Will County Democratic Caucus Committee Met May 3.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Mueller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Majority Leader Meta Mueller called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Meta Mueller | Majority Leader | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | Member | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Majority Whip | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Speaker | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Disc Re: Reapportionment
(Information)
Ms. Mueller stated tonight I have brought us together so we can discuss reapportionment. The question I really want answered; or at least get a sense of direction from everyone. What is your top priority in reapportionment for the districts in the County? I’m hoping everybody will have an answer; I am going to go through the list and give everyone a chance to speak on that.
Speaker Cowan asked Ms. Mueller if she would like Mr. Marcum to give an update of where things stand right now; so that everyone is on the same page.
Ms. Mueller replied it might be helpful for some folks to hear some high level information; perhaps that will help them decide on their answers. Mr. Marcum, would you like to give us an update as to where we are since the last Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee.
Mr. Marcum stated at our last meeting we looked at a couple of concepts; we were trying to decide how we want to move forward. We looked at a 6 District 3 person map; which we voted unanimously to not move forward that concept. We have a version of our current 13 District 2 member map, we have a 17, 19 and 21 single person District. The Committee decided that they did not want to move forward with smaller single member districts. However, after we killed the 17, 19 and 21 single Districts; we asked GIS to put together a 15 District single member map; because you can only have 29 Board Members maximum. At our meeting tomorrow we will be looking at a 13 District 2 member map, and a 15 District single member map. I will say that it seemed that a lot of the Democrats wanted to prioritize communities of interest with smaller community districts. That is what I would like to see; smaller districts with 1 person members. The County Executive’s Office will be providing their map; that is where we are at this time.
Ms. Mueller said let’s go down the list and get everyone’s input; we will also do our best to answer any questions as they come up.
Ms. Koch stated I’m in line with a lot of what the Caucus is saying. I sincerely think that we don’t need two people Districts; I’ve never understood the purpose of it. I am in favor of one person Districts; I am pretty flexible of what that looks like. I will say that one of the things I have envisioned was making this I don’t want to say a full time job; but probably there is more to it or there could be more to it. As it is now it is hard to get a diverse Board; so that is bringing in some other issues. I really like the idea of trying to get some of our underserved communities represented; I think that is really key here; because we don’t represent all of our communities on the Board the way that it is drawn now. I am really interested to see the 15 person map.
Ms. Mueller called on Ms. Winfrey letting her know she was next on the list.
Ms. Winfrey stated a lot of my items have already been said. I am comfortable with the 13 Districts 2 people as it stands now. But I could also support a single person district. I like the idea of being able to make it more of a job so that people are able to do it; and not need to do other work as Ms. Koch mentioned.
Ms. Traynere stated I have already said many times I want single member districts. I was kind of taken back; Ms. Fritz proposed going from 26 to 21 Districts so it would be less of a shock to people. So I made that motion and she voted against her own idea; I really just don’t understand people. I don’t care what the number is whether it is 21, 19, 17, or 15; I have looked at the 15 member District map and it looks fine to me. Obviously there is going to be some minor shuffling if we do 15 members. It is hard to tell from the map that they sent if they included some of Naperville in there. I would be more of a proponent of shifting it around if Naperville was included in a portion of my District. I like the idea of sticking with just one municipality as much as you can; I know that you can’t with everybody.
Ms. Mueller added that some of them are just too big.
Ms. Traynere agreed some of them are just too big like Bolingbrook. If Bolingbrook is so big we shouldn’t be adding a second municipality to it in one districts. Especially when you have a district that’s right on the edge; it should just be all Bolingbrook. I am all about one member districts; it makes the most sense to me.
Ms. Mueller said I feel that you and I had a conversation about one member districts being something that you felt would be better representation for the people. One member verses two.
Ms. Traynere said yes, much easier for the voters to know who to contact. We don’t have two State reps in each of our State Districts; we just have one. It just seems to be logical to only have one County Board Member, one State Rep, and one State Senator. This idea of two just doesn’t usually happen. Unless if it is something like the Village where I live; there are six Village Board Members. That’s because we don’t have districts. We have districts for the County; to me there should be only one person responsible.
Mr. Harris said I am pretty comfortable with 13 Districts with 2 members. It is what I am accustomed to and don’t really have a preference one way or the other. I think that two would give you better representation. As far as being a representative; I get calls from all over the County already.
Ms. Tyson stated I am used to 13 Districts with two members also; I am comfortable with it. But if we go to one representative per district; I think to effectively work with your constituents you would probably need a pay raise and compensation; to help you mail out information to your constituents. I think that needs to be factored into it too. You just can’t have the same pay rate and do a good job at it; that needs to go hand and hand. Plus people that are under served you need to make sure we are talking to them on a regular basis. We need to have a budget where that factors in; we need to communicate with people and nobody gets left out. We need to do surveys and town halls; communications you got to put some money into it. You just can’t throw one single person out there working and they don’t have any money behind them.
