Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate removing residency requirement from police pension‑board ordinance; no final vote recorded
Summary
Trustees discussed an ordinance amendment to Article 3, Chapter 78 of the municipal code to remove a residency requirement for some police pension‑board seats. Legal counsel said the change reflects current practice and state statute for municipalities under 500,000 population; trustees asked for clearer language and signaled a desire to revisit or amend the proposal before final action.
Hanover Park, Ill. — Trustees on Dec. 18 held extended discussion over a proposed amendment to the village code affecting the police pension board, focusing on a provision that would eliminate a residency requirement for some seats on the five‑member board.
The ordinance language under consideration would amend Article 3 of Chapter 78 (police pension fund). Corporate counsel explained that, under the applicable statute for municipalities under 500,000 population, the pension‑board composition typically includes two members elected by active police, two appointed by the mayor and one elected by retired officers. Counsel said some current board members are not residents and that the proposed amendment would reflect that reality.
Trustees raised several concerns: whether removing the residency requirement would reduce local representation, whether it would hinder “hometown appointments,” and whether the ordinance could be amended to preserve a preferred practice (such as a finance director or other resident appointee) while complying with state law. One trustee asked whether the change would leave most positions vacant if residency were enforced; staff and counsel said that, in practice, several positions would be hard to fill with residents and the change would better reflect how the board currently operates.
Trustees asked for additional clarifying language and indicated they preferred to examine specific amendments before taking a final vote. Corporate counsel cited historical context and statutory changes that shaped current pension‑board requirements. No final vote on the ordinance was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; trustees signaled a desire to return to the item with clarified language that preserves local oversight while aligning the code with statutory realities.
Next steps: staff and counsel will return with clarified ordinance language and potential amendments that could address trustees’ concerns about maintaining local representation on the pension board.
