McHenry County Board member Ersel Schuster submitted the following comments about the change in County Board Rules to the Northwest Herald. It is reprinted at her permission.

Ersel Schuster

In a recent “Northwest Herald Editorial Board” article on the upcoming changes proposed for the McHenry County Board Rules, several points should be expanded upon.

Keep in mind that within each of the responses below, the McHenry County Board Rules are just that, OUR rules.

These rules are intended to guide the County Board through the maze of work to be done on behalf of the electors.

They are also intended to set expectations and requirements for ethical actions openness and transparency in our proceedings.

First, the Northwest Herald states that the update to the board rules is “aimed at curtailing the board chairman’s powers.”

That is a fair statement.

However, it is not that simple.

Of growing concern by the public is the abuse and/or appearance of abuse of those powers granted the chairman by the County Board Rules.

For decades, the rules as written have defined a chairmanship providing a “first among equals” role, this has eroded to a chairman role consolidating power in to what some describe as a “strong man role” at the expense of individual board members, thus undermining both the spirit and the practice of the democratic process.

In fact, the current system enables each candidate for the chairmanship position to systematically promise committee appointments, committee chairmanships and special favors to secure allegiance/votes for a chairman’s eventual election.

This allegiance to the chairman may also assist in garnering board support for special appointments and contracts to fulfill special interests who curry favors and contracts for their benefit.

Over the years, examples abound.

This change is aimed at curtailing what is a Springfield / Chicago style governance.

These changes require greater responsibility of all board members as it breaks up a follow-the-leader voting pattern we often see.

They also have a limiting effect on the potential for unilateral decision making and align more closely to each of the 24 members representing the county as a whole.

Second, the Northwest Herald addressed the issue of term limits for our County Board chairman.

State Statute says that the County Board will… “…choose one of its members as chairman for a term of 2 years…” (55 ILCS 5/2-1003).

Although the State Constitution does not allow for term limits, County Board Rules provide the mechanism to allow board members to set expectations regarding the internal chairman selection process.

Thus, the recommended change to the Board Rules to allow a chairman to hold three (3) 2 year terms is reasonable without impacting individual County Board member elections by his/her constituents.

As many in the community frequently remind us, term limits in Illinois are long overdue, and is thought of as being an effective means to curtailing the corruption that may accompany the administrations of long serving public officials.

Supporters of the current rules, including the States Attorney’s Office (SAO), threaten that “we may” be looking at a lawsuit should someone challenge these proposed rules change.

However, we know that laws are challenged all the time.

In addition, the likelihood that persons seeking elected office are far less likely to challenge a term limit rule when such a challenge might well give the appearance of being self-serving and power-hungry by challenging the term-limits provisions.

The County Board chairmanship is not intended to be a fiefdom.

Overall, board members wanting to give a chairman more “power,” inadvertently abdicate their responsibilities to their constituent’s.

Third is the concept of limiting the chairman’s appointment power over various boards and commissions.

Many places in the Statutes state that… “the chairman appoints with the approval of the county board.”

However, in nearly all cases, the McHenry County Board’s practice has been

1. to notice the public of open positions;
2. a designated county board committee interviews the candidates;
3. the committee recommends the best candidate to the chairman;
4. the chairman then moves that nominee to the full board for final approval.

The proposed rules changes provide a transparent and open appointment process for the community.

It establishes a method of making appointments and formalizes this in the board’s rules.

The reason it is important to preserve an open, transparent appointment process for these agencies/boards is that they have the authority to make decisions impacting the management and allocation of huge sums of tax dollars.

When one person, i.e. the chairman, is allowed unilaterally to make these appointment recommendations,

• family,
• friends and
• cronies

are far more likely to be recommended.

It also puts the 23 other members in an uncomfortable position to approve appointments without benefit of public notice and/or the likely opportunity to participate in an open interview process.

Current examples where questions, concerns and frustration from the public have occurred are with

• the McHenry County 708 Mental Health Board and
• the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)

appointments.

Point number four: Election of the county board chairman at large.

Up front, no one is suggesting the public not be able to weigh in with a referenda vote on whether or not to elect the chairman at large.

However, keep in mind, the issue has already been floated under the question of an “executive” form of county government.

Distinctions between the Executive form of government and electing the chairman elected at large are relatively minor.

Each scenario creates another level of government and adds to conflict and costs, all the more reason to make a sincere effort at developing Board Rules that speak to public concerns.

In the last referenda question on the topic, voters were very clear in their choice.

They said, keep what we have.

The public was wise enough to know that another layer of government is not the answer to what they see as untouchable, run-away-big-brother government.

They fully understand that the issue of consolidated power, in the hands of a few, is at the root of public distrust.

Take a look at the State of IL under, under Speaker Madigan’s, “one man rule.” Springfield is the poster
child for proving what damage “one” person, with the willing support of those aligned with him, can inflict on a state.

Do we really want McHenry County to continue to replicate IL state government?

At a time when the public is withdrawing from the electoral process out of sheer disillusionment and distrust in their representatives… these rules changes fit the times and are a huge step in bringing county government back to its citizens.