Ms. Freeman said I’ve only known the 13 Districts; ever since I have lived here it has been 13 Districts. I also know that for as long as I have lived here my district in particular has been split one Republican and one Democrat. It is a lot like the Democrats come to me and the Republicans will go to their representative and that makes sense to them. I can see the need for two people in each district. I also agree there are communities that are not being represented very well; I do think that we need to be sure that all communities are equally served. I didn’t really care for the smaller district maps that they created for us; I would have to see other versions I suppose. It was very hard to determine locations with the 15 District map that they sent us; it seemed that you couldn’t see roads and things. It may have been my service at the time; it was hard to see; I am hoping we can get a better view of it later.
Ms. Mueller said definitely everyone can look at the maps that are attached to the agendas and are drawn up. I know everyone has different questions about lines and things like that. That is why I wanted to get together and really get some priorities so that we can come to the table and find something that works for everyone.
Speaker Cowan stated I am hearing a lot of people say they’re comfortable with, or their familiar with. My understanding is that what you’re looking for, or what we want, what our priorities are; in terms of what we think is best for the County and constituents. I don’t know if that is just the way that people are phrasing things. I am really interested in coalescing around some ideas so we can move a process forward. I will start by saying for those of you who weren’t at the last redistricting meeting; and this is an open meeting and I see that there are Republicans on the line. I have no problem saying this with that knowledge. The Republicans took control of that meeting in a way that I found to be politically despicable. I constituted this Committee to be five Republicans and five Democrats; because this shouldn’t be political. Your fellow Republican Board Members came in clearly all wanting a 13 - 2 map. Then proceeded to shut down conversation on all other versions of maps; and that’s is what I found despicable. If they came in with a preference and really thought that 13 - 2 was what was best for the County; fine, make your case. But what I saw was them take control of the committee and shutdown conversation on all other versions of maps. I was insanely disappointed in that. That we couldn’t continue to have a conversation. If they feel that 13 - 2 is the right way to go then be strong enough in your convictions that you are ready to prove that’s the best way to go. Frankly the only thing that our Republican counterparts had to say about 13 - 2; was that it worked for them. I really want to know what people’s priorities are. I want to know is your priority making the board smaller and more efficient; then let’s get together on that. Is your priority keeping the map exactly the way it is and you have a decent reason for that; good make your case. I am super frustrated; disguested with the Republican Caucus behavior on this topic. Disappointed that I end up looking like an idiot because I made it fair. My priority is a more efficient streamline government which I think we can do with a smaller board; that’s what I would like to see us coalesce around. If that is not the will of this caucus, fine then make that argument and I will support my caucus. We will move forward with the plan that is best for Will County if someone has a better argument. But I have yet to hear that frankly; being familiar with something or that it worked in the past; to me is not a good enough argument to move forward with that in the future. I’m looking at what is best for our constituents moving forward. I could probably be convinced either way on the single verse double member districts; I hear the arguments on both sides. I think the argument about it being split so the Republicans can go to the Republicans; and Democrats can go to the Democrats; that doesn’t sell it for me to be honest. We have plenty of districts that aren’t split. What does that mean that Republicans can’t go to anybody if they have two Democratic members or vice versa; no it doesn’t you go to who represents you because we represent everyone in our districts. We do not represent only the Democrats. That agreement doesn’t work for me. To be honest I have yet to hear an argument that really convinces me that two member districts are better for some quantifiable reason. I’d like to see a smaller Board I think it makes more sense. We have the second largest County Board in the State of Illinois; and that just doesn’t make sense to me. My priority is making the Board smaller; I am hoping that we can kind of coalesce around that idea.
Ms. Coleman said two priorities that I thought about since the last meeting; would not be breaking up communities; and insuring that there’s true representation of the demographics in the County. That the Board looks like the County.
Ms. Ventura stated I have a whole lot of ideas; but I will start with what Speaker Cowan was asking about. If I had a preference what would I like to see? I would like to see 1 rep per District; I would like to see smaller districts that create a more diverse Board. Including our Asian population, obviously our Latinx population, and our Black communities still need to be represented. I do absolutely think that these need to be full time jobs. I have had this discussion with our Chief of Staff; if you add up the hours of all of the committee meetings, plus the reading time, and any other community meetings that you might go to. Including your city, township, or even neighborhood meetings. This is already a full time job; in order for us to really have our attention on what’s actually happening; I think it is imperative. This also means it needs to have a living wage salary; $15.00 an hour is at $30,000; at the minimum I would want to see that. I have even done the calculations on everything from 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, or our current 26 members and what that looks like. Pretty much you can save money across the board on all of those; except our current 13 - 2. That is the only one you obviously can’t save money and still increase the salary. I am interested in furthering these conversations on that; some other things then I would like to possibly see; if we are like no absolutely not; we’ve got to have double districts for whatever reason. I presented this idea to Mr. Marcum that we look at doing; I’ll say at large; but when I say at large, I would want to see 4 at large that would be divided upon quadrants, and not dividing the County directly in four quadrants. But having a secondary priority where you would divide it along the unincorporated Townships lines. Bolingbrook doesn’t have any unincorporated Townships right now, so incorporating parts of maybe Lemont, or Lockport, or Naperville. Whatever makes sense based on the County; it still has to be congruent. Then you would divide that secondary category. In your first single District you might have 13 single Districts; and those would be divided along Township and City lines. Then your secondary priority would be these at large quadrants; that would have their own set of lines. You would still have to go by population but trying to weigh the lines based on where the unincorporated people reside. This has a couple of positive things I think; first of all you have your one district rep; that you know who you go to. Second of all if you felt that you needed a secondary person to help you constitute; you would go to your at large, or your quadrant at large rep. This could be a Republican or a Democrat. From a political standpoint it creates a stepping stone to an actual countywide race; whether it would be a Treasurer, Executive, or the Auditor. If you can prove yourself as a County Board Member you might then step up to be a quadrant member taking on more responsibility. If you do well by your constituents then it’s a natural step; to then maybe fill a seat maybe later down the road. I think that kind of helps solve the argument of you need a Republican or Democrat. You have the possibility to have four quadrant at large; just the same as each of the districts have the possibility to run a Democrat or Republican. It does give you two reps per district but you don’t necessarily have two people running against each other because they are separate seats. You would offset them just like you would offset other seats. Those are some things I would like to have conversations about. At the end of the day in order to truly represent the constituents and be as involved as I think one needs to be. I would like to see people going to all of the committee meetings, doing all of the reading, and that really means dedicating their time to the County Board and not working two or three other jobs. For that reason I would like to see single member districts.
