Political Science Department

Principia College, Elsah, IL 62028

This paper was first presented at at tne annual Conference on Small Cities and Regional Communities at Western Michigan University and was published in the conference annual proceedings. A version of the paper was published by The Godfrey Advantage newspaper.

On April 2, 1991, the citizens of Godfrey, Illinois, voted to incorporate their township into a village. This was the fourth attempt to achieve incorporation over three decades.

Godfrey is located west and north of Alton, Illinois, in the northwest corner of Madison County. The new village is located on the Mississippi River upstream from St. Louis, Missouri. Godfrey and Alton are the northern anchor of the string of small industrial cities and towns that make up the "eastside." The region, as with most of southern Illinois, is struggling economically. The communities of the region, with the exception of Godfrey, have been losing jobs, population and tax base, both commercial and residential.

Godfrey, on the other hand, has managed to maintain, if not expand, its economy and tax base. The citizens, with some justification, view their township as the "cash cow" for the county -- paying more into the county coffers without equal or fair return. The township is represented by only two of 29 members on the county board. Politically, the township is a Republican enclave in the midst of a strong Democratic machine. The "cash-cow" syndrome appears to be one of the leading reasons for motivating citizens to vote for incorporation.

The township government is directed by a respected, well-liked supervisor and four trustees. Like a number of other townships in the region, but unlike the incorporated areas, they have been able to maintain a balanced or surplus budget from year to year. Separate special districts handle fire, utilities, libraries and schools. Police protection is provided by a large county sheriff's department.

Until incorporation, Godfrey claimed to be the most populated unincorporated area in the state. The population of the township is in question, the subject of intense disagreement between the township (which estimates the population over 20,000) and the federal government (which estimates the population under 16,000). This is not an issue of pride but of practical finance, with per capita revenue sharing (such as sales tax and motor fuel tax) of close to $300,000 at stake.

The urban geography of Godfrey is similar to a number of suburban areas in the region. There is no central hub or core, although businesses and traffic are oriented along several two- and four-lane state highways passing through the township. The residential areas function as neighborhoods, most often based on older real estate developments with names such as River Aire, Belmont, Camelot, Villa Marie and D'Adrian. The majority of the 36 square mile township, however, is still undeveloped farm land.

The centerpiece of Godfrey, if one could be identified, in the region's community college -- Lewis and Clark -- and its Monticello Chapel. The Chapel, which sat across the main highway from the college, was purchased and moved by the college onto the college grounds. Based on letters to the editor, comments in "Sound Off" (the newspaper's anonymous telephone comment line) and general discussion, there was substantial opposition to the action as unnecessary and costly. The main thoroughfare, electric and utility service were severed one Sunday morning in fall, 1991, as contractors transported the New England-style church across the highway. The building was refurbished and landscaped. Decked with holly and ivy, and lighted with floodlights, the Chapel made a stunning centerpiece for the Christmas season. The interior was refurbished as a large college and community meeting hall. Opponents have fallen silent. One former opponent called the newspaper comment line with an "I'll eat my words" apology. The Chapel has become the informal symbol for the village.

The tax base of the township is primarily residential real estate property tax. There are a number of small businesses and a mix of light industry. Because of the amount and variety of businesses along the state highways, catering to high volume transient traffic, sales tax revenue is also important. Finally, the county has an extensive licensing tax structure (on alcohol and video machines, for example).

Godfrey's closest and most important neighbor is the City of Alton. Alton has been plagued with a loss of population (up to 20% each decade for the last two decades), a loss of employers (especially among heavy industry), and a growing budget deficit (estimated deficit of $2 million on a $16 million budget). Alton was one of the first towns in Illinois to be permitted to have riverboat gambling (launched Sept. 10, 1991), which is seen by some as a financial panacea. Alton receives 5% of the gamblers' losses, 50 cents on a head tax, and 20 cents per passenger surcharge. Others, particularly downtown businesses which have lost parking spaces to gamblers without an increase in commercial traffic (the gamblers come for the gambling), have complained. In contrast with Godfrey's Chapel, the Alton Belle riverboat casino has become the informal symbol of Alton.

