Historically, we have been able to practice our voting franchise freely, without any restrictions. We vote to keep officials in office so long as we believe they are doing a good job. We vote them out if we believe they are not. Choice is the basic principle of a representative democracy.
Now a local group is trying to convince us that it’s good policy to restrict our right of choice. They believe River Forest will somehow improve by limiting the number of terms our Village Board of Trustees may serve. Term limits has become a voting rights issue. The question of term limits will be on the ballot, April 1, and if passed, will produce long-term negative effects because it’s a bad policy. It limits your choices.
In our small town, we know we’re already limited. Our limited population is a natural barrier to the number of people who want to or can serve. Data reveals we have a low turnout of people who step forward to serve on our board. Contrary to what some want us to believe, limiting the terms of our village board will remove, not add, another group of possible public servants. They are the ones who currently hold office and should continue to do so.
When those who want to continue serving are pushed out of office by a term limiting mandate, we lose valuable resources of experience and institutional knowledge. Eventually, we end up with people who will reluctantly fill a seat at the table and gladly let administrative staff make the critical decisions. Remember, good governance is borne out of good policy.
My vote, my choice. Vote No, April 1, on the question of term limits on the River Forest ballot.
Janet Saeger
River Forest