It took five months for River Forest’s village board to finally take up the contentious term limit debate that has spooled out from an April 1 election where a clear majority of local voters supported imple- menting term limits for village officials
That much is clear. Even with a poor voter turnout for the local election the majority position was clear. And, as we have all learned on a national scale, elec- tions have consequences.
That said, there is the confusion over wording of the citizen referendum which, on close reading, says both that the referendum is binding and that it is advisory. This confusion is a legitimate point of debate from both a legal and an ethical position.
Good that the village board, which is seemingly divided on this topic, finally recognized that ignoring the issue was its worst option in somehow moving River Forest beyond what is a very divisive issue. It took until Sept. 8 for the full board to meet and have the start of an honest conversation. Seems it will be another month before the full board gathers again to further the conversation.
Meanwhile, the village attorney will research the position of Trustee Erika Bachner that the sitting board can simply approve a term limits ordinance along the lines of the referendum. The attorney initially said he did not think that was possible.
There seems to be some consensus on the board that the village needs to be more direct in its communication with residents about the status of this issue. River Forest is pretty good at keeping residents up to date on the Lake and Lathrop debacle and other more positive news. Now that the village president and her board supporters seem to acknowledge that fully ignoring this issue is not a sustainable tact, communication would be welcome.
We’d also like to understand why a “confidential memo” from the village attorney to the village board cannot simply be made public. Every voter has a stake in this debate and transparency is fully warranted.