Voters Table Benefits Referendum Tuesday at Annual Township Meeting

Naperville Township residents and trustees tabled a decision Tuesday that could have put the question of paying for trustee's retirement and health benefits in the hands of the voters.

Forty people favored tabling the issue and 28 voted against it at the township’s annual meeting. Discussion centered on whether paying for Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund and health benefits for part-time township trustees should be placed on the ballot of an upcoming election. The question would be in the form of a non-binding referendum.

But trustees beat residents to the punch by unanimously approving a motion at their last regular meeting—held on election night—that they say will eliminate footing the bill for the perks in the future.

“A referendum just isn’t necessary now,” Naperville Township Supervisor Gary Vician said. “The referendum would have been advisory. The resolution we voted on is binding.”

Current trustees will not be affected by the change though, Vician noted.

“You can’t change the compensation plan during a term,” he said. “State law says it’s illegal to do that.”

That was township resident Chris Frantzen’s concern.

“I say they take this to the voters,” she said after Tuesday night’s meeting. “The thing is, these trustees can be re-elected in 2013. What’s to stop them from voting then to reinstate all of their benefits?”

The township's elected officials vote for their own salaries and benefits every four years and annual information is outlined on its Website, said local officials.

The benefits concern was , a Republican precinct committeeman who lobbied last month for it to be added to Tuesday’s annual meeting agenda.

Trustees’ current perks have been in place since 2006. They are available to all of those serving in local trustee positions, which are part time and in 2010, came with a salary of $7,300, according to a township document outlining trustee and elected officials' annual compensation. Full-time elected officials can also take advantage of the benefits.

The combined cost of health insurance coverage for all of the township’s elected officials—eight total—accounted for about one third of its nearly $400,000 insurance spending in 2010, according to township documents.

Trustees Fred Spitzzeri, May Yurgaitis and David Wentz are all enrolled to receive benefits, documents state. Trustee Esin Busche has never opted in.

While providing the benefits is legal in Illinois, employees are required to pay premiums, Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator with the Better Government Association, has said.

Documents show that as of Feb. 25, Wentz owed $1,000 to the township, which has fronted a total of $28,924 in premiums to cover his family's medical insurance from July 1, 2009 to Jan. 1, 2011.

Spitzzeri had also fallen behind in the past—specifically in 2009, when he made a $761 payment in August for a $4,056 July tab that had been accruing since May. He paid the $3,294 balance in December of 2009, documents state.

“We’ve been very fiscally responsible,” Spitzzeri said during Tuesday’s meeting. “We cut insurance and salary benefits for the elected officials by $200,000 last year. … I’m very proud of our record here in the Naperville Township.”

He said he knows a lot has been written in the newspapers.

“Don’t believe everything you read,” Spitzzeri said. “I can tell you there are comments that have been made by a gentleman in this room that are flat out lies.”

Dorr said he was disappointed that residents Tuesday did not send the issue to an advisory referendum. The notion of tabling it was presented by Naperville Township Republican Organization Chairwoman Rachel Ossyra.

All registered voters from Naperville Township were able to participate and about 70 people were at the meeting, which was held in the garage of the township’s highway department on North Aurora Road.

“We need to send a message to our elected leaders,” Dorr said. “I’ve been at this for six months and the only way I got any traction with the township is by threatening to go to a referendum. They voted last week because they knew this would be on the agenda tonight. … Now they wanted to table the whole thing because they don’t want voters to have to think about this any longer.”

Resident Janice Anderson agreed.

“They only reason they are ‘transparent’ now is because Kurt (Dorr) shined a spotlight on this issue,” she said. “This is a state law and I’m not blaming trustees for that. But they shouldn’t expect a pension when they are part-time employees. Why do they feel so entitled?”

Busche said she opposed the benefits from the beginning.

“I’m very glad our township team made a change on that,” she said. “But you know, as each of you, you have a right to come to our meetings. You have a right to tell us if you know a way we can improve our services.”