Editorial: Every vote counts. In one Skokie trustee race, so did community and friendship.
How often do political opponents become friends? On the campaign trail, no less?
We can't think of many such instances, but have been touched by the collegiality and respect shown by Skokie board of trustees opponents Edward Olivieri and Jim Iverson.
When votes were tallied on Election Night, Olivieri came out 21 votes ahead of Iverson. Even with such a narrow margin, Iverson decided not to push for a recount.
'I know Eddie, and I know that he will do this job well,' Iverson wrote in a letter published by Pioneer Press, a sister publication, shortly after election results were tallied. 'I want to offer Eddie my gratitude. I have really enjoyed running against him and getting to know him.'
But then Iverson pulled ahead.
The numbers shifted as mail-in ballots were tallied. After conceding earlier in the month, it turned out Iverson had taken a nine-vote lead.
It would've been easy, understandable even, for Olivieri to harbor resentment over this disappointing turn, but he remained gracious and optimistic, and he extended sincere congratulations to 'my friend and opponent, Jim Iverson, on his victory.'
'During the campaign, Jim and I developed a rare and meaningful friendship,' Olivieri wrote in a letter of his own on April 17. 'We stood beside each other at events, volunteered together, and approached the race with mutual respect and collaboration. In today's political climate, that kind of camaraderie is something to be celebrated.'
We covered some nasty local races during the April 1 consolidated elections, with candidates accusing each other of racism, verbally attacking a candidate's spouse and more.
That's not what happened this spring in Skokie. In an era when political discourse so often descends into outrage and division — on cable news, in Congress, even in school board races — the quiet decency shown in Skokie feels all the more remarkable.
Instead of a contentious campaign trail marked by vitriol and mudslinging, Olivieri and Iverson showed us what's possible when candidates truly put their community first.
'It was just wonderful good fortune that Eddie and I happened to do this together, that we happened to run against one another,' Iverson told us. He will be sworn in this week.
That village is blessed by the camaraderie and support found in two fantastic trustee candidates, both of whom will no doubt work together to better their village for years to come.
Iverson and Olivieri remind us all that local politics isn't a proxy war for national partisanship — it's about community and working on behalf of our neighbors. At its very best, local politics makes our hometowns better, fostering connection, not division.
What happened in Skokie this spring is a lesson for us all on what really matters and how to carry ourselves with dignity and poise — win or lose.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
31 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The leaders of college sports still don't get it
A quarter century ago, the NCAA invested $150,000 in lobbying on Capitol Hill. To a couple of lobbyists. For one year. In the first quarter of this year alone, the college sports governing body spent more than a quarter of a million dollars on the same. Using more than a dozen lobbyists. After having spent more than half a million dollars on lobbying last year, just as it had in each year since 2021. While throwing its authority behind bills such as H.R. 8534, titled the 'Protecting Student Athletes' Economic Freedom Act,' which would actually do anything but by restricting college athletes from being classified as employees who receive a paycheck and benefits like everyone else working in college sports. The NCAA's lobbying fund has been well spent. So too, apparently, was the $200,000 that the bellwether college athletic conference, the SEC, spent in 2025's first quarter to get its concerns before legislators, on top of the $800,000 it doled out last year. And the $160,000 the Big Ten spent in this year's first quarter, chasing the $460,000 it paid in 2024. Because listening Thursday to a congressional subcommittee discussing the barely week-old court approval of the multibillion dollar House v. NCAA settlement, which codified for the first time that colleges can pay their athletes directly, it was clear that what much of the media touted last week as a landmark victory for athletes may have been a big win for those who have always controlled them — the NCAA and the colleges and universities for whom they toil. Certainly, the Republicans who control House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade sounded Thursday as if they had bought what those entities were selling, from outdated terminology describing college athletes to ideas about how to manage them in the future, no matter last week's liberating decision. They called the hearing, 'Winning Off the Field: Legislative Proposal to Stabilize NIL and College Athletics.' The senior member of the committee, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida), and most others referred to college athletes as 'student-athletes,' the misleading phrase created by the modern NCAA's architect, Walter Byers, as a prophylactic for the NCAA and its member schools against claims that college athletes were employees entitled to compensation and, particularly if injured, benefits. Most of the inquisitors — 14 of the subcommittee's 25 members are Republicans — seemed to prefer answers from one of the four witnesses, SEC associate commissioner William King, who in his opening statement regurgitated the false bromide about college athletes: 'We're the only country in the world where elite athletes … can use their athletic ability to receive a college education for free while pursuing their athletic goals at the same time.' Free? Their athleticism, which results in scoring touchdowns and getting buckets, is called labor. In return, they get room and board and the chance to pursue a degree. Meanwhile, King, on the backs of