Appointment of full‑time deputy clerk sparks hours‑long, sometimes heated debate in University Park

The Village of University Park’s board spent more than an hour debating a proposed change to the ordinance that governs appointment of the municipal deputy clerk, with trustees, the village manager and the elected clerk sharply divided over who should control the hiring and whether a deputy should be a nonunion, full‑time position.

The item on the agenda would amend the village code to make the deputy clerk a full‑time position hired through the village’s human‑resources process and, for some proposals discussed, subject to the village manager’s appointment authority. Supporters said the clerk’s office is overwhelmed—FOIAs and licensing often queue for weeks—and a full‑time, nonunion deputy clerk would provide essential, consistent capacity.

“We need a deputy clerk that is full time that can do the job,” Trustee Jenkins (speaker 5) said, arguing the village had grown and clerical support alone would not be sufficient. Manager Scott (speaker 13) told trustees management had repeatedly raised the need to get documents and FOIA responses completed on schedule.

The elected village clerk (speaker 7), who identified herself in the meeting as the municipal clerk, strongly opposed any change that would remove or reassign her statutory appointment power. “Restore my rights as a clerk,” she said at one point, urging the board to reject a motion that would place deputy‑clerk appointment authority outside the clerk’s office. She repeatedly cited the statutory role of the elected municipal clerk and warned that altering appointment authority would set a precedent the village should not take lightly.

The village attorney (speaker 9) and several trustees read sections of the Illinois Municipal Code aloud to the board during the exchange. One attorney recited the statute that, in municipalities with fewer than 500,000 residents, permits the municipal clerk—"when authorized by the corporate authority"—to appoint deputy clerks while allowing the corporate authorities to limit the number of deputy clerks. Other trustees countered that the board has options to create a nonunion, full‑time deputy who would be hired through standard HR channels and that the clerk’s involvement in selection could be preserved as part of the hiring process.

Trustee Brooks (speaker 2) said she found the agenda item embarrassing because it appeared to strip power from an elected official and warned against altering statutory duties without careful legal review. “If you don’t like Clerk Jones, in 16 months there is another election,” Brooks said, urging respect for the clerk’s elected authority. Several other trustees emphasized the need to get the village’s essential paperwork processed promptly—FOIAs answered, contracts signed and licenses issued—without framing the proposal as personal.

The board ultimately voted to table the ordinance‑amendment item and to convene a workshop to draft a compromise that would address the clerk’s need for reliable deputy support while respecting statutory limits. The mayor asked staff to prepare a clear job description and draft hiring procedure options that would be reviewed with legal counsel and the clerk before placing any amended ordinance back on the agenda.

What happens next: The board directed staff to return with a proposed job description, funding and a hiring process for a full‑time deputy clerk (or alternative support structures) and scheduled a workshop so trustees, the clerk and manager can refine a solution that addresses both the operational backlog and legal constraints.

Sources and provenance: discussion appears in the transcript beginning at Item 5.1b (topic intro SEG 2102) and continues through the board decision to table the item and set a workshop (topic finish SEG 3920).