The annual meeting of the Peoria Township electors drew an overflow crowd Tuesday at City Hall, producing votes in favor of both a non-binding ballot question related to boycotts of Israel, and a special meeting to consider funding for a possible senior center.
The occasionally heated discussion over the ballot resolution lasted almost an hour, with about 20 speakers weighing in on whether the township should direct its elected representatives to support the Illinois Human Rights Act.
“Even though that I truly believe this has nothing to do with our city and the township, personally, I tend to agree with what this petition is asking for, whether it’s going to go ... anywhere or not, because I am consistent in my love for the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment especially,” said Alex Carmona, a Peoria City Council member.
The petition presented for the township agenda worded the ballot question, “Shall the Illinois Congressional members who represent Peoria Township vote to support the Illinois Human Rights Protection Act, which would repeal amendments to the Illinois pension code that penalize American businesses that choose to boycott Israel?”
Some argued the penalties infringe upon the freedom of expression rights of business owners, while others suggested removing them would open the door to discriminatory practices.
Lawrence Maushard, an East Bluff activist who has previously sought a seat on the Peoria City Council, said the law penalizing boycotts of Israel is unjust and potentially unconstitutional.
“We’re talking about pensions that can’t ... be invested in for the state of Illinois because they have come out on the side of human rights against Israel,” said Maushard. “There’s no way that there should be an Illinois law that prohibits boycotting of Israel.”
Greg Johnston, a resident who is not an elected official, said the bills proposed in the state House and Senate have not been moved out of committee.
“It appears there is little interest in moving this legislation forward,” said Johnston. “Using township and county ballots in this way puts a highly polarizing foreign policy fight into a level of government that was not designed for.”
Township procedure allows any resident who registered to vote to participate in the annual meeting as an elector. The measure on the non-binding ballot resolution passed with 69 votes in favor and 27 against.
“While statute may allow for this discussion, I’ve always been steadfast in the fact that we need to focus on the topic for the governmental body that we are having the discussion and representing,” said council member Zach Oyler, who was among those voting in opposition. “I don’t see anything in this topic that relates to township business.”
The vote comes amid a cease fire between Israel and Hamas over the war in Gaza, a conflict in which the Gaza Health Ministry reports more than 72,000 people have been killed by the Israeli military. The war followed Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 when 1,200 people were killed.
While the question going on the Nov. 3 general election ballot is non-binding, John Kelly also pointed out the wording itself is flawed: Calling on “Congressional members” would mean U.S. Reps. Darin LaHood and Eric Sorensen, and not members of the Illinois state legislature.
“They [LaHood and Sorensen] don’t make state law. This petition looks silly. It makes our township look silly. It makes our electors look silly,” said Kelly.
Township attorney John Redlingshafer said the wording legally must remain as presented on the submitted petition and could not be amended to clarify or correct the inaccuracy. The spokesperson for the petitioners said he believed voters would understand the spirit of the question and the technicality would not impede the intent of the referendum.
“The process of non-binding advisory referendums is something that I think needs to be respected, but this doesn’t make sense the way it’s presented, because the congressional delegation has nothing to do with the state Human Rights Advocacy Protection Act,” said Tim Riggenbach. “As passionate as both sides have argued this, I hate to vote no on a technicality, but that would be very inappropriate and confusing for the electorate.”
Senior services special meeting
Prior to consideration of the ballot question, the township overwhelmingly voted in favor of a request to schedule a special meeting related to providing senior services, after a 35-minute discussion.
“The goal of this special meeting is for the Peoria Township board to establish a Senior Services Ad-Hoc Committee tasked with creating a road map for developing a financially sustainable senior center, with a structured study of the needs of older adults in Peoria,” said Peggy Jacques, the spokesperson for the petitioners.
Jacques, founder and executive director of Graceland Center for Purposeful Aging, noted that of the 20 largest cities in Illinois, Peoria is the only one without a senior center.
“While the older population is growing, our infrastructure for aging in place has not kept pace with what other communities are doing to retain retiring seniors,” she said. “There are senior centers all around us, from Springfield to Pekin, Lincoln to Galesburg and Normal. The time is now to get on board with proactive planning for our aging population.”
One potential snag in the proposal was the inclusion of a second prong on the petition, a request for a study aimed at using township funds for senior services.
“I think this example is a prime example of what this process was created for, was for the public to be able to weigh in on public policy decision-making,” said Oyler. “I will support the motion before us to have this special meeting. However, I want to be very clear that my support of having this discussion is not support of a tax levy to pay for it. That’s a very different discussion.”
Others seated around the horseshoe expressed similar concerns regarding potential public funding for a senior center, with Andre Allen wondering if it was an instance of “putting the cart before the horse.”
Again, Redlingshafer said the petition need to be considered as it was presented while acknowledging the funding mechanism might be premature.
“I’m not a lawyer, and so I did my best with the statute,” said Jacques. “The primary concern was to have a discussion, because that’s square one.”
Electors voted 120-3 in favor of the petition. The special meeting was scheduled for 6 p.m. May 12.
