Dyer calls third-term co-sponsorship a ‘mistake’ after council tables charter amendment

Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer stated Thursday he regrets co-sponsoring a proposed charter amendment that would allow him and city councilmembers to serve three consecutive terms, calling it a “mistake” to attend a Monday press conference announcing the measure.

The Fresno City Council voted Thursday to table the proposal after a marathon 12-hour meeting. Under current city charter rules, the mayor and councilmembers may serve two consecutive terms, then must sit out one term before running again. No lifetime cap exists.

Dyer said in a Thursday interview with The Fresno Bee that a councilmember called him at home last week with the proposal — an idea he said he had not heard of until that call. He declined to name which councilmember approached him.

Advertisement

“The mistake I made was agreeing to attend the press conference and the mistake I made was agreeing to be a co-sponsor of it,” Dyer said. “If I had it to do over again, I would say, I don’t want anything to do with it.”

At Monday’s press conference, Dyer co-sponsored the measure alongside Council President Nelson Esparza. When asked whether he would run for a third term if voters approved the change, Dyer said yes.

“As I stand here today, the answer is yes. I would run for a third term as mayor in the city of Fresno … as long as my health holds out,” Dyer said Monday. He cited unfinished work on downtown development and securing a professional soccer team and stadium.

The proposal drew immediate criticism. Roughly two dozen people spoke against it during public comment Thursday, which didn’t begin until after 8:30 p.m. Critics called the measure “self-serving” and a “power grab.”

Jagmeet Singh, an organizer with the Jakara Movement, a nonprofit serving the Punjabi community, said the measure appeared designed for job security. “Councilmembers, we all know that are supporting this measure because you know certain primary elections probably were a little too close for comfort, and maybe you want to slide back into your seat in 2028,” Singh said.

Esparza, in his final year of a second term and currently running for the state Board of Equalization, said Thursday he “resented” characterizations of the proposal as self-serving. “I think it would have been self-serving if I did this earlier in my term,” he said.

Councilmember Miguel Arias said he recalled discussing charter reforms including term limits with Councilmember Mike Karbassi “years ago.” Esparza said during Thursday’s meeting the idea had been on his mind “for a long time.”

Dyer said his initial response to the councilmember’s call was no. “I’ve given a lot to this city… I have committed my life to public service,” he said. After discussing it with his wife and Councilmember Tyler Maxwell — whose name has surfaced as a potential mayoral candidate — Dyer said he agreed to consider a third term if his health, energy, and passion remained.

Three political science experts told The Bee there’s no inherent problem with a three-term limit, which other California cities use. The problem, they said, was the rushed presentation to the Council and public.

Dyer and Esparza criticized media coverage of the proposal. Dyer said his reasons for considering a third term were misrepresented. “When people attack me for saying I’m doing it for power — It’s just not fair,” he said.

The Breakdown

• Current city charter allows two consecutive terms for mayor and councilmembers, with a required one-term break before running again. No lifetime cap exists.
• Proposed amendment would allow three consecutive terms.
• Council voted to table the proposal Thursday after 12-hour meeting.
• Dyer now says co-sponsoring was a mistake; says he was approached by a councilmember last week and had not considered the idea before that.
• Esparza said the idea had been on his mind “for a long time”; Arias said he discussed charter reforms with Karbassi “years ago.”

What This Means for You

This proposal would have appeared on your ballot asking you to change the city charter — the fundamental governing document you vote on directly. The measure is now tabled, not scheduled for a vote, but the underlying question remains: who decides how long your mayor and councilmembers stay in office, and how quickly they can bring that question to you. The material offers no date for when or whether the Council will revive this.

What to Watch

Dyer stated he was approached by a councilmember and did not initiate this proposal, but declined to name who called him. Multiple councilmembers offered conflicting timelines: Dyer says he heard of it “last week,” Esparza says it’s been on his mind “for a long time,” Arias says he discussed it with Karbassi “years ago.” Who actually originated this, and when, is not resolved by the material — the relevant question is whether voters will see it again under a different sponsor or timeline.

A legitimate policy question exists here: Dyer framed a third term as necessary to “see it across the finish line” on projects like downtown development and a soccer stadium. The flip side is whether extending an official’s tenure to finish their own projects is voter accountability or the definition of entrenchment — you’re being asked to give someone more time to complete what they started, which means fewer opportunities to change direction if you disagree with where they’re going. That’s not a flaw unique to this proposal; it’s the actual trade-off three-term limits create.