I am not alleging any violation of Illinois law, nor suggesting that the village lacks the authority to utilize consultants, finance committee meetings, strategic planning sessions, or other public discussions as part of the budget process.
My question is about governance and transparency.
Under Oak Park’s council-manager form of government, the village manager is responsible for preparing and recommending the annual budget to the village board. The board then reviews, debates, modifies if necessary, and ultimately adopts that budget.
Based on recent public discussions, however, it appears that the Village Finance Committee is playing an increasingly significant role in shaping the village’s financial priorities before the manager’s formal budget recommendation is presented.
Public statements indicate that the committee is discussing long-term financial strategy, staffing levels, capital improvement planning, revenue assumptions, fees, and other matters that will influence future budgets. Trustee Derek Eder has noted that the Fiscal Year 2026 budget process involved 11 Finance Committee meetings and five full board meetings. More recently, village staff have described the committee as a forum for providing direction early in the budget cycle so that departments can plan for future staffing and financial needs.
There is nothing inherently improper about this. In fact, thoughtful financial discussion and long-range planning are important responsibilities of local government. Trustees should be engaged in setting priorities, and finance committees can play a valuable role in helping elected officials better understand complex fiscal issues.
The question is how much of the village’s budget direction and priorities are being shaped through the Finance Committee process before the Village Manager’s formal recommendation is presented to the board, and has the village adequately explained that process to residents?
Residents understand that elected officials establish priorities and that professional staff prepare budgets. What is less clear is where the line currently exists between those functions and how the Finance Committee’s growing role fits within Oak Park’s traditional council-manager structure.
There is also a transparency issue. As the Finance Committee assumes a larger role in discussing long-term financial planning, staffing levels, capital projects, revenue assumptions, and budget priorities, residents should be able to readily observe those discussions.
While committee meetings are publicly available through audio recordings, they are not presented in a video format, as village board meetings are. In practice, this significantly limits public access and public awareness. Few residents are likely to listen to hours of audio recordings, and important discussions may never receive meaningful public attention.
If the Finance Committee is playing an increasingly influential role in shaping financial policy and budget priorities, the Village should consider providing video recordings of those meetings. Transparency is not merely about whether information is technically available; it is about whether residents can realistically follow and understand the discussions that influence public policy and spending decisions.
Oak Park residents deserve a clear explanation of how the Finance Committee, village staff, consultants, the village manager, and the village board interact during budget development, and whether that process has evolved in recent years.
A public explanation from the board, Village President Scaman, or village staff would help residents better understand not only the budget itself, but also the process by which budget priorities are established.
Robert Milstein is a former Oak Park village trustee.