Ms. Newquist stated I personally think we have too many County Board Members. You have heard me several times how long it takes us to just take a roll call. At the risk of running myself out of a job; I also think that we need a smaller more manageable Board. In terms of the Districts themselves I would be ok with two members; I just think our Board is really too large. I think it is a little unwieldy at times. In terms of the districts themselves I wasn’t really thrilled with any of the districts that were proposed; I have not had a chance to look at the redrawn 15 yet. My concern with the 13 - 2 proposed redraw is that it really diluted the suburban component of my District; but that was just my own personal thought. Other than that I’m open to different ideas.
Mr. Marcum said I just wanted to mention to everybody that the maps that were presented were by no means final; they were just a presentation for a starting point. Those maps weren’t what we were going to vote on it was just so we could see the concept. Then at our next meeting start to get down to what needs to be moved where; to make them look better and draw the demographics more solid. The maps that were presented were just for concepts.
Ms. Mueller said thanks for that I think that is an important point to make so that we can remember that.
Ms. Mueller stated I also agree that our board is really large and I would like to see it smaller and more efficient; a tighter ship. Not breaking up communities and having appropriate demographic representation on the board for our communities in the county is also important for me. I believe one member districts; I think I could be convinced to have two member districts; depending what the map looks like. Those are my priorities. I want people to know that we have to take this to public hearing; they need to be aware of how and when that is happening. I want folks paying close attention to the maps that we are going to be voting on; I don’t want anybody to be missing out on anything. Do you have any input on when we are going to have a public hearing Mr. Marcum? I do know there are some guidelines and laws based on when we have a presentation from the Will County Executive’s Office; as to when we have the public hearing after that we only have a certain amount of days; could you speak on that?
Mr. Marcum said the calendar invite that I got was; the Will County Executive’s Office is making their presentation on May 18th. That is when Executive’s office is presenting; then we have anywhere between 6 and 21 days to hold a public hearing. We are not going to hold it at 6 days; because we want to make the public hearing as close as possible; so the public can get a fair representation of what the maps look like. Most likely it would be in early June that we would be holding a public hearing on what comes out of the Committee and the County Executive’s map. Then we will have more meetings to take into account the information that the public shares with us. We will go on from there finalizing the maps; it will be sometime in early June that we will have a public hearing.
Speaker Cowan said with the public hearing the last time the County Board had a map and the Executive’s Office had a map. We don’t have to have settled on just one for that public hearing. I did want to also alert people that tomorrow Don Gould will be presenting a map that he has worked on; it is a 13 - 2 map that is all we know about it. We have gotten some comments in the past few months about things not being on agendas in time for committee members to really have a chance to examine. I was told today; the Mr. Gould is excused from that because he is still working on the map. I know I will not have had enough time to look at that map to make a judgment on it. I would really hope that committee members will stand with me in saying; we need some time to think about this and discuss it. To really consider it honestly; unlike the dishonest consideration that happen at our last meeting. I don’t want to end up tomorrow afternoon being angry again that conversation has been shut down; and discussion and options have been shut down. Let’s talk about it, let’s have a discussion; I am certainly open to considering the viewpoints of this map. I just hope we really consider about continuing to have an open conversation about this; and not shutting down the possibilities at this point.
At this juncture Mr. Brooks joined the committee.
Ms. Mueller advised Mr. Brooks that we are going over what everyone’s priorities are with redistricting; and what their top priority is that they want to see. We are trying to get some direction so we all can come together on some ideas and compromise.
