Williamsport City Council adopted a term limits ordinance on Thursday limiting the mayor’s terms two two consecutive terms, and extending those of council, controller and treasurer to three consecutive terms.

The ordinance, adopted in a 6-0 vote with Councilwoman Bonnie Katz absent and Mayor Derek Slaughter not at the meeting, limits the current mayor’s ability to run for a third consecutive term in two years. It provides for council, treasurer and the controller to hold office for three consecutive terms.

Slaughter, who has served since January 2020, remains in the second, four-year term with two more years to finish it out. He told the Sun-Gazette on Friday he had vetoed the ordinance. Council can override his veto with two-thirds majority or five votes.

Katz, who has been on council 13 years, could not seek another consecutive term in two years based on what was adopted.

Before the vote, Councilman Eric Beiter asked city Solicitor Austin White for clarification on the potential of someone doing three terms on council, stepping away, and coming back, and asked if that were still allowable, or whether it be a mayor as well.

“It is a matter of consecutive terms, so, technically, yes,” White said. “They could theoretically do another stint of eight or 12,” he said.

Councilwoman Liz Miele, who is seeking her fourth term in the general election Nov. 4, would not be affected by the ordinance.

White suggested inserting language that a current officer holder could seek one more additional term without being in violation.

“They really are technically-oriented roles,” Council President Adam Yoder said, referring to the treasurer and controller. “If you get somebody that really embraces that, there is a lot of value that they can bring.”

Councilman Randy Allison agreed with Yoder on those two positions and his assessment.

“Those positions are very technical and I personally would like to see term limits removed,” Councilman Vincent Pulizzi said.

Miele said should the city move to a Home Rule Charter, that these positions should be hired.

“I would truly hate to see us potentially lose qualified people for those positions … because of term limits,” Pulizzi said, agreeing with Miele on that point.

Beiter said he was in favor of moving the treasurer, controller and council to “three terms versus eliminating it (from the ordinance) because down the road, then, if another council determines that somebody else should be in that role longer – it can do that.

“Hopefully, Beiter said, “we have the incentive to get Home Rule done.” “We obviously have the reasons why we need to get that done so it will be a non-issue.” Home Rule is a charter form of government that would need to first involve a government study commission and a vote by the electorate. It could give taxpayers more input in how their government operates and allow the government more flexibility in its structure and tax levy, such as adjusting the earned income tax.

Councilman Jon Mackey said before the vote that he also leaned toward extending or eliminating the controller and treasurer, and leaned toward Miele’s suggestion and changing it from two to three.

The mechanism of the vote was explained further by Miele. One of the amendments was to change the number two to three. It made the language – “No person can serve more than two consecutive terms as city controller or city treasurer,” she said. Another amendment of the language was – “No person shall serve, or be elected to, more than…”

White said he spoke to the county Board of Elections office before this final adoption and he briefed the council on that discussion.

“My understanding from the county voter services office is that it would be up to someone to bring a challenge if one of those people currently sitting in those roles were to run for reelection,” Miele said.

“Someone would have to challenge the petition of someone seeking to run for reelection who had exceeded term limits?” Miele asked.

“Correct,” White said. “Based on my understanding, at least presently, it would not be … within the voting system – as in someone would not be allowed to be placed on the ballot or written into the ballot,” he said. “It would be that either an opponent would have to file a challenge to the petition or the person who feels aggrieved would have to file a declaratory judgment action to have the ordinance invalidated, as to them, as applied. Or, if none of those things happened, that person could be subject to removal – after being elected – whether that is through getting the district attorney’s office involved – “there is a whole process … that is a special type of civil action.”

“I guess someone could file a lawsuit tomorrow but I am not aware of someone preparing to do that,” White said.

“Only one way to find out,” Miele said.