With a declining industrial base, hence declining sales tax revenues, and declining population, coupled with declining property tax income, Alton has been casting about for additional revenue. The local banks had refused to back loans to the city. With gnashing of teeth, the city has started to reluctantly cut back the pre-decline size of its police and fire departments. One solution to the crisis has been to annex neighborhoods around the edge of the city. This fear of annexation into an already-failing city may have motivated a number of the citizens to vote for incorporation as a protection against such annexation. With the Mississippi River on the south, Godfrey on the north and west, and other towns on the east, Alton is effectively prevented from any additional expansion.

The April 2, 1991 incorporation vote was 2,582 (54.8%) to 2,128 (45.2%), with 55.4% of the township's registered voters going to the polls in the special election. The incorporation battle was hard fought. Proponents argued that incorporation meant self-determination in the form of control of land use and zoning, and fiscal control. Opponents argued that incorporation would lead to higher property taxes and reduced services, especially from the county. The proponents, a cross section of active citizens, formed a pro-incorporation organization and appointed a volunteer firefighter as their chair and spokesman. The incorporation opponents did not formally organize, although their ad campaign literature was sophisticated and coordinated. The general belief is that developers and real estate agents, fearful of increased and restrictive zoning and increased property taxes, were the primary supporters of the opposition.

Upon incorporation, the township supervisor appointed a 12 member transition committee to study and prepare recommendations. The transition committee, after working for five months, received heavy criticism for not making its recommendations public immediately. Curiously, no one appears to have challenged the committee under the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Among the more debated recommendations were: the village should continue police services by contracting with the Madison County sheriff's department, and the village could reduce property taxes by 10%.

The election of municipal officers was set for the next general election date (November 1991), although Illinois municipal elections are usually held in April. The village would be governed by a mayor and six trustees. Eleven candidates (all men) filed petitions for mayor, three candidates (all women) filed for village clerk, and 27 (including two women and one Afro-American) filed for the six trustee positions -- a sign of active interest in the new government. The minimum requirements were a period of residency and 25 signatures on the petition.

Among the leading candidates for mayor was the township assessor, a fixture in township affairs for 34 years (including over two decades as assessor); the chair of the incorporation committee; a well-known, long-time professor of political science at the community college; a retiree known for his leadership in fraternal and civic organizations, including the local little league; and an attorney with a powerful local law firm. The most curious of the mayoral candidates was a young laborer who apparently was drafted by his drinking buddies at a local tavern. His only campaign sign was a handpainted board outside of the tavern. At each of the candidate forums, he would stand up and polite decline to say anything.

The leading contender for village clerk was the well-liked and respected incumbent township clerk. One of the clerk candidates had to disqualify herself when she discovered that she had not lived in the township for the minimum residency period. The leading candidates for trustees included the four incumbent township trustees. Other candidates were active on the transition committee, and thus had early access to the transition report. This discrepancy in access to the report engendered public criticism.

The candidates, based on a study of their campaign literature, public statements at two public forums, and responses to questionnaires in the regional newspaper, keyed on five issues: taxes, bureaucracy, zoning/land use planning, police services, and need for a full-time mayor. The candidates uniformly expressed an anti-tax sentiment. Almost all expressly promised to conserve tax dollars and promised no increase in taxes. One candidate, the attorney, argued that such promises are impossible to make and keep. The candidates uniformly expressed a distaste for government bureaucracy and promised to reduce "red tape." This issue reflected the fear in the growth and cost of government, an extension of the general anti-tax sentiment. Almost all candidates were in favor of contracting police services with the county sheriff's department. One trustee candidate (who did not win) was strongly opposed to the sheriff's department. Although some of the candidates expressed an interest "in the long term" of the village having its own police department, they admitted that it would be the more costly alternative. The public safety issue also included discussion of incorporating the independent fire protection district into the new village structure. Most voters appeared to have associated this view, rightly or wrongly, with the candidate who was a volunteer fireman (and an appointed member of the fire district's governing board).

