If you don't like the village manager, why do you need to change form of government?

Suburban Life (Joe Sinipoli) has an article about a Village of Westchester petition that may or may not exist. As I read the article, neither the journalist or the sources interviewed, have seen the petition to switch Westchester from a village manager form of government to a strong mayor (full-time mayor like Broadview and sorta like Forest Park).

I've heard rumors that village employees are unhappy with current village manager, Carl Goldsmith. OK. Employees are unhappy with their boss. Sometimes bosses do dumb stuff. And sometimes public employees think they are entitled to jobs for life even when they are providing crappy services.

The guy who comes out of the article looking classy is Angelo Luciano, who is no friend of the guys who threw him out of office.

Former Trustee Angelo Luciano said while he has heard about the petition, he was in no way involved with the movement.

“I told a lot of people that I don’t want my name attached to it,” said Luciano, who served on the village board for 32 years. Luciano added he was one of the key supporters of a village manager-based government when the village made the transition years ago.

“There’s no way I can sign a petition to do away with that,” he said.

BTW, I think the same question applies to Forest Park. If you don't like how Calderone runs things, why not beat him in an election? If Calderone had a 5-2 majority or a 6-1 majority and Forest Park had a village manager form of government, what would be different? Melrose Park and Maywood have village manager forms of government and the "mayors" (really, village presidents) still act like strong mayors because they have compliant board majorities and communities that assume things should be run by a boss.

GOV, village board rejects strip bar in Broadview [BV]

Last week the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals voted down Joe Inovskis' application for a strip club bar in Broadview; last night the board of trustees voted unanimously to reject the application. See Chicago Tribune (Joseph Ruzich).

The application was rejected because it clearly violated existing code that prohibits adult entertainment establishments from serving alcohol.

But what if Chicago Joe's Tea Room applies for permission to provide adult entertainment without serving alcohol?

The Westchester residents seem to be opposed to the strip club whether it serves alcohol or not. The property is isolated from Broadview's residential areas, but across the street from a whole neighborhood of Westchester single-family homes.

From Tribune:

[Broadview Village President Henry] Vicenik said he thinks Inovskis will give up trying to build the club in Broadview for two reasons:

- State laws prevent strip clubs from opening in areas that have day-care facilities, Vicenik said.

- There would be problems getting parking for the club, Vicenik said.

But the value of Vicenik's insights would be diminished in credibility if Vicenik was in on the original plan to sneak the strip club into Broadview until the residents rose against it.

I don't know what Vicenik knew and when. Westchester Village President Paul Gattuso and Westchester Village Manager Carl Goldsmith knew about the proposal about a week before residents did. And Gattuso and Goldsmith weren't the primary sources for notifying Westchester residents about the application.

Presumably Vicenik would have known about the application as early as Gattuso and Goldsmith. Again, Vicenik wasn't leading the opposition to the application. He waited until the residents had already expressed their ire to jump on the bandwagon.

Based on the law firms involved its reasonable to suspect that Chicago Joe's Tea Room is a project of some of the politically connected. So, if Vicenik is privately working with Inovskis, his lawyers or his investors it diminishes the credibility of his claims that residents don't need to worry about Inovskis re-applying for permission to conduct adult entertainment.