Forest Park’s village government was slow to embrace the power of citizen commissions. It long has had the most elemental advisory bodies, including planning and zoning, fire and police. But it was only in the latter years of the Calderone administration when the mayor reluctantly and sometimes clunkily – remember the saggy pants commission? – began to build out a citizen commission structure.
It seemed hard back then because the commissions required going outside the circle of insiders who had long run Forest Park.
For Mayor Rory Hoskins, citizen commissions have been somewhat confounding. Stocking and growing the local commissions has been a way to recognize the diversity of Forest Park and the depth of talent in the village. He has been able to represent the coalition of supporters he has ably built through commission appointments.
And yet, not unlike some other towns, Hoskins has also shown a reluctance to empower these advisory commissions to take on substantive issues, evaluate options and then have their conclusions be heard and respected, and, at the full discretion of the village council, either implemented or not.
This conflict is the latest between the mayor and multiple village commissioners. It reared up April 28 at a council meeting when the safety and traffic commission presented its work plan for the year ahead. This is the usual process in which members of a commission come before the full council and describe the projects they wish to focus on, which can include a discussion and some back and forth.In this case, the safety and traffic group proposed an outward facing plan of engagement with staff and citizens around complex issues, including off-street parking policies and the village’s permit parking system.
In response, Commissioner Maria Maxham thanked the commission for being proactive but suggested some of its efforts might be beyond the current definition of the commission’s role. She asked fellow commissioners for input on how the commission’s role might be redefined.
That’s when, once again, Hoskins shut Maxham down. The agenda item, he said, was to ask questions about the commission’s presentation and not to debate the broad role of the group. It did not end well. Maxham’s closing comment to the mayor was, “I’m offended and appalled, Rory, that I was not allowed to ask more questions or that this council is not allowed to have a discussion.”
Maybe Hoskins is right. Maybe that was not the moment for the broader discussion. But because he seldom seems able to get ahead of an issue, i.e. to convene the council for the broader conversations it rightly wants to have, he now has a fascinating and unexpected rebellion on his hands.
The council wants to talk substantively about key issues. The Altenheim is at the top of that list. The mayor, though, seems determined to control the agenda and avoid essential discussions that voters elected this council to address.
Why the disconnect?