Mr. Brooks stated I heard some of it, as well as from some previous meetings; ladies and gentleman I would not be opposed to a smaller Board. When we go to NACo and I sit down in meetings and dinners etc. It is unbelievable one person represents a million to half a million people; I believe it can be done if the money is there. What I have heard so far I do concur. I have no problem with a current 26 member 13 District; I think it worked well when we did it ten years ago. But now we are moving to a new phase and a new place; some of you all will be there in 2022, and 2023 when I am not. I do think a smaller board, if the budget is there, and if it is agreeable. I think a 15 or 16 Board would be better served to represent Will County.
Ms. Ventura stated I have two questions. The first is now that the 17 District has been voted down; what is the possibility of bringing back a different 17 District map? The comments that I heard at committee was; although I wasn’t a fan of that 17 District map didn’t mean that I didn’t want a 17 District map. I would like to see a map that has different lines drawn. Now that it has been voted down; is it possible to have a new completely different 17 District map or are we out of luck? My second question is the Committee’s thoughts about having some at large quadrant seats; instead of a typical two members per district.
Ms. Mueller stated your first question was one that I also had. What you said about just because of that 17 District map; didn’t mean no 17 District maps. I would like to know if that is possible. Mr. Marcum do you know?
Speaker Cowan advised that Mrs. Tatroe was on the line.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I have a couple of points; one of which is I think the vote was to eliminate all consideration of 17 Districts. However, I’m not sure and I don’t have the County Board Rules in front of me. I am not sure when you passed your rules; I recall their being a conversation as to whether or not Roberts Rules of Order apply to the committees or not.
Ms. Traynere stated I thought we always had a rule if you voted no on something; you could bring it back up for consideration. Am I mistaken?
Mrs. Tatroe stated whoever was on the prevailing side can make a vote for reconsideration; if you are on the losing side you cannot. It would have to be somebody who voted to eliminate consideration of the 17 District map to make a motion to reconsider that decision.
Ms. Ventura said on this call that is only Ms. Winfrey; so I guess the question is Ms. Winfrey willing to look at a different 17 District map.
Ms. Mueller asked Mrs. Tatroe if there were other points you wanted to make.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I was just struggling to search through my brain and recall what the conversation was back in December; regarding whether or not in passing your rules; did Roberts Rule of Order apply to the Committees.
Ms. Mueller stated I can’t imagine it didn’t.
Mrs. Tatroe stated yes, to a certain extent it has to. Maybe it was more with regard to conversation; because conversation needs to be a little more in depth and a little more loosely regulated in the committee level. Then you are more open to conversation than at County Board. That might have been where you were discussing that.
Speaker Cowan asked Mrs. Tatroe what bearing that has.
Mrs. Tatroe stated because it is under Roberts Rules of Order that you cannot readdress an issue that’s already been decided. The Roberts Rules of Order require the rule that it has to be someone who was on the prevailing side of a vote would make a motion to reconsider it.
Speaker Cowan said basically we are out of luck in terms of any kind of 17 District map, and 19, 21, and 6-3 unless in our rules it says we are not following Roberts Rules of Order for the committees.
Ms. Mueller stated what if the Executive’s Office presenting maps that might be those numbers.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that is different because the Executive has the statutory right to present a map. Your votes are only regulating what you do as a County Board. The Executive can bring whatever maps she wants to propose. It is your obligation to take that to a public hearing; you’re right you can take other maps to a public hearing as well.
Ms. Ventura said we could still ask Ms. Winfrey to reconsider her vote; that is still an avenue right?
Mrs. Tatroe said and I would ask too that staff confirm that my recollection is correct.
Ms. Traynere stated I am looking it up in the rules right now.
Speaker Cowan asked Mrs. Tatroe when we reconsider a vote is it a simple majority that votes yes.
Mrs. Tatroe stated yes, I believe so.
Speaker Cowan said if we have an even number of people on the Committee; in order to pass it we would need to be 6-4 to reconsider.
Mrs. Tatroe replied yes.
Speaker Cowan said that probably is not going to happen.
Ms. Ventura stated unless someone wasn’t there; which is what happened the last time on the vote.
Speaker Cowan said no, because there are five Democrats and five Republicans; so even if all the Democrats voted to reconsider it; it would still only be 5-5.
Ms. Traynere asked who breaks the tie.
Mrs. Tatroe stated there is no tie- breaker.
Ms. Ventura stated if a Republican was missing is what I meant.
Ms. Traynere stated then I don’t think we should ever have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on any board. Because if people are going to vote party line; and there’s no way to break a tie that’s just stupid; no offense to anybody; I am just trying to use the logic. We never thought that there was going to be a 13-13 Board and there was.
Ms. Mueller state I hear you Ms. Traynere.
Ms. Traynere said we screwed up; that all.
Speaker Cowan said if we have double member districts we will always have an even number of people on the Board.
Ms. Ventura said before we move on if people could consider the 4 quadrants and give their idea. If they don’t like it that is fine; but some feedback is better than silence. Thank you.
Ms. Freeman said during the last reapportionment meeting I was curious why they didn’t just propose new lines. Are there other number of districts that we could look at; instead of the ones that have already been rejected? Instead of the 17 Districts?
