Does age define readiness for governance?

Does age define readiness for governance?  That's essentially the question being addressed in discussions going on at the New York City Council.  According to the 5/11/08 New York Times, a bill has been presented to limit to two the number of 16-17 year olds that can serve on a community board. 

Maturity and preparedness are the supposed issues.  Says Brittany Britt (real name I didn't make it up): "Some people our age aren't mature, and make decisions based on what other people think....But she said that she would be interested in joining her local board and that young people should have the chance to voice their opinions."

Meanwhile the current borough president remembers his time as a 15 year-old serving on a community board in his first meeting: "...where he occupied his time with a bit of clock-watching, a little note-taking, one raising of his hand, a lot of serious attentiveness with his chin poised on his thumb and one trip to the candy machine."

From my thinking, youth who are willing should indeed have the opportunity to serve.  As the author of the bill to enable service says: "denying members of this age group the right to take part in their city government leaves them "disenfranchised" and "second-class citizens".  Supporters further say that "16-17-year-olds would bring a unique perspective to local government, especially with regard to issues involving schools and youth services, and suggest that youthful enthusiasm that has been evident in national politics in recent months can fuel involvement at the local level."

My only caution: the board must be willing to orient, train and support members who are not like them and take extra steps to listen to voices that are different than theirs, if indeed these voices are different.