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