Mr. Marcum stated like I said earlier; those maps were for us to see the idea of it. The last meeting was not to redraw the lines and do all of that. Our meetings are going to get more in depth as we go. We are not just throwing huge amounts of information and trying to draw everything and taking 12 hours to try and draw maps. The point of the last meeting was to draw a concept. To see theoretically what it would look like; and what our starting point would be. Not to change lines around sitting in a meeting. I just want everyone to know our first meeting is for concept; then we are going to get more in depth.
Ms. Freeman stated what I am taking away from this conversation if we are going to look at smaller districts; we need to be sure that we don’t let it get thrown out as an option.
Mr. Marcum said the issue is that the concept has already been killed in committee. That is our question to Mrs. Tatroe.
Ms. Freeman said but the 15 District has not.
Ms. Traynere stated that is the only one that is still alive.
Mr. Marcum said if our main goal is to keep communities of interest together; it is going to be a lot harder to do that with 15 Districts; they are is still going to be relatively larger districts. With the 17, 19, and 21 Districts; it is easier to keep communities of interest together. The larger districts like what we have now; or if you go smaller are easier to keep Municipalities and Townships together. That is why we need to make a decision on our priorities; because we need to know if we need smaller or larger districts.
Ms. Traynere stated smaller districts would have meant we had to adopt a higher number and we didn’t; we threw them all out in favor of 15 which is only 2 higher than the 13 that we have right now. That was one of the reasons why I put forward the idea that Ms. Fritz came up with of having 21. That’s after we have already thrown out all of those other numbers. Mrs. Tatroe on page 20 it says parliamentary procedure at County Board Meetings. In the absence of a County Board rule to the contrary the parliamentary procedure of this Board shall be governed by Roberts Rule of Order newly revised. I haven’t found anything that discusses parliamentary procedure at committee meetings.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that is what I was referring to; I also want to be very cautious because this could have far reaching unforeseen consequences. I am certainly willing to consider it; but I want to think about what the consequences would be if you are throwing out Roberts Rule of Order at committee.
Ms. Traynere stated we can’t do that right now under our current County Board rules as far as I can tell. Are you saying if we don’t address it we could? Not that we should or would.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I am saying I don’t know; maybe.
Ms. Freeman said if we went smaller districts with one rep and made it more of a full time position and more pay. What are the steps that have to be taken to insure that person is going to actually get more pay? I am afraid that we would get smaller districts and one person and there is no real guarantee that pay is going to increase. That is my concern.
Ms. Mueller replied I am not sure how to answer that.
Ms. Traynere stated I don’t think that there is any real guarantee. We have to vote on it 160 days before the Primary next year. That is the last date so that would be in September. Right Mrs. Tatroe?
Mrs. Tatroe said I would have to look that up; it is quite a bit in advance; I want to say six months. You have to do it far enough in advance so there is no chance that it could influence the outcome of the election. It is in the Election Code; I will look it up now and if I get the answer I will come back on.
Ms. Traynere stated it is six months because we just did it at the Village of Bolingbrook. There is no guarantee; other than when do we have to have the maps ready Mr. Marcum.
Mr. Marcum replied I believe it is July 15th.
Ms. Traynere stated then there is nothing stopping the Speaker from putting the salaries of all of the County Board Members and or the Countywide’s on the same agenda.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that is part of what you are supposed to consider as part of the reapportionment.
At this juncture Mr. Van Duyne joined the meeting.
Mr. Brooks said I listened to all of the comments in totality. When we did a 13-13 ten years ago Ms. Traynere and I were present; I don’t know if any others were. When we did that 13-13 then it was a long meeting with a lot of discussion; and that was the best that we could come up with. The advantage for us at that time, our County Executive Larry Walsh was among us; of course he was the tie breaker. The State’s Attorney’s opinion told us Ruling Party verses Title; so I don’t think it was all that bad of an idea; but it did make some difficult times sometimes. Secondly, right now what’s on the table is a 15 District; this is the only option we have as it sounds like to me; then it can be workable. I think when you look at the districts and realign it; that is when the discussion is really going to come in. How big of a district and how many reps is one person going to represent? But I do think it will be challenging with just 15 people; I really do.
Ms. Newquist said I was going to actually say sort of similar to what Ms. Freeman and Mr. Brooks just said. I don’t know if I can say I am in favor of a one or two person District until we really decid on the number of districts; also if we are going to make it a full or part time job. If we have large districts and it is still a part time job; that is going to make it really difficult for any one person. The two of them do kind of go hand in hand so maybe that’s something we should also be voicing our preference about; whether we want to keep it a part time or full time job.
Ms. Mueller stated I think we have more time to discuss that too. I wanted to answer Ms. Ventura’s question. I just remembered that I forgot to answer her and if anyone else wants to chime in and I see some hands up. Ms. Ventura, that is a really interesting idea of having quadrants that way. I am concerned that it would be too confusing for some people. But it is an interesting concept.
Ms. Ventura said a lot of cities do have some type of at large; obviously theirs is usually the whole city. But I think there might be some education needed maybe what that position is; who’s your secondary rep or whatever. Just because it is different; doesn’t mean it’s not doable.