All of the candidates danced around the zoning and land use issues. Most were aware that the vote for incorporation was not overwhelming and they feared (as it happened) that many incorporation opponents voted in the village election. The issue has growing importance with developments in the region. Federal and state funds have been allocated and construction has begun for a new bridge across the Mississippi River at Alton. This would permit the St. Louis region to expand northward across the river and permit an expansion of bedroom communities, such as Godfrey. The major U.S. route across the bridge has been rerouted through Alton and will still serves as the main thoroughfare of Godfrey. This will encourage continued and expanded truck and vehicle traffic into and through the area. The state is also developing a four-lane limited access road around the northern towns of the eastside, anchored in Godfrey. The state has on its long range plans the construction of an interstate freeway up western Illinois. The southern end of the freeway, at least 25 years off, would be begin in Godfrey. Finally, Godfrey, only forty-five minutes from downtown St. Louis, still has vast acreage of undeveloped farm land.

The citizens of rural Jersey County to the immediate west overwhelming defeated (in a non-binding but influential referendum) a county-wide zoning proposal. While the need for land use management is becoming apparent, the political pressure is against it. The Godfrey candidates used words and concepts such as "preserve the character of the neighborhoods," "protect homeowners," "promote business," "protect our economic base," and "promote responsible development." When pressed as to whether these terms meant more or less regulations, most candidates expressed the belief that the county zoning code, which is considered quite weak, was sufficient. The only specific item that surfaced was a general distaste over the proliferation of signage along the strip of the main thoroughfare.

Perhaps the "hottest" issue was over the commitment of the mayor. Under Illinois law, elected officials cannot raise their salaries until after the next election. Since the elected officials entered office without any salary, they would serve for the first year and half (until the next Illinois municipal election in April 1993) without any pay. One candidate, the political science professor, seized on this issue and argued the American ideal of citizen government whereby citizens donated time and service on behalf of the community. He expressed his commitment to serving as "a dollar-a-year man." He also argued that the mayor's job should be parttime. His position reflected several factors. The first was the clear preference of the citizens for small and cheap government. The second was the perception of the job (which has turned out to be different). The third was the reality of serving without pay, thus having to maintain regular employment. The fourth and probably most important was the belief that eventually the village should hire a professional administrator to manage the city and that the elected officials would serve as parttime policy-makers. The candidate was roundly challenged, though none of the other candidates publicly argued for salaries. Instead, they used buzzwords such as "fulltime mayor," "always available," and "twenty-four hour mayor."

The overall campaign can be characterized by the overarching themes of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "a tax base that is rightly ours." This was a reflection of the general satisfaction with the government of the township supervisor and the special use districts. In effect, the citizens of Godfrey wanted their cake -- general satisfaction with the level of services -- and eat it -- self-government and self-control -- too.

There were a number of hidden issues, only now coming to the surface in telephone polls and public discussion. There is a fear of special interests, both a reflection of the kitchen-cabinet style of government in Alton and the on-going activities in Godfrey. There is a growing concern over specific development issues, such as sewage. Many of the developments and neighborhoods are not on the central sewer system and there is little motivation to hook up. Other zoning issues, such as signage, landfills and trailers, are growing. Finally, and of little direct control of the village, there is growing disillusionment over the school system, which is shared with Alton. The school system embodies much of the motivation for incorporation. Because Godfrey has the stronger tax base, it pays for the schools; but because Alton has the larger and better organized voter base, it controls the politics and distribution of the funds. For example, the only public high school is in central Alton.

