IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN, VOTERS

Newspaper men like the joke that there are two seasons in Illinois: winter and construction.

True that, but at least in the case of construction, you have a choice. You can take different roads. Yet that's not always the case with the biennial rite in every local municipality (and another exciting season): elections.

Those who support and comprise the establishment candidate endorsement organization called the Citizens' Council of La Grange strongly believe it is a system that works well for the community. It has rarely seen competition to its endorsees, who win most of the time.

But as in the case of the last two municipal elections in the village -- in particular the last contest for village president in 2005 -- things don't always go as planned.

Every election season, a new group of Council members, led by their own by-laws, gather monthly at Village Hall to vet, recruit, interview, research, endorse, then lobby for their choices for seats on the Village, Park District and Public Library boards.

Except, for the most part, the last two elections, "independent" candidates for public office in La Grange do not typically fare well at the polls. In other words, they rarely win.

Just ask onetime "independent" trustee hopeful Larry Gess, who was not endorsed the first time he sought Council backing -- for which he didn't get and ran anyway as an independent, losing his fight.

The former downtown candle shop owner only won a trustee seat when he was later endorsed and backed by the Council. Go figure.

Unlike its municipal counterparts in most neighboring communities throughout Cook and DuPage, La Grange does not boast an active two-party system, where one slate of endorsed candidates runs at election time vs. another slate of endorsed candidates (Or in the case of, say, Lyons or Willow Springs, three parties).

That's not the going way, the status quo, and hasn't been for more than 70 years in La Grange.

Rather, the 11-district Council vets all the candidates -- this year that means three Park Board, four Library Board a five Village Board vacancies -- and endorses those it feels best represent the village as a whole and "not in ny narrow sense represent any particular organization, business, social group or special interest," as per its bylaws.

Its delegates seem to be dedicated, hard-working people out for the town's best interests. But its numbers are severely lacking.

While the Council endorsees end up running, often as a political party, without opposition, that is by design, not happenstance. Its president, Orlando Coryell, puts it this way: They are but they aren't political.

The Council firmly believes its role is a fair and democratic one which its ever-changing members attest often takes the politics out of typically partisan contests so often dividing communities and those who govern them like nearby Brookfield, Countryside or La Grange Park.

Two years ago, the Council endorsed three for trustee, but couldn't get them to sign a unified statement about their candidacies, said Coryell. Signs sprouted up in town not just for those three, but for an "alternative" slate comprised of two of the three and another guy who failed to win the endorsement -- who later ended up losing the race.

But the real test of the Council occurred in '05, when its membership (in private, as usual, by the way), endorsed former trustee Theodore "Ted" Hadley for village president over challenger Liz Asperger, the current mayor.

Hadley, a close ally of state Sen. (and former village trustee) Christine Radogno, was an often outspoken official with a lot of great ideas who had his loyal backers, obviously.

But many of those in the business community and of the status quo in La Grange threw their support behind the successful Asperger instead.

The characteristically vitriolic relationship between Hadley and his onetime detractors was not more evident when, at the close of the latest Council meeting Sept. 10, one prominent businessman and new Council member came by to shake hands with fellow new member Hadley.

He was flatly denied, ignored more like it. So everyone on the Council doesn't get along. That's another factor that makes it so unique, its political(oops) and philosophical differences.

After all, as the adage goes, politics does make strange bedfellows.

Take Asperger, who has enjoyed a fairly positive first term as she helped usher in proposed new mixed-use developments on both ends of the downtown. One wonders how comfortable she will be in seeking the Council's endorsement this time around -- if she even bothers.

One of the biggest problems facing the Council this year, like many others, is apathy: not just among interested candidates for the seemingly less prestigious offices of Park Commissioner and Library trustee (which often don't have as many interested candidates as open spots without a little arm-twisting), but those wanting to be Council members.

The organization seems to be run well, like a finely oiled machine, but sometimes it acts like a family, with so many differing opinions.

Over time, some residents and political pundits have even viewed the Council's existence as unnatural, undemocratic perhaps, especially given that it, more frequently than not, is comprised of far less than the ideal maximum of 88 members.

This fall, for instance, the group boasts a grand total of 47 members. That's a fraction of 1 percent of the town's residents and not much more than 1 percent of those who voted in the last mayoral election in which Asperger won by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

Coryell says the Council is seeking to expand its geographic diversity beyond members and candidates from the historical center of town. The council limits membership to eight delegates per district, but rarely has attracted that many. Plus, its leaders are not crazy about publicizing where it is lacking members, for some reason.

To become a delegate, an applicant must be a registered voter who has lived in the village for at least one year. You can't be a current canidate or married to one.

Another interesting factor this year is the fact that since the last election, Coryell has become a bigger name in town. The husband of a longtime Library Board trustee, he mounted a successful legal challenge to the Park Board's controversial decision to sell part of Gordon Park to a private developer.

Coryell says the council board was made aware of his efforts and was OK with his actions, and he doesn't think his very public position will affect any potential Park Board candidates -- even the incumbents who favor the land sale. Hmm.

Besides a protracted debate over whether to use flyers vs. email to attract new members, the Council spent a good part of the evening last week debating whether to accept more new members before slating takes place in November and December, whether to endorse for village president, clerk and three trustees sooner than later and whether holding another meeting in October will help or hurt the vetting process.

Council board secretary Rob Pierson repeatedly made it clear in rejecting Hadley's idea of holding a second meeting to grow the Council's ranks when he suggested that would only "open the door" to outright abuse by partisan factions.

Those factions, which he said have the "tendency and ability" to pack the Council with their allies "just to do slatemaking then disappear into the night" to assure their candidate is endorsed rather than someone who represents a broad spectrum of the village, is qualified and involved, has past experience and an open mind -- qualities the Council says it strives to atract.

If those same people were only encouraged to take a chance and run for office without feeling they had to appear before the Council first, voters could make an informed choice as to who they would like running their village.

Things, it seems, would be much more in the open. Transparent. And voters would have a clear choice.

After all, what would it be like if a specified group of U.S. citizens met and endorsed just one candidate for president, and when we went to the polls, he or she was the only one on the ballot?

My guess is that many voters would definitely have something to say about that. Ya think?