Adding two more seats to the Highland Town Council could bring new perspectives — including representation by women — but it received a lukewarm response Jan. 17 by the current council.
Adding two more elected members, along with eliminating ward representation, would “kill two birds with one stone,” Councilman Mark Schocke, R-3r, said at the study session. The town would first get rid of the tricky redistricting it’ll endure this year, he said, plus it would bring fresh viewpoints to the council.
If the council members are really doing their jobs, after all, wards don’t necessarily matter, he said.
“I don’t see (equal representation) as being an issue,” Schocke said to Councilman Mark Herak, D-2nd, who asked. “Just because we don’t live in a certain subdivision doesn’t mean we don’t care. Just because I live on the south side of town, I don’t ignore people who live around Johnson School.
“Plus, it would be fun to have more people — new thoughts, new ideas. “
Councilman Roger Sheeman, R-5th, asked if having more council people would truly make the council more efficient.
“Probably not,” he said. “We already have two comment sections for people to express concerns, and we’re the only ones who do. And if five councilmen can’t reach an agreement, will seven agree?”
The town of Griffith also has two resident comment periods.
Sheeman also pointed out that for the salary of two council people, the town could hire a town manager and not have to worry about some of the things they do, and the town already votes for them at-large.
For the town to increase its number, it would have to stagger elections, Clerk-Treasurer Michael Griffin said, which he feels produces “odd dynamics,” and it would have to pose a public question to residents by ballot in November.
Herak and Sheeman weren’t interested in pursuing either choice; Zemen said he would be open to discussing adding two at-large council seats but keeping the wards.
Michelle L. Quinn is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.