The election campaign was uniformly clean. Although a few rumors circulated, nothing was ever raised publicly. The local AFL-CIO and the League of Women Voters each organized a public candidates forum. Most of the audience consisted of members of the candidates' families and circle of friends. Although this was the choir singing to itself, it did have the effect of identifying the strongest candidates in each race and the candidates for trustee, for example, later would discuss who they would like to work with. The second forum, co-sponsored by the local commercial radio station and held at the community college, was broadcast.

The two most important media for Godfrey are the regional newspaper, The (Alton) Telegraph and a locally-based AM talk/news/sports radio station, WBGZ, known locally as the "Big Z." The publisher of the paper and the managers of the radio station live in Godfrey. Both conducted interviews with all of the candidates. The newspaper published a full-page spread giving the results of candidate questionnaires. A number of the mayoral candidates took out ads in the paper. Many of them distributed flyers, leaflets and yardsigns to gain name recognition. The most distinctive yardsign was of the retiree who had his picture on the sign. The political science professor led the way with door-to-door campaigning, starting shortly after Labor Day and circulating through all the neighborhoods and precincts. His friends and former students also organized small neighborhood gatherings. Almost all of the mayoral candidates produced and distributed flyers and leaflets; some were sent in mass mailings to voters. The political science professor also received a number of ringing endorsement letters in the letters-to-the-editor space in the paper (many of which were not planted). Few other candidate received such endorsements.

In the midst of the election campaign, incorporation opponents filed suit in county circuit court to have the election enjoined and the incorporation vote overturned. The four plaintiffs, apparently solicited by a local attorney, included a developer, a local contractor and one of the mayoral candidates. The candidate argued that he had joined the suit in order to secure the validity of the election. Subsequently, he expressed regret over his involvement, saying that he had been solicited without fully understanding the ramifications of the suit. Some suspect that the attorney and the plaintiffs are "fronts" for developers. The local circuit court dismissed the second part of the suit, pertaining to the election, and delayed the first part, concerning the validity of the incorporation, until after the election. This suit resurrected community fears, identified in subsequent telephone polling, of hidden special interest groups.

Community pundits predicted that the township assessor, having the most name recognition and public exposure, as well as a core of loyal followers appreciative of low tax assessments, would win the election. However, being assessor, he developed dissatisfied constituents aggravated by a recent reassessment battle between the township and the county. The other leading candidate, the volunteer fireman, had strong name recognition as chair of the incorporation committee. However, as chair, he had alienated those opposed to incorporation. Since there was no primary election, the successful candidate would most likely win on a plurality, conceivably as small as ten percent (if the other ten candidates each took nine percent). Over fifty percent of the registered voters -- 4591 -- voted.

The political science professor won with 38% (1743) of the vote; the township assessor was a distant second with 25.7% (1180); the incorporation chair was a much more distant third with 14.6% (672); and the eight other candidates combined received 21.7% (996). The two lowest candidates, including the young laborer, tied at 17 votes apiece, less than the number of signatures necessary for the petition for candidacy. The magnitude of the vote was demonstrated by the winner defeating all but one candidate combined (38% to 36.3%).

The township clerk handily won election as the village clerk with 63.9% (2522). Curiously, the candidate who had to withdraw received 13.3% (526).

The four township trustees (three are over sixty years of age), perhaps because of name recognition and political ties, were among the six winners for village trustee, placing first, second, fourth and sixth. The third place vote-getter was a young unknown farmer whose family did a lot of telephone calling. He represented a farmer or rural vote, and a younger vote (at age 38). The fifth place winner was one of the two women on the ballot. Although a newcomer to politics, she probably garnered votes from those who believed that there should be at least one women on the board.

The new mayor undertook two immediate steps. First, he appointed himself village treasurer in order to receive the share of state and county revenue owed to the new village. The state had been keeping thousands of dollars in tax revenue, particularly sales tax revenue, in escrow until the village could legally receive the funds. Second, he appointed himself liquor commissioner and appointed a liquor commission. This was particularly important because of the large number of taverns and liquor licenses in the village and the amount of income derived from licenses and sales. It would also focus most of the post-election controversy.

