Since the April 1, 2025 election, there have been several letters to Wednesday Journal with sensational claims that term limits is “the law” in River Forest. A wild claim that because the cover sheet for the petition included the term “said binding,” the question on the ballot was binding. They’re not related. The great majority of petition circulators, the signers and certainly the voters do not see petition cover sheets.
It’s a fact that the petition to put the question of term limits on the April 1 ballot included the word “binding” in the title, but it’s also a fact that the legal description of the question included the word “advisory”: “We the undersigned … petition that the following advisory question of public policy be placed on the ballot.” However, voters saw only the question on the ballot without the word “binding.” Just the question. It’s a fact that the Yes votes won by 117, but how many votes were Yes advisory and how many votes were Yes binding?
After holding lengthy discussions about the inconstancy of the petition and the absence of clarification of the question on the ballot, the majority of the board leaned toward concluding the voters approved an advisory question. In October it requested by a vote of 6-0, that staff draft a “binding” question for the November 2026 ballot. Stunningly, at the November board meeting after a trustee motioned the board put the “binding question” on the ballot as previously agreed to, no second to the motion was made. The measure failed to move further. The result is River Forest doesn’t have term limits.
Therefore, anyone who desires to run for a third term or more should do so. It will be up to the proponents to object to a candidate’s petition given that the village board did not move forward with a binding referendum. Repeat, River Forest doesn’t have term limits.
Janet Saeger
River Forest