Skokie Vision 16
Skokie Vision #16: The most remarkable aspect of this vision is that amid the laudable environmental goals, this Skokie resident included "responsive village." There is no doubt that regardless of what issue area concerns you, a Village Board that considers neither the experiences or opinions of a broad base of its constituency, nor the evidence presented by experts in the field or other government bodies, is going to come up with at best mediocre decisions, if not flat-out wrong.
This was the case with Carvana, in which every single Trustee other than the one not affiliated with the dominant party, Trustee James Johnson, disregarded its people and environmental experts in approving a glass tower in the path of migrating birds. (The only reason it wasn't built is that the State revoked Carvana's license.) This was also the case earlier this year when the Village Board adopted an "affordable housing" ordinance that also disregarded every evidence-based practice, data on need, the advice of experts in the field, myself included, Skokie Neighbors For Housing Justice, and the majority of its people.
And it was the case this week when the Village Board would not allow even debate on the issue of backyard chickens -- in which yet again, for more times than we can count, not a single Trustee would second Trustee Johnson's motion. This time his motion was to introduce an enabling ordinance. The fact is that there are important considerations on the plus and minus side regarding backyard chickens, and the best solution can ONLY emerge through research, talking to other municipalities that allow it, and weighing policy alternatives through open discussion.
But this Village Board, including three incumbents running for re-election as Trustees, shuts down discussion and debate so that no Trustee with a different point of view can even introduce a motion. This effectively shuts down democratic decision-making. It is the antithesis of good governance.
"Board members who are encouraged to conform, rather than lobby for alternative views, can lead the organization down a less desirable path or the wrong path altogether," according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They add, "An organization that welcomes diverse leadership voices can weave a stronger tapestry of vision and direction through the intertwined complexity of leadership perspective. A leadership culture that can build a greater tomorrow because they lean INTO diversity, instead of conformity, will demonstrate in practice that, indeed, all voices are honored and welcomed—and the association or chamber is better because of it."
The viability of life on Earth and the prevention of climate catastrophe depend on our governing bodies harnessing scientific data and ideas, everyday experiences, and the evaluation of possible solutions based on an overall public stewardship mission. This requires all hands on deck to come up with true consensus for a path forward, not unilateralist decision-making. This is the type of participatory leadership I exercise as an executive director and as a nonprofit board director, and it is how I would govern in Skokie as Trustee.
I am reminded of the wisdom of this anecdote: "Peter Drucker, the late dean of business writers, once described a meeting led by Alfred P. Sloan, the esteemed chairman of General Motors. Sloan is reported to have said, 'Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here.' Everyone nodded assent. 'Then,' continued Mr. Sloan, 'I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.'"