those athletes' labor, was paid three-quarters of a million dollars last year and his boss, SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, pocketed $4.2 million. SEC football and basketball players are no less employees than the conference executives, athletic directors and coaches for whom they perform. And they should be treated as such. Sharing in the revenue they produce in addition to selling their name, image and likeness. Enjoying the ability to organize. Being represented at the bargaining table. But the Republicans running Thursday's subcommittee have also floated legislation titled the 'Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements Act of 2025' that includes, among other restrictions on those athletes, several provisions ensuring those athletes would not be designated as employees. Unless and until those who control college athletics fully acknowledge and treat athletes as the employees who make college sports thrive, it will forever be a queasy enterprise, morally and ethically. Even Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh underscored as much four years ago in the ruling that tipped the scale and helped make last week's ruling possible. 'The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student-athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year,' Kavanaugh wrote in NCAA v. Alston. 'Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student-athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student-athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.' Yet these legislators, so many college athletic administrators from the most powerful conferences such as the SEC and, of course, the NCAA, still don't want to share the whole loaf. Only a slice. Last week's agreement gives colleges the options to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year. But that's a fraction of the wealth produced by college sports. King defended using the vernacular vestiges that deny employment status to college athletes by claiming, without evidence, that most SEC athletes don't want to be employees of their universities. This is the same conference that I found talking its football players into playing amid a newfangled pandemic with long-term health consequences unknown at the time. It strains credulity, of course, that those athletes wouldn't want to be paid like King, or their coaches, or even someone on the maintenance crew — and to receive all the same health benefits, long-term and short, and worker's comp. After all, the NCAA likes to tout that most of its athletes 'go pro in something other than sports.' Which means college is their biggest opportunity to earn money from their athletic talent. Don't be hypocritical by denying them.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Will Texas lawmakers have a special session to redraw Congressional districts?
Members of Congress and state lawmakers have been all abuzz this past week ever since the New York Times reported on a plan to have Texas legislators redraw the state's Congressional districts to help Republicans gain more seats in the Lone Star State. The Times report said President Trump's advisers want Governor Greg Abbott to call lawmakers into a special session to come up with a new map of Congressional districts. If Republicans could gain more seats in Texas, the thought is that it would blunt any potential gains by Democrats in U.S. House seats in other states during the midterm elections next year. Most of the 38 Congressional districts in Texas are considered safe for the Republicans and Democrats who represent them. A federal judge in El Paso is now holding a trial to determine if these Congressional districts that were drawn and approved in 2021 are constitutional. In an interview for Eye On Politics, Texas Representative Jeff Leach, R-Allen, told CBS News Texas he's heard about this issue. "I have read the story and have seen all the news that's been going around and have been in communication with our counterparts in Washington and with Governor's office and the Speaker's office, Lieutenant Governor. We're going to do what's right for Texas and we're going to do what's lawful," said Leach. "We're going to see what happens over the next few weeks. If the Governor calls us back into special session, whether it's on redistricting or any other matter, when we'll show back up to Austin and we'll do our jobs." U.S. Representative Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, told CBS News Texas that he saw the story and that he doesn't know much else about it. "Even a lot of our Republican colleagues don't know much about this. I know they're supposed to meet and talk about this. If the courts don't demand a redraw, it seems very communistic. I think that it's wrong. I think that it's absolutely nuts." In an interview for Eye On Politics, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he has not been involved in the conversations pertaining to this story. "I saw the same report you referenced. It's clear the state has the authority to do this, to redistrict mid-decade. You'll remember back 20 years ago, in 2003, I was the Solicitor General of Texas, the chief lawyer for the state in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas did this back in the early 2000's, and it was challenged in court. I defended it in court. It ended up going to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the argument that the Democrat plaintiffs brought was that the state could not redistrict in the middle of the decade. We won in the U.S. Supreme Court. I argued the case and we won. The State has the authority to do so. That's a decision for the state legislature, and for the Governor to make." Governor Abbott has not commented on the New York Times story. Watch the full interview with Rep. Leach below: Watch the full interview with Rep. Veasey below: Watch the full interview with Senator Cruz below:
