Highland Park City Council Remains Split On Liquor License Ban

HIGHLAND PARK, IL — The controversy over the clause in Highland Park's code that bans the award of liquor licenses to members of the City Council and police brought a passionate protest to City Hall Wednesday night.

Dozens of people rallied outside the City Council meeting in support of Councilmember Jeff Hoobler, the co-owner of Ravinia Brewing Company, who was the top vote-getter out of five candidates last year's local elections.

City staff renewed Hoobler's liquor license for the first time as a sitting councilmember late last year, but in January learned that the City Code actually called for it to have been denied.

While there is a majority of the City Council in favor of amending the code to allow for liquor licenses to be issued to councilmembers, Hoobler recused himself from the Feb. 12 vote on amending it, leading to a 3-3 deadlock.

Mayor Nancy Rotering and Councilmembers Tony Blumberg and Kim Stone — the three longest-serving members of the council — all voted against it.

Councilmembers Annette Lidawer, Yumi Ross and Andres Tapia all supported the change. None had changed their position as of this week's meeting.

Hoobler said last month he would resign, effective April 30, and took a leave of absence from his duties until then. According to a "notice of resignation" he issued on March 18, he stopped taking part in any City Council meetings following a Feb. 29 conversation with a state liquor control official. He told Patch he would submit a notarized version, as required by law, prior to Tuesday.

Last month, more than two dozen local restaurant owners and representatives of 20 other Highland Park businesses also penned an open letter to the mayor and City Council demanding full representation on the City Council.

William Abonce, the owner of Judy's Pizza and a Highland Park resident, read a letter from the Illinois Restaurant Association to the City Council at the April 10 meeting. It described the ordinance as "archaic and undemocratic" and said owners of restaurants with liquor licenses deserve the same rights to serve the community as other businesspeople.

Since Hoobler ran on this experience as a brewer and restaurateur and won the most votes last year, the restaurant association suggested the public has already made the "strongest possible statement" of its view on the policy.

"Amending the ordinance would benefit the public at large by allowing a broader participation in local government. Communities benefit when they're open when they are open to a wider and more diverse range of candidates," Abonce said, reading from the association's statement. "Voters, including all future voters, should be allowed to make decisions regarding the benefits and detriments of holding a liquor license or any other type of business interests while serving."

Though there was no proposed change to the liquor code on the agenda at Wednesday's meeting, more than a dozen residents addressed the matter during the portion of the meeting reserved for public comments following the rally in support of Hoobler.

Athena Hoobler, the councilmember's wife, said she was "saddened and disappointed" by the actions of the councilmembers who voted against changing the code.

She said "no one" knew of the ordinance, including the city manager or attorney, at the time of last year's election, but only her husband was being held accountable, noting that someone had filed a complaint with the state liquor commission. (Councilmember Hoobler said he could not comment on advice of his attorney.)

---

"You claim that you did not make him resign or revoke his license, but you knew what the consequences would be it that amendment did not pass," Athena Hoobler said.

"I am looking forward to April," she said, referencing upcoming municipal elections, "where we can hold you accountable for your actions."

Of the trio of councilmembers that voted against changing the ordinance, only Stone's seat is up for reelection next year.

Stone delivered remarks explaining her position in detail on Wednesday, describing it as "improper" to change any law to bring a sitting elected official into compliance with it.

While the law was unknown to most people prior to January, it still has value in helping avoid conflict of interests, especially with regard to city grants to restaurants, Stone said.

"To those who claim that recusal is the remedy for conflicts of interest, the city's own corporation counsel has explained to us that recusal is not mandatory and is solely at the discretion of each councilmember," Stone said. "Some people have accused councilmembers voting to maintain the law of conspiring to remove our colleague as some sort of power grab. That's definitely not true."

Mayor Nancy Rotering read a prepared statement at the end of the meeting, explaining her views on the matter had not changed since the mid-February vote.

"It's essential to consider the broader implications and principles guiding our legal framework. Could this law be changed to respond to the needs of an individual to address their individual situation? Yeah, I mean, literally, sure, that would be the easy thing to do," Rotering said.

"But if we change a law for a sitting council member than what's the point of having laws?" she asked. "By not amending the law, we show that laws apply equally to all residents, including elected officials, and I cannot support an effort by elected officials who simply want to change the law for their personal benefit."

Tapia spoke about the effect of leaders on organizational culture and said the Highland Park residents are not well-served by the "shadow" cast by the city's leadership.

"The refusal of these three members of the city council to address this issue by using a mechanism already offered by the state is what could lead to the appearance appearance of impropriety they are trying to avoid by not doing anything. The danger here is not about falling into the ditch of favoritism, but rather the danger is falling into the ditch of seeming punitive," Tapia said.

"While the mayor can factually say that no one has been removed from office, the Catch-22 that Councilmember Hoobler has been placed in without offering him a way out is equivalent to him being removed from office," he said.

The Illinois law banning liquor licenses for police and legislative leaders in the jurisdictions they serve dates back to the 1934 Liquor Control Act enacted to regulate liquor in the state following the end of its 13-year federal prohibition.

State lawmakers amended the law in 2001 with "no known opposition," according to its state Senate sponsor, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Since then, nearly a dozen other local communities have amended the law.

Lidawer said research conducted in during the two months since the deadlocked February vote had thoroughly explored the public policy issues involved and demonstrated law was outdated and had lost its purpose. She described it as a "travesty" that has disenfranchised Hoobler's voters.

"Your vote for Jeff Hoobler is being ignored, and the only conclusion is that personal views of members of this council may have taken away his right to serve," Lidawer said. "This is a fundamental right in America, and frankly, much bigger than the projects and policies we frequently decide on this City Council."

Ross, who joined the council along with Hoobler last year, said she was concerned about the anger expressed toward the three councilmembers who voted against amending the ordinance to clear the way for their fellow elected official to be allowed to renew his license. She said there was no point having another vote if they had not changed their minds.

"If members of the public want councilmembers to change their minds, please consider treating them with civility and respect. I know I think we know that we need more of that in the world," Ross said.

"If elected officials wind up feeling worried about their safety, nobody will want to run for office," she said. "So this is a plea for respect and kindness."

Following the meeting, Hoobler expressed gratitude to his supporters and those that came out Wednesday night.

"I’m obviously disappointed that despite the public outcry, only two of the city council members were even willing to discuss the matter. I would like to thank those two, Councilmember Lidawer, and Councilmember Tapia, for their steadfast support." Hoobler told Patch.

"To the other four it’s clear to everyone in Highland Park what their motivations were and it’s clear that they were unwilling to listen to the voters," he said. "The great thing about our democracy is the voters of Highland Park will get the last say and they can guarantee those four hear their voices loud and clear by staying involved and exercising their right to vote at the next two municipal elections in 2025 and 2027."