Ms. Mueller said that is how they do it here in Aurora where I live; we have our Alderman then we have Alderman at large; I am familiar in how that works here. I had not really considered that in a county application.
Ms. Newquist stated Ms. Ventura I do think your idea is interesting; but I don’t think it is workable because only because of the confusion factor. Although it is an interesting concept definitely.
Ms. Winfrey stated this is a repetition of what I said earlier; the larger number of districts is a great idea. Also a single person is fine provided you do what needs to be done to make that happen. If a person is working it full time there has to be staff, there has to be pay, there has to be the things that need to happen in order to support them doing that work. It is a fine idea. I like the smaller districts. It does make you have to pay more attention to where your Township lines are. Because with smaller districts you’re going to cut city and township lines. With making it a single person, increasing the pay, and increasing the support staff; then allows people who may not ordinarily apply to be able to participate in the process. Right now pay scale for one makes people consider it only to be part time; they only want to do a smaller amount; I don’t mean everybody. But it is easier to think about it on the back burner; because you are not getting paid for it. Only certain people can really manage it along with their other workload. That cuts out the opportunity to bring in a broader spectrum of the overall county; because of how you are paying, and how you are staffing. I will go with our group but that is my thought.
Ms. Mueller stated I tend to agree with that Ms. Winfrey you and I have talked about that before.
Mr. Van Duyne said I missed out on a lot of this discussion but I did hear what Ms. Winfrey had to say. Actually the smaller districts; if you are by yourself you would need some extra work from staff so I like that idea as well. I’m not interested in this being a full time position; that is just my personal feelings; part time is fine. The increase in wages I think we should consider; I know a lot of us have to take off of work to do this. It makes it hard for people to take a pay cut. I know you are serving the public; but it is also nice to be able to support your family as you take off from your career. I don’t know if I am missing anything; I’d like to listen in on the rest of you folks and be willing to go with the majority.
Ms. Koch stated one of the things that I originally thought about; and doesn’t necessarily go along with my priority of serving communities of interest specifically, was to create a more professional board; one of the things I am looking at when I say that for example the Cook County Board. We are not nearly as large but if we had less districts; let’s say nine just for conversation. Then there was one person per district; perhaps that person gets a staff member and an office in their district; and we start serving people more where they live. That is just an idea that I would like to throw out there. At the end of the day that would probably be a lot more money; because even though maybe we don’t pay the elected officials that much more. I would insist that the staff obviously have a real pay check and benefits. Just something to put out there that nobody else has said yet. We could do it that way; I do think that someone who is dedicated to answering the phone all of the time that is paid by the County could be a real benefit verses me trying to catch calls between everything else I do during the day. Just a thought for the Caucus.
Ms. Newquist said I like Ms. Koch’s idea I really do.
Speaker Cowan stated I wanted to respond to Ms. Ventura’s proposal. To be honest I couldn’t really visualize what you were talking about. I’d be happy to consider it but would have to see it in written form so I could think through it and really understand it. I am all about brainstorming ideas and keeping ideas on the table at this point. I would be happy to hear more about that; but I am not ready to champion it right this moment.
Ms. Ventura said in response to that I didn’t mean to make it confusing; it would be a 13 or 15 single District. Then if you overlay a whole different group; you would have 4 at large. I was just trying to define how we might split those 4 at large to be a little bit differently than the single Districts. Let’s say you had 13 Districts you wouldn’t have just 4 reps per at large. It would be based on the unincorporated. That way those at large members really were serving the unincorporated population more so then the city areas would be. I wasn’t trying to make it confusing. You would have one map that had 13 Districts and another map that had 4 Districts. To the constituent it should be very simple; here is my rep in one district and here is my at large; it would be very simple for them. What I was trying to explain is how we might divide those maps differently; of course that would be up for a whole different conversation. Unincorporated population per se you would still have to do it based on the overall population. I was saying that you would shift that line and try to get it where you had a more evenly unincorporated. I like Ms. Koch’s idea a lot; I could also do a more professional board. I like Ms. Traynere having advocated for more staffing; everything from our own grant writers, to researchers, and to policy writers. I would love to see that, especially with the American Relief money coming down the pipeline. This would be a time to really do stuff outside the box. The one thing I liked about the Family Stabilization Plan they talked about is the innovation board; I will be very honest even this idea of me bringing forth the at large stuff. We are great critical thinkers in the Western World; we do a really good job of critiquing ideas. We have a lesser influence on creative thinking or constructive thinking. Creative being brainstorming like Speaker Cowan talked about outside the box thinking; things we have never done before and constructive thinking meaning we build on somebody else’s idea. It is just not our nature; the ways our schools are structuring everything. An innovation board would really allow for that. I really would love to see something like that if we had staff members to help us grow those innovative ideas; that could really move us into a whole different atmosphere of government. That aside I love the idea of having more staff if that means we have to have less members for the savings to work out I understand. The other thing I wanted to comment on is I think that it is very important that we align the vote for the salaries of these positions along those same lines as the districting. I think going forward it should be a part of the conversation. I don’t know if the Republicans would want to shut that conversation down or not. But it is just imperative and it really is fair for a democracy to have a job that anybody can run for this seat; and truly anybody. As a single mom who routinely works two to three jobs; this being one of them I think it is so important for anybody who wants to be able to run and represent a community to do so; and not be held back because this is a part time job that expects full time hours. Then the last thing I am going to bring it back to my other question; I am going to straight out ask Ms. Winfrey is there any chance that you would reconsider your vote to have one of these other maps 17, 19, 21 or whichever so that we could look at maybe different maps. Is that something that you’re at all considering?