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Denmark Raises Retirement Age to 70 - Could The US Do The Same?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Workers in Denmark have been rocked by the news that the government has approved raising the retirement age to 70 - the highest in Europe. For now, the Danish can retire with their public pension at 67, but that threshold will gradually climb to 70 by 2040. Reports indicate that some Danes are unhappy with the decision, with protests taking place in the capital, Copenhagen, in the lead-up to the vote in May. Across the world, retirement ages increase because people live longer, placing strain on pension systems. Fewer workers support more retirees, prompting reforms to ensure financial sustainability. Longer work lives boost productivity and tax revenue. However, this shift can disadvantage those in physically demanding jobs or with health issues who can't delay retirement, experts have explained to Newsweek. Retirement in the U.S. The news from Denmark comes as the U.S. full retirement age (FRA) also changes, albeit to 67, for those born in 1960 and after. The FRA has been steadily rising since legislation was passed by Congress in 1983, a move made to help shore up the Social Security trust funds that pay benefits to more than 70 million Americans in 2025. This means that anyone claiming benefits before reaching this age will face a permanent financial penalty, reducing their Social Security payments for the rest of their life. If retiring at 67, older Americans can get their full insurance amount, and if they retire later, they can get even more. Even as the U.S. retirement age has already crept up, some lawmakers have indicated they want it raised even further. The Republican Study Committee, comprising 170 GOP lawmakers, published a budget proposal in 2024 that advocated for "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees, to account for increases in life expectancy"—raising the retirement age to 69. In December, Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Social Security Fairness Act to raise the full retirement age all the way to 70, proposing three-month annual increases until reaching that threshold, but it was not adopted. These have been touted as solutions to the looming Social Security funding issue. As it stands, in 2035, the funds that help pay for benefits along with payroll taxes will run dry, forcing a 17 percent across-the-board cut in benefit payments unless Congress acts to shore up the system by increasing its revenue, reducing benefits or a combination of both. Other options include raising payroll taxes, cutting benefits for future recipients, or a combination of all three. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the FRA to 70 would address roughly half of the system's 75-year shortfall. "Raising the retirement age is part of the solution, but not a standalone fix," Jeremy Clerc, co-founder and CEO of Assists and a contributing writer at Assisted Living Magazine, told Newsweek, given the huge impact it could have on future retirees. Steep, Dangerous and Complex Regardless of whether raising the retirement age is chosen as the path to helping Social Security toward longstanding solvency, a later FRA could see different types of workers face potentially unfair disparities. "Not everyone reaches their late 60s in the same shape — physically, financially, or emotionally," Clerc said. "In senior living, we see the disparities up close. For some, two extra years of work is manageable; for others, it's a steep, even dangerous, climb. Reform needs to reflect that complexity." For Clerc, the answer is clear. "Absolutely—and significantly so," Clerc said when asked whether lower-income and blue-collar workers would suffer disproportionately. "They live shorter lives, reducing their years to collect benefits. They're also more likely to perform physically demanding, manual labor, which limits the ability to work longer." Jonathan Price, senior vice president and retirement practice leader at benefits consultancy Segal, agrees. "Delaying Social Security's retirement age will put additional stress on those in physically demanding roles," he explained to Newsweek. "They will likely need to drop out of the labor force and claim Social Security prior to the new retirement age. "Delaying Social Security normal retirement age would likely have an oversized impact," particularly on those who are forced to retire and claim benefits earlier than 67 - or in a raised FRA scenario, 69. IMAGE TO BE REPLACED. IMAGE TO BE REPLACED. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty Clerc said that raising the FRA could slash average lifetime benefits by nearly 20 percent, according to research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It's hard to justify asking a warehouse worker or home health aide to stay on the job into their late 60s or 70s," he said. "These are the same people who burn out early, face chronic pain, and often die younger—yet they'd be the ones asked to wait longer for benefits they've paid into their whole lives." Price warns that policy changes could also ripple through the workforce in unexpected ways. "If SSA's retirement ages were to be delayed, then Americans may need to work longer," he said. "What impact will that have on their employers, opportunities for colleagues moving up through the ranks, and overall labor participation? People and organizations will need time to prepare for those types of changes. It's going to be a big adjustment." How Do Americans Feel? Despite repeated calls from some policymakers to raise the retirement age, most Americans aren't buying it. Polls conducted in recent years indicate strong opposition to a higher FRA. A Data For Progress survey from 2023 found that only 8 percent of voters supported the idea of raising the FRA over 67. Clerc said that if it were to happen, it requires being done with care and that raising the retirement age "must be implemented gradually, equitably, and as part of a holistic reform package." "If we push people to work longer, we need to think about what that means—for them, for their families, and for the economy," Price said.
