Among the questions that our residents are asking about the June 2026

City Council elections is “Will John

Mirisch appear on the ballot to seek an unprecedented fifth term?”

We now have an answer: MAYBE!

In 2022, Beverly Hills voters passed Initiative TL restricting City elected officials to three four year terms.

Paradoxically, at the same time, John

Mirisch was re-elected to his fourth term.

At the time that the term limit initiative was passed, the Beverly Hills City

Attorney stated in a letter to the City

Council that prior completed terms could be counted toward the three term limit. However, the City Attorney acknowledged that the California

Attorney General had issued a formal opinion stating that previously completed terms could not count because the statute authorizing cities to enact term limits stipulated that the enactment be “prospective only.”

Councilmember Mirisch has decided that he would like to run for re-election and has retained prominent lawyer

Eric George (BHHS Class of 1986) to effect his eligibility. Mr. George has written to Beverly Hills City Attorney

Larry Wiener setting forth his analysis and conclusion that prior completed terms do not and cannot, under California law, count. Thus, Mr. Mirisch is not termed out. Mr. George stated that absent a commitment from the

City that Mr. Mirisch’s nominating petition will be accepted and that his name will be placed on the ballot, he will seek court intervention.

I asked Councilmember Mirisch why he wanted to run again. He gave several reasons. He says that he is uniquely well-positioned to fight and mitigate creatively the efforts of the state legislature to override local control over zoning and land use issues.

He points out that he was among the first to sound the alarm several years ago about proposed legislation that would restrict local control and, potentially, re-shape our city.

He states that he is the person who best understands the issues facing the South East parts of the City and that he is the Councilmember most sensitive to the interests of the residents.

Mirisch also points out that the retroactive interpretation of the Beverly

Hills ordinance seems targeted solely at him and that other cities that have enacted term limits have made them prospective only and do not count prior completed terms towards the limit.

I do not know how City Attorney

Wiener or a California court will now resolve the issue of whether counting

Mr. Mirisch’s prior completed terms count would be an impermissible retroactive restriction.

My own view is that he should be allowed to run. More importantly, as

Mr. George explains: “The heart of a functioning democratic government is the voters’ right to elect a candidate of their choosing. And before any local government limits that right, there needs to be an extraordinarily compelling reason to do so. Here, it would be perverse for Beverly Hills officials to claim that prior terms served by a would-be candidate prevent him from running again, when the California statute enabling local term limits permits such rules to apply “prospectively only.”

Here is a quick summary of part of the analysis:

The California statute that enables cities to enact term limits for their elected officers (Government Code Section 36502[b]) provides than any such limits “shall apply prospectively only.”

According to the California Attorney General: “By definition, a prospective law…means a law which has no effect on rights, obligations, acts, transactions, and conditions performed or existing before the statute was adopted.” Similarly, a recent decision in a case involving the San Bernardino Board of

Supervisors (that did not involve prior completed terms) used a substantially identical definition.

Counting prior terms would materially affect a candidate’s or office holder’s rights relating to a prior term from having no effect on a candidate’s eligibility to run for an officeytkdx to having a significant bearing on eligibility.

Therefore, Mr. Mirisch’s terms of office completed prior to the recently enacted three term limit cannot count.

If Mirisch is on the ballot, that could have significant implications for the race. The current terms of Mayor Nazarian and Councilmember Friedman are up and it seems likely that both will run for re-election. If Mirisch runs, there will be three incumbents running for three spots. This could deter others from running as incumbents are generally tough to beat. I do hope that others run.

I should emphasize that while I think that both California law and fairness allow Mr. Mirisch to stand for re-election, this column should not be read as an endorsement of his candidacy. In fact, I have disagreed with Mr. Mirisch’s positions on many issues including his opposition to the mixed use overlay zone ordinance, his opposition to the Cheval Blanc Hotel and, more recently, to his enthusiastic support for an elaborate permanent October 7 Memorial to be constructed in whole or in part at the City’s expense.

But, whether I agree with him or not, if he wants to run again, his name should be on the ballot.

***

The agenda for the Board of Education meeting on November 16 included approval of “a contract with HYA Education Experts and Honorable Micah Ali for Professional Development, Student Education, and Parent Education centered around culturally sustaining leadership for responding to race-based harm.” (See brief on page 3).

This contract, which will cost BHUSD at least $175,000, is a response to the conduct of some students who seem to feel that it is appropriate to direct racial epithets and other hostile conduct toward their fellow students and, in some instances, faculty members. This type of conduct has resulted in the regrettable withdrawal of some students from the District as well as litigation against the District for allegedly not taking appropriate action to prevent or respond to such behavior.

I may be “old school” but I consider such behavior entirely inexcusable.

But directing blame at the District is misplaced. My first instinct would be to punish severely and, if permissible (and I am told it is not), to expel the students who engage in this conduct.

As tempting as that would be, it would also be misdirected. I don’t really blame the students. Rather, I blame the parents who have “raised” but don’t properly instill their children with important values. Rather, affirmatively or by neglect they enable this conduct. Discipline, like charity, begins at home. There is truth in the observation that if you spare the rod you will spoil the child.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to address what goes on in the home.

However, calling out parents whose intent or recklessness results in a damaging level of bad behavior by their children would be a step in the right direction. And, to the extent that such behavior results in litigation against the District, consider involving those parents in the litigation so that they can attempt to defend and bear some of the consequences of their poor child-rearing.