Ms. Mueller said Ms. Winfrey if that is something you want to answer to Ms. Ventura on later. Mrs. Tatroe has her hand up and I am sure she is going to give us her input on what we asked her to look up.
Mrs. Tatroe said I thought that we agreed that it was six months; so I hadn’t looked up that. I’m not 100% sure that I understanding Ms. Ventura’s plan; but I think I do. I think she is talking about having a mixed at large district plan. A combination of both is that correct Ms. Ventura?
Ms. Venture replied yes and if people like that idea we could talk about being a true at large; covering the whole county. I was suggesting quadrants that we would be 17 members; 13 single Districts and 4 quadrants at large. I would be up for any combination; someone had said is there other numbers that we could look at. Sure we could look at even numbers but then you would need the tie breaker. You could look at 14 even Districts and 1 truly at large. It was just an idea that we could discuss and how we would break that down. We would have to figure it out if it is constitutional and all of those things.
Mrs. Tatroe said I think it is an interesting idea; I don’t think the statute provides that as an option for County Board to choose. You can choose districts; you can choose to have multi member districts in municipalities; and single member districts in unincorporated. Or you can choose at large; I don’t think that you can do a combination of at large and district government. It is one or the other.
Ms. Venture replied you mentioned a very interesting thing just now. We can choose single member Districts in incorporated areas and double in the others? Have we considered that at all on a map?
Ms. Mueller stated I am looking at the Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee information it says; we may have single member Districts in unincorporated areas and multi member Districts in incorporated areas. However representation must be proportionate; example: if a single member District in an unincorporated area has 1,000 people; then a two member in an incorporated area must have 2,000 people. That is part of the attachments of the Committee of the Whole.
Speaker Cowan stated I raised this for consideration at one of our first meetings; and no one on the Committee wanted to do it.
Ms. Venture said it seems backwards the way they are saying two in the city areas; I figured you would have less work in the city areas because it is not unincorporated. That almost seems backwards to me.
Speaker Cowan said it is so you have the same number of residents per reprensentative; that’s all.
Ms. Ventura said I understand why the number is 1,000 verse 2,000; but I am just saying wouldn’t it be better to have two people in the Districts that are unincorporated where more work would probably come; then the city. Does it work the other way around or does it have to be that way?
Mrs. Tatroe stated it has to be that way; it is because of the population. It would be harder to come up with enough population for multi member districts in unincorporated because it is so sparsely populated. Does that make sense?
Ms. Ventura said then I am kind of in agreement with the committee that it doesn’t make any sense to do it that way. Because most of your issues in County Businesses is in the unincorporated area.
Ms. Traynere stated I really wish we would have had this conversation a long time ago. Maybe there was one and I just missed that meeting. I feel that I am getting a lot more out of this one. Specifically because I think so many people voted on those maps at the last meeting based on where the lines were. That wasn’t the point of that vote; I’m certain that people still don’t understand that. People were looking at the map and said I don’t like that map; so I am going to vote that down. It wasn’t about the map it was about the number of representatives and I don’t think everybody on our committee got that; or at least it didn’t sound like it from the comments that I heard. I was going to give Ms. Ventura some feedback but it is pointless now because we can’t do that. I don’t think we have an answer if we can bring back the number 19 or bring back the number 21. I don’t even remember that we voted down the 17. I know we voted down 6 Districts.
Speaker Cowan added we voted down 19; the funny thing is we weren’t even presented with a 19 District map; but Mr. Moustis or Mr. Fricilone made a motion to not consider it.
Ms. Traynere said that is right I remember now. I think people were looking too closely at those maps. Frankly the maps weren’t even the point of the conversation and I don’t think that ever got across to folks. It would be interesting to see what the County Executive comes up with; maybe she’ll come up with 19 or 21; and then we’ll have another opportunity to vote on that; keep your fingers crossed.
Ms. Mueller stated I am really perplexed over we can’t present any more maps of those numbers; but we can consider them if somebody else considers them.
Ms. Traynere said yeah, the whole thing makes no sense Ms. Mueller; but that’s government.
Mr. Brooks asked I know we ruled it out; what is on the table now. Is there a 15 member and or is the current 26 member Board still on the table.
Mr. Marcum replied currently what is on the table is a 13 member District with the understanding that there will be 2 members in each District; also a 15 Districts which would have to be single members since if it were 2 members it would put us over the legally allotted members. So that would be 15 single and 13 double.
