It’s hard to understand why the River Forest Village Board continues to debate whether the April 1 Term Limit referendum voters approved was advisory or binding – it makes no practical difference. I don’t know if our village attorney is telling our elected officials in executive session what the village president, who vigorously opposed to the referendum, wants to hear (the default in all too many Illinois communities) rather than what she and the board need to hear.
It would appear they need to hear that the plain language of the state constitution allows term limits approved by referendum, advisory or binding. They need to hear that the River Forest Village Board is perfectly free to pass an ordinance to establish the term limits approved in the April 1 referendum. Unless there are other factors at play that the village board is not disclosing, why does the village president continue to stonewall the will of the voters while keeping us in the dark for six months as to the advice the village attorney is giving the board?
First, the Illinois Constitution grants municipalities the power “to provide by referendum for their officers, manner of selection and terms of office.” –Article VII, Section 7(3)
Second, as best I can tell without being privy to what the village board is secretly discussing in executive session instead of being transparent with the voting public, the state statutes allow local municipalities to adopt term limits by ordinance as long as they are prospective — namely, current office holders are not subject to the forthcoming term limits:
Sec. 3.1–10–17: … (a) The imposition of term limits by referendum, ordinance, or otherwise must be prospective. … [There’s no question that the River Forest referendum met this requirement.]
(b) The imposition of term limits by referendum, ordinance, or otherwise shall only apply to terms for the same office or that category of municipal office. … [The statute does not distinguish between advisory or binding referenda.]
(d) This Section applies to all term limits imposed by a municipality by referendum, ordinance, or otherwise passed on or after November 8, 2016. – (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-17)
It sure looks like the statute’s plain language frees the River Forest Village Board to adopt term limits by ordinance whether or not the April 1 referendum was advisory or binding.
Like all River Forest residents not on the village board, I’m in the dark regarding what the village attorney is telling our elected officials about this spring’s referendum. I’m especially at a loss since the plain language of the state statutes and constitution appear to authorize enacting the term limits even if the referendum is deemed to be advisory.
If our village president and the village trustees actually respect the will of the people, it’s time to stop stonewalling and enact an ordinance to establish the future term limits that the majority of voters favored in the April 1 referendum, without continuing to battle over the irrelevant question of whether the referendum was binding or advisory.
Daniel Lauber is a longtime River Forest resident.
