Kenai Peninsula Borough voters said "yes" to almost everything in Tuesday's municipal elections a cap to the unlimited senior citizen property tax exemption, term limits for borough assembly members, term limits for school board members and bonds to help finance a new fire station in Bear Creek.

Unfortunately, voters sent mixed messages when they approved term limits and also voted for every incumbent running for assembly and school board. The term limit propositions prohibit assembly and school board members from serving more than two consecutive terms, count terms already served and take effect immediately.

All of which mean it's unclear whether five people incumbent assembly members Paul Fischer of Kasilof, Pete Sprague of Soldotna and Gary Superman of Nikiski and school board incumbents Sunni Hilts of Seldovia and Sammy Crawford of Kenai re-elected Tuesday will be permitted to begin their new terms. They weren't even allowed to attend part of special meetings held Thursday to discuss how to handle the issue.

The propositions before voters Tuesday are a perfect example of two wrongs not making a right. The passage of term limits basically cancels out the votes of all those who favored the incumbents a majority of voters in each of their districts. Proponents of term limits have argued that the assembly previously disenfranchised voters in 1999 by repealing term limits that voters passed in 1993, and the most recent propositions were written to ensure this didn't happen again. But the passage of the propositions has disenfranchised all those voters who chose an incumbent who had already served two terms. How does that rectify an assembly action that occurred almost a decade ago?

It doesn't, of course.

Now the courts will have to get involved to settle the question.

One assembly member has a good idea about how to proceed: Seat everyone who won and if somebody doesn't like it, let them sue. The "them" in this case is the Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, or ACT. ACT has discouraged the assembly or individual members from taking legal action. "By taking legal action the election process will be substantially harmed," ACT says.

The process is harmed even more because people who were duly elected may not be able to take office.

To make matters worse, ACT promises next to tackle a borough revenue cap "to control the huge increases in borough spending." That's more than a little disingenuous since ACT's actions are eating up borough resources time, energy and money that are better spent elsewhere. Borough residents will do well to watch the price tag on what it takes to settle the conflicts in the most recent election. There's got to be a better way.

ACT has valid points about some wrongs with borough government, but that doesn't make the borough, its employees and elected borough officials the enemy. Borough residents would be far better served if ACT members worked within the system for change, instead of throwing a wrench in the works every time they have a beef.

The term limits propositions are a good example; they're wrenches that fix nothing.