Highland Park Forward logo

See below for everything HP Forward published about the Liquor Amendment. Items are preserved as originally written in 2024, so dates and calls to action (such as upcoming meetings, “in November,” or “last year”) refer to the time of writing.

Overview

Protect Highland Park Voter Rights!

VOTE YES to amend our outdated laws and allow voters to choose their elected officials!

VOTE YES! Allow Liquor License Holders to Serve on City Council

  • It’s time to update our city’s antiquated Prohibition Era law that singles out liquor license holders by effectively preventing them from serving on the City Council.
  • Highland Park voters deserve the right to choose our elected officials
  • Highland Parkers have the intelligence to decide who is fit to serve on the City Council
  • No citizen should be prevented from running for public office based on the business they own.

Who are we?

HP Forward is a grassroots group of Highland Park citizens working to promote transparency in government and a thriving local business community. We want to create a more vibrant Highland Park, making it a preferred destination on the North Shore.

What can YOU do to help?

VOTE YES on the Highland Park referendum, which will be on the back of the ballot in November. Be sure you flip over the ballot.

ENCOURAGE the City Council to amend the current law to allow liquor license holders to serve on the City Council.

GET INVOLVED: Request a yard sign, add your name to our list of supporters and look for updates!

Let’s move Highland Park Forward. VOTE YES in November!

Frequently asked questions

Highland Park’s antiquated liquor licensing law: An arbitrary restriction on voter choice and threat to outcome of local election

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 Council members (Mayor Rotering, Blumberg, Stone) blocked the amendment knowing that doing so will force Hoobler to either resign or lose his business. Three other Council members (Tapia, Lidawer, Ross) voted for the amendment. Hoobler recused himself from the discussion and vote.

Hoobler has now tendered his resignation. It is effective April 30, 2024, giving the Council one last chance to cure this injustice at its regular meeting on April 24th.

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) is using 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.

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 have already decided that they want someone with a liquor license to represent them. A minority of three Council members 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 yet updated Section 119.320.

4. Why was Hoobler’s license renewed?

Mayor Rotering has 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 license.

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

In the Council meeting on February 12th, 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. Now that the Council has created a separate pathway for re-evaluating rules involving conflicts and recusal, Council members 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 allow 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.

Campaign updates

What’s Up?

Over the past few weeks, several Highland Park residents have been working diligently to encourage our City Council to amend local ordinances to allow liquor licensees and owners of other lawful businesses to run for, and hold, a seat on the City Council. The question of the Liquor Amendment in Highland Park will NOT be on the City Council’s agenda on July 29. This will be the last meeting to change the local ordinance before the deadline to go to referendum on the November ballot.

Councilmembers Andrés Tapia and Annette Lidawer have worked tirelessly to advocate for this amendment, which was drafted by Corporate Counsel Elrod. Despite their efforts, and many letters from concerned citizens, the Mayor and the rest of the council have refused to consider the amendment or explain their objections.

Passing this amendment does not guarantee anyone a seat on the City Council. It does allow voters to select the most deserving and qualified candidates for Highland Park. Some have raised false concerns about potential conflicts of interest, but there are state ethics rules in place to address these issues. Elected officials with direct interests in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcoholic liquor are already prohibited from participating in related decisions.

No other valid reasons have been suggested to prevent an otherwise qualified citizen from running and serving as an elected official if chosen by the voters.

The Mayor claimed that no one cared about this issue. In a very short time we collected over 2,500 signatures from registered voters who do care and want their voice respected!

If you have any questions, please email 60035info@gmail.com.

Background and arguments for change

Jeff Hoobler ran for office last year on a pledge to bring independence and fresh ideas to the Council, along with his business experience as the owner of a restaurant with a liquor license. Although Mayor Rotering pointedly endorsed every candidate other than Hoobler, he earned more votes than all other candidates. While Hoobler served in his first term, Mayor Rotering renewed his liquor license.

A few weeks later, someone noticed a Prohibition Era local law prohibiting renewal of a Council member’s liquor license; until then, no one at City Hall knew this law existed – including the Mayor, city attorney, city staff, the local liquor commissioners and Hoobler himself.

