The Riverside Village Board, at the direction of President Gorman, proposes “that it is in the best interests of the residents and property owners at this time to dissolve the existing Parks and Recreation Board and thereby take back (emphasis added) the statutory delegation of power (emphasis again added) made to said board pursuant to Ordinance No. 425” in 1937. (Draft Ordinance 08-06-10)

President Gorman authored a memo on May 7 which references “statutory delegation to the Parks & Recreation Board of the Village Board’s/ Village Manager’s authority to administer the Dept., including personnel decisions. The Village Board currently retains authority over funding of the Dept.”

It was clear at the May 17 village board meeting that neither the president nor the village attorney had researched the law or history regarding the creation of our recreation board and/or the recreation levy. In fact, they seemed unaware that there had been a referendum that created the recreation board and that there was a mandatory levy.

There’s no mention of a “delegation” of power or authority in the 1937 ordinance. To the contrary, the ordinance states: “nothing herein contained shall be construed as any limitation on or waiver of the authority, right and power of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village at any time calling for and demanding a full and complete report of all the acts and doings of said Board, nor shall anything herein contained be construed as any limitations on the power, right and authority of the President and Board of Trustees to examine into the records and affairs of said Board whenever in the opinion of the President and Board of Trustees such examination may be necessary.”

It wasn’t until June 17 that the village attorney issued an opinion regarding law, history and President Gorman’s theory. The village attorney supported the “delegation” theory by supplanting current law for the applicable 1937 law.

Apparently, because a recreation board can now be created by delegation, it’s OK to view the referendum as a “statutory delegation.” This makes for a neat ex post facto rationale for President Gorman’s “conclusion.” The rationale for abolishing the recreation board shifted from usurpation of the village manager’s authority, to the need for village board oversight of spending (never mind that President Gorman said that the village board had that power in his May 7 memo). Oops, got the facts wrong: no problem, keep the conclusion, change the rationale. Historical facts may get in the way of revisionist theory, but not, apparently, ideology.

The 1937 referendum was binding upon the village board, not advisory. The state statute in effect at the time required the creation of a Parks and Recreation Board upon an affirmative referendum vote (as per the village attorney’s opinion). “Delegation” connotes a volitional act, as if the village board had options.

Rather, the referendum acted as a mandate upon the village board. It was a directive to create a recreation board and collect a recreation levy. The only other option available was for the village board to not follow the law. The current village board majority can employ all the pretzel logic it can muster, but the simple truth is that the recreation board was created by operation of law, not governmental largesse.

With the 1937 referendum, the residents spoke loud and clear – a direct order was issued to the village board – the option of not creating a recreational system with semi-autonomous oversight was removed.

The current village board majority would have us believe that the residents didn’t really know what they were doing way back in ’37. However, it is far more probable that they knew exactly what they were doing, and what the consequences flowing from the referendum would be (a recreation board, a recreation levy, and, above all, a “supervised recreation system”).

Which leads us to why the current referendum is so important, and why the village board’s proposed action is so egregious. While it is often difficult to divine what a particular vote means, that can’t be said of the 1937 referendum: it was an order to create, not a suggestion to delegate.

In their “we hear, but we choose not to listen” fashion, the village board majority says that it knows what is best for the “residents.” Come November we should remind them, in no uncertain terms, from whence governmental authority flows. The referendum of 2010 is different, because the referendum of 1937 was.

In the interim, the residents and “property owners” should let the village board know next Monday that not only do we not want them taking any action that diminishes our recreational system and alters our historic legacy, but that they’re playing with fire when they jeopardize a key component of maintaining our property values. Olmsted was not only sold on recreation, but recreation helps “sell” Riverside.

Kevin F. Smith
Riverside