A Naperville Park District policy that extended the benefit of discounts on facility and program use to all park board commissioners, past and present, has now been limited to just currently seated commissioners, based on a vote cast at a meeting on Thursday, March 13.
After a robust round of discussion, the park board in a 4-2 vote, adopted an ordinance that amended the district’s board policy on commissioner use of district facilities and programs. Commissioners Chris Jacks and John Risvold cast the dissenting votes.
What’s driving the change in benefit policy
The park district historically has made the discounts available to past commissioners on the premise feedback on the quality and efficacy of the community offerings is a valuable tool because of the insight those former members could bring in drafting current policies and procedures.
However, that desired feedback from former board members reportedly has been minimal, based on the discussion at the recent park board meeting.
“There has been interest from the public in these benefits,” Naperville Park Board President Mary Gibson said. “As park code stipulates, we’re not supposed to receive benefits for these positions.”
From her own vantage point, Gibson said she believed it would still be prudent to narrow the benefit only to current seated members. She pointed to record-setting participation and attendance at such venues as Centennial Beach and the Fort Hill Activity Center, as well as both golf courses, as the basis for the limitations on past board members.
“I don’t know if this is necessarily a problem we’re trying to solve, but if you look at the policies and the benefits to the community, I’m not sure I see the benefit to the community in this policy,” Gibson said.
A call to extend the policy to current park board commissioners
Commissioner Rich Janor attempted unsuccessfully to amend the motion and remove the discount for current board members as well.
“I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit since it was brought up at the last meeting,” Janor said. “Obviously, government efficiency and cutting spending have been hot topics. Generally, while I agree with this item, I think before we take an ax to the benefits of retired commissioners who in some cases are on a fixed income — I think we need to look at the benefits of our own seated commissioners.
Jacks took aim at the policy amendment, pointing out it was placed on the consent agenda. Board members at the recent meeting did pull it from the consent agenda so it could be deliberated separately and voted on as its own item.
“I think you would have had a lot more public comment if this would have been spelled out better on the agenda,” Jacks said.
Gibson, in response, said, “We did discuss this in the last meeting, and it’s consistent with our procedure to make policy changes on the consent agenda.”
Risvold, meanwhile, said he desired a deeper analysis of how beneficial the discount has been and wanted a more holistic look into why this benefit ever was put in place.
“There’s sort of two sides to the coin,” Risvold said. “The first side is there’s been community weaponization against current and former commissioners about their use of these specific benefits, which I think is absurd. But beyond that, I’m concerned about removing benefits from anyone without knowing they’re being used.
A case for giving current park board the benefit
Janor’s suggestion of removing the benefit for current board members was met with immediate pushback from several members of the elected body.
“I wholeheartedly disagree with that approach,” commissioner Leslie Ruffing said. “Having those benefits available to seated commissioners is so important because we are not staff, we’re not out there every single day, all day, in the community, doing the job and getting the feedback. We really need to experience it ourselves. It’s kind of a form of an audit. It’s a check.”
Commissioner Alison Thompson said the benefit for current board members is, in its own way, a form of equity and gives people from all backgrounds within the community a chance to serve on the elected body.
“I know, personally, there are some things I would have to say no to because of my financial situation, if I did not receive certain discounts or the ability to do these things,” Thompson said. “I can’t even imagine what somebody else in a different financial position than I am in would face if they came onto this board, and they were not able to fully provide the feedback that we are looking for.”
If you have a story idea, we want to hear from you!
