A Lesser Board? The Reapportionment Polka Chorus

By Mick Parsons For The Prairie Advocate News

MOUNT CARROLL – “It should be black and white.” That’s Annette Rahn’s (D2) perspective on the upcoming board vote on Carroll County reapportionment. When Finance Committee Chairman Kevin Reibel (D1) cleared the slate for this month’s meeting in order to open up the discussion and give the full council a chance to voice their opinions on the subject, it was an attempt to clarify concerns and answer questions about the impact of reducing the county board from 15 members to 9. By the end of the special session, however, the lines, like in so many political decisions, were more clearly demarcated than they were erased.

The primary argument on the part of those in favor of reducing the board to 9 members rests entirely on the outcome of the Advisory Referendum on last November’s ballot. 64% of those who turned out to vote came out in favor of the reduction. That 64% is a deceptive majority, however, since only about 20% of the county’s 11,500 registered voters bothered to visit their polling places. Sharon Hook (D2) stated that the board should “listen to the voters” and go ahead with the thinning out of the board.

The other argument, expressed this time by Sharon Hook, is that it’s increasingly difficult to find people to run for county board. Hook, who says she will not be running for board again in November, feels that a smaller board will help solve this problem.

Gerald Bork (D2) expressed serious concerns about how such a reduction would impact the ability of the committees to get their work done. Bork pointed in particular to the Zoning and Community Services Committee, which he claimed did a lot in working with the CDC putting together the 2008 Carroll County Comprehensive Plan. County Board Chairman Rod Fritz (D3) said that the plan was put together by concerned citizens and that the Zoning and Community Services Committee simply checked off the progress. Fritz added “It’s amazing how politicians take credit for the things other people do.” Bork then countered that since Fritz rarely if ever attended the committee meeting, he doesn’t really know just how much input the committee had in putting the CCCP together.

“Are you saying,” Reibel asked him, “the board wouldn’t be capable of doing its job?” Bork answered that “More people mean more ideas,” pointing to the special session they were currently in as an example of why the board should be kept at 15.

As part of reapportionment, the newly elected board – whether it stays at 15 or reduces to 9 –would be able to change the structure of the standing committees, and Reibel kept the meeting from falling into too much of a verbal shooting match by keeping the discussion focused on “what a 9 member board would look like.” To accomplish this, he came prepared with several different scenarios on paper of how the various committee structures might look. Currently, four of the five standing committees – State’s Attorney and Finance, Animal Control and Highway, Sheriff and Property, and Zoning and Community Services – each have 5 members for the exception of Collective Bargaining, which only has two. If the board stays at 15 and keeps the same committee structure, nothing would change except possibly for who is on what committee.

The only real point of agreement among those present – members Dreger, Mantzke, and Picoletti were not at the special session, but Dreger did send in a statement calling for the board to remain at 15 and for the Board Chairman to be elected at large rather than by the county board – about a possible 9 member board is that the current committee structure would have to be changed in order for anything to be accomplished. Currently, the committees allow for most of the detail work to be done prior to motions being presented to the full board. This means shorter meetings most of the time, for which everyone usually seems grateful.

But with a 9 member board, that would reduce the number of board members on each committee to three; that might not necessarily be a problem, but if one person doesn’t show up, it could create problems when it comes to determining what motions to bring before the full board. Also, with a 9 member board and five standing committees, that would mean that everyone would be on nearly every committee – creating more work, and not really saving the taxpayers any money since board members get $50 for attending each meeting of a committee to which they are assigned.

Another option presented by Reibel was the creation of a Committee of the Whole (COTW). This would eliminate most or all of the current standing committees. A Committee of the Whole would mean that, ideally, all board members would be informed of everything, and no board member would be left out. And since some board members – Shawn Picoletti for one – have voiced concerns in the past that the Finance Committee is too powerful and too many decisions are filtered through it without giving the other 10 members of the board all the same information, this might be a viable solution. The COTW meetings would function more or less the way committee meetings function now, and no motions would be made until the actual County Board meeting.

There are some issues with the Committee of the Whole, however. One is that if the board remains at 15, eight members would need to be present for there to be a quorum. For a 9 member board, five board members would need to be present. In either case, even though it’s important now for all members to show up to all the meetings they’re supposed to go to, it would be even more important with a COTW committee structure. This also means that everything would go through all the members of the board – from Finance to Animal Control and Zoning.