The logical solution was to update the law. The voters of Highland Park already decided they want someone with a liquor license to be able to serve on the Council. Community members have written hundreds of letters and filled Council chambers and overflow rooms – pleading for an update to a law they consider outdated and harmful to the public interest. Local restaurant owners even created a petition demanding an end to arbitrary discrimination against them. The state restaurant association submitted its own letter strongly objecting to the current law. And no one seemed to believe that a law no one knew existed suddenly represented vital public policy.

However, unfortunately, Mayor Rotering and her two Council allies – Tony Blumberg and Kim Stone – blocked the amendment, knowing that would force Hoobler to resign or lose his business. Three other Council members supported the amendment – Annette Lidawer, Andrew Tapia and Yumi Ross. Hoobler recused himself from the discussion and vote.

What are the arguments for change?

These arguments may be summarized as follows:

The current law harms Highland Park by effectively overturning the outcome of the last election, and by limiting participation in elected government. It is undemocratic because it takes decisions out of the hands of voters, who are capable of deciding for themselves whether a liquor license – like any other business or property interest – may impact a candidate’s ability to serve. Independent research into the purpose of the current law shows it is outdated – just like the laws that limit the speed of horses, regulate the length of swimsuit coverups, etc. Council members have a duty to enact laws that align with contemporary norms and the wishes of the voters. We expect them to model inclusivity and work to expand – not arbitrarily limit — civic engagement. We also expect our leaders to bring the community together, put aside political agendas, model openness and civility, and show the voters that their voices mean something.

Mayor Rotering says she opposes change because the Council shouldn’t act to benefit one of its own. That red herring misses the larger point that change is required to benefit the community, put choices in the hands of voters, and respect their voices. It also ignores the fact that Mayor Rotering never considered Hoobler to be one of her own.

Council member Stone says she opposes change because someone with a liquor license may face conflicts of interest. But ethics experts agree that any business or property owner may face conflicts, especially in small city governance. State liquor laws recognize that when these specific types of conflicts occur, the public is protected by recusal — and in any event the City’s ethics procedures are being updated to address any uncertainties.

Council member Blumberg argued that ONLY JEFF HOOBLER was responsible for digging up a law that no one else at City Hall knew existed, including the very people responsible for implementing the law.

Where do we go from here?

We started these mailings for two reasons:

  1. To support an update of local liquor licensing laws in order to empower voters, respect the outcome of a free and fair election, and expand the pool of potential candidates for the Council.
  2. To prepare for the possibility of a grassroots, community-wide referendum to (again) clarify the wishes of the voters.

What needs to be done now:

  1. We must continue to let these council members know we want the liquor licensing law amended. They recently expanded access to liquor licensing, and this makes even more citizens ineligible to run for office. The owner of a grocery store would be ineligible to serve but the owner of a cannabis dispensary is currently fine. Does that make sense? Contact the council at council@cityhpil.com and demand a change.
  2. Mayor Rotering is required by law to select Jeff’s replacement. We must reach out to Mayor Rotering and tell her know we expect her to respect the wishes of the HP voters and select a younger local restaurant owner that will be able to provide insight similar to that Jeff offered the council. Let her know by sending emails to nrotering@cityhpil.com
  3. Don’t give up. The battle was lost, but the fight to change our laws and move HP forward must continue!
  4. Share this information with your friends and watch our website, www.HPforward.org, for further information and ideas for moving Highland Park forward!

Join A Grassroots Movement To AMEND NOW!

From the April 2024 call to action:

  1. Join us at the Council meeting April 24th and bring your neighbors.
  2. Email Council members urging them to amend the ordinance on April 24th: council@cityhpil.com and tell your neighbors to send emails.
  3. Sign a petition created by local restaurant owners: Open Letter from HP Restaurants to Mayor Nancy Rotering & the HP City Council (google.com) You don’t have to own a restaurant to sign!
  4. Join our mailing list: Let’s change our licensing laws! Your email address will NOT BE SHARED.

Illinois legislative history

Recently, Councilmember Blumberg said he wanted to learn about the history and status of the state’s laws on liquor license holders serving as a city council member. A HP citizen did extensive research. His findings and letter to Councilmember Blumberg are below:

Fri, Apr 19, 2024

Tony,

I know you no doubt have been deluged with scores of emails on this subject, including one of mine sent via the City Manager on the 17th, but the contents below, particularly related to council members holding a liquor license, are quite important for you to read and sent on a personal basis, so I hope you will indulge me.

