In the Viewpoints section of Wednesday Journal, a writer states that term limits were debated “in op-eds, letters to the editors, and Facebook conversation” (https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/05/term-limits-are-ineffective). This is true. But in addition, from August 2024 to March/April 2025, for about 8-9 months, residents saw yard-signs and fliers for or against term limits, and could educate themselves by reading op-eds, viewpoints, opinions, and Facebook conversations, again in favor or against term limits. It is therefore reasonable to state that residents were aware of this issue and could learn, meet and discuss the pros and cons of term limits if they wished.
Nevertheless, the writer complains that the residents had insufficient information, that “there was really no healthy community conversation, no exchange of ideas” and that “The group pushing for term limits didn’t really have any organized opposition.”
But why did the residents opposing term limits not organize an opposition or engage the community in “a healthy conversation and exchange of ideas” during those 8-9 months? These residents did exist, I saw their numerous yard signs and read their fliers. The writer herself could have pushed for meetings and community conversations, and could have organized an opposition. But she didn’t, probably because her family was “tuned-out … because of the sleepy, low-turnout election.” Therefore, she declares that a ballot placed during a low turnout election is a “manipulation.”
The writer believes that term limits “push out effective leaders simply because of an arbitrary clock, [and] limit institutional knowledge and give more power to unelected actors.” To that, I point out that the current leaders were “unelected actors” and had no “institutional knowledge” before their first election.
And are these leaders really effective, as the writer states? Let’s count the errors, the walk-backs, the still-existing and unresolved years-long debacles. The money that these leaders wasted on irrational projects (barriers on low-traffic streets), not-well-thought-through projects (zoning changes), forever-unfinished projects (Lake and Ashland), all this wasted money and all these going-to-nowhere or retracted projects don’t make these leaders “effective.” So perhaps the residents’ majority truly doesn’t want to keep these leaders until they disappear because of old age.
Finally, the writer states that “If the question of term limits came back in 2026, … [she truly believes] the outcome would be different.”
Based on which data/facts would the results be different? More information/organization? The number of residents who voted for or against term limits is similar to the number of residents who voted for or against the president and trustees. Should we therefore conclude that voters were not informed about the president and trustees? There was no organized opposition to the president and trustees. Were we therefore manipulated, and should we then do this thing all over again in 2026?
The majority was in favor of term limits. This was not the result of “manipulation” or insufficient information, or absence of opposition.
This was the voters’ verdict on the staying and effectiveness of our current leaders.
Giuseppina Nucifora is a resident of River Forest.