Sneaky

Phoenix, Arizona Mayor Phil Gordon's supporters are the impetus behind a ballot initiative that would align the mayoral and city-council terms to the same election cycle of once every four years. The terms are currently staggered, which requires more frequent elections.

The ostensible reason for this change is saving money by reducing the number of elections that have to be held. Okay, fine. But what the proposal would also do is extend Mayor Gordon's term by two years, something that isn't currently possible because he is term-limited and can't legally serve beyond 2012. Additionally, the current staggered system was voted into place by residents in 1991 to ensure that there would always be at least some officials with civic experience in place, which is probably a prudent idea.

If Phoenix residents wish to revert to more tidy election timings, so be it. Mayor Gordon, however, should not benefit from this by receiving two more "free" years in office that no one else can have, which would also "conveniently" allow him to run for governor in 2014 as a sitting mayor instead of a private citizen, which would be a huge advantage for him:

"Under the proposed extension, Gordon would be able to stay in office until January 2014, when the governor's seat comes up for election again"

Just as Bill Clinton signed into law a Presidential pay raise that didn't take effect until George W. Bush took office, ethical sitting politicians should not support changes in the law that give them a perceived benefit over others without instead deferring those benefits to the next officeholder. Let the next mayor, whoever he or she may be, have the two extra years, in order to remove the inherent conflict of interest.