Boston City Council may vote to extend term to four years

Boston city councilors are considering whether they should double the length of their terms to four years, putting them on the same election cycle as the mayor.

The proposal, which the council may vote on Wednesday, would eliminate city elections that feature only councilors. Those contests typically attract few voters but cost taxpayers roughly $1.6 million.

Critics worry that abandoning the current two-year terms would give incumbents more time to raise money and make it harder for challengers. Supporters argue that a four-year term would allow councilors to focus more on government and less on fund-raising for the next election.

“It would allow city councilors to do their jobs better,” said Councilor Frank Baker, of Dorchester, who sponsored the measure. “With a two-year cycle, you are in a cycle of running all the time. You get one year where you are actually doing the work and then it’s election season.”

The initiative would require approval from the state Legislature. It would also need the signature of Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who declined Tuesday to take a position, according to a city spokeswoman, Bonnie McGilpin.

Walsh may have a political reason for his reticence: Several councilors said a four-year term would help balance power in Boston and put them on more equal footing with the mayor. In a city with power concentrated in the mayor’s office, a longer term could give councilors a longer leash to stand up to the administration.

“It is important that the council continue to increase its power,” said City Councilor Tito Jackson, of Grove Hall. “This would help.”

The idea that a four-year term would empower the council was echoed by several other councilors, including Bill Linehan, of South Boston.

“The idea of a popular mayor influencing a City Council election is highly unlikely if he is on the ballot himself,” Linehan said.

Councilor Timothy McCarthy, of Hyde Park, said a four-year term would “lower the cost of elections, reduce the constant need to fund raise, and would give elected officials on the council more confidence to try ideas that challenge the status quo.”

The push to extend their terms marks the second major action undertaken by councilors in the past six months that directly affects their own fate. In October, the council voted to give itself a 14 percent raise, increasing annual salaries to $99,500.

City Council President Michelle Wu expressed qualms about the potential change in the length of terms.

“The council should be the most accountable and directly representative body that it can be,” Wu said. “My concern with moving to four-year terms is this makes it more difficult for newcomers to build up a credible campaign given the realities of fund-raising and campaign finance.”

Last year, two longtime incumbents lost in a City Council-only election. One of those victors was Annissa Essaibi George, who said she already feels her next election looming.

“I’ve only been in office now three months,” Essaibi George said. “It’s unfortunate that a year from now I’m going to have to be in reelection mode. I feel like my work is just beginning.”