The first crisis of the village occurred over the regulation of the taverns. The new mayor had promised the taverns that the village would adopt a liquor ordinance nearly identical to the county liquor ordinance and maintain the status quo. The village attorneys duplicated the county ordinance from county documents, supplied it to the village trustees, who approved the new village ordinance. Shortly thereafter, sheriff's deputies arrested several tavern owners for closing hours violations. The Godfrey ordinance did not provide for a half hour grace period after closing time for tavern personnel to clean up. Thus, under the ordinance, in order not to be prosecuted for being on the premises after closing time, owners would have to close the bar sufficiently early to remove all patrons from the premises and clean up. The county ordinance, as distributed in pamphlets to the owners and as enforced by the sheriff's department, permitted the grace period. The Godfrey ordinance was based on the most recent, though outdated published version of the code.

The tavern owners, accepting the mayor's promise, did not read the proposed village ordinance. The trustees and mayor, accepting the word of the attorneys, did not recognize the difference. The attorneys, unfamiliar with the application of the county liquor ordinance, did not know the difference. The mayor had lost face for failing to fulfill his promise and the tavern owners felt that he had intentionally deceived them. To compound their displeasure, he called a public hearing on the matter. The hearing was heavily attended by the owners and patrons, and based on public sentiment at the meeting, he endorsed the granting of the grace period, which was adopted unanimously by the trustees. The newspaper and the tavern owners placed the blame for the error on the mayor and the attorneys, rather than the trustees. The mayor responded that the tavern owners were provided copies of the proposed ordinance. "A lot of people were given copies of the final draft of the ordinance and nobody caught (the mistake)," said the mayor.

The second tavern-related controversy, still brewing, concerns an 11 year Godfrey tradition known as Wickfest, named after Wick's, a local tavern. Each summer, the tavern opens up its parking lot for an annual outdoor party. Over the non-binding recommendation of the liquor commission, the mayor and trustees have denied a special use permit to the tavern for holding the party as is the past. Under the liquor ordinance, parking lots are not including within the definition of premises. One trustee has proposed amending the village ordinance to include parking lots within the definition, thereby avoiding the need for a special permit. The trustees voted 3-3 and the mayor was forced to cast the deciding vote. At a recent village meeting, one of the trustees threatened another, crying "I'm going to come over there and put you on your fancy." The mayor, forced to cast a tie-breaking vote, has been accused of refusing to negotiate. "It's either (the mayor's) way or none," proclaimed a trustee. One of the outspoken critics was the unsuccessful mayoral candidate supported by the tavern. The owner of Wick's has threatened legal actions and his leading supporter on the board charged the mayor with offering special treatment to a local golf course, a motor speedway and the area sportsman's club. The village attorney responded that the racetrack, golf course and club are within the legal definition of "premises," unlike parking lots.

The two tavern controversies inspired opponents into organizing petition drives to stop Wickfest altogether and curtail tavern hours. Two close friends of the mayor's as well as a member of the liquor commission are among the petition organizers. The tavern owner perceives the petition as "totally aimed at me" and part of the betrayal of the mayor. Another of the members of liquor commission publicly suggested that Wickfest proponents be given time to mount their own petition drive. Several anonymous comments in the newspaper's telephone "sound off" column have supported the "courageous stand" of the mayor, who was called "a very good person, not just a politician."

