reason why people are reelected. 

This isn't my opinion. It's been studied and the evidence indicates, overwhelmingly, that incumbency plays a huge role in electoral outcomes at the municipal level. If there were more open elections in wards, due to term limits, this would level the playing field and allow more candidates to participate in our democracy without having to fight the incumbent advantage. Regular elections have not been attended by the majority of the voting public in Hamilton for many decades. I don't think they're an accurate measure of the support any one politician has and I think we all have to do better to lower barriers to participation and to encourage all voters to participate in our democracy.

Clr. Pauls: New voices don’t necessarily need to win elections to make themselves heard. For instance, we have a process known as delegations, where residents and business owners frequently schedule time to speak in front of council members at committee meetings and whose presentations become part of the record. What delegates present often plants the seeds of future initiatives.

Dedicated councillors consider all voices and contrasting opinions that exist within their constituency, whether they’re new to the job or seasoned in the representation of their ward. I strive to keep a clear pulse on the often-varying sentiments within my own ward, to achieve a balanced and honest reflection of residents’ collective attitudes and beliefs. This involves regular one-on-one time with residents via phone calls, face to face conversations, and often, house calls.

3. Would you personally support provincial legislation that gives municipalities the option to implement term limits? If so, what structure (e.g., two consecutive terms) would you find appropriate?

Clr. Kroetsch: I would definitely support such Provincial legislation. To be clear, the Province is very aware of this issue and has purposely refused to implement it. Many of those who have been incumbents for decades at the municipal level have influence within Provincial governments and want to hold on to their seats. I have no faith the Provincial government will take on this issue. I would prefer the Province impose a two term limit for every seat, but I would also consider supporting a three term limit if there was a compelling case made for it. To date, I haven't heard one, but I remain open minded to that particular part of the discussion.

Clr. Pauls: I wouldn’t support this kind of legislation, which I find an imposition on the voter. I maintain a strong belief that if only new candidates are being offered, and none of them appeal to the voter, the voter’s voice may become silenced, and their civic engagement restricted. The option to vote for the person they like best in the candidate roster should remain as it is. I don’t see any term limitations as constructive or fair to voters. Further, a seasoned Councillor offers benefits such as first-hand historical knowledge and experience with City process and protocol, relationships with other elected officials at various levels of government and City partners, and has been a part of the evolution of the City to the point at which elections take place.

4. Do you believe that one factor contributing to the reluctance of some long-serving municipal politicians to step aside and make space for new representation is a fear of “what comes next” after public office? Put differently, do you think that for some individuals, politics has become so deeply embedded as a source of livelihood and identity that the desire to remain in power outweighs broader considerations of democratic renewal?

Clr. Kroetsch: I do think that plays a role, for sure. Whatever your reason for getting into politics, once you're an elected official, things change pretty drastically. Public life often involves sharing your views in public. Those views may be perceived positively, but also negatively, which can make it difficult to leave public life and transition to private life. I'm sympathetic to this challenge, but this is another reason why I support term limits. If every Councillor knew there was a time limit, they might be forced to plan differently.

 I think it's also important to point out that at the municipal level, in Hamilton anyway, there's no transition program like at other levels of government. Right now, MPPs and MPs who are not reelected are paid a severance and supported to transition back to private life. At the municipal level, you're basically on your own. I think this harsh reality can harden some seasoned politicians. All of this disincentivizes Councillors from moving on and entrenches them in their roles and their identities. With between 35,000 and 40,000 in every ward, there are many other people who could do this work very well. I think it's important for Councillors to help others take on this work, not block them using the incumbent advantage. Everyone would be better off having more voices at the table doing this work. Change can be good, even if it's difficult.

Clr. Pauls: I certainly wouldn’t want to comment on the motivation of other elected officials. Again, residents are empowered to discern for themselves the kind of leadership they prefer. The advantage voters have when scrutinizing any incumbent is the elected official’s tangible track record. The voter’s conscientious analysis of such is vital to the power of one’s own vote and should be sufficient for gauging the calibre of any incumbent.

As we receive more responses, we will publish them. Stay tuned...