A surprise for Winfield voters is a referendum on the March 20 ballot that would have the effect of taking away most of their future rights to elect the Village Trustees.
Presently, everyone gets to vote on three of the six seats every two years. If passed, the referendum would limit voters to only one of the six seats every four years.
The binding measure has been placed upon the ballot by Village Trustee Tim Allen, 40, 27w174 Birch St., who organized gathering enough signatures.
The Village Board debated at its Jan. 19 meeting whether to answer the expected questions from residents about the effects of such a drastic change by preparing an impartial fact sheet, or even televising a debate on Channel 10.
Mr. Allen insisted that if there were such a debate, he be the debater on the pro-side and the debates be replayed over-and-over until the election.
He also led opposition to publicizing research memos that the Village Attorney and the Village Manager had already prepared and circulated to the Trustees. One memo noted that trustee districts are “more commonly found in larger municipalities and are often driven by political considerations.”
Because the wording of an impartial document would need input from the attorney and at least informal approval from all of the Trustees, others said that there was not enough time before the March 20 election to come to an agreement on wording. The board decided to not pursue a fact sheet.
The Winfield Register will publish in its issues before the March 20 referendum the expert research gathered by the officials and others.
The text to be voted on is: “Shall the Village be divided into six districts with one Trustee elected from each district?”
If the controversial measure passes, then a map of Village Trustee Districts of substantially-equal populations would be adopted by the present Village Board before the local elections in 2013. Although not required by law, such maps are usually drawn by an outside consultant —who purposefully has no knowledge of the local politics or residences of the incumbents— strictly by population to achieve compact shapes.
Historically, because Winfield has such a small population, it has always been difficult to get any qualified candidates in the first place, and seldom enough to give the voters a full choice. If no one from a specific area runs, then the Mayor would have to seek someone from the district to accept an appointment, bypassing the voters. If only the incumbent runs (the usual case in places under districting) he wins automatically without the voters having had any choice.
The term of office remains at four years, and voters would be confined to voting only on the trustee seat from their district, giving each voter a say on one of the six seats. Presently, every voter has a voice twice as often, on half of all the seats each time.
This is not the first time Mr. Allen has proposed this change. He circulated petitions last winter, and instead of filing them with the Village Clerk during normal office hours as is the standard practice, he waited until a formal semi-monthly evening meeting of the Village Board so that he could make a presentation of the petitions while the meeting was being televised to local homes.
He had not done basic research that would have quickly shown him that the legislature had changed the filing deadline, so his delay killed his proposal because he waited until past the filing deadline.
A similar proposal almost came to the voters in 2002.
Ironically, the political forces involved then have now traded sides.
In 2002 former Village Trustee Stan Zegel (now Publisher of The Winfield Register) organized a similar petition drive.
Local land speculator David Russo, 52, 27w750 Brookside Dr., hired an attorney and successfully challenged the validity of the petitions on several grounds, including that it was a “change in the form of government” requiring even more signatures than otherwise.
Now associates of Mr. Russo are the ones pushing for districting, and Mr. Zegel is among those opposing it.
“I was wrong back then,” Mr. Zegel says, “being focused on how over-accommodating the Board was then to Mr. Russo and several of his land speculation projects, waiving safeguards and greasing the way for his controversial purchase of some public property as the low bidder.
“Because half the seats on the board were held by men living just doors from each other, in the most remote corner of the village containing 15% of the population, and were the ones most enthusiastic about that favoritism, I thought districting would break that up and restore ethics.
“It didn’t dawn on me then how anti-democratic it would really be in a town this small, how voters would have fewer choices, less often, have only one trustee they could appeal to with problems, or risk some kook getting elected with either just a handful of votes or because he was the only one in the neighborhood willing to run.
“I should have been patient and waited for what happened naturally — those guys either retired or were massively overthrown at the polls at the next election. The present system works, correcting itself when things get out of balance. I know better now.
“But the development interests now control two trustees that will hold-over past this election, and knowing how districting protects incumbents for life, they plan on getting districting in now and then winning the three open seats next year and becoming entrenched.”
Former Village Trustee Cliff Mortenson, 55, 0s732 Forest St, is another person whose position has varied. Twice appointed to fill vacancies on the Village Board, Mr. Mortenson was invited by Mr. Allen to debate him last year on districting, taking the at-large side while Mr. Allen took the pro-district side. Although he was then a supporter of districts in theory, Mr. Mortenson later said that when he did the research on the subject, he began leaning to believe it was not a good idea for Winfield and sincerely argued that side.
He told The Winfield Register he circulated petitions to put the issue on the ballot because it has come up in the past and he wants folks to have an opportunity to vote on it, one way or the other.
He said he has not yet made up his own mind. From a candidate’s viewpoint, he says, running for office would be more economical, and easier to go door to door because fewer voters are needed for a candidate to win.
“However,” he said, “I see advantages to both sides, and am undecided. Is what is good for candidates really also good for the village as a whole?”