And, the Committee of the Whole has not been without issues in the region. The Morrison City Council has had seemingly perpetual problems with the council’s “workshop sessions” because while no motions are made, the perception of some people who live in Morrison is that the Committee of the Whole is something city government uses to avoid having to hear public opinion.

At the county level, all committee meetings are open to the public, as they, like all municipal, county, and state meetings, are subject to the Open Meetings Act. A Committee of the Whole would meet, most likely, in Carroll County Courthouse, which would definitely centralize the meetings and offer an air of openness that isn’t currently present; for example, the Animal Control and Highway Committee meets in a back room at the Highway Department Building on IL-64; and when there’s any more than the committee, the press, Chairman Fritz, and County Administrator Mike Doty present, there’s not a lot of chairs to go around. The same is true for the Finance Committee, which meets in the first floor conference room at the Courthouse. A COTW would probably have to meet in the small courtroom where the council currently meets; and this would, while making it all seem more formal than a committee meeting actually is, would at least give more people an opportunity to see their county government at work – if they so choose.

Darryl Stitzel (D3) suggested that under a 9 member board, eliminating the current standing committees and creating a Committee of the Whole could streamline the process. The committee could meet once a month to discuss issues and to hear departmental reports, and then meet again as the full board to vote on the issues discussed. This suggestion was received favorably, as was his assertion that it’s better to keep the election of the County Board Chairman in house.

The issue of whether to continue electing the Board Chairman from among the county board or to make it an At-Large position was discussed at some length. In a written statement emailed to Kevin Reibel that was read at the beginning of the reapportionment discussion, Kurt Dreger (D1) pointed to his and Gerald Bork’s committee reassignments – which took both of them off the Animal Control and Highway Committee prior to the board’s revision of the Spring Postings Ordinance, an issue that put them at odds with both Annette Rahn and Chairman Fritz – as the reason for wanting the chairman to be elected by the citizens of Carroll County. It should also be noted that of the five Democratic members of the county board, only one is a committee chairman – Shawn Picolotti – and none are on the Finance Committee.

The common concern among the board, however, was that electing the Chairman At-Large might put someone in that position who has little or no experience or knowledge of county government. Stitzel, in defending his position that the Chairman be elected by the board and not by the people of Carroll County, mentioned the “learning curve of a new board member.” His statement was generally well received, although apparently none of them thought that the same concern applied to each of them once upon a time. Also, an At-Large elected Chairman would not actually be a member of the board and would only vote in the case of a tie – which might give this single person more power than anyone on the board was comfortable with. Cheryl Cole, who recently won her first election to county board after being appointed by Chairman Fritz, said that electing the Board Chairman At-Large might lead to a philosophical shift. “What if we end up with someone who isn’t conservative?” she asked.

Mr. Bork, who has maintained that the voters were unclear as to what they were voting for when the Advisory Referendum was on the ballot, said the board was being hypocritical. “You’re saying to trust the voters,” he said, talking about the statements by board members like Rahn and Hook, “and then you’re saying the voters aren’t qualified to elect the chairman.”

In the case of a Board Chairman elected directly by the constituents, an administrative committee could be put together to perform some of the duties now given to the board chairman, and in municipalities with an elected Chairman, this is sometimes done. On the other hand, there is a County Administrator who already covers most of those tasks – which would allow for some consistency over time.

The formation of an Executive Committee was also discussed. In this model, most of what is done in committee would be brought before a 5 member Executive Committee for discussion prior to being brought before the full board for a vote. However, in a 9 member board, this could localize power in a single committee that would also happen to be the majority of the board. This was discussed, but not at great length, and there was no real consensus among those present as to whether this was an idea worth considering when the time comes to decide the county’s committee structure.

Redistricting was also covered, with color maps from Jeremy Hughes of the Carroll County GIS Department. With the new census numbers being taken into consideration, along with making sure that the districts remain as equal as possible and still be contiguous, the proposed redistricting would mean that Freedom Township would be in District 1 instead of District 3.

After what was ultimately an idyllic discussion of how the county board will look after the November election, Reibel expressed his intent to take the motion off the table during the next full board meeting and bring it to a vote.

“I’m comfortable with going with those who did vote,” said Joe Payette. The level of concern about the lack of true majority or the general apathy among Carroll County voters did seem to diminish over the course of the special session – which might make for a more streamlined discussion this week when the full board meets on Thursday March 17th, and maybe vote on whether to cut the board down to 9.

“The ones who voted are the ones who cared,” said Rahn.

Loading