What occurs on the 24rh will be in my view a defining moment for your legacy, particularly given your worthy contributions as the presently longest serving council person (other than the mayor?). Leaders are born not from the easy tasks they meet and decide, but ultimately from challenges from which doing the right thing must occur, regardless of animus toward a colleague, or past positions on the same subject We have all made errors that we have rectified, including myself of course, and to err is human but to forgive is divine. But what is important is to represent the public and to maintain the public trust that the electorate has put into you when they re-elected you, again, myself included as one of those voters. It is akin to taking years to build up an admirable pedigree, but a moment for it to fall apart.

Next, I understand you questioned why council members were allowed to hold liquor licenses as found in the state statute, 235 ILCS 5.6-2 (a) (14). While the city’s corporation counsel addressed the legislative history of the entire statute per his 2-8-24 memorandum now made public pursuant to a city response to a F.O.I.A. request and which I have cut and pasted the relevant part of it as a first attachment, it does not address nor answer your specific query of why council members were identified as being allowed to hold liquor licenses as a local public official. So I undertook a bit of “shoe leather” research and contacted the state library, reference section, in Springfield ((217)-782-7596) before which I had also spoken with the state LRB. I spoke several times with reference librarian Tammy Hansen. I also placed a call to the Index Dept. of the Public Records Section ((217-558-4072) to see whether any legislative debates occurred to answer why council members were identified as being allowed to maintain liquor licenses provided they recuse themselves on the topic of sale, manufacture or distribution of alcoholic beverages. Having also reviewed all the historical notes for this statute, P.A. 92-378, eff. 8-16-2001, added to (a)(14) the exception allowing the grant of a license to an alderman, member of a city council, etc. For your reference, see the second attachment received from the state library reference librarian, last page, highlighted in yellow, starred in red).

Based on this research and the attachment, I conclude it was the legislature’s position 67 years after the initial liquor control act of 1934 was enacted, and 23 years before this year that council members were first allowed to hold a liquor license because the state’s public policy would no longer be violated by having someone like a member of the city council hold a liquor license provided, of course, that certain conditions are met, again as laid out in Sec. (a) (14). This ok was not limited to city council members, but to aldermen (now alderpersons), or members of villages board of trustees; in other words, members of governing bodies within a capped population base of 55,000 that includes Highland Park. In fact, the will of the legislature is clearly expressed in section (14) itself in that there is no conflict of interest if the elected official with a direct interest in the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages “shall not participate in any meetings, hearings, or decisions on matters impacting the manufacture, sale, or distribution of alcoholic liquor” [ref. bottom of sec. (14), p.8, top of p. 9 in 2d attachment, all as highlighted in yellow, underscored in red).

Even more convincing in addressing your query is a third document attached to this email. From using Westlaw’s Illinois Legislative History Transcripts library, I came upon a discussion in an Illinois Senate Transcript, 2001 Reg. Session [same year that P.A. 92-378 became effective], No. 42, concerning HB 269 that related to gallons of wine that start-up wineries may produce each year. But Senator Jacobs also stated that this bill, “includes a provision that…an alderman or member of a city council can hold a liquor license if the majority of the business is food. This was brought up by the Illinois Restaurant Association. I know of no—no known opposition and ask for your support.” emphasis added. The bill passed the senate unanimously, 56-0!

To satisfy your query, the conclusion should now be clear, viz, if it has not been already: the Highland Park ordinance that continues to preclude council persons from holding a liquor license is decades out of step with the times. State of Illinois legislators have concluded that there are no conflicts of interest for members of a city council to hold liquor licenses so long as the mandates in the state statute are followed. This, then, contradicts what the mayor has been saying as publicly reported (see my 4-17 email to the council you have received from the city manager) that she (Rotering) is opposed to changing the Highland Park ordinance due to “conflict of interest concerns”. There cannot be any such conflicts in the City of Highland Park where there are none under Illinois state law and recognized by Illinois legislators!

Please do the right thing next Wednesday evening, viz, allow an amendment to the liquor license as originally proposed by Member Lidawer to be placed on the agenda, and then vote for it.

My personal regards,

Miles J. Zaremski
Zaremski Law Group

Documents