The controversy over the missing "grace period" stirred criticism of the fees paid to the village attorneys. Likewise, the mayor has received criticism from anonymous citizens voicing their opinions through the newspaper's "sound off" hotline for spending village monies. This has been in spite of a surplus in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The most recent controversy was sparked by an old debt owed by the county to the township. According to the township, the county still owes some $30,000 in the township's share of traffic fines. While admitting that it owes something to the village, the county has lost the records of the fines and refuses to specify an amount. The township filed suit over the revenue in April 1990. This struggle surfaced in the middle of the negotiations between the county sheriff's department and the village for police services. The proposed contract was approved by the village. According to the village mayor and township supervisor, the county clerk is using his influence to prevent county board approval of the contract. Godfrey officials and Madison County officials accused each other of linking the debt issue with the police contract. The sheriff has threatened to suspend patrols in the village and the village attorney has begun researching alternatives, including the formation of the village's own department.

This controversy is wrapped up in a number of issues. For example, to encourage better service in the area, the township had purchased four patrol cars for the sheriff's department, which the township still owns. Throughout the negotiations, some have accused the sheriff's department of trying to "gouge" the village, particularly since the county lost a large amount of revenue. Undoubtedly, the personalities of well-known and powerful politicians and attorneys have fueled the fire.

Underlying much of the financial debate is the issue of the 1990 census. The federal government originally reported the township's (hence the village's) population to be 15,785. Several months later, it revised the number downward by 144 to 15,671. Village and township leaders, based on estimates provided by the special use districts and utilities, believe that the population is closer to 21,000. However, the township assessor, defeated for mayor after being considered the frontrunner, believes that there are less than the estimate. Based on his formula of 2.77 for each of the 5,847 housing units in the township, he believes there are just over 16,000 residents.

The difference of over 5,000 people is important since the village receives $56 per resident in income tax revenue and $21 per person in motor fuel tax revenue. This is an additional $385,000 in revenue. The reduction in the federal estimate cost the village around $8,700. The township assessor's estimate would only bring around $40,000, less than the amount being spent by the township for a recount. One of the former township trustees, now on the village board, has made the census recount his mission. It was the cornerstone of this campaign and he has continued to pursue it. The township has already spent $38,400 on the recount and is expected to invest at least another $12,000 to pay census takers and other costs. While the federal government will not acknowledge a revised figure, the state will honor it.

Although Godfrey is within the St. Louis metropolitan region, it is outside of the St. Louis media market. Unless there is a crisis, such as a plane crashing into a bowling alley, the St. Louis-based media (including three network affiliates and an independent television station, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch) do not cover Godfrey or area matters. Godfrey does have a hometown AM radio station, WBGZ, which also provides news and sports for the other towns and communities in the region. If there is a political competitor for the station, it is the regional newspaper, The (Alton) Telegraph, with circulation in the mid-30,000's. The afternoon daily was the primary medium for Godfrey incorporation and election coverage. It surveyed all of the candidates and published their responses. It named the incorporation as the top story of 1991. Even though the publisher lives in Godfrey, residents consider the coverage mixed. One headline during the election declared "Godfrey candidates are off and yawning."

The newspaper did not endorse any candidate. Other than the survey of candidates, it provided no detailed information or analysis about any of the candidates or issues. Instead, several of the candidates purchased display advertising, including their picture. However, of most interest to readers are the letters to the editor and a controversial "Sound Off" column. The latter is part of the trend of many papers to install a telephone tape recorder and publish anonymously readers' comments. The winning candidate for mayor received a number of letters of recommendation and endorsement, some from friends and colleagues, and others completely unsolicited. A few of the other candidates received a letter each. The editors did not include endorsements in the Sound Off column. However, it is closely read to monitor citizen reaction to local affairs.

