River Forest voters will have to go to the polls again to resolve the ongoing term limits controversy.
Following an hour of sometimes contentious discussion at the Oct. 13 village board meeting, officials voted unanimously to direct staff members to prepare a resolution that places a binding referendum on the Nov. 3, 2026, election ballot. Village Administrator Matt Walsh said he expects the board to vote on the resolution at the Oct. 27 meeting.
That vote was preceded by votes on two motions giving staff members different direction that failed by 4-3 margins. One would have directed staff members to prepare an ordinance codifying the result and outcome of the April 1, 2025, term limits referendum and the other would have directed staff members to prepare a resolution that places a binding referendum on the March 17, 2026, primary election ballot.
Both motions failed 4-3 with Village President Cathy Adduci breaking 3-3 ties each time by voting against the motion. Trustees Erika Bachner, Katie Brennan and Megan Keskitalo voted in favor of the first two motions. Trustees Bob O’Connell, Lisa Gillis and Respecio Vazquez voted against.
During public comment six residents spoke against holding another referendum and instead codifying the vote in favor of term limits from last April.
The direction to staff is for the binding referendum language to mirror language used in a citizen group’s petition that placed the referendum question on the April 1, 2025 ballot.
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.
At the beginning of the discussion, Village Attorney Lance Malina reiterated his opinion expressed in a memo from Walsh to the board that the question of whether the referendum was binding or advisory defines the board’s options.
“The only process that can alter a municipality’s form of government, including the imposition of term limits on local officials, is by the passage of a binding referendum by voters,” he said in the memo.
At the meeting, he said an advisory referendum is “more of an opinion poll,” unlike a binding referendum, which “implements a proposed rule change if approved by a majority of voters.”
In response to questioning by Brennan, Malina said the board cannot pass an ordinance to implement term limits based on the results of an advisory referendum.
Bachner disagreed, citing Section 3.1-10- 17 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as she had at the Sept. 22 board meeting.
“The language is meant to address the question of whether municipalities can impose term limits retroactively or proactively,” Malina said, adding the language does not enable municipalities to impose term limits by simply passing an ordinance.
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.
In response to questioning by Keskitalo, Malina said the board could pass an ordinance implementing term limits “but it could be challenged.”
“I don’t want to approve an ordinance that might be challenged,” Vazquez said. “I would rather fix it.”
He and Adduci advocated placing a binding referendum on a future election ballot.
“We need to do it right,” she said.
Bachner disagreed and advocated approving an ordinance implementing term limits.
“We should consider the referendum to be binding,” she said. “We have the authority.”
Gillis and O’Connell supported placing a binding referendum on a future election ballot.
With consensus trending toward placing a binding referendum on a future election ballot, the discussion turned to selecting a date.
Keskitalo and Bachner advocated for the March primary ballot.
“It’s frustrating to residents to keep moving it back and back,” Bachner said.
O’Connell cited the December deadline for placing a referendum question on the March primary ballot to support his advocacy for the November general election.
“We should take our time and do it right,” he said. “I don’t want to rush.”
Adduci also advocated for the November general election due to the greater likelihood of a higher voter turnout.
“We want more voters to come out,” she said.
Six River Forest residents addressed the board during the citizen comment portion of the meeting, all of whom advocated adopting an ordinance on term limits and not holding another referendum.
Stephanie Petersmarck speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor 
Resident Phylis Rubin speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor 
Resident Debbie Borman speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor 
Resident Margie Cekander speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor 
Resident Patty Henek speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor 
Resident Dan Lauber speaks in favor of term limits at River Forest Village Board meeting on Monday October 13, 2025 | Todd Bannor
Margie Cekander asked, “Why wait?” and Dan Lauber asked, “Why not just adopt an ordinance?”
Patty Henek said, “It makes no sense to schedule another referendum,” and Debbie Borman said, “Codifying is appropriate.”
Phyllis Rubin called another referendum “a waste of tax dollars” and Stephanie Petersmarck added, “You’re wasting time and money.”
