In suggesting a November advisory referendum on term limits for village council members, Mayor Ron Sandack said he is interested in sparking community discussion on the issue.
I’ll take him at his word — and offer a few of my thoughts later in this post (and invite you to do the same). But first a little background.
Sandack introduced the possibility of limiting mayoral terms during his 2007 campaign. “I want to be a citizen mayor — not a career politician,” he wrote at the time.
“This village is full of competent people whose expertise can be invaluable to our community and with an ethics ordinance prohibiting non-stop campaigning, qualified residents needn’t worry about raising obscene funds in order to run for office. Correspondingly, the next council should seriously consider limiting the office of mayor to two consecutive terms assuring the residents of fresh ideas and new leadership opportunities.”
He resurfaced the idea at the March 16 council meeting, suggesting that commissioners be limited to three consecutive terms and the mayor held to two consecutive terms. Elected village officials serve for four-year terms.
Sandack acknowledged that the subject of term limits “invokes a decent amount of emotion.”
“Some think elections are term limits. Others feel it’s good succession planning,” he said, emphasizing that it is residents’ opinion, and not his or his fellow council members, that matter.
Sandack also read an e-mail from absent Commissioner Marilyn Schnell, who in 2009 was elected to her sixth council term and is the only sitting commissioner who would be impacted by a term-limits ordinance should she choose to run again.
“I’ve always believed the people of Downers Grove have the right to decide who their elected officials should be,” Schnell said. “An election is a unique opportunity for the residents to tell their officials how they’re doing and how responsive they have been to the electorate.
“If they want an individual to continue to serve, they will reelect them, if not they will vote them out of office,” Schnell said, adding that she considers it a “plus” for the village council to include both experienced and new members.
“It allows for a unique exchange of ideas which can only benefit the community,” she said. f a referendum on term limits is put before the community, “residents will do what they think is right for the community.”
Whatever the outcome of the proposed referendum, it wouldn’t be the final word on the issue. That could only come after the community votes in favor of the proposition in a binding referendum.
Resident Gordon Goodman took issue with the potential for two ballots on the same issue. “If you really want to accomplish something with term limits, put it on as a binding referendum and see how people feel about it,” he told the council.
I agree with Goodman that once would be enough for most voters. Given the amount of time before the August deadline for submitting the question, why not hold a public hearing or two to allow for full discussion and then go ahead with a binding referendum if called for?
Not that I would necessarily be one of those calling for it. To be sure, there are good reasons to give the matter careful consideration. Sandack told the DGreport term limits could potentially dial down the political pressure by offering commissioners “a freedom of sorts to vote in a manner that is devoid of any thought of re-election.”
He also said more residents might be encouraged to run for Village Council. “I think there’s an inherent hesitancy for many to challenge incumbents,” he said.
“All of this, I assert, depoliticizes the election and turn-over processes a bit (albeit subtly) and offers opportunities for new residents to serve without some of the perceived baggage. And the goal, I assume, is to encourage talented and interested residents to take time out of their busy lives and serve their village.
“We know we, as a community, have lots of thoughtful and talented people,” Sandack said. “So, why not remove some known barriers to community involvement?”
But if it’s barriers to community involvement that are prompting the discussion on term limits, perhaps we should extend the concept to appointed village offices? Indeed, the number of citizens appointed to village boards and commissioners dwarfs those elected. And many of these appointed officials wield considerable influence, if not power.
The library board, for example, has the authority to set that institution’s budget and tax levy. Among those who have served long years on the board are president Stephen Daniels and trustee Kathy DiCola, who were both recently re-appointed to six-year terms.
Daniels, when I approached him last fall to discuss the board’s budget actions, flatly refused to speak to me. I found this troubling. Yet, as a Downers Grove voter, I have no ability to register my concern at the ballot box.
Term limits, anyone?
Stephens and DiCola are among the many local volunteers who have been appointed again and again to local boards and commissions. In some cases — and I believe the library board is one of them — there aren’t many or any alternative candidates vying for the job.
However, in other cases, residents submit their applications repeatedly before finally getting tapped for a seat at the table. And some never are. Meanwhile, a number of “regulars” serve on multiple commissions concurrently.
I’m not sure whether limiting participation on appointed boards and commissions would work or not. However, I suggest it should be part of any discussion of term limits, if only because so many elected officials begin their involvement in local government in that way.
Schnell started out on the Plan Commission, commissioners Sean Durkin and Bob Barnett served as liquor commissioners (Barnett went on to be appointed to the Stormwater and Flood Plain Oversight Committee) and Geoff Neustadt was a member of the Traffic Advisory and Human Service commissions.
It appears Sandack may agree. “The sentiment certainly seems applicable to our boards and commissions, too,” he said.
“I do not believe there would be a numbers problem, in fact, the village may see more interest from residents with a more organized rotation.”
I’m good with 12 years, i.e. 2 senate terms, 6 house terms…
My concern with the current language is that the limits are only on “consecutive” terms. A pair of politicians could theoretically ping-pong back and forth between commissioner and mayor for much longer than twelve years. Take out the word “consecutive” and it works to achieve the stated objective.
Is Mayor Sandack attempting a political ploy, to act like he is concern with the everyday citizen of Downers (to get him reelected, to build his resume for higher office)? Or attempt to get rid of the long term office holders that may not always go along with him (a different angle or approach out of the FDR/ Blagojevich book of how to expand or move around to attain greater governmental power)? He has already broken a major campaign promise of not getting involve in partisan politics; he therefore must be banking on voters’ short-term memories, a combination of low voter turnout, the tradition of the high rate of incumbents’ holding on to office and his inheriting a major poor national economy (it is not fault syndrome) to keep him in office.
