Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Forest trustees split on codifying April referendum; board votes to place binding question on Nov. 3, 2026 ballot
Summary
Trustees declined to immediately codify the April 1 term-limits referendum as binding, but after debate directed staff to prepare a resolution to place a clearly worded binding referendum on the Nov. 3, 2026 general-election ballot.
Trustee debate over the April 1 term-limits referendum dominated the River Forest Village Board's Oct. 13 meeting. After a legal briefing from the village attorney, trustees split on whether to treat the April referendum as already binding and codify it now or to place a new, clearly worded binding referendum on a future ballot.
Village Attorney Molina told trustees the question raises substantial legal uncertainty about whether the original petition and certification created a binding, self-executing measure or an advisory question because of mixed language on petition materials and county certification forms. He warned the board that an immediate ordinance based on an advisory petition could be vulnerable to future legal challenge and may not be ripe for adjudication until a candidate is affected.
Trustees voted on a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance treating the April 1, 2025 referendum as binding. The roll call failed: Trustees Bachner, Brennan and Kescatello voted yes; Trustees Vasquez, Gillis, Okonnell and President Adusi voted no. After additional debate, the board considered scheduling a new binding referendum. A motion to prepare a binding-question resolution for the March 17, 2026 primary failed; a subsequent motion to prepare a resolution placing a binding referendum on the Nov. 3, 2026 general-election ballot passed with the board directing staff to return with draft language for final action at the Oct. 27 meeting.
Several residents who spoke during public comment told trustees they viewed the April 1 question as binding and urged immediate codification rather than another ballot question. Trustees who opposed immediate codification cited the legal uncertainty and the village's fiduciary duty to avoid a 'time bomb' that could trigger expensive litigation. Trustees directed staff to draft the resolution and return to the board with language and a proposed schedule for final consideration.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
