Another village board meeting started at 6 p.m. and stretched until midnight, with the last two hours devoted to discussing board compensation increases. I was the only trustee to oppose the majority’s consensus on significant compensation increase, and here’s why:
We are not here to incentivize career politicians. These are short-term, part-time, elected positions with term limits, and the compensation should reflect that.
The village Human Relations Department provided compensation comparisons with other communities in the Chicago area, and the data showed we are already at the higher end of the board compensation scale. Despite this, the majority agreed to increase compensation by 60% for the village president, 53% for trustees, and 40% for the clerk.
As a home-rule community with a Village Manager form of government, the village board is a part-time role. It is a significant role, much like serving on a nonprofit board, where important decisions affecting millions of dollars and many lives are made. For me, these roles are about service — to our community and to society, grounded in values and principles. That is how self-governing communities are designed to work in our democracy.
Some key considerations for board compensation include:
1. Attracting a diverse and equitable pool of candidates that fully represents the community. Rather than increasing compensation across the board, we should address specific barriers to service, such as child care reimbursements for single parents or improving meeting efficiency to avoid late-night sessions that disrupt daily life. That said, we already have a diverse board under the current compensation structure.
2. Community expectations and time required to be effective. Spending more time on tasks because you have the availability, and then expecting to be compensated for that extra time spent, isn’t appropriate. I disagree with the idea that spending more time in these roles necessarily leads to better outcomes for the community. It’s about focused and effective use of time. An elected role can be fulfilled in different ways, and compensation should not be determined by how current officeholders choose to approach it. These positions are designed to be part-time, and it’s unfair to ask taxpayers to compensate for an individual’s personal decision to treat the role as full-time.
While I do not support raising the compensation for the village president and trustees at this time, I believe the clerk’s full-time position could justify a modest increase — perhaps 10-15%, with provisions for periodic cost-of-living adjustments. I also support regular reviews of overall board compensation to ensure alignment with other municipalities.
But let’s not forget: these are not career roles.
The final vote on these compensation increases is set for Oct. 29. While I understand that everyone makes decisions based on their own values and principles, mine lead me to oppose the majority decision in this case.