City Council Review - June 19

Here’s what happened at the City Council meeting last week–

CANDIDATE STATEMENT

The Council voted 3 to 1 to allow candidates for office to use up to 400 words instead of the previously approved 200 word limit. This change was suggested to me by a non-incumbent who wanted to have more space to present his positions. I endorsed the idea and advanced it: Councilman Robinson voted against the move and Councilman Voigts as he so often does, abstained.

(By my count, Voigts abstained about 1/3 of the time that non-unanimous votes happened this year. Apart from one abstention from Mayor Pro Tem Basile, no one else abstains from voting.)

TERM LIMITS

We agreed, 5 to 0, to limit Council members to no more than 2 terms (8 years). This will prevent the entrenched incumbents from dominating the city council for decades, as was common in the past. Previous Councils by virtue of accepting money from special interest groups (e.g., developers asking for zoning variances, companies asking for city contracts) parlayed their incumbency to remain in power without serious challenges. As a result, defeating an incumbent used to be extremely rare, and it wasn’t unusual for Council members in the past to remain in office for a decade or more.

Only a few years ago, Council members Voigts and Robinson voted for term limits that limited Council members to serve 24 of 26 years, a ridiculous policy that was better than no term limits at all, but 24 of 26 years is not really what people have in mind when they talk about “term limits”. Now we will have a chance to vote for real term limits.

We asked that the new regulation be retroactive, so that a person who served 4 years by November 2018 would have only 4 more years to serve. Apparently this type of retroactive legislation is not allowed, so it will be up to individual Council members to honor the 8 year limit. Councilman Robinson has already indicated that he will serve out his 8 years and not run again. This new measure would mean, if re-elected, Council members Voigts and I would serve our last term in office. For Voigts this would be 12 years in office and for me it would be 8 years. FWIW - I pledge my willingness to honor the 8 year limit.

DISTRICT ELECTIONS

Last year when the Council voted to switch to district elections in order to avoid a costly lawsuit, we agreed that we would put on the ballot a question that asked people if they wanted to switch. Personally I was in favor of district elections, but some of my colleagues were not

Now, as promised, the Council approved a non-binding measure for the November ballot which asks people if they want us to stay with district elections, even if we are able to change back without legal repercussions. Bear in mind no City that challenged the move to district elections ever won in court, and several cities spent millions of dollars in a fruitless endeavor. But between now and next year, the legislation forcing district elections may be overturned, so we would be able to change back, if this is what people want. No City that ever had a vote on district elections voted against moving to district elections, and no City that ever converted to district elections voted to change back.

A second measure was also passed – this one asks voters whether or not they are prepared for the City to spend an unlimited amount of money (yes, that’s right, an unlimited amount of money meaning $7,000,000 or more) to return the City to city-wide elections in the face of inevitable failure. Read this paragraph again because as difficult as it is to believe, this is what passed.

To date, no City has defeated the requirement to move to district elections. More than a dozen cities and school districts have tried, and all have failed. Some spent as much as $7,000,000 and it’s not uncommon for other cities to spend in excess of $1,000,000. But my colleagues voted to put on the ballot a measure that would ask the City to once more engage in this legal challenge even in the light of the fact that the battle will be fruitless.

Bear in mind, if between now and next year the CVRA is defeated, then the first ballot measure allows the City to switch back, if that’s what people want, because with a new legal outcome, there is little threat of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. But in the face of continuing lawsuits that fail to overturn the CVRA authorizing the Council to engage in a new legal challenge reminds me of the definition of insanity - "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?

But this time, it’s not mere insanity, it’s fiscally irresponsible to waste taxpayer money engaging in a lawsuit with no possibility of success.

Needless to say I opposed the measure, but I lost. There is nothing you can do now except vote against this measure when it comes before you in November.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest where he serves as Mayor. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His Twitter handle is @DrJimGardner. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 4 pm to 6 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a town hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be Aug 16 at 7 pm at the Lake 1 Clubhouse (Ridge Route).