The saga of term limits in River Forest took another twist Nov. 17 when a village board resolution to place a binding referendum on the question on the November 2026 ballot failed for the lack of a second.
Following a unanimous vote by the village board Oct. 13 to direct staff members to prepare a resolution to place a binding referendum on the Nov. 3, 2026, election ballot, officials were expected to approve the placement Nov. 17. But, after Trustee Lisa Gillis made the motion to approve the resolution, none of the other five trustees present seconded the motion.
At issue is whether a referendum approved by voters April 1 was advisory or binding.
Placed by a citizens group, the referendum asked, “Shall the Village of River Forest, after the April 1, 2025, Consolidated Election, enact term limits for the elected offices of Village President, Village Clerk, and the six (6) Village Trustees for no more than two (2) four-year (4-year) terms total as follows: for each of three (3) Trustees beginning with the April 3, 2027 Consolidated election, and for the Village President, Village Clerk, and three (3) Trustees starting with the April 6, 2029 Consolidated election?”
Although the referendum question itself was unchallenged, language on the documents accompanying the petition has caused confusion about whether that referendum was binding or advisory. The Yes votes totaled 53.15%, compared to 46.8% for the No votes.
Village President Cathy Adduci said no further action on the matter is expected in the near future.
“On October 27, the board unanimously directed the staff to prepare language to put term limits on the ballot for the November 2026 general election,” she said in a statement to Wednesday Journal yesterday. “This past Monday the board did not advance the term limit referendum.
“What is next is perhaps the proponents of the term limit referendum will seek an advisory opinion by the Attorney General’s Office. Our village attorney has advised us that the attorney general is not authorized to provide written opinions to municipalities. There are no plans to bring this issue up again, at this time.”
Asking the Illinois Attorney’s General’s Office for an opinion on the question was raised by resident Margie Cekander during the citizen comments portion of the Nov. 17 meeting.
Trustees Megan Keskitalo, Bob O’Connell and Respicio Vazquez explained their lack of action after the meeting.
“I am against term limits,” O’Connell said, adding he would have voted against the resolution had it reached a vote.
Keskitalo and Vazquez indicated they were listening to residents.
“The community asked for other measures we haven’t explored,” Keskitalo said.
“The people have spoken against it,” Vazquez said.
Trustees Erika Bachner and Katie Brennan were not available after the meeting and could not be reached for comment afterward.
In addition to debating whether the April vote was advisory or binding, discussion at the sometimes contentious meeting Oct. 13 centered on whether a future binding referendum was necessary.
On Oct. 13, Bachner advocated instituting term limits by passing an ordinance based on the April referendum results, which Lance Malina, village attorney, advised against.
He said implementing term limits by ordinance based on an advisory referendum would be “like a time bomb” that would go off if a candidate challenged its legality. However, he allowed that there might never be a challenge.
Plans called for the resolution to be considered at the Oct. 27 board meeting but officials learned such action would not meet an election code requirement.
