1. What is going on?

The voters of Highland Park elected Jeff Hoobler to the City Council in April 2023, knowing he owns a local restaurant with a liquor license.  Mayor Nancy Rotering, acting as Liquor Commissioner, renewed his liquor license as of January 2024, knowing that he is a member of the City Council.  

A few weeks later, someone noticed an arcane local ordinance, Section 119.320, that prohibits issuance or renewal of a liquor license to a member of the City Council.  The Council was asked to amend the ordinance on February 12, 2024 but three Councilmembers (Mayor Rotering, Blumberg, Stone) blocked the amendment knowing that doing so would force Hoobler to either resign or lose his business.  Three other Councilmembers (Tapia, Lidawer, Ross) voted for the amendment.  Hoobler recused himself from the discussion and vote. 

Hoobler tendered his resignation effective April 30, 2024. This gave the Council an additional chance to cure this injustice at its regular meeting on April 24^th. That didn’t happen.

2. Why is this such a big deal?

This is a big deal for two reasons – one political, one based on policy.

Politically, a minority of the Council (Rotering, Blumberg and Stone) used an antiquated local ordinance to take back control of city government and effectively overturn the outcome of the last election.  Mayor Rotering endorsed every candidate other than Hoobler, who had pledged to bring a fresh and independent voice to the Council. Despite the Mayor’s endorsements, Hoobler received more votes than any other candidate including Blumberg, a fourth term incumbent.  

Policy-wise, the public has a strong stake promoting voter choice and preserving the outcome of elections.  Section 119.320 thwarts democratic values and presumes Highland Park voters are incapable of judging whether and how a liquor license may impact the holder’s ability to serve the public.   The ordinance also discriminates against a lawful form of business and discourages inclusivity in government by prohibiting an important segment of the community from ever participating on the Council.  

The voters of Highland Park had already decided that they wanted someone with a liquor license to represent them.  A minority of three Councilmembers should not elevate their own personal views above those of the community.   

3. Where did this ordinance come from?

Approximately 100 years ago, as Prohibition was ending, the Illinois legislature enacted a law preventing local city council members from receiving a liquor license.  Highland Park later enacted a similar ordinance.  Illinois has since updated its statute as applied to municipalities like Highland Park.  However, Highland Park has not updated Section 119.320.       

4. Why was Hoobler’s license renewed?

Mayor Rotering admitted that, at the time Hoobler’s license was renewed, no one knew this particular ordinance existed — including the other liquor commissioners (Blumberg and Stone), city staff, the city attorney and Hoobler himself.  There is no evidence this ordinance has ever been enforced.

The ordinance apparently came to light a few weeks after Mayor Rotering renewed Hoobler’s liquor license. 

5. What were the stated reasons for opposing the amendment?

In the Council meeting on February 12^th, Rotering, Blumberg and Stone gave five reasons for opposing the amendment.  

1. The Council should not “change an ordinance for the sole purpose of correcting a violation.”  That argument misses the much larger point.  The amendment is not just about preserving the outcome of Hoobler’s election.  Even more fundamentally, it’s about empowering voters to decide whether and how a liquor license may affect a candidate’s ability to serve, and furthering the vital public interest in promoting a broader and more diverse candidate pool.
2. A liquor license holder may face conflicts of interest.  While true, this argument ignores the reality that all local business owners, real estate developers, and owners of Highland Park commercial or residential real estate may face conflicts of interest from time to time.  When conflicts arise, recusal is the well-established and appropriate tool for protecting the public interest.  Under Illinois State law, however, RECUSAL IS MANDATORY for liquor license holders. Additionally, now that the Council has created a separate pathway (via ethics guidelines) for re-evaluating rules involving conflicts and recusal, Councilmembers should be free to re-focus on the key issue at hand: adopting sensible liquor licensing ordinances that serve contemporary public interests.          
3. The sale of alcohol is regulated.  Yes, but many other businesses are regulated, too, and their owners are not legally disqualified from Council service.  Even cannabis sellers and cigarette vendors are free to serve on the Highland Park City Council.  No one has explained why Highland Park liquor license holders are uniquely dangerous to Council integrity.
4. Highland Park may one day ban licensed pot sellers from Council service, too.  This is pure speculation, and it does not cure the absurdity of laws that actually exist.  One cannot take an inherently bad policy and make it better by extending it.   
5. Voters in the last election did not address the merits of the local ordinance.  This argument is a real head scratcher.  It is hard to imagine how the free, fair, uncontested election of Hoobler, with full knowledge of his liquor license, is anything but a clear statement that the public expects to be able to elect someone who will hold a liquor license.   

6. What about the fear of the council favoring one of its own?

The question is whether a vote to amend the liquor ordinance would give an undue advantage to someone who, without the special relationship, would not necessarily merit the benefit. Favoritism and cronyism absolutely undermine the common good.  That does not mean a council decision should never convey a benefit to a member of the council. 

While amending the ordinance would have allowed Hoobler to retain his liquor license and his seat on the council, more importantly the amendment is good public policy, and it addresses the community’s support for increased participation of local business owners in our government.

7. What have other communities done?

Nearly a dozen nearby communities have updated their laws and now allow a liquor license holder to serve on a city council, consistent with updated state laws applicable to municipalities like Highland Park.  No evidence has been offered to show that the remaining ordinances are being enforced or that their continued existence reflects actual awareness and affirmative civic determinations that the underlying policy is still relevant and compelling in 2024.