Christensen told the Standard-Examiner the issue has become about more than term limits.

“There has been a lot of social media outcry and I don’t want that emotion to sway the decision that we’re making,” she said. “I would like to use this time to send us to a work session, to give us an opportunity to breathe and to be responsive and not reactive.”

She said she would like to hear more information about why term limits were presented to the last council because she was not a part of that vote.

“I would like to have some opportunity to know why did it seem so critical last May to move it through in such a quick fashion,” she said.

Christensen said that she would like the focus to be on the ordinance rather than the previous administration versus the current administration.

“I think there’s an opportunity to let some of the emotions settle and allow us to make a more responsible decision,” she said.

Christensen’s remarks and the council’s vote come in the wake of former Clinton Mayor Brandon Stanger posting a scathing message on Facebook aimed at the potential repeal of Chapter 2-17 in city code adopted last year related to term limits – and specifically, current Mayor Marie Dougherty and current Council member Spencer Arave, who both voted against term limits last year.

In his Facebook post Saturday, Stanger praised Christensen, along with Council member Dane Searle, saying the two “spoke up at the last council meeting and stopped it, for now.”

Christensen said her goal “is not to stop it in terms of meaning we’re not going to take action.”

She said she wants to “more thoughtfully and more purposefully” go about the process, sitting and working on it as a council and potentially having a public hearing.

“The problem that I saw that I feel is feeding part of why this is politicized is to my knowledge, the last vote that happened on this issue in May of 2025 happened quickly without a lot of discussion,” she said. “There were people who felt like it was ramrodded before them. I’ve heard that word used. And I’m not in a position to agree or disagree about how that happened because I wasn’t there. But I don’t want there to be a question of that happening again.”

In his post, Stanger accused Arave of pushing for the repeal so he could serve a third term.

“I am still in my first term, so currently I don’t have plans for a third term. I haven’t even got to a second term yet,” Arave told the Standard-Examiner, adding that’s not why he wants the repeal to occur.

Arave said it’s about “the legal ambiguity of it” and the risk of being sued.

“I think (Stanger) made a comment about if somebody wants to sue, let them sue and then let’s go through the process,” Arave said. “But from a city standpoint, why would we want to put ourselves in that type of situation or potential situation?”

In a statement read during public comment, which Stanger provided the text of to the Standard-Examiner, he advised not to be worried about potential litigation.

“If we’ve learned anything from the recent referendum, it’s that this community is willing to step up,” he said. “We can crowdsource the legal costs and I will personally volunteer, just as Councilmember Larsen did, to help lead that effort. If necessary, I’ll even file the case pro se myself.”

Stanger said to “listen to the people” and said polls, “even local Facebook ones in the Clinton Groups,” showed “the overwhelming majority support term limits.”

He said not to use the League of Cities and Towns as justification.

“Term limits are not illegal,” he said in his statement. “They are not even ‘likely illegal.’ That is propaganda by an organization protecting the elected officials that make up their leadership who have served longer than 8 years. Cities continue adopting term limits, and none are rushing to repeal them. If someone truly believes the law should change, then let the Legislature debate it openly. Until there is a change let the ordinance stand as written.”

In his Facebook post, Stanger called for those supportive of term limits regardless of what city they resided in to attend the City Council meeting and “speak up and let the council know how you feel.”

Ultimately, three Clinton residents spoke Tuesday during public comment in favor of repealing term limits, while another person sent a message in favor of repeal that was read. One person spoke in favor of keeping term limits and Stanger sent his message that was read.

During the City Council meeting, Clinton City Manager Trevor Cahoon gave a presentation on term limits. He said according to state law, there isn’t anything that prohibits term limits, but there is also no limitation on allowing term limits. He said there hasn’t been a challenge in court yet “because there is not a widespread number of cities who are adopting term limits.”

Cahoon said his recommendation as a professional is to stay on the safe side.

“This has always been my recommendation is that there’s no inherent problem within the city that we’re trying to fix,” he said. “In any code conversation, I always start off with what is the actual problem that we’re trying to fix here, and if there’s no problem, then there may not be a reason to implement a code, unless we see a potential for a problem or if there are rumblings of a problem or something like that.”

Cahoon said he’s never really been a proponent of term limits. He said there could be “a legitimate local purpose in protecting the welfare of the city” if there was corruption or things that might come because of an incumbent who continually won reelection but that Clinton didn’t have that.

Council member Adam Larsen challenged during the council meeting what was being solved for with term limits.

“Because I think there are clear examples at the federal and even in some state examples where it gets to the point where money becomes a bigger issue and you start to take away some of the freedoms of the people just because the money makes the difference,” he said.

He said there have been clear examples of Clinton residents responding to feeling things were not going in the right direction.

“In the absence of a compelling reason, I will always be in favor of less government regulations,” he said. “I just don’t think that we need the government to say, ‘You know what? You don’t know how to choose the right people, so let us tell you who you can choose, or at least eliminate some that you can’t choose,’ unless you can convince me that there are dangerous people who will stay in power if the government doesn’t step in to stop it.”

In a blog post, Council member Chris Danson also voiced opposition to term limits.

“Term limits sound good for replacing politicians who do not seem to listen to their constituents,” he said. “However, in practice, they end up having a negative effect overall.”

He said if people want a politician out of office, they can vote that person out.

“That is the people’s right to keep a person in for however short or long they want them there,” he said. “Forcing out a good politician because of a law should not be the prerogative of a free, democratic society.”

Though she advocated against holding a vote during Tuesday’s City Council meeting on whether to repeal term limits, Dougherty told the Standard-Examiner she is in favor of repeal.

She cited the legal gray area as a reason and also her “philosophical and political science opinion on it is that it’s not a great policy.” She said “term limits at the local level, especially in a smaller city like Clinton, are unnecessary and that they unnecessarily impede the voting power of the residents.”

Contact Standard-Examiner editor Ryan Comer at rcomer@standard.net.