Highland Park council unanimously amends liquor-license ban, adds strict recusal rules

The Highland Park City Council on Feb. 10, 2025 voted 7-0 to amend the city's liquor-license code, removing a longstanding prohibition on council members holding liquor licenses and embedding strict recusal protections in the city's ordinance.

Mayor Roring framed the discussion as a duty to both respect voters'will and protect good government. She reviewed the item's history, saying the issue first arose after a sitting council member was found to be in violation of state and local rules and that the change later was placed on a citizen referendum that passed on Nov. 5. "As elected officials our responsibility is to uphold laws that serve the entire community," the mayor said, urging deliberation while noting the referendum outcome.

The proposed ordinance explicitly incorporates recusal safeguards beyond the state baseline. City staff and legal counsel explained that in Highland Park a recused official must excuse themselves from the meeting room, refrain from participating in votes and deliberations on the matter, and avoid one-on-one lobbying of other council members or city staff on the recused subject. The mayor and corporation counsel said those protections are written into the ordinance on the agenda.

Council members spoke at length about process and principle. Council member Bloomberg said he opposed changing the law under "urgent circumstances" last year but would reconsider under a normal legislative process; he voted in favor after staff and legal analysis addressed his questions. Council member Stone emphasized careful deliberation and the need to protect the city from conflicts that could compromise judgment. Council member Brookman noted the strength of the referendum result and said the council was acting to carry out the community's direction.

Members of the public offered competing perspectives during the extended comment period. Jeff Hubler, who identified himself during public comment as a former council member affected by the timing of the change, said the late vote occurred "less than a week" after the April filing deadline and that the timing had effectively barred him from running; others in the audience criticized the council for delay and urged the body to move quickly to align the code with voters'instruction. The council recorded many remarks both urging swift action and criticizing prior delays.

The ordinance as approved does not remove state-level prohibitions; several council members and legal staff noted that state law continues to govern certain categories of license-holders (for example police officers remain prohibited under state law). Council discussion repeatedly returned to enforcement: council members said the strengthened recusal definition and the city's enhanced ethics processes (an ethics advisor and officer, and a formal opinion process) provide a path for oversight and for staff or residents to raise concerns if a recusal is improperly handled.

The council voted to approve Item 12 by recorded roll call. The mayor thanked speakers and closed the public-comment period before the vote. The council then moved to other business, including a vote to enter closed session on property matters.

What happens next: The ordinance takes effect according to the city's normal code-adoption timelines; staff and legal counsel will administer the new recusal process and the city's ethics advisor remains available to provide formal opinions and investigations if questions arise.