Are multiple-office seekers really looking for power? DH policy ignores pros of dual office
It has long been Daily Herald policy to never endorse a candidate who would hold more than one public office if elected.
Recently, after printing an article reporting on candidates who are seeking more than one office in the coming election, the Herald reaffirmed its editorial position against dual office holders. I agree with the Herald's concern in regard to the possibility that some candidates may not have the energy and commitment to serve more than one unit of government simultaneously.
However, I fail to recognize any merit in its concern that officials who serve in dual public offices are seeking power, are self-serving or may make poor decisions due to a conflict of interest. Those are concerns that could be used while examining every candidate for public office, not just those who would serve in more than one capacity. I do not believe the Herald serves its readers well when it uses dual candidacy as a litmus test for rejecting candidates in its endorsement process.
Of greater concern to me is that this Daily Herald policy is arrived at by considering the supposed negatives of dual office holders without consideration of the positives. An obvious benefit of dual offices would be enhanced communication between units of local government, especially schools boards.
Just as policy decisions at schools might be aided by dual board membership so too would it be effective to have a minority number of the Village Board and Park Board serve on both boards simultaneously. Additionally, I see significant benefits to the public from a member of the library board who would also serve on the high school board.
Because the units of government in most towns articulate their functions significantly and to achieve cost savings, perhaps we could dream of one unit of government, with a streamlined administration, to govern everything in town. But then what would the Daily Herald say about the energy and commitment required as well as the opportunity for power seeking and conflict of interest in regard to candidates for this mother of all boards?
The benefits of dual office holders at the local level also extend to county and state levels of government. The framers of the Illinois Constitution provided for a General Assembly of citizen legislators. Citizens from every walk of life were meant to serve part time to create the laws and regulations of the State. According to Herald policy, it is OK for lawyers, farmers, trade persons and other members of the business community to serve in the legislature while continuing to make a living privately. But, even though knowing the needs of local government plays a significant role in decision making at the State level, the Daily Herald rejects local office holders who would serve in the Illinois General Assembly.
Unfortunately, Daily Herald policy seems to be formed in fear of the few office holders who might embarrass themselves and their communities through malfeasance in office. I believe it would be better to rise above those fears and recognize the benefits to the public of dual office holders. It is important to focus the endorsement process on the performance and qualifications of candidates for office.
If the Herald wishes to view a dual office as a negative when considering endorsement recommendations, it should be as a tie breaker and not a litmus test for the ballot.
In the end it all comes down to the point made by Michael Rocho, the candidate who is running for three offices in Vernon Hills. Rocho, as he was interviewed by a Daily Herald reporter, noted "voters can choose who they think is best".
I hope that point is one we may all agree upon.
• Ed Sullivan Sr. is in his 10th year serving on the Mundelein village board. He is father of State Rep. Ed Sullivan who is also the incumbent Fremont Township Assessor, running unopposed in the April election.