Story posted Friday, October 23, 2009
Mayor Breaks Tie, Election Referendum Moves Ahead
By RICHARD MAYER Assistant Managing Editor
Mayor Irvana Wilks was the deciding vote as village board members, in a 4-3 decision Tuesday night, approved moving forward with a referendum to let the public decide on how local elections should be held in the future.
If approved by residents, the referendum would keep elections at the village-level non-partisan and would eliminate the need for primary elections. Filing dates for candidates will track requirements for general elections and the number of signatures required for ballot eligibility will be 1% of registered voters in the village. Based on 2009 voter registration data, that would total 300 signatures.
If the public doesn't support the question, the election process in the village will reflect the state board model. The state board model is non-partisan, has potential for a primary election depending on the number of candidates, and filing periods coincide with primary election requirements. The number of required petition signatures would be 1% of those who voted in the 2009 mayoral election, or approximately 45 signatures.
Votes in favor of the referendum, which will appear on the Feb. 2 primary election ballot, came from Wilks and trustees Michael Zadel, Paul Hoefert and John Korn. Trustees Steven Polit, Arlene Juracek and John Matuszak voted against it.
The village followed a new election model enacted by the State Board of Elections in last April's municipal election. Prior to that, elections took place under the village's own system with similar details seeking approval in the upcoming referendum.
Consensus among trustees was that the question should read: "Should the Village of Mt. Prospect continue its non-partisan system of electing its mayor and trustees; but use a nominating signature requirement that is equal to 1%of the number of registered voters in the Village of Mt. Prospect and require no primary election?"
Trustees voiced an array of opinions and concerns regarding the required number of signatures issue.
"I am in favor of pursuing this referendum. The confusion started this year and we needed to get signatures a second time. This could happen again," Zadel said in reference to last April's election.
Zadel said with the village's own system, the state could not force Mt. Prospect to make any changes in the future in regards to election rules and regulations.
Juracek was in favor of following the state model because she believes it is more consistent and in line with other nearby communities.
"This is about the quality of commitment not the quality of candidate," said Hoefert. "I believe when you have 300-400 signatures, it takes more time. It keeps single issue candidates potentially away from running."
"I don't support the referendum," said Polit. "We don't know what effect the state change had during the last election. Also, February is a hard time to get people to vote due to the cold."
"It's important to have people sign their name on a petition," said Wilks. "It says I want that person placed in the ballot and it's an honor gathering signatures."
Polit believes the question shouldn't mention "non-partisan" because the village has always been non-partisan and the only questions that need answers are whether there will be a primary and what the required number of signatures should be for a candidate to be placed on the ballot.
Tweaking of the question and additional comments will be made on Tuesday, Nov. 2. At that time, the ordinance is expected to be officially approved. However, the second reading could be delayed until board members are satisfied.
The ordinance needs to be passed by Nov. 30 so it can be filed with the county clerk and appear on the Feb. 2, 2010 primary ballot.
Speak Out!
Comments are edited first by Journal staff before running in print and appearing online.