We are unclear when or how the prevailing view changed at River Forest’s village hall when it comes to responding to the April 1 referendum vote in favor of imposing term limits on future village boards.
Until recently the official line has been that allegedly conflicted wording within the referendum question itself made it a legal issue to be resolved in the courts rather than a political issue that needed open discussion at the board table and with citizen input.
That position was backed up in a January opinion from River Forest’s village attorney, and since repeated, that the village board should do nothing to resolve the matter.
Now though there will be a special meeting of the board, there will be a second legal opinion coming from the attorney, and the only argument now seems to be how soon such a meeting can be scheduled. Three trustees on the seven-member board want the term-limit discussion added to the board agenda for next week. They appear to be proponents of having the board codify the results of the April vote and make term limits the law in River Forest. Village President Cathy Adduci says the agenda for Monday is already packed and that sincere efforts to find a time when all trustees can be present for a special meeting have been a challenge what with summer vacation plans. That makes the likely date for the meeting late August.
That’s OK by us. The main thing is that this will be an open meeting and better to have the updated opinion by Village Attorney Lance Malina in hand and widely disseminated in advance.
This term-limit vote has come to represent a serious divide within River Forest. The divide has been pulsing over a number of years and is seen in debates over economic development and questions of transparency in local government. But it has come to a head with an actual citizen vote on term limits. And while we agree there is an issue in the binding or advisory language in the referendum question, we hope there is no more discussion of the margin of victory and what it means. Some 52% of voters in an admittedly low turnout election favored term limits. That is not to be lightly dismissed.
And the resolution of this issue on a narrowly divided board makes this a fraught topic, rooted in local politics.