Since the election, the mayor has been complimented and condemned in the Sound Off column. One reader called for the mayor to stop persecuting the tavern owners. Other readers have praised "his responsible position" and "concern...for the citizens of Godfrey and their quality of life." Recent letters to the editor reveal citizen attitudes:

There appears to be a general feeling, revealed in telephone polling and private discussions around the village, that The Telegraph's coverage is biased against the village. One example of the style of coverage was the headline "Godfrey police price tag tops $2 million." Without reading further, the average reader might assume that the $2 million contract was on an annual basis. However, a careful reading of the story reveals that the contract is for two and a half years of "enhanced" service. The annual cost would only be $800,000. The controversy over the police contract has been reported as a "Wild West" story:

The tavern stories opened with puns on drinking:

The only competition for news to the newspaper is the a.m. radio station, WBGZ. It has a wide and faithful listenership. However, like most independent radio stations, the "Big Z" does little investigative reporting. As result, the citizens of Godfrey are dependent on the newspaper for the governmental watch-dog function of the fourth estate.

The case study of the establishment of the Village of Godfrey offers insights into Godfrey and may provide some lessons to other new towns. First, it is apparent that there is a reservoir of community spirit in Godfrey, symbolized by the pride over their Chapel. The community spirit surfaced in the fight for incorporation and in the scope of the first village election. However, no one has tried to capitalize on the community spirit. Thus, Godfrey is still only a village in name. It has yet to develop a community identity. This process is inhibited by a number of factors, many geographic. There is no downtown or core city. The village is not laid out in a manner to facilitate integration. It is still an area of independent suburban neighborhoods and developments. It does not have its own institutions, such as a hospital or high school. The other institutions, such as service clubs and churches, are shared with Alton.

Second, there is both a perceived and a real threat of special interests. At this point, the perceived special interests are the alleged opponents of incorporation, the developers and real estate firms. Until someone digs behind the on-going lawsuit, the voting pattern of several of the trustees and rumored meetings between certain trustees and developers -- a task normally assumed by a vigilant press -- there is no documented connection between these actions and any specific group. On the other hand, it appears that tavern owners are an active and potentially powerful special interest. However, this may be the result of the activity of only one owner.

Much of what motivates Godfrey is summed up in Alton. The two are contrasts in political style and structure, and citizen involvement.

On a large scale, the actions leading the creation of Godfrey and to the handling of its development reflect two potentially dangerous trends. The first is the growing anti-tax and anti-government sentiment in the region and the country. A number of bond initiatives -- for Dial 9-1-1, expanded library services, expanded extension services, etc. -- in the neighboring communities were soundly defeated this last election. In spite of the frugality of the village government, it is receiving criticism for spending. Although the point has not been reached, the citizens may be forced to choose between funding services and foregoing services. In Godfrey, this may first come with police protection.

Second, there is an avoidance of "professionals." The incorporation was fought by citizens and the village was created by citizens. Attorneys for the incorporation committee and the village are routinely criticized, usually for their fees. There appears to be a disdain for professional planners, administrators and managers. One example of this was a passing comment by the mayor to a reporter that he would like to have a professional administrator. Within days, comments appeared in the newspaper's "Sound Off" column condemning the mayor.

The combination of citizen activism and disdain of professionals may explain the trials and tribulations of the village. Most of the controversial actions were undertaken by active but unsophisticated citizens participating in their new government. For example, the village board finance committee met behind closed doors to discuss the budget. When accused of violating the Illinois Open Meetings Law, they suggested dropping the name "committee" to avoid having to comply with the law. Of course, the law applies regardless of the name of the governmental body. They action reflected a certain lack of sophistication. It appears that many of these actions could have been avoided, defused or better handled by professional administrators or managers.

Citizen-based government, the campaign promise of the political science professor/mayor, has also generated frustration with the seeming inefficiency of government, as summed up in this recent letter to the editor:

Campaign literature, various parties, April 1991 village incorporation election, Godfrey Township.

Campaign literature, various candidates, November 1991 municipal elections, Village of Godfrey.

Hoffman, Dr. Lars, Mayor, Village of Godfrey.

Ruyle, Dwight, Supervisor, Godfrey Township.

The Telegraph, Alton, Illinois (January 1991 to April 1992).

Williams, John W., unpublished results, telephone survey of 363 registered voters, Village of Godfrey, conducted February 1992.