
An ad hoc committee proposing changes to Lake Forest Caucus bylaws
Lake Forest Caucus officials have received a series of recommendations to amend its bylaws, but whether the Caucus leadership will enact the suggestions remains unclear.
In a Feb. 11 email, Caucus President Joe Oriti informed its membership that an ad hoc committee formed to review the organization's bylaws has delivered its findings to the Caucus leadership. The seven-member committee, with former City Manager Bob Kiely serving as its facilitator, proposed several changes following a tumultuous period for the organization, which has vetted and recommended candidates for various elective offices and city boards and commissions.
The Caucus has been part of Lake Forest's tapestry since 1935. In most election cycles, the candidate for any of the elected office initially seeks the support of the Caucus Committee, composed of representatives from all four of the city's wards. The person receiving that endorsement goes before the general Caucus membership in what normally is a 'pro forma' vote, often leading to an uncontested race in the municipal election.
That did not occur in 2022 when the Caucus Committee endorsed Stanford 'Randy' Tack in the mayoral election. However, the general membership did not support Tack's endorsement and the organization's bylaws were not clear on how to proceed.
The following year the Caucus leadership suffered another setback after it supported the 'Caucus Preservation Act' which would have taken the general membership vote out of the process, but members said no to that idea.
The Caucus leadership suffered another blow last year when members initially voted down the proposed officer slate for the 2024-25 year with Oriti as president.
The Caucus Committee then held a second vote where the slate was easily approved. Oriti stated a review of the bylaws would be coming.
In their report, the ad hoc committee offers many suggestions: if a proposed candidate fails to receive a majority of votes cast at the annual meeting, the Caucus Committee should hold another vote by the Caucus membership for that position.
The second vote would have at least two candidates for each applicable position and could include candidates initially proposed at the Caucus's annual meeting traditionally held in the fall.
'The Caucus bylaws are currently silent on the matter which is what led to the upheaval back in 2022/2023,' Kiely wrote in an e-mail.
However, Oriti was concerned about the proposal, citing recent changes to the overall election calendar dictated by the Illinois State Board of Elections regarding nominating petition deadlines.
He fears the ad hoc committee recommendations could reduce the vetting process as a second vote could come as many as 30 days after the initial vote. Plus there could be corresponding internal timing problems tied to the election of Caucus Committee candidates and Executive Committee officers.
'By having the potential of a second vote and without shifting our calendar, we would only have two to three months for vetting where the current system allows four to six months. That might impact the quality of the candidates the Caucus Committee presents to the public for a vote,' Oriti said.
The ad hoc committee is also recommending the proposed slate for elected offices should be announced to the public at least 14 days before the annual meeting. Kiely said such a requirement does not exist in the bylaws and that has been a problem in previous years.
Any of the recommendations would require a 2/3 approval vote from the general Caucus membership, which Oriti does not think would happen at this point.
'I think it needs to be worked out,' he said.
Oriti added in his letter that an amendment to the Caucus membership for voting would also necessitate a review by attorneys that could cost as much as $20,000. He said a fundraising campaign is ongoing to raise the money to pay for the legal review.
Going forward, Oriti said the Caucus Committee would review the recommendations at their March 11 meeting, anticipating that would be the start of a lengthy review of the recommendations.
Kiely said the suggestions were based in part on researching other communities and the establishment of a focus group. He was prepared the Caucus membership may not enact the suggestions.
'The ad hoc committee understood from the outset that our recommendations could be accepted, rejected or modified,' Kiely wrote in an e-mail. 'We also understood that a super-majority of the membership needed to ratify any changes, so finding common ground was going to be a challenge. There is no perfect solution, and some people will not agree with the recommendations. We can only hope that our work will be seen as an effort to aid the Caucus in strengthening its mission and regaining the trust of the community.'
Separately, Oriti originally thought the amendments would be up for a vote at the March 18 spring meeting, but that will not occur now.
John Trkla, the president of Lake Forest For Transparency, which describes itself as an 'educational advocacy group' expressed frustration over the delay.
'Every time the subject of our vote comes up, there is another excuse to not do the right thing,' he said.
Oriti believed the diligence required to examine the recommendations warranted the extra time.
'I'm disappointed as well but the recommendations have a significant impact on the operations that it requires a thorough process and the importance is not to get it done fast, but to get it done right,' he countered. 'I am pleased with the progress of the ad hoc committee and the focus group in providing the recommendations.'
Oriti added his overriding concern is whether the recommendations will help with recruitment of candidates for both the elected office and the Caucus.
'That is what modernization of the bylaws really do,' he said. 'It should make it easier to recruit volunteers into the Caucus system.'
Daniel I. Dorfman is a freelance reporter for Pioneer Press.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Yahoo
Charles Rangel, pioneer of US Congressional Black Caucus, dies aged 94
Charles Rangel, a founding member and pioneering leader of the US Congressional Black Caucus, died on Monday, the Caucus said. He was 94. A native and longtime resident of the storied New York neighborhood of Harlem, Rangel entered the US Congress in 1971, serving for 46 years before retiring in 2017. In the wake of the US civil rights movement, he emerged as a leading political voice representing Black Americans at the turn of the 1970s. Rangel was the first African American to be appointed chairman of the powerful House Ways And Means Committee, which shapes fiscal legislation. He was forced out of that position and was censured for an ethics violation in 2010, but that did not appear to dent his electability, as he continued to hold public office until his retirement seven years later. The censure was related to alleged violations of congressional gift rules related to his acceptance of corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean, the New York Times reported. Over the course of an almost-five-decade career, he established himself as an influential figure in the Democratic Party, forging close ties with former president Bill Clinton and former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Rangel was instrumental in convincing Hillary Clinton to run for a US Senate seat in New York in 2000, kickstarting her political career. "I'll miss Charlie Rangel, a beloved icon and public servant of New York," she posted on the X social media platform. "He was a proud veteran who loved serving his Harlem constituents. He urged me to run for the Senate and later was an invaluable colleague." The Congressional Black Caucus called him "a trailblazer and statesman." "Known affectionately as the 'Lion of Lenox Avenue,' his legacy is one of tireless advocacy, historic firsts, and unwavering dedication to justice and equality. May he rest in power and everlasting peace," the caucus said in a statement. New York City Council President Adrienne Adams described him as "a giant" of US politics. "He served with unmatched wit, courage, and an unshakable belief in the power of government to change lives," she said in a statement. "His legacy lives on in the countless Black and Latino New Yorkers he lifted up and inspired." The death of Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, came as the United States commemorated Memorial Day on Monday, a day honoring fallen US soldiers. gl-aha/st


Bloomberg
25-05-2025
- Bloomberg
Canada's Liberals Decide Against New Rules to Oust Party Leader
Elected lawmakers in Canada's governing Liberal Party voted against adopting a mechanism that would have given them more power to oust Prime Minister Mark Carney as party leader in the future. James Maloney, the Liberal caucus chair who represents a Toronto district, told reporters Sunday that members chose not to adopt the Reform Act, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported.