Thanks to Nate Mellman for responding to my viewpoint, “The Art of Small Town Politics” [Viewpoints, April 1]. It’s good to know that someone read the article.
Nate says, “The comment that ‘it’s very difficult to discern why someone would want to hold onto such unpaid jobs’ highlights the very nature of all positions in River Forest government, from the president and trustees down to every member of a commission or board: We are indeed all volunteers.”
No argument. We do need all volunteers. But my point is confined to elected positions and in particular to the village president role. As I said in the article, Frank Paris was village president for 16 years. Cathy Adduci has been in that job for 13 years. Ms. Adduci has clung to that position despite her having said years back that she would not run again beyond a certain point (that point has passed). My question is: Why?
I’ve personally been president or chair of several organizations. I have always declined to hold those positions beyond two terms because, for one thing, my ego doesn’t demand it. For another, I’m a firm believer in passing the torch to new leadership. If what I hoped to get done in my leadership didn’t happen, that’s my fault, and longer tenure wouldn’t fix it. Never mind that I was, and remain, old, which is a whole different discussion.
We do not need any of our leaders to hold onto their positions for extended periods. Inevitably, things that do not work properly accumulate and staying on longer doesn’t make them better. Unfortunately, there’s also the possibility that errors repeat, as seems to be happening right now.
It’s not as if we don’t have strong potential replacement leaders. We do.
It’s long past time to make room for them.
Edmund McDevitt
River Forest