CITIZENS' COUNCIL DEBATES PURPOSE

It appears the Citizens' Council of La Grange may have reached a crossroads.

In a lively debate that took up most of the group's latest session Oct. 8, its members -- just two weeks shy of the first application deadline for April 2009 candidate hopefuls -- expressed vastly different opinions over whether their biennial role is to simply recruit, evaluate and recommend the most qualified groups of candidates in the village's three major races as the bylaws portend or whether they also should campaign for and assure the election of those very residents.

Circulating and filing candidate petitions and state-required ethics statements as a unified party, which some privately argued is the start of the political process even more than endorsements themselves -- or "recommendations" as some members maintained is the actual terminology -- assures fewer signatures need to be collected than if they all ran and filed independently and, above all, that the "party" slate secures top ballot placement in every contest.

So said Council President Orlando Coryell, who, while chairing the more than three-hour meeting of slightly more than 50 members, got the debate rolling -- and quite boisterously -- by seeking any input he could muster on the public "perception that the Council secures the election of the candidates it endorses."

And that may be an understatement, since the topic generated almost as much discourse during and after the meeting as a petition filed on behalf of the husband of another surname as District 5 delegate Kathleen Deane to seek the appointment of a ninth member to that district's full eight-member composition -- and not that only six of 12 incumbent officeholders had expressed an interest in running to date.

Moments after the Council unanimously approved District 1 delegate Steve Palmer's suggestion that the first set of interviews and endorsements with either Park or Library applicants be conducted a half-hour earlier, at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 12, to give the body more time to complete the often-exhaustive process, Coryell kicked off the debate over the Council's purpose by stressing that once the endorsement process is done, few delegates show up in January and frequently not until the fall of the next election cycle.

"In the past, we haven't disclosed to candidates that (the recommendation) is the end of our legal responsibility, so do we tell the candidate that?" he asked, noting while Council members do not have to actively campaign for them they routinely do as a technically separate body.

One vocal delegate quickly replied the bylaws are clear campaigning for candidates "is not the function of the Council." And if and when it happens, as some seasoned veterans of the system pointed out has always been the case in years past, suggested, "now we are extremely biased ... exactly the opposite of what we want to be to the community. Our work should stop there."

That same man, who stressed the candidate slating was a recommendation and not something candidates should be allowed to call an endorsement, later reiterated if his purpose is just to interview and recommend candidates as the bylaws state, then he serves "no useful purpose" from January to May.

Coryell clarified the Council "is not formally involved in the election process" -- a fact corroborated by District 10 delegate Vera Catuara in that, after slating, some of the same members "as a group, not as the Citizens' Council" then "form a new political party to help slated candidates" for every election before disbanding until the next election.

However, while it was not disclosed what happens in those January to May meetings of the Council in a time when Coryell said the Council typically diminishes to some 15 members or as few as five or eight -- except, perhaps, party business -- former 8-year Village Board trustee, District 1 delegate and unsuccessful but endorsed 2005 mayoral candidate Ted Hadley defended the body's role and what he said was the reality of its existence.

"We didn't want a party system in this village," he said, noting the Council is there to pick a broad, diverse slate of candidates to build strong boards and then help them get elected. "On the whole, this system has put a pretty good government in place ... (but) if you just sit here (and endorse) and then walk away, then what's the point of endorsing?"

He contended once the Council endorsements are set, it is the Council's duty to make sure the slate(s) it recommends are successful, like it or not.

"That's what happened, that's just the history, that's how it's been," he added.

But Coryell said if that's what some members want, then the volunteers involved now must then "maintain a viable Council" from January to May and beyond -- because "morphing" into a party is clearly not its purpose -- and spend the non-election period "changing the bylaws.

"Instead of having a duty to the citizens of La Grange," he said although did not necessarily advocate, the group can have "a duty to the selected members" instead.

And although membership chairman and District 7 delegate Rob Pierson said "if there's a political party formed (post-slating), it's not us," Catuara also said "since this organization organized, the same group does (the party work) after the Citizens' Council disbands.

"It has been a part of the Citizens' Council (role) since it was formed," she said, noting once slating occurs "we do the paperwork" to get them on the ballot to be elected because many times candidates have no idea how to file petitions. "We make sure what has to be done and we hope they will be elected."

She added if all everyone wants to do is vote, the process is not going to work for the candidates.

"This is almost a necessity," she said. "If we're going to recommend and not (help) ... it seems useless."

District 4 delegate Nancy Weiler said "20 years ago you were told you would support the candidates" after slating occurred.

"I remember putting a sign in my yard for a candidate," she said. "Historically, the Council was expected to go to lengths (to help the slate get elected)."

And though there was disagreement as to what the future should hold, Coryell agreed with Catuara to an extent.

"At our meeting in January, we (typically have) adjourned and the meeting for the party started and we moved into party business -- same room, same people," he said, adding "anyone could then show up" and join although such an announcement has never been made publicly.

"We have lost two-thirds of the time, so we have a one-third success rate with competition races," he noted.

While Council-slated candidacies have routinely spurned independents in the past, few opponents have won. That dynamic changed in 2005, when Hadley was endorsed but resoundingly lost to then-trustee Liz Asperger. Confusion also reigned in 2007, when a candidate falsely ran as an endorsee when he clearly was not.

The petition to add a ninth member to District 5, containing the signatures of 80 registered voters in the district -- as allowed for in the bylaws for anyone who is "dissatisfied" with any district makeup -- was opposed by some delegates who said it appeared there might be a move to "stack the deck" in that district, perhaps for one or more desired candidates.

Catuara, a nearly 20-year delegate whose geographical area in one of the village's furthest corners boasts only herself, said she wondered why District 5 should deserve an additional member when every one of the other 10 districts were lacking a maximum of eight per district and why the petitioner's dissatisfaction was not described.

District 5 includes such notables as Orlando Coryell -- who is also the husband of Library Board member Caroline Coryell and a resident who sued the Park District over its controversial decision to sell public park land for private development -- as well as longtime Park District activist Kate Brogan, Council officer Joan Vander Linde, whose husband is Village Board Trustee James Palermo, and new delegate and Council Qualificatons Committee Co-Chair Katie Justak.

Delegates in other districts include, in District 1, the wife of Village Trustee Mark Kuchler, Deann Kuchler, former Park Board Commissioner and park land sale opponent Kevin Shields; in District 2, former park land sale opponent and La Grange Towers resident Bill Dobias and Qualifications Committee co-chair Ken Levinson; longtime civic activist Jeanine McLaughlin and Pierson's wife, Nancy and in District 11, the wife of former trustee candidate Nicholas Pann, Carolyn Pann.

Spouses, under the bylaws, are allowed to vote for each other at slating time, as was the case with Palermo two years ago.

The only ones expressing an interest in slating for re-election to date are Village Trustees Mike Horvath and Barb Wolfe, Village President Liz Asperger, Library Trustees Becky Spratford and Mary Nelson and Park Commissioner Tim Kelpsas.

Park and Library hopefuls vying for four and three seats, respectively, have until Wednesday, Oct. 22 to submit applications, with slating taking place Nov. 12 and possibly one other night that month. Village candidates vying for five seats including three trustee seats, clerk and president have until Monday, Nov. 3 and will be slated Wednesday, Dec. 10.

It was agreed when interviews take place, each candidate will be given five minutes to speak five minutes to answer structured questions and 10 minutes to answer Council inquiries. The voting of recommended candidates takes place in privately and is announced publicly.