Editorial: Elk Grove's cynical attempt to prevent term limits

When news broke of a petition drive in Elk Grove Village aimed at putting the question of term limits on the March 2020 primary election ballot, we reiterated our opposition to limiting the service of local leaders.

Term limits for local officials can upset continuity and undermine stability, we pointed out. Plus, the current election system in Elk Grove Village already allows voters to limit terms - by voting out leaders they believe have overstayed their welcome. At the same time, it also allows voters to keep popular, experienced elected officials in place.

Taking that power away, we argued, would disenfranchise voters.

All that said, last week, Elk Grove Village officials opposed to term limits made a move that also has the power to disenfranchise.

Trustees approved putting three advisory referendums on the 2020 ballot. That, in effect, could wind up pushing the term-limit question off the ballot under certain conditions.

That's because state law allows a maximum of three referendums from a unit of government on the same ballot. If the term-limit referendum is successfully challenged and removed from the March 17 ballot, all three questions approved last week by the village board would get on - essentially blocking another term-limits referendum before the deadline.

How likely is that? It's too early to tell, but officials are already raising questions about the petitions.

And the three advisory questions they've approved are hardly pressing, making the maneuver all the more disturbingly transparent.

The questions would ask voters if the village should expand its popular Mid-Summer Classics Concert Series, whether the village should have local neighborhood community events, and if officials should expand coordination of charitable functions funding a college scholarship program.

All questions, we might add, that could be posed via a village survey.

"It's a good way to get feedback from the community," Mayor Craig Johnson said after the Tuesday board meeting. "Let's see what the folks think."

Apparently, he doesn't feel the same way about term limits. If the term-limit measure is approved, after all, it would take effect the following year and limit village leaders to no more than two consecutive 4-year terms. That would bar Johnson and three other longtime board members from seeking re-election, ending one of the longest streaks of village board continuity in the suburbs.

Johnson and other officials have better and fairer options for defeating term limits. A vigorous education campaign, for example, could clearly spell out the benefits of the current system.

That's how you trust and empower voters. And that's how you show you have their best interests at heart.