In my first post, I examined how apathy reigns in Northbrook politics. In my second, I discussed the bizarre involvement of outside political organizations in our local elections. In this post, I take a closer look at an institution within Northbrook itself: The Northbrook Caucus (https://www.northbrookcaucus.org/) and my thoughts on needed changes.
The Northbrook Caucus was established in 1952, when Northbrook's population was just over 3,300 (officially 3,348 in 1950) by the League of Women Voters to create a nonpartisan, community-driven process for endorsing candidates for local offices, including the Village Board, Park Board, Library Board, and school boards. It was designed to identify and vet qualified candidates with the goal of ensuring effective governance. Over the years, the Caucus has played a role in shaping Northbrook’s leadership, including supporting the establishment of the public library in its early years. The organization operates through a Leadership Team and subcommittees responsible for candidate selection, with residents encouraged to participate through town hall meetings and volunteer roles.
The Northbrook Caucus follows a multi-step process to select and endorse candidates for local office. It begins by soliciting applications, which are reviewed by a subcommittee that selects candidates for interviews. After conducting interviews, the subcommittee makes recommendations to the full Caucus, which then meets to discuss and vote on which candidates will move forward. At a Town Meeting, the recommended candidates are presented, and nominations may be made from the floor. The town votes, and those receiving the most votes are officially endorsed by the Caucus. The process applies to Village-wide offices, including Village President, Village Board Trustee, Village Clerk, Park Board Commissioner, Library Board Trustee, and school board members for Districts 27 and 28. The Caucus does not provide transparency into who participates in the selection process, how many people are involved, or the specific rationale behind each endorsement.
The Caucus website states that it provides links to applications for all endorsed candidates, but as of publication of this post, these links are broken on their FAQ page (https://www.northbrookcaucus.org/faq-2025). Additionally, key information about the selection process is missing. The website does not disclose who the key members of each group are, nor does it indicate how many people are involved in the process. There is also mention of Caucus By-laws, but the link to them is also broken. [NOTE - This was fixed after I pointed it to them. I have reached out for access to these By-laws and will update this post if I receive any relevant information.
At first glance, this structure sounds highly beneficial. Northbrook has a 75-year tradition of vetting any candidate who wants to run for office—by the people, for the people—what could go wrong? A structured, community-led process designed to ensure qualified candidates are put forward seems like a model of good governance.
However, it’s important to ask whether the process has evolved in a way that still best serves Northbrook today. I want to be clear: this is not a critique of individuals—whether they have volunteered for the Caucus, led it, or been endorsed by it. I commend anyone who contributes their time to civic engagement.
What I am examining here is the process itself—how it has changed over time, and whether it continues to function as intended.
Consider the Chicago Tribune's reporting on the 2019 Village Election and the Caucus process leading up to it: https://www.chicagotribune.com/.../with-huge-turnout.../
In that election, 35 Caucus members initially selected three challengers to endorse for Village Trustee positions, bypassing three sitting incumbents. Under Caucus rules, the incumbents were allowed to challenge the selection at a town meeting, where 500 residents voted on the final three endorsements. After answering six identical questions, one incumbent was re-nominated, while two challengers were endorsed by the town meeting vote.
Final vote tallies: - Endorsed Candidates: 275, 266, and 242 votes - Rejected Candidates: 214, 198, and 138 votes
At first glance, this appears to be a democratic process—residents engaged, votes were cast, and selections were made.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Only the three Caucus-backed candidates ended up running for the board in 2019. They each received about 1,500 votes in a town of 30,000 registered voters (~5.2% turnout) and were elected - unopposed. In 2023, they were again endorsed by the Caucus and again won unopposed, this time with about 2,500 votes apiece in an election with 11% voter turnout.
To summarize: Three of our current Village Trustees won a straw poll of less than 2% of Northbrook voters (each by fewer than 60 votes) en route to back-to-back unopposed elections.
Ironically, the headline of that Tribune article was: "With huge turnout, Northbrook Caucus picks 2 newcomers and 1 incumbent for Village Board."
Indeed it was. And indeed they did.
Now consider a fourth current member of the Village Board. In 2023, a trustee stepped down for personal reasons. Illinois state law requires the Village President to appoint a qualified individual to fill a trustee vacancy within 60 days, subject to Village Board approval within 30 days. The board approved this appointment at the December 12, 2023 meeting.