Not trying to pick on Mayor Sandack, just ask the questions that to be thought about or fully answered and not to pass over his own motives. If these issues are not thought about or question then maybe not bring forward a qualified candidate to run against in the next Mayoral election
I am all for it! Way to go Mayor and Council!
I like term limits in theory but in practice my fear is it would give advisers and other non-elected insiders more power than the elected officials. There is already enough corruption in government and I think this would add fuel to the fire.
I have looked up term limits in on Wikipedia. I was surprised to find term limits in a lot of US state governments. I thought I heard a long time ago in the late 1990′s that California was having trouble finding good qualified candidates to ran for state office and had trouble finding that news on a little search I did on the world wide web. I believe by the two previous remarks made that Mayor Sandack will win reelection again, Modern Elections 101 prevails (Primary Colors the movie and book “…voters have short- term memories.”). Food for thought, Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece both had term limits in their government, where are they now(Don’t get me wrong I love Greece and Italy)? Term-limits are a way of fooling the voters to keep the low elected officials at the bottom and the high elected officials in control of what’s going on. Mission accomplished Mayor Ron Sandack you have just won reelection with just spin and photo opportunities /phony news headlines with no positive results to show for it (Yes, anyone can attack elected official with Anonymous cheap attack but with my trolling style we really know who this is).
“I’m going to tell you something really outrageous. I’m going to tell you the truth.” from 1998 movie Primary Colors the character Gov. Jack Stanton. We as Downers Grove residents need to be looking to the future not past or copycat other ideas that don’t work. Mayor Ron Sandack next time come up with something original, may I suggest you and others watch the movie Objectified? One just might be able to applied the innovation concept spirit of this wonderful movie, Objectified. Downers Grove don’t be fool by old ideas or concepts let’s come up with something new be Objectified, (Be excellent, Party On Dudes! From the movie Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure). Mayor Sandack don’t be willing to “… destroy this village in order to save it.” Clam down it is just local township politics not a Presidential Primary or is it? The voters will decide come next election, Go Downers Grove Voters Go!
I am uncertain what the last two posts in this thread mean, so thought I would drag this back to the questions raised about term limits.
I favor limits for elected and appointed people in the community. Anything that creates more involvement makes for educated voters. I am tired of people bashing our local boards and elected officials without a constructive alternative approach to offer. I am guessing that the people who serve on local boards will probably rotate off one board and on to the next board — those who are involved tend to stay involved.
My experience says there are plenty of qualified people to serve in elected or appointed offices in Downers Grove. So hooray for the Mayor and Council for taking this up (I also think that we should make it a binding referendum — how about a blog poll on term limits? — in favor or against, binding or not binding).
At a real practical level, I would never be inclined to run against someone who had been on the Council for a long time. Running against Mrs Schnell would be difficult, if not impossible. She has name recognition built up over her years on the Council, and that (not the issues) can be a huge advantage at the polls. Term limits would level the playing field so that voters would need something more than name recognition in order to choose (hopefully lawn signs would not be the basis for voter decisions).
On the issue of board appointees, many boards have bylaws that rotate members off and ensure “fresh blood” to reinvigorate their mission. This one seems like a no-brainer.
I would strongly favor term limits. I can tell ya at school we could use them for Student Senate…
To the uninitiated, the Blogtress here has “issues” with Daniels and DiCola, some of which relate to the last Dist. 99 election. But her point is well taken, even if done in the third person, it is “Time for a Change” on certain boards. How long has Allan J., Chair of the Plan Commission, been serving? Might our Blogstress point to other Commissions without beating a dead horse about Kathy, her sister and friends?
Actually, Sue, it might be more accurate to say that Daniels has issues with me, based on a conversation I had with him last April.
That said, I believe the library board — whoever that happens to be — is unique in DG in that it has the power to levy taxes and make other business decisions for that institution. I believe that Daniels — or any library board president or member — should expect and even welcome questions and comments from residents, taxpayers and/or media representatives. Again, just MHO.
As for Ms. DiCola, I do not know her, nor have I had any conversations with her, so I truly am neutral about her service on the board, beyond noting that she has served extensively there. As for her family relationships, they have nothing to do with her service to the community.
In response to your question about other commissions, I’m aware of plan commissioners who have served long and hard, and some members of other committees — Dave Humphreys, for one — who have also served long and well.
My intention with this post was not to disparage the service of any sitting volunteer board member but only to extend the discussion of term limits to appointed offices, particularly in cases where they are other volunteer residents anxious to serve.
BTW: I attempted, without success, to e-mail you for an off-line discussion.
Hey, “Sue” thanks for providing a first class example of what Mayor Sandack talks about re: anonymity.
I would like to point out that I am not “Sue,” that I don’t think the word “blogtress” exists. As far as term limits go, I generally like the idea… but I think a combination of fresh blood and seasoned experience works best — when both give serious consideration to the other. That adds very little to the discussion. sorry.
Actually, Sue, I think your comment adds value to the discussion. Keep ‘em coming. As for the other “Sue,” the “blogtress” was happy to take your recommendation under advisement.
I support term limits for elected and appointed officals. I believe it keeps things fresh and fair. I do also agree that if a body can levy a tax that I have to pay then I expect a response to questions and concerns.