Dual Elected Duty: Credit Where Credit is Due

It’s been fun swinging for the fences on this blog, and the comments and exchanges have helped keep the opposition to dual elected duty front and center both here on the Patch and also in another local paper. Others have joined in from the community, and a team effort is building quickly. From the tone of last night’s Finance Committee meeting, perhaps the committee, and eventually the Elmhurst City Council, will join and openly support us.

All we are asking for is an up or down referendum so this issue can be decided by all Elmhurst voters. It is ours as citizens to decide. Changes to government structure must be approved by the people. There are many reasons this is written into the Illinois Constitution, and in this case, it is to prevent power consolidation.  This decision is not assigned to one person or a few state senators.

In fairness, when something goes well, it should be recognized. The Finance Committee meeting Monday was led by Vice Chairman Kevin York, with aldermen Mark Mulliner and Scott Levin in attendance. Dual elected duty restriction was first on the agenda, and it was a productive meeting. Alderman York allowed for public comments at the time of discussion, and there was interchange between committee members and those in attendance. 

Alderman York had City Manager Jim Grabowski present an update on the progress of the legal opinion they are seeking, and it will be available by the June 25 Finance Committee meeting. Once again, to keep things moving forward, Alderman Mulliner presented a first draft of the possible ordinance and referendum. It was read aloud for all to hear and made available to the press. It might not be the final language, but it’s a good start. 

There is now a timeline for a decision that will provide guidance on Elmhurst’s ability to restrict multiple-office holders through its home-rule powers. Timing of the process is important because of the Aug. 20 deadline to get the question on November’s ballot. 

Elmhurst has a chance to do something great, to lead by example. 

It made me concerned and angry that a few individuals were ignoring common law, opposing local elected officials and wanted to CHANGE the one-person, one-office precedent without putting it to a real up or down vote. Defying common law is not something that should be done in Elmhurst's name.  

Electoral math would have allowed this to fly by a minority vote if attached to a candidate alone, simply because the Primary and General Election candidate pools are diluted. The failed efforts to change the law in Springfield were disingenuous at best. Home rule protects us from those shenanigans. 

I do believe it is our responsibility as citizens of Elmhurst to preserve this principal for ourselves, our neighbors in other communities and the next generation—our kids. They’ll have enough on their plate paying the bills our state and generation have accumulated.