Reflecting on this appointment at the 2024 State of the Village, the Village President stated: "[Prior trustee] had to leave us for personal reasons and, boy oh boy, to have the opportunity to appoint someone in the role of Village trustee is daunting. The Village Board sets policy decisions, and it's the residents of Northbrook who are to elect the person to make policy decisions, but when you make an appointment, you know you really skip that step. The voters don't necessarily have input in that, so we sought out and we had a public process [where] we sought applications [and] we got between 10 and 20 applications for the Village Board. [New trustee] threw her hat in and has been elected actually twice before. She's gone through the Caucus process and she was a District 28 board member for two terms, so [New trustee] has been vetted by the voters, she has a record, and her background is in Marketing and Communications / PR. So I think [New trustee] fits in very nicely. In addition, she has a perspective for us on the schools, and as we see developments come in, we do really want to take into consideration what our schools think and how they feel, so [New trustee] really fit that bill nicely."
* Full disclosure – I was one of those 10+ applicants and, while I thought my background was at least worth a conversation, the president disagreed, and I merely received a rejection email. I've never had any follow-up from the Village Board asking me to participate in a commission or sub-board.
This new trustee had previously been elected twice to the District 28 school board—both times unopposed: - 2015: Elected with 307 votes (3.2% turnout of 12,000 registered voters) - 2019: Re-elected with 471 votes (4.4% turnout of 13,000 registered voters)
There is no publicly available record of how she was vetted or selected by the Caucus in 2015. However, it is reasonable to conclude that her Caucus endorsement led to two unopposed wins with extremely low turnout—which in turn played a major role in her appointment to the Village Board in 2023.
To be clear, I am not questioning the background, experience, or capabilities of these trustees. An evaluation of their performance will be a topic for future posts.
However, the reality is that over half of our current Village Trustees have each won two unopposed elections with alarmingly low turnout after being endorsed by the Caucus.
The Caucus endorsement appears to be the decisive factor in determining who serves.
This is not an inspiring example of democracy at work.
Although the Caucus website does not specify what it provides to endorsed candidates, it is reasonable to assume that it plays a key role in helping them gather the required signatures to get on the ballot—likely 300 for the upcoming election—and then provides marketing support in the form of yard signs, social media, events, and door-to-door outreach.
And they ask a very reasonable question in their FAQ: "IF WE HAVE A CAUCUS, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE CONTESTED ELECTIONS?"
Their answer, however, seems more aspirational than reflective of the political reality in Northbrook: "Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our constitutional democracy. As noted above, the Caucus Committee serves in an advisory capacity to recommend candidates for elected positions, but there is nothing to prevent any registered Northbrook voter from running for election. We see other candidates run for various personal, special interest, or politically driven reasons. Our country’s electoral process supports the opportunity for candidates to run for any reason. Our city does too.
The point of the Caucus is to offer the community a process to ensure some due diligence has been overseen in the candidate selection process before nominees are presented for the election. The Caucus search, vetting, and nominating process is run by peers in the community (Caucus Committee), who are elected by the community to serve on their behalf. A vetting process vs. self-selected individuals provides a level of assurance and confidence for the community. Ultimately, each member of the community casts their own vote and they should do their own research of all candidates up for election."
On those same FAQs, the Caucus asserts: "Because the Northbrook Caucus is a non-partisan organization, Northbrook residents benefit in terms of credibility, inclusivity, and effectiveness."
The challenge is that the Caucus walks a very fine line between non-partisan and partisan politics.
A nonpartisan organization does not formally affiliate with any political party (e.g., Democratic or Republican). The idea behind a nonpartisan system is that local government decisions should be based on community needs rather than party ideology, focusing on qualifications, experience, and leadership ability rather than political affiliation.
However, while the Caucus is not affiliated with a national political party, that does not mean it is free from group influence or political dynamics.
The Caucus operates as a singular endorsing body, meaning that, in practice, it functions as a de facto political party within Northbrook by:
- Selecting a slate of candidates
- Endorsing them as the vetted choices
- Organizing around their election and campaign efforts
Since the decision criteria behind endorsements are not public, and the individuals making these decisions—at least their backgrounds—are not disclosed, it is impossible to verify that the process truly represents a nonpartisan, Northbrook-first approach.
And once the Caucus endorses a candidate, any marketing muscle it provides is expressly intended to help those candidates defeat anyone who enters the race independently.
Thus, this "non-partisan" group is actively working to defeat other Northbrook residents, despite purporting to represent the whole community.
It is quite the tumultuous circle.
Thus, while the Caucus is not officially linked to a political party, it effectively functions as the dominant political force in Northbrook’s local elections.
Since every endorsed candidate has won since 2009, often unopposed, the Caucus wields significant influence and ultimately serves as a gatekeeping institution that limits electoral competition.
Curiously, the Caucus has a platform statement (https://www.northbrookcaucus.org/platform) that focuses primarily on Village Trustee priorities. What’s unclear is whether this platform pre-dates the candidates—meaning they were vetted based on their ability to advance it—or if the candidates were selected first and then the platform was created around them.
If it’s the former, who in Northbrook helped shape this platform? If it’s the latter, the blurred lines between nonpartisan and partisan politics become even more pronounced since those candidate do have opposition in the upcoming election.
* For more full disclosure, I participated in the Caucus process back in 2016, hoping to secure a spot on the District 28 school board for the 2017 election. After attending numerous school board meetings, it became clear to me that either the existing board was unaware of some egregious allegations against an administrator at my sons’ elementary school, or they were aware but failed to follow proper protocols to investigate and address the situation. Neither answer was satisfactory to me.
Believing the Caucus process was the appropriate path to run for office, I applied. In my interview, I made it clear that I brought much more to the table than just my concerns about the board's lack of oversight, but I also did not shy away from stating that fresh leadership was needed.
The selection process consisted of a written application and one in-person interview with four or five Caucus volunteers. I was not selected for an endorsement and was told that the committee did not want to endorse anyone with a pre-existing agenda.
Interestingly, rather than just announcing the endorsed candidates, the Caucus also publicly listed the names of those who were passed over, including myself. This was covered in a Chicago Tribune article (https://www.chicagotribune.com/.../northbrook-caucus.../).
While I could have gone through the independent process to get on the ballot, I felt that the public nature of being passed over would have hurt my candidacy, almost like a scarlet letter. I also was intimidated by the prospect of taking on the Caucus-endorsed candidates on my own.
In the end, the four endorsed candidates ran unopposed and won—with less than 10% of the district’s voters participating in the election.
Although my two personal experiences with local politics and the Caucus were not positive and have definitely shaped some of my perspective, I hope this post presents a broader fact set for people to consider.
I see two possible paths forward: - The Caucus continues operating as it is—but it should drop the pretense of being nonpartisan and acknowledge that it functions as Northbrook’s dominant political party; OR - The Caucus evolves into a modernized, transparent process that actually strengthens democracy rather than limiting it.
If the status quo remains, I believe it’s time for Northbrook to create a second mechanism that enables residents to get on local ballots without going through the Caucus (though everyone would be free to go through both).
However, if the Caucus were to evolve, here’s what should change:
- Eliminate the concept of endorsements. Instead, view the process as a vetting mechanism that assesses rather than anoints candidates. The Caucus can still provide subjective evaluations, but its role should be informational, not decisive.
- Ensure all applicants get ballot access. Every candidate who goes through the Caucus process should get the full activation of the Caucus to get the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot—whether they receive an endorsement or not. This would level the playing field and encourage broader participation.
- Publish candidate assessments. Rather than simply listing endorsed candidates, the Caucus should release a summary of all applicants, including: - Their responses to key questions - A fair, nonpartisan evaluation of their strengths and areas of concern - Voters deserve to see the full picture, not just a pre-approved slate.
- Be fully transparent about the selection process. The Caucus should publicly disclose: - Who is involved in vetting candidates - How decisions are made - What criteria are used - If the Caucus truly represents Northbrook, then the community deserves to understand how it operates.
These steps wouldn’t eliminate the Caucus’s role—in fact, they would restore its credibility. The Caucus would still serve an important function by helping voters evaluate candidates, but it would no longer be a barrier to broader participation in local elections.
If the Caucus refuses to change, then perhaps the best solution is to form an alternative—a new mechanism for vetting and supporting candidates outside the Caucus structure.
This new process could be built using the blueprint outlined above, but with one core difference: It would exist to foster competition rather than control it.
At the end of the day, the ultimate goal should be to encourage civic engagement, not limit it.
The best local government comes from open, competitive elections, where multiple perspectives are represented, voters have a real choice, and residents actively participate in elections
That is how democracy should work and I hope the Caucus evolves to support this.