I thought it might be useful to recount my experience of going through the Riverside Community Caucus nominating process. Excuse the length, but maybe this will clear up some misunderstandings about how the Caucus process works.
A little over two years ago, I was approached by Jenny White of the Caucus and asked if I would be interested in running for Village Trustee. I was honored by the request and readily accepted.
The first step was to meet with the Caucus Nominating Committee. The questions focused on my qualifications, past service to the Village and, on whether I had the time required to serve. I was asked some general questions about my vision for the Village, and was glad to lay out my view that what makes Riverside special is that it is a community founded on principals of beauty. To have a chance to craft public policy on the basis of aesthetics was, and is, for me an exciting opportunity. From then till now, this has been the guiding idea in my service as Trustee – to leave Riverside a more beautiful place for our passing.
At the time I interviewed with the Caucus, the TIF discussion was in full swing. Very early on, I had publicly stated my opposition to the TIF and had been quite vocal about it. Going into my interview with the Nominating Committee, I was curious to see how my public opposition would play given that a majority of the then-sitting Board appeared to be in favor of proceeding with exploring the TIF. Because this was my first encounter with the Caucus, I wondered if there would be any pressure on me to modify my position.
The question did not even come up. More than that, not once during the election did anyone from the Caucus try to influence my opinions on the TIF or any other issue. The Nominating Committee was completely neutral and indeed went out of its way to make clear that they had no expectations about my views on any particular topic.
Once the Nominating Committee made its recommendations, the potential candidates gave formal presentations to the Caucus as a whole. If I remember correctly, at the start there was one more potential candidate than there were open seats, but then at the last minute one potential candidate dropped out, leaving an even number of candidates and open seats. Even then, however, it was up to the Caucus to decide how many candidates, if any, it would recommend. Again, during the question and answer period following my presentation, I was never asked about specific issues or positions.
In the end the Caucus nominated John Scully, Jean Sussman, and me. It was then up to the three of us to decide whether we wanted to run as independents or as a slate – the Caucus gave no opinion one way or the other. We decided to run as a slate, although it was clear that on this or that particular issue the three of us could have differing opinions. To my mind, this range of opinions and perspectives was a great strength and desirable for a deliberative body like the Village Board.
Fast forward two years. This time around, I volunteered to serve as the Trustee Liaison for the Caucus nominating process. My job was to advise potential candidates on the time required to serve and to answer any questions they might have about the nuts and bolts of being a Trustee. I was also asked to be alert for potential conflicts of interest that might arise given someone’s job or what not. I had no vote and I did not take any part in the Caucus deliberations over which candidates to nominate.
Names of potential candidates were gathered from all over the Village, from Caucus members and non-members alike. Just as in the year I was asked to interview, ads were placed in the newspapers seeking potential candidates. Everyone who was suggested was contacted and asked if they would be interested in running for the Board.
Those who expressed an interest in running were then invited to interview with the Nominating Committee. After numerous meetings, the Nominating Committee then suggested names to the general membership for consideration.
To be clear about one thing, I was present at the Caucus meeting where the Nominating Committee was selected. Mr. Shevitz affirmatively asked to join the Caucus and then affirmatively volunteered to be on the Nominating Committee – he was not asked to serve as has been suggested by Mr. Tomacek. In fact I remember Mr. Shevitz being quite persistent in wanting both to join the Caucus and to be on the Nominating Committee. Never did he inform the Caucus that he had at that time already filed papers forming the RCA to oppose the Caucus nominated candidates. It was only after being told that members of the Nominating Committee could not themselves run for office that Mr. Shevitz said he was too busy with work to serve.
Mr. Tomacek has also suggested that the Nominating Committee resorted to political considerations in deciding which candidates to recommend for this year’s election. According to Mr. Tomacek, the Nominating Committee somehow thought that not recommending Mr. Gallegos would hurt the RCA and bolster the chances of the Caucus recommended candidates.
This is total fiction. To begin with, at the time of the Nominating Committee interviews nobody (except Mr. Shevitz) even knew that there was an RCA. Secondly, I was present at the deliberations about which candidates to recommend and never once were political considerations taken into account with regard to any of them. And of course the Nominating Committee had no way of knowing whether any of the potential candidates they chose not to recommend would choose to run as independents. What I do know is that every potential candidate was treated seriously and with utmost respect and that nobody was subjected to gamesmanship in the nominating process.
Never during this year’s nominating process was there the slightest hint of some kind of litmus test for being selected as a potential candidate. As is evident by the range of opinions held by the candidates running, the Caucus maintained the same neutrality this time around as it did when I interviewed. As one who went through the process and then later helped with the process, I can say unequivocally that the process was open, fair, and honest. In my experience with the Caucus, nobody has had an ax to grind or a grudge to nurse – they are decent people who are only interested in finding good candidates to help lead our Village.
There is confusion as to why the Caucus does not simply slate candidates as a party instead of leaving that decision up to the candidates. The reason is that if the Caucus were to become a party it would have to meet all of the ongoing requirements for a party, including holding primaries and the like. But because the function of the Caucus is not ideological, and because it is not issue oriented, it makes no sense for the Caucus to be a party. Rather, the Caucus is a community-based process for vetting potential candidates in a manner that explicitly tries to avoid the pitfalls of partisanship. It is then up to the candidates to decide whether to form a slate and propose a platform. That is why a Riverside Party brochure, for example, will say it is paid for by the Caucus. This “two-tier” situation is simply an unfortunate aspect of the legal restrictions defining and governing political parties.
One need only watch one Board meeting and listen to the often spirited debate that takes place there to realize that claims of the Caucus being a “one rule party” are nonsense. I can personally attest that the President and Trustees with whom I have served – Jack Wiaduck, Tom Shields, Candi Grace, Kevin Smith, Jean Sussman, and John Scully -- are all independent minded, impeccably honest, and deeply dedicated people who reach their own decisions based solely on what they believe is best for our Village. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t, but nobody is taking marching orders from anyone and there is absolutely no pressure to vote as a bloc or reach a false consensus. I certainly hope and feel that my own record demonstrates an independent evaluation of the issues that face us. I have made mistakes, of course, and, being human, likely will again, but never have I been motivated by anything other than trying to protect and preserve the legacy and traditions that make Riverside a wonderful place to call home.
Similarly, the notion that any of us is acting under the sway of the Village Manager or any other staff person is just plain silly. The "organizational chart" is very clear – the Village Board works for the residents. My obligation as Trustee is to serve your interests. The Board sets policy and the staff is charged with carrying out that policy. Anybody who knows the current President and Village Trustees knows they are all strong willed people who are not going to hand over their elected responsibilities to anybody.
I hope this little history helps, and that it encourages more of our residents to take part in the Riverside Community Caucus and in civic affairs generally. It is a great honor and responsibility to serve on behalf of my neighbors as Trustee and to do what I can to make our Village a better place. The more people who are involved in helping to find solutions to the challenges we face the better. If anyone is interested in learning more about the Caucus, you can read more at www.riversidecaucus.org.