A divided River Forest Village Board was unable to reach a consensus Monday on moving toward placing a term-limit referendum on the April 1 ballot.
More than 25 people attended the village board meeting that evening with 10 of them supporting placing the referendum on the April ballot during the public comment portion. Each speaker’s comment was supported by applause.
Although Trustees Erika Bachner and Katie Brennan advocated asking staff members to work with the village attorney on creating a draft referendum to be presented at either the next regularly scheduled village board meeting on Jan. 13 or a special meeting before then, Trustees Lisa Gillis, Bob O’Connell and Respicio Vazquez cautioned against moving too quickly. Trustee Ken Johnson did not attend.
Lance Malina, village attorney, told officials that Jan. 13 is the last day for a municipal government to place a referendum on the April 1 ballot but noted action taken that evening would still meet the deadline.
“I don’t want to rush,” Vazquez said. “If we’re going to do it, we should hear from everybody.”
“We should do this like we do everything else,” O’Connell said. “Give it to staff members who do the research and present it to the board.
“I don’t think we are hurrying,” Bachner said in advocating for a special meeting.
“There was significant interest expressed by residents,” Brennan said while agreeing with Bachner. “There’s an impact to putting this off.”
Comments by residents and discussion by officials included reference to the attempt earlier this year to place a term limits referendum on the Nov. 5 ballot by citizen petition. The River Forest Electoral Board voted Sept. 4 that the proposed referendum petition was invalid primarily because the language was too vague and ambiguous.
After questioning village Clerk Jonathan Keller, who was on the electoral board, about the decision, Bachner implied that staff time could be saved by using the failed referendum as a guide and just “cleaning up” the language.
Also mentioned often by residents was their desire to let voters decide the question of term limits and how term limits would lead to more turnover, fresh faces on the board and new ideas.
“We want to do it right,” village President Cathy Adduci said. “We don’t want to put something together then realize we didn’t do it right.
“We want to move the ball forward but there’s a lot to think about.
She expressed a desire to obtain input from Johnson, who is unavailable until after the holidays. She also expressed concerns about the holidays impacting other people’s time whether it would be for a special meeting or a public hearing.
“In the past we’ve been accused of not informing the public,” Vazquez said. “We want to get public input.”
Malina explained that term limits cannot be applied retroactively, meaning those elected or re-elected April 1 would not be subject to term limits if the referendum was on that ballot and was approved. In that scenario, the first officials affected would be those elected or re-elected in April 2027.
“If term limits won’t take effect until April 2027, why rush?” Vazquez asked, noting a referendum on the March 2026 primary ballot or the November 2026 ballot would have the same effect.
Concerns also were expressed over the wording of the referendum, specifically whether it would apply only to the village president but also to trustees and clerk and whether officials would be limited to two terms or a different number of terms.
“We’re not pushing this off, but I don’t think we’re ready,” Gillis said. “I want to understand what I’m voting for.”
“Do we want to talk more about it?” Adduci said. “I think we do.”