Civic engagement: A good idea and even better practice

Whether she meant to or not, Village Board President Beverly Sussman tossed a subtle barb to many of the nine candidates running for the three trustee spots in the April election.

Sussman, who routinely follows her script for running a meeting, broke the mold at the Jan. 7  Committee of Whole (COW) meeting when she welcomed people who were at the meeting “for the first time” and offered them an explanation as to how a COW meeting works.

Interesting timing.

Interesting because in attendance at the meeting were candidates Adam Moodhe, Carolyn Pinta, Gregory Pike Jr. and Soojae Lee. And while none voiced a comment about items on the agenda, let alone take notes, their presence marked, one would think, an interest in what the Village Board is doing.

Which begs a question – what took them so long?

Outside of Moodhe, who has attended Village Board meetings with some degree of regularity for the past decade, few of the trustee candidates have. Even Village President candidate Mike Terson has not had a strong presence since leaving the board in 2015.

It is a bit ironic that village staff wants to hire a community engagement manager when many of the people running for the Board are not actively engaged in the village. Outside of the incumbents, Eric Smith and Dave Weidenfeld, only trustee candidates, Larry Steingold and Adam Moodhe have held village posts. Steingold served on the Zoning Board of Appeals, while Moodhe has been active in the community in a variety of ways including serving on the 15 years on Buffalo Grove days, 13 years on emergency management agency and four years on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

To be fair, this doesn’t mean that Moodhe or Steingold are preferred candidates, nor does it mean candidates who have attended meetings will be effective trustees. It does, however, show an interest in being engaged in the village in some way.

Candidates running for a village post are hopefully running because they have a genuine interest in the village and not because they’re upset with a previous Board decision. Hopefully, candidates are not running for the Board because of a special interest or personal notoriety.

While serving their interest is admirable, the reality is the village is not a student council. The village is a business with an $78 million budget. Popularity may get some folks elected, but it doesn’t mean they are well versed in Village operations.

Some folks may say that you don’t need to attend Village Board meetings to know what’s going on as you can always watch them on the community access channel. However, the Committee of the Whole meetings are not broadcast, which means discussions and presentations by staff, consultants and vendors cannot be viewed from the comfort of home.

Cynics, some of whom may say the village spends too much frivolous money may want COW meetings broadcast. That would be one solution. However, if someone is content to just watch Village Board meetings on TV, they’re missing an opportunity to interact with residents who may attend meetings to air a grievance about an issue in the village.

Meeting and talking with constituents are paramount to being an effective public servant. If interactions limited to a single neighborhood, supporters of an event, a candidate falls short when it comes to being open minded and representing the entire community.

If a resident is interested in being appointed to a village commission or running for an elected post, it seems as though the best thing to do is witness village operations first hand and get involved.

Civic engagement is a good idea -- it’s an even better practice.