Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commissions Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Villa Park trustees hold first reading on overhaul of commissions rules; debate focuses on appointments, junior commissioners and background checks
Summary
Trustees conducted a first reading of an ordinance amending Article 14 of the municipal code to revise how advisory commissions are formed and operated. Debate centered on whether the village president should retain appointment power, the role of junior commissioners and whether background checks should be required for volunteers.
Village of Villa Park trustees on Aug. 11 conducted a first reading of an ordinance that would revise Article 14 of the municipal code, updating rules for creating and staffing advisory commissions.
Manager Reavis told the board the draft combines policy proposals from Village President Kevin Patrick and Trustee Kumar and laid out a schedule to return a revised ordinance for a second and final reading at the next meeting.
Trustees then took up substantive edits. Trustee Kumar said the application form needs changes to emphasize applicants’ specific goals and the time commitment expected of commissioners. "I really care what they hope to accomplish," Kumar said, arguing the application should ask why an applicant wants to serve rather than focus on employment history.
Several trustees pushed back on language that would transfer appointment power from the village president to the board. Trustee Constatos cited practices in neighboring municipalities and said mayoral/presidential appointment with board consent is common: "All villages have appointments by the president and the mayor," Constatos said, calling the change a "power grab" and urging restoration of the president’s primary appointment role.
Trustee Kozar and Trustee Alfano favored a middle ground: appointments made by the president with the board’s advice and consent. Kozar said the current approach in many municipalities is deference to the president but acknowledged the board should be able to object in specific cases.
Trustees also debated rules for junior commissioners (advisory seats for youth). Several trustees supported keeping junior commissioner ages between 13 and 17; others recommended allowing two junior members on certain commissions to make participation more comfortable.
Background checks proved one of the lengthier policy disagreements. Chief Kubich told trustees that online screening can range from roughly $25 to $100 for basic checks, while fingerprinting and law‑enforcement‑style investigations are far more time‑intensive and costly. "If there's going to be junior commissioners on those commissions, then a fingerprinting and a criminal background check probably would be warranted," he said.
Several trustees warned background checks could deter volunteers and carry staff time and cost implications; others said fingerprinting is standard where youth participation is expected.
The board agreed to treat Aug. 11 as a first reading and to collect edits by email: President Patrick asked trustees to submit suggested changes to staff and the village attorney so a revised ordinance can be prepared for a second reading. No final vote was taken.
