The police department in Oak Park has gone through repeated staffing contractions in recent years as the recession has ground on. But recently the village decided to add two new posts, both civilian, and both strategic in addressing how the department works.
Recently the village agreed to give the developer of the Forest and Lake parcel more time to secure financing for the major hotel and commercial project slated for the corner. Not a surprise, given the continuing gridlock in commercial financial markets. And the village obtained a few minor concessions in exchange for the extension — have you noticed the mountain of snow the village recently dumped there?
We find both of these stories interesting. We think both actions reflect well on the village staff and board. That’s why both stories have been well reported by Wednesday Journal. But neither topic was discussed publicly by Oak Park’s village board. Instead, both were buried in the gradually expanding “consent agenda” that is now often the guts of a village board meeting.
We’ve lived through the years when Oak Park’s village board meetings lasted until midnight. We listened to the fights and the bickering among trustees. We endured the vanity speeches as every trustee felt a need to be heard on every issue.
It was just nuts.
And that process only furthered public angst about a village government seen as drowning in debate, never able to bring an issue to resolution.
Now we fear the village board is tipping to the opposite point of the pendulum. Too many things are talked about privately. And when it is time for the official public nod, it is just that: a passing nod amidst the relative minutiae that is municipal government.
As we report today, there may be the beginning of a pushback from trustees. In recent weeks, first Jon Hale and now John Hedges have questioned why issues aren’t being discussed and explained publicly. Hedges acknowledged he was fully supportive of the two new police posts but thought it would be worth talking to the public about.
With an election just ahead, it is a good time to reconsider the board protocol on consent agendas. They have a place, for sure. But not when it comes to explaining notable public actions.
