We recently shared our reservations about the effect of a term-limits ordinance on the incumbent mayor — and referenced the White House seven decades ago to contemplate our underlying principles as Americans.

Our reservations about a potential future development stemming from this initiative are unfortunately greater — and draw from indisputable facts a lot closer and more recently.

As members of council discussed the likely impact of the term-limits ordinance on the positions of city treasurer and city controller, the possibility of eliminating them altogether, under the terms of a future Home Rule Charter, was floated.

Too recently, the city has grappled with the economic fallout of misspent money, of an appointed finance director pleading guilty when presented with allegations he criminally misspent the money, including on the creation of unnecessary jobs to be filled with friends and influential people.

The misappropriation occurred over several years, unaddressed by the elected city officials who should’ve exercised better oversight — possibly the treasurer’s and controller’s offices, certainly members of council and the mayor’s office.

While we understand differences of opinion on whether the city treasurer and controller had the responsibility and discretion to provide that oversight during the transgression, we cannot understand an impulse not to clearly grant them that authority but to eliminate the positions altogether — placing more unchecked power in the hands of the same appointed civil service that was at the root of the crime.

Our city’s government needs more avenues for oversight — specifically, as the track record of recent years indicates, unelected figures. The term-limits ordinance, as written, glibly dismisses the need for such oversight.