Residents across DuPage County could be asked via a referendum question to weigh in on the future of the coroner’s office.
The DuPage County Board recently had a preliminary discussion of the creation of a medical examiner position that would be the top-level post within the office, rather than the coroner.
State law requires voter approval for such a change to occur. The board is currently mulling the prospect of having a referendum question on an upcoming ballot.
Difference between a coroner and medical examiner
Within Illinois, at least one county — Cook — has a medical examiner, instead of a coroner.
“To understand, Cook County is home rule, so they can make those decisions without a referendum,” County Board Chair Deborah Conroy said. Speaking specifically to the medical examiner position, she added, “I don’t know how long it’s been that way, but I think a very long time.”
There are several key distinctions between the coroner and medical examiner positions under state law, county officials noted during their first-time discussion about the proposal at a meeting Tuesday, June 23.
For one, a medical examiner would not be an independently elected position. Instead, an appointee would be named by the board chair and confirmed by the rest of the board. The coroner, by contrast, is an independently elected position.
Qualifications between the two positions are different as well. Coroners are not required to hold medical or forensic degrees. Autopsies at times are outsourced to an independent pathologist who has the expertise to undertake the task. A medical examiner is a physician and holds medical board certifications in forensic pathology.
During the wide-ranging discussion, Conroy emphasized DuPage County’s current coroner, Judith Lukas, is qualified for the position, based on the parameters in place at the state level.
“Just to be clear … there’s nothing the current coroner, who was elected, does not have, according to statute, so there’s no issue there,” she said.
Board gives different takes on the proposal
Board member James Zay, of District 6, made the initial proposal during the “new business” portion of the board’s agenda at the recent meeting.
“This is not new talk,” Zay said. Speaking to past efforts to restructure governance, he added, “We’ve talked about eliminating, or combining, the recorder in the clerk’s office. We’ve talked about eliminating the auditor’s office.”
In bringing the proposal forward, Zay and several other board members said they are seeking additional insight from county staff, including the state’s attorney’s office, on the logistics of making such a change.
“That’s why I’m asking staff to look into it. … That’s why we need to know this information, if we can do it and if it’s worth doing it,” Zay said in speaking to his referral.
At first blush, District 1 board member Cindy Cronin Cahill said there could be benefits to having in place a medical examiner position, including a clearly outlined set of qualifications for a specialized position.
“I think that is so important to running and understanding how to run that office, just like I believe the auditor should be a CPA,” Cronin Cahill said. “I believe the credentials are important and best serves the public.”
As the review progresses, District 3 board member Lucy Chang Evans said her desire is to focus solely on the positions themselves and whether it is prudent to move forward.
“I would like to be as objective as possible and not … a personal attack on any professionals in that office,” Chang Evans said. “There are some very hardworking, very valued people in that office, so I appreciate this discussion being brought forward.”
Conroy says she has a neutral stance on proposal
Conroy said a deeper dive into the coroner or medical examiner position can take place at the board’s next meeting, scheduled for 10 a.m. Tuesday, July 14.
“I support all the information Member Zay requested, and we will have a continued conversation about it,” Conroy said.
At the recent board meeting, Conroy also indicated she is taking a neutral stance on the proposal.
“I am not taking a position on this,” she said. “This will be the will of the board. We will bring all of the information that you need, and we will get consensus, whether or not to move forward.”
A majority vote on the board would be necessary for a referendum question to appear on a future ballot.
If you have a story idea, we want to hear from you!
