Op-Ed: 'Fearmongering' To Describe Skokie Referendums As 'Extreme'

By Michael Gelder

As a lifetime member of the Skokie Caucus Party, a former member of the Skokie Board of Health, Zoning Board of Appeals, and a three-term elected Skokie Trustee, I am compelled to say I am very disappointed in the tone and content of the Caucus Party’s opposition to the referenda on Tuesday’s ballot. Labeling these measures “extreme” and daily mailings as if the sky is falling is fearmongering. I’m confident Skokie residents know “extreme” when they see it, when Republicans running for office deny the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, those who claim Jan. 6 was a normal day in the Capitol, or those who spew hateful speech designed to destroy our comity.

The three referenda are reasonable, thoughtful approaches to engage Skokians more fully in their village government. They were developed and promoted in good faith by hundreds of Skokie residents.

Skokie residents and Caucus Party members may agree, disagree, or agree to disagree on these or many other issues. But name calling is always unhelpful and begs the question why the Caucus Party that claims to be committed to unity is so eager to vilify those who have suggested revisions to electing Village leadership.

The Party that has dominated Skokie Village elections for more than a half-century asserts the referenda will uproot, divide, and seriously impede all of Skokie’s progress.

To the contrary, as I see it, these referenda are breathing some fresh air into our electoral process.

1. The initiative to make the election nonpartisan simply puts independent candidates on an equal footing with party-endorsed candidates. It does not prevent a political party from endorsing candidates or for candidates to run as a slate, as they do now. Skokie residents most recently elected one Trustee who was not a candidate of the Caucus Party and Earth continues to rotate. The passage of this referendum would simply make it possible for other residents to compete for Skokie voters on an equal footing.
2. The initiative calling for staggered terms makes eminent sense. This process is common for school, park and library districts and is common in other suburban villages. It ensures continuity because it would prevent a complete turnover of elected officials overseeing the village. By staggering the election of Village officials, Skokie would avoid the risk of the entire slate of officials being ousted. There would not be any additional expense adding Skokie offices to the ballot that already includes school boards, parks, and other local offices in odd-numbered years.
3. The initiative calling for four of the trustees to be elected from districts ensures trustees will live in and represent the four quadrants of the village. The current method of internal Caucus Party deliberations does not. Skokie covers a wide geography and diverse array of residents. While it may be important for officials to concentrate on a particular problem, such as downtown Skokie or Old Orchard, it’s equally important to ensure that concerns of all Skokie residents are not ignored.

To be sure, there is much for Skokie residents to be proud of. The Village Board was a state and national leader in clean indoor air and Village staff do a fantastic job with the resources they have to keep us safe, secure, and welcoming. There is no reason to believe any of that would change if any of these measures are adopted.

Doth the Caucus Party protest too much?

This editorial was provided by former Skokie Village Trustee Michael Gelder. The views expressed here are the author’s own.