The Transition of Arlington Heights’ Village Clerk Position in 1974

At first glance, Hume’s position seems reasonable and practical, suggesting that an appointed clerk might operate without any partisan bias and prioritize duties impartially. Upon closer examination, her claims raise questions about the democratic principle of electoral participation.

I was interested in hearing Mrs. Hume’s perspective on the 1974 referendum, and I’m glad to say that she kindly agreed to speak with me. Our conversation over the phone was very productive, and I gained valuable insights from her.

Mrs. Hume, an esteemed Arlington Heights resident with a distinguished academic background, holds dual majors in journalism and English literature from Indiana University. She embodies a composed demeanor and exhibits an ardent commitment to local history. Undoubtedly, she epitomizes the ideal candidate for the village clerk role.

Mrs. Hume explained some of the clerk’s statutory roles and the responsibilities that make the role a full-time job. These include record retention, historical research, and performing the statutory reporting requirement for the county and state.

She further explained that the nature of the position is different from that of the other trustees. By making it an elected position, there is the possibility of having that position rotate every four years, and she believed that was the reason in the 1970s that they did not necessarily want this position to be a rotating one.

The contention that the referendum sought to remove politics from the position appears paradoxical. By changing the selection process to appointment rather than election, political dynamics inevitably permeate the essence of the role. Although the decision aimed to enhance governance, it inadvertently intertwined politics with the clerk’s mandate.

Mrs. Hume’s clarification emphasized the nuanced nature of the transition, highlighting concerns about turnover and the desire for stability in the position rather than solely focusing on political neutrality.

While appointing a qualified individual like Mrs. Hume underscores the village’s commitment to preserving its heritage, concerns regarding accountability and representation persist. Unlike elected officials, an appointed clerk lacks direct electoral oversight, potentially compromising democratic accountability.

Some people argue that switching to an appointed system could lead to favoritism or abuse of power in the selection process. Since there is no transparency in appointments, there are concerns that nepotism or undue political influence may occur. The lack of electoral checks raises apprehensions about the fairness of the selection process.

Ultimately, the fundamental question is whether any governmental role can truly be insulated from political influence. Despite the village clerk’s non-voting status, their integral role in administrative governance underscores an inherent connection to political processes and decisions.

In light of these deliberations, the referendum’s purported aim to purge politics from the village clerk position unveils a more intricate reality. While efficiency and neutrality were laudable objectives, the methodological shift unavoidably entailed political maneuvering.

As our conversation drew to a close, I brought up the subject of the Chicago Bears potentially relocating to Arlington Heights. I asked Mrs. Hume for her opinion on the matter. She tactfully declined to comment; I hoped for a more positive and constructive response. So, I decided to switch gears and asked her if she liked John Denver. I was pleased to hear her say, “I always love a good sing-along.”, hinting at her fondness for Denver’s music without explicitly stating it.