Bensenville officials are considering an ordinance that would amend the village`s municipal code, to eliminate several standing committees as well as a rule that ”in theory” kept officials from introducing and adopting ordinances in the same meeting.
Village Manager Mike Allison said the ordinance was proposed to ”clean up” some of the clutter in the code left over from previous administrators.
Ordinance No. 91, as it is called, would repeal Rules No. 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the village`s municipal code.
Although the board discussed the proposal Tuesday night, it deferred action until July 16.
If adopted, which Allison said is likely, the ordinance would do away with the Finance, Sewer and Water, Streets, Planning, Development, Building and Zoning, Transportation, Police and Fire Protection Committees.
Allison said those standing committees are obsolete because the Village Board has met as a committee of the whole for the past few years and rarely has broken down to smaller, more specific committees.
It also would do away with Rule No. 4, dealing with how new committees would be created, and Rule No. 5, requiring special committees to issue their reports in writing.
”If it is something of some complexity, we write a memo,” Allison said. ”And, of course, there would be the minutes, which are open to the public.”
Possibly the most controversial part of the proposed ordinance has to do with repealing Rule No. 9, which says that ”all ordinances, except emergency measures, shall be, by the president or by the chairman presiding at the meeting, referred to the proper committee, and shall not be acted upon by the president and Board of Trustees before the next regular meeting. . . .”
Concerns have been raised about whether repealing the rule might allow the board greater opportunities to avoid dealing with the public when issues arise.
”I would be concerned about (getting rid of it) because often things will come up the day of the meeting,” said Kurt Eilrich, who served on the board from 1983 to 1987 and is locked in a court battle with the village over paving a parking lot around his Irving Park Road business.
”If they get rid of it, I think that`s wrong,” he said.
While he was on the board, Eilrich said the board voted to waive Rule No. 9 perhaps three to six times.
”But it was always on things we had to get through and nothing controversial,” he said.
Allison said such concerns are understandable. But village officials have always been open to the concerns of residents, especially when a policy affects them adversely.
Although he said that ”in theory” repealing the rule might create a situation in the future in which the board would be able introduce a measure and vote on it the same night without seeking the public`s comment, Allison said that is not the intention of the measure.
”There are even more potential cases where someone wants some action quickly rather than going through a long laborious process,” Allison said.
”That is much more likely than the flip side. Most of the things that are controversial, we spend a lot of time on them.
”I understand the concern, but if someone really wanted to sneak something through, that person could simply waive the rule.”
