In 1991, a coalition came together to analyze the need for limiting political terms in Ohio. That group was made up of people from across the political spectrum. The Ohio Roundtable, Ohio Citizen Action and Ohio National Federation of Independent Business all helped lead that coalition.

We collected more than 650,000 signatures from voters and went on to conduct a ballot campaign for three term-limit measures. The people of Ohio passed those measures by overwhelming majorities. The Akron Beacon Journal opposed the measures.

On March 6, the Beacon Journal attempted to give the Ohio Roundtable sole credit for term limits in Ohio. As president of the Roundtable, I am deeply flattered, but must respectfully decline the compliment.

The people of Ohio, by overwhelming majorities, chose to change their own constitution, limiting their own right to choose candidates for the same office because the people believed term limits were necessary. We agreed then and now.

The Beacon Journal editorial described the ``appointment monster'' as the creation of term limits. The current state of appointments is not exactly monstrous. The laws covering appointments were on the books long before term limits. Everyone anticipated these laws would be utilized as the Ohio General Assembly transitioned from imperial incumbency to a representative body once again.

The term-limit measures could have addressed abuse of the appointment process, but we declined to do so. Our reason was not ``concern about special election costs,'' as the Beacon Journal editorial stated. We did not want to further alter the constitution until we were certain that a real problem existed. We did not want to prejudge the political process.

The Beacon Journal also claimed that we are surprised by the rise in political appointments. This is not true.

Over the past four years, we have been asked continually by the media to comment on this development. Our position has been the same: If it becomes apparent that political bosses are using the appointment process to subvert the constitutional rights of voters, then something should be done. We examined language to prevent this problem back in 1991. We did not lose our notes.

The Beacon Journal editorial headline asked: ``Any more good ideas?'' It seems that since mine was the only pro-term-limits name mentioned in the editorial, the question is mine to answer and the Beacon Journal would truly like to know.

So, since you asked, here are a few ideas: