Note: I originally wrote this piece shortly before Election Day. I sat on it because a trusted reviewer felt it might be “a bit strong”—too critical of those who showed up and too easy on those who didn’t. While I understood both sides, I held off publishing. But once the results were in, and I continued to hear about how the Northbrook Focused slate skipped the Forum, I returned to it as part of a broader retrospective on the campaign. For those who want to see for themselves, the full forum remains available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er-MutLvtb4.
Over the past six weeks, I’ve written extensively about the Northbrook Caucus—an organization that, curiously and unabashedly, now seems to operate as a local arm of the Democratic Party. Once again in 2025, its endorsed candidates swept every contested race—from Village President to Trustee, all the way down to the School Boards.
Since 2009, no Caucus-backed candidate has lost a race for village government. Most of those contests went uncontested, and voter turnout often hovered around 10%, with a high-water mark of nearly 24% in 2021.
This year was different. Similar to 2021, both the Village President and Trustee races were contested. Voter turnout rose to 29.5%—a new 15 year high, but not by much. Less than two out of three registered voters still didn’t participate.
And yet, even that modest uptick revealed something new: cracks in the foundation. The Village President’s race was decided by just 435 votes—52.7% to 47.3%—a stark contrast to the 20-point margin seen in 2021. Incumbent Kathryn Ciesla won re-election with the active support of just 15.0% of registered voters, underscoring the widening gap between electoral victory and a true governing mandate.
Down-ballot, all three Caucus-endorsed trustee candidates won as well—but with lower vote totals and smaller margins than their 2021 counterparts. Meanwhile, independent candidates—despite limited or interrupted campaigns—still pulled over 40% of ballots. The message? The Caucus’s grip on power is no longer secure. It’s slipping.
Unless the current board makes meaningful changes—in outreach, transparency, and delivering visible results—it’s hard to imagine this trend reversing in 2027. If those disillusioned by the growing gap between campaign promises and actual performance stay engaged and build real infrastructure, the groundwork for meaningful change is already underway. Based on the early post-election signals, though, Village Hall doesn’t seem particularly eager to adjust its tone or direction in what now feels like a community split between status quo, frustration, and (mostly) apathy.
With the results still fresh, it’s worth stepping back—not just to assess who won or lost, but to understand how the campaigns were run. The strategic decisions made by both slates reveal what resonated with voters, what didn’t, and what future candidates would be wise to avoid. Few moments highlighted these choices more than Northbrook Focused’s decision to skip the League of Women Voters forum.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) is a nonpartisan organization that aims to encourage informed and active participation in government, educate voters on key issues, and advocate for sound public policy. While it does not endorse candidates or parties, the LWV does take positions on a range of topics—like voting rights, environmental protections, and campaign finance reform. Because those positions often overlap with progressive values, some observers—incorrectly, in my view—see the League as left-leaning.
Interestingly, it was the LWV that helped inspire the formation of the Northbrook Caucus nearly 75 years ago. For much of its history, the Caucus served the village well. But in recent years, it’s evolved into a more conventional political operation—and seems to have now formally aligned itself with a national party. That said, assuming bias in the League’s forum because of that historical link feels like a stretch, though I understand that some residents have had different experiences. As an aside, my mother was active in the LWV, and I still remember her taking me to a New York State Senate debate when I was in grade school. That early exposure to civic life left a lasting impression—and it’s may be part of why I value forums like these, even when they fall short.
Northbrook Focused declined to participate in the League of Women Voters forum, citing that the League is not directly involved in Northbrook politics and tends to focus more on state and national issues. They expressed concern that the forum would simply provide a platform for more unfulfilled promises from the current board, and instead stated a preference to engage residents through other local conversations centered on solutions and accountability. It’s not unreasonable to think they may have expected the forum to be canceled once it was clear that only one slate would attend—though that assumption proved to be incorrect.
In my view, skipping the forum was a mistake. It was a missed opportunity to clearly articulate their purpose for running, demonstrate fluency on key village issues, and shift at least some scrutiny toward the board’s record. Instead, their absence fed into a familiar critique—repeated to the point of exhaustion during the campaign—that they lacked transparency and readiness. By not addressing it head-on, they allowed the criticism to stick. More importantly, they forfeited a chance to connect with undecided voters who may have been looking for an alternative but needed more reason to believe in it.
With that in mind, I found myself wondering: what exactly did they walk away from—and how much did it really matter? We don’t have the benefit of sophisticated polling or internal campaign data that larger elections rely on, but we can still try to evaluate the potential impact. I didn’t attend the forum in person, but I watched the recording multiple times on YouTube, transcribed the event, and rewatched the 2021 forum, when both the Northbrook Caucus and United4Northbrook slates participated.
The 2025 forum was held on March 15. The moderator, representing the LWV Palos-Orland chapter, opened the event by outlining the forum’s format, which closely mirrored the approach used in 2021:
“The format today is a forum and not a debate. Candidates are expected to accurately represent the facts, and their responses should reflect their own views and opinions. We encourage candidates to speak about their goals and plans, and to refrain from speaking about another candidate or what another candidate has or has not done. Candidates will begin in alphabetical order with their 90-second opening statements. They will then alternate the order in which they have 90 seconds to answer each question. After the question portion of the forum, each candidate will give a 90-second closing statement, starting in reverse alphabetical order. Members of the League will be acting as timers. Should a candidate exceed their time limit, I will ask them to finish their sentence, and we’ll then move on to the next candidate. It is not necessary to use all 90 seconds, and if we are economical with our answers, we can fit in more questions from all the great people who showed up today.”
Credit should be given to the Northbrook Caucus candidates for participating. While the format limited direct engagement or rebuttal, the candidates still showed up, answered publicly, and addressed a wide range of questions submitted by the audience. That kind of visibility—and willingness to be held publicly accountable—is worth acknowledging.
Before diving into what was said at the forum, it’s worth asking a more foundational question: how much do these events actually matter?
The library’s main auditorium seats about 225 people. Let’s assume it was packed and standing-room only—generously estimating 300 attendees. As of this writing, the YouTube replay of the forum has drawn fewer than 125 views. For comparison, the 2021 forums were held entirely online due to COVID—making virtual attendance the only option—yet even then, total viewership was limited: the trustee forum drew 961 views, and the presidential forum pulled just 440.
Even if having both slates present had boosted this year’s online viewership to 1,200—a generous assumption—the total reach would still only amount to about 1,500 people, or just 2% of Northbrook’s electorate.
And because events like this tend to attract those already planning to vote, their audience is largely self-selecting. People who attend a League forum—whether in person or online—are usually the ones already paying attention, already engaged, and already planning to cast a ballot. These events rarely reach disengaged or undecided voters, which limits their power to broaden participation. The League of Women Voters deserves credit for organizing and sustaining the tradition, but increasing civic engagement will require more than a single afternoon in March—especially from those in power, who have yet to put forward a serious plan for voter outreach and appear uninterested in risking their winning streak.
This year’s forum ran just 43 minutes, including roughly eight minutes of introductory remarks and about 35 minutes of candidate responses. By comparison, the 2021 forum—featuring six candidates—lasted nearly 90 minutes. According to the moderator, around 30 questions were submitted by audience members, but only six were addressed due to time constraints.
If the Northbrook Focused slate did have any claims of bias, one moment during the introduction stood out. The moderator, representing the LWV Palos-Orland chapter, offered this aside:
“First, there were originally six candidates on the ballot for the three open positions, as we just discussed. Two of the candidates, Laura Hochstein and Anthony Riccardi, subsequently withdrew from the race, however they did so after the ballots were printed and their names remain on the ballot. In the meantime, candidate Hochstein has recently informed the League that she has resumed her campaign and intends to take office if elected. So, just when you get your ballots, when you decide who to vote for among the names listed on the ballot—ignore Mr. Riccardi, as a vote for him will be wasted since he has said he will not take office. The other five are legitimate and worthy of your consideration.”
Frankly, it’s hard to understand what purpose this served. Why mention Hochstein’s earlier withdrawal at all, given she had resumed her campaign? As for Riccardi, while it was appropriate to note that he said he would not serve if elected, labeling a vote for him as “wasted” seemed unnecessary and dismissive. There is a process in place for handling that situation—one that Northbrook has used twice in the past five years.
And voters seemed to understand that. Nearly 42% of ballots included a vote for Riccardi—an intentional, symbolic gesture by residents who knew exactly what they were doing.
After all, in 2000, Missouri voters elected challenger Mel Carnahan to the U.S. Senate posthumously—a deeply symbolic and entirely deliberate act. By that same logic, would a write-in vote—always an option on local ballots—also be considered “wasted” if the candidate had no path to serve? Voters deserve to have their decisions respected, even when those choices defy conventional expectations.
If Northbrook Focused had concerns about bias in the forum, comments like these lend some credibility to that perspective.
Before we dig into what the candidates actually said, it’s important to again acknowledge this much: the Caucus slate showed up. They sat under stage lights, answered questions live, and did it on camera—none of which is easy, and arguably none of which is a perfect measure of whether someone is equipped to govern well. But in a campaign where visibility and public accountability matter, showing up still counts.
It also may seem a little unfair to evaluate their performance retrospectively - especially from a Board who seems to recoil at being evaluated and frequently feels victimized by what they consider to be Monday Morning quarterbacks who they feel criticize but refuse to answer the call of civic duty.
That said, given the Caucus campaign’s emphasis on deep experience—and their repeated contrast with opponents whom they characterized as offering only promises without plans—it’s fair to expect clear, specific answers and concrete ideas. Especially in a setting where the questions were broad but predictable, the moment called for more than generalities or campaign slogans. After all, the Northbrook Caucus had spent months assuring voters that they had recruited and vetted the most qualified candidates for the job. This forum was a chance to prove it.
In addition to their opening and closing statements, the six questions randomly chosen from the 30 submitted were:
- What do you think are the most pressing needs of the village?
- Will the property tax increase be permanent? If yes, why after improvements are completed? If not, how long will the increase continue?
- What is your economic vision for Northbrook to prevent the continued transfer of the property tax burden from businesses to residential property owners in the village to fund the village schools?
- What are your views on inclusion in Northbrook? What future initiatives are planned in this critical area?
- What action are you willing to take to improve meaningful and respectful dialogue among community members (example of Facebook page)? How will you improve communications moving forward?
- Is there consideration by the village to use developer funds to build and run affordable housing? (There was also a mention of vacant land possibly available for affordable housing).
These questions highlight the risks of sourcing directly from the audience without any filtering or clarification. The level of specificity without context from the author combined with the situation in which they were being asked, ended up dulling the effectiveness of the forum. This was especially true with two of the questions which did little to give us a better sense of the candidates and their hold on the issues.
I do understand that the act of sanitizing questions such to make them more useful could raise concerns about impartiality-so it's a double-edged sword.
When I first drafted this piece, I debated whether to include a detailed breakdown of each candidate’s individual responses to the forum questions. There’s real value in offering transparency and clarity, especially for voters who didn’t attend or watch the recording. But given the intent here—to evaluate the forum’s influence on the 2025 election results, not to critique each candidate—the better approach was to summarize and de-personalize. That decision was also made easier by the candidates themselves, who leaned heavily into presenting a unified front. Whatever individual perspectives they may hold, they chose to emphasize shared values over distinct viewpoints or contrasting proposals.
That cohesion likely reinforced their intended message of steady, collaborative governance—but it also came at a cost. Voters hoping for meaningful distinctions or fresh thinking were left with little to go on. Across the board, the responses stayed broad, values-based, and light on detail. With vague affirmations and few specific takeaways, the forum did little to deepen understanding of the candidates or their platforms. In the end, it’s hard to conclude that most residents walked away with a clearer sense of what any of them would actually do if re-elected.
If you'd like to judge for yourself, the recording remains available on YouTube. And as always, if you believe I’ve misstated any part of what was said or implied, I welcome the correction.
What the Candidates Said
Opening Statements
Candidates began by introducing themselves and emphasizing their personal investment in Northbrook. Each highlighted their professional and volunteer backgrounds and struck a tone of collaboration and community focus. While this helped humanize the field, the statements lacked concrete policy goals or governing priorities. Phrases like “doing no harm,” “bringing excitement,” and “moving Northbrook forward” were offered, but without actionable detail. The segment worked well as a warm-up but not as a window into governance plans.
What do you think are the most pressing needs of the village?
This prompt drew familiar responses—downtown revitalization, economic development, infrastructure investment. Candidates framed these as ongoing efforts, reflecting confidence in the current direction. But the priorities sounded nearly identical to those cited in the 2021 State of the Village address—initiatives were very little noticeable progress was made in the last four years. There was no discussion of timelines, metrics, or accountability. And notably, affordable housing, which would come up later, wasn’t mentioned at all. The answers felt more like campaign affirmations than governing agendas.
Will the property tax increase be permanent? If yes, why after improvements are completed? If not, how long will the increase continue?
The candidates struggled here, openly admitting they weren’t certain what tax increase the question referred to. One tried to clarify that the Village typically uses bonds for major projects, not permanent increases. Another redirected toward the school referendums, which follow separate processes. The third offered general reassurances about tax stability. The ambiguity of the question—and lack of a common understanding among candidates—meant there was no real discussion of tax structures or long-term fiscal planning. The moment simply drifted by.
What is your economic vision for Northbrook to prevent the continued transfer of the property tax burden from businesses to residential property owners in the village to fund the village schools?
This question could have sparked a thoughtful discussion on economic development, intergovernmental coordination, and long-range tax strategy. It didn’t. Candidates acknowledged the challenge but offered no cohesive vision. They mentioned tools like TIFs, 6B abatements, and sales tax rebates but didn’t explain how those tools connected to a larger plan. What kinds of businesses should Northbrook attract? How do we compete regionally? How would success be measured? Those questions went unanswered. The conversation stayed at the level of levers, not outcomes.
What are your views on inclusion in Northbrook? What future initiatives are planned in this critical area?
The candidates reaffirmed their commitment to inclusion and cited examples like the inclusivity pledge, cultural programming at the YMCA, and the work of the Community Relations Commission. One linked inclusion to affordable housing and business diversity, which was a welcome effort to make the issue more structural. Still, the answers skewed symbolic. There were no specific new initiatives proposed, no metrics for improvement, and no real mention of community feedback. Also notable: only one of the three candidates praising the inclusivity pledge is listed as a signatory on the village’s own website.
What action are you willing to take to improve meaningful and respectful dialogue among community members (example of Facebook page)? How will you improve communications moving forward?
The responses here were aligned in tone: social media is divisive, civility matters, and better dialogue is worth pursuing. One candidate cited their communications background, another stressed in-person interaction, and the third pointed to newsletters and board meetings. All fair points, but light on new ideas. Just days later, one of the candidates publicly accused the opposition of tactics “straight out of the MAGA playbook”—a comment liked by several sitting board members. That moment stood in tension with the calls for nonpartisanship and civility made during the forum, and it revealed how quickly values can dissolve under campaign pressure.
Is there consideration by the village to use developer funds to build and run affordable housing? There was also a mention of vacant land possibly available for affordable housing.
Candidates pointed to the 2020 affordable housing ordinance and the proposed 48-unit HODC development as signs of progress. One mentioned the 15% set-aside requirement and floated the idea of partnering with a nonprofit land trust. But none of the responses directly answered the central question: are developer funds currently being used—or could they be—to finance and operate affordable housing in Northbrook?
No one referenced the village’s state-mandated Affordable Housing Plan or articulated a roadmap for meeting its goals. One candidate returned to the topic in their closing remarks, not to offer further clarity, but to contrast Northbrook with a neighboring community that has already met the state’s affordable housing threshold—seemingly a misdirected rebuttal to a social media post by the opposition.
In a village where affordable housing stock has effectively declined over the last twenty years—and where compliance with state goals remains in question—this was a missed opportunity. Residents deserved more than updates and deflection; we needed a clear, actionable plan. We didn’t get one.
Closing Statements
Each candidate returned to familiar campaign themes—community, service, civility. One framed the election as a choice between experience and chaos with repeated references to the opposition, prompting a rare rebuke from the moderator for violating the forum rules. Another emphasized responsiveness and the third offered a gracious thank-you. But none used the opportunity to leave voters with any vision or a clear path forward. The forum ended much as it began: warm, polite, and vague.
Given all of that, the decision by Northbrook Focused to skip the forum does read as a missed opportunity—but not necessarily a decisive one. Their absence left a gap the Caucus slate easily filled, presenting themselves unopposed in front of a friendly audience and using the moment to reinforce their narrative of stability and readiness. With even modest participation, Northbrook Focused could have challenged that framing. The format wasn’t perfect—only six questions, no follow-up, limited reach—but it was still a platform. One they chose not to use.
The problem wasn’t just that they didn’t attend—it’s that they didn’t own the story of why. The Caucus slate made sure voters were reminded, again and again, that their opponents wouldn’t even show up to a public forum. The implication didn’t need to be spoken outright—what are they hiding?—because it landed all the same. It didn’t need to be repeated often (though it was); it just needed to go unanswered. And Northbrook Focused didn’t offer a credible alternative narrative to fill that space.
It’s unlikely they lost the election because of the forum. And it’s just as unlikely they would have won it had they attended. But in a race where momentum was in reach, even a modest shift in perception might have mattered. Instead, they left behind an open question—and in its silence, the Caucus slate shaped what that absence meant.
The forum didn’t define the 2025 election. But the story surrounding it came closer than it should have. In a campaign that revealed an appetite for change, Northbrook Focused let a small but meaningful opportunity pass them by. And in doing so, they helped their opponents avoid deeper scrutiny of their record and plans.
For future candidates, let this be clear: the forum isn’t the campaign—it’s a moment in it. And whether or not you participate, voters will take note of how you handle that moment. If you skip it, you’d better have a compelling, visible, and repeated explanation. If you show up, have something real to say. Either way, define your message early—before someone else defines it for you—and make sure that message reaches beyond your inner circle. In a town where most voters stay home, it’s not enough to have the better argument. You have to make it land.
Forums, debates, and other public forums may only reach a sliver of the electorate, but they punch above their weight in shaping narratives. They are not the place to find your voice—they are where you prove you already have one. Know the 15 questions you’re most likely to be asked, and be ready to reframe any variation of them back to your core message. Don’t just have answers—have direction. Offer clarity, not just critique. This is how you move beyond a soundbite and begin to build trust.
Equally important: understand the political terrain. Candidates who run independently—or even just outside the Caucus endorsement—should expect to face opposition not just from their opponents, but from the larger political ecosystem around them. Your voting record, civic engagement, and even your neighbors may become part of the narrative. Attempts will be made to cast you as partisan, fringe, or out of step. That’s not paranoia—it happened in 2025 and it will happen again. Prepare for it. Don’t just play defense—own your story first and make it harder to rewrite.
Finally, don't let one platform define you. The forum is a tool—not the only one, and not a perfect one. But it’s a stage to show voters who you are, what you believe, and how you plan to lead. You don’t have to win the forum. But if you ignore it—or let others fill the silence—you lose something harder to recover: control of your own story.