Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Villa Park trustees debate overhaul of commission appointment rules and background checks
Summary
At a first reading of an ordinance to rewrite commission selection rules, trustees split over whether the village president or the board should hold appointment power, how junior commissioners should be handled and whether background checks should be required. Chiefs and staff warned fingerprint checks could be costly and time‑intensive; trustees要求
Village of Villa Park trustees opened a first reading Aug. 11 of an ordinance to amend Article 14 of Chapter 2 of the municipal code that would change how advisory commissioners are selected and governed. Manager Reavis said the draft combines proposals from President Kevin Patrick and Trustee Kumar and is intended to standardize applications, terms and officer selection.
Trustee Kumar urged clearer application requirements and a focus on applicants’ goals rather than employment history, proposing an expected time‑commitment field and allowing commissions to select their own chairs on two‑year terms. “I really care what they hope to accomplish,” Kumar said, urging that applications ask applicants what they want to do on a commission rather than request full work histories.
Other trustees pushed back on proposals that would shift appointment power. Trustee Constados said several comparable suburbs appoint commissioners through their mayors or village presidents and called changes that move selection to the board “a power grab.” She asked that presidential appointment with board consent be preserved in the ordinance. Trustee Alfano and Trustee Kozar also said they prefer the president’s appointment with the board’s advice and consent.
The board spent substantial time debating whether volunteers—especially junior commissioners—should be subject to criminal or fingerprint background checks. Chief Kubich described typical vendor levels of online checks priced roughly $25–$100 and said fingerprint and full criminal checks used for employees and youth‑facing roles are more involved and could take significant police overtime or hiring. “If you’re going to do a fingerprint and criminal background check for youth involvement, that probably would be warranted,” Chief Kubich said, while warning it would be time‑intensive for staff.
Trustees expressed concerns about cost and deterrence. Trustee Constados said she would not support a policy that requires annual checks on all volunteers because of cost and the burden on the police department; Trustee Kumar said she is mainly concerned about junior commissioners and would support fingerprinting for roles that involve unsupervised youth contact.
Attorney Morton and Manager Reavis asked trustees to submit written edits so staff and counsel can compile a revised draft before the second reading. The board left the item open for a second and final reading at the next meeting and asked staff to return estimated per‑applicant costs and a recommended background‑check policy.
The ordinance discussion also included smaller edits on membership, nonresident participation, subcommittee rules and whether commissioners should submit curricula vitae. No vote was taken; trustees were asked to email proposed language to the manager for consolidation ahead of the next meeting.