Ms. Traynere stated I would just like to chime in on what Mr. Brooks said earlier; it is very true I have been to a number of those NACo Meetings and people are perplexed by the fact that we have 26 members. They think that is insane.
Ms. Mueller added I got some similar feedback when I was doing the Leadership Academy.
Ms. Koch said if I wanted to propose formally the idea that I had earlier and I am not on the Committee; how might I do that?
Speaker Cowan stated it would be up to the Chair.
Mr. Marcum said send me an email with the wording so I can get a full understanding of it. The next meeting is tomorrow but we are meeting every week. There are lots of opportunities.
Ms. Koch said I will see what I can do tonight.
Ms. Ventura stated Mr. Marcum said that there was 13-2 or 15-1 but we could also have a 13-1 as well as any potential maps like 9 or 11 or others that were not voted down. So we aren’t stuck on 13-2.
Mr. Van Duyne said in committee the only two options we have is 15-1 or a 13-2 unless the County Executive brings a different map to the committee that we can vote on. Is that correct?
Speaker Cowan stated no that is not correct. Tomorrow in the committee we are looking at 13-2 and 15. We voted against ever considering again 17, 19 or 21; but that doesn’t mean 10, or 7 or any of the other numbers that were not voted against. Right now on the agenda it is only the 13 and the 15. But we could potentially still consider other numbers; except for 17, 19, and 21.
Ms. Traynere asked if we could have a 9 District 2 member map which would be 18. Or an 8 District 2 member map that would be 16.
Ms. Mueller asked is it the number of districts and then number of members in the same vote. Did we specify how many members were in each of those districts as a part of that vote?
Ms. Ventura said they didn’t and the 13 tomorrow is only on the map. People are saying 13-2 but it could be 13-1 as well.
Speaker Cowan said that is correct.
Ms. Tyson stated Mr. Marcum, you said we are going to have many more conversations about this. But you said the County Executive’s role is to make a presentation by the 3rd Wednesday of May which is the 19th. After she makes her presentation then we must give 6 days’ notice and not more than 21 days after the County Executive’s plan is presented to the Board when we have public hearing. The Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee is going to meet on a weekly basis even after that presentation is presented.
Mr. Marcum stated we are meeting on a weekly basis until we are done. Ms. Tyson asked if you have up until July 15th to make a decision. Mr. Marcum said I believe it is the 15th it is somewhere in the middle of July.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the verbiage of the statute is you have to adopt a map by your regularly scheduled meeting in July. If you’re regularly scheduled meeting is the 15th than it is the 15th.
Ms. Newquist said for us it is the 15th.
Ms. Mueller stated I think that we have covered everything discussing that tonight. Are there any other questions about reapportionment tonight? We will now move on to Other New Business.
VI. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Ventura said as you all know that President Biden is looking at passing an infrastructure plan and there is much talk about this; we are talking trillions of dollars. A lot of times there are ride along bills that go into these packages. One is the potential of increasing the weight of overweight trucks being allowed. I am against this for many reasons; mostly our tax dollars are supposed to pay for these trucks when they get onto the local roads; then we have to fix them up more often. There is a resolution that has been presented to me; I am asking that people will sign onto this. My question is would this better going to a committee to fully discuss. Or is it better for me to email this to everyone and ask if they would like to sign on to it. I would like some feedback or if Mr. Van Duyne, Ms. Winfrey, or Speaker Cowan specifically have a way they would like to handle it then I am more than happy to do that. I think some of you have talked to Josh Collins who is representing this bill. That would be advocating for our federal Congress people to ask President Biden not to allow this rider get into this Infrastructure Bill.
Ms. Mueller asked is Josh Collins replacing the gentleman who we met about a year and a half ago about this.
Ms. Ventura asked if it was Brad. I think Brad still works for them but Mr. Collins is now the one heading it up in Will County.
Ms. Mueller asked Speaker Cowan is she has any input on this our how we should direct this.
Speaker Cowan said we can certainly put it on Public Works & Transportation and Legislative & Judicial if the Chairs are interested in that. I will talk to Mr. Van Duyne and Ms. Winfrey If one or both want to hear this on their committee; we can go forward that way.
Ms. Traynere said I just want to chime in on Ms. Ventura’s comment. I too have been in touch
in the past with Brad and now Mr. Collins. I agree our roads are already a problem and are not built for this kind of weight. I don’t want to see extra heavy or double trailers; either one.
Ms. Mueller stated it does seem pretty counterproductive when you look at our roads lately.
Mr. Van Duyne said I just want to reply to Ms. Ventura; if you want to bring it up in Public Works & Transportation Committee we would be more than happy to hear your concerns. It might be helpful to go that route; then we can have a professional opinion from Mr. Ronaldson. Maybe he can provide some data about weight limits and such. I am open to it.
Speaker Cowan asked Ms. Ventura to send that resolution to staff; I will drop them a note to put it on the next Public Works & Transportation; but it is not going to be this month.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
1. Speakers Update
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION
X. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 7:40 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Majority Whip SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Koch, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Cowan, Freeman |
Alerts Sign-up