A smaller Council can work differently

Reducing the City Council from 14 aldermen to 7 would not simply create a smaller version of the present Council. It would open the door to rethinking how the Council does its work. A 14-member body naturally needs procedures that divide people into smaller groups, route matters through committees, and manage who participates when. With seven members, more of the Council can sit around one table and work through an issue together.

The current Council refers all matters to one of four committees to prepare a Report with a recommended action to be taken by the Council. Four committees do not exist just to divide the work. They also exist to divide fourteen people into groups small enough to work effectively. That points to a different question: instead of asking how seven aldermen could do the work now done by fourteen, Elmhurst could ask what kind of workflow makes sense when seven people are doing the job.

One possible rhythm: discuss first, act later

One approach would be to separate working sessions from formal action more clearly. The Council might hold one regular action meeting each month and use the other weeks for public working meetings. Those meetings could be called Committee of the Whole meetings, Council workshops, or something similar.

Week 1	Working meeting: major policy or development issues
Week 2	Working meeting: finance, infrastructure, or other pending matters
Week 3	Working meeting: follow-up, alternatives, revisions
Week 4	Regular Council meeting: formal action

This is only an example. The point is not that Elmhurst must adopt a particular calendar. The point is that a seven-member Council could organize its meetings around deliberation before decision, rather than around feeding recommendations from several small committees into a much larger body.

Use committees where they add value

A smaller Council would not have to abolish committees. It could keep a specialized committee where recurring work truly benefits from focused attention, or create temporary ad hoc committees for a major project, a facilities question, or another unusual assignment. But standing committees would no longer need to exist simply because a 14-member Council is too large for every alderman to participate in every detailed discussion.

Let staff develop facts; let aldermen debate choices

Professional staff, consultants, and existing boards and commissions can continue to gather facts, analyze technical issues, prepare alternatives, and draft proposed ordinances. The elected Council can then focus on the public-policy choices: What should Elmhurst do? What are the tradeoffs? What alternatives deserve consideration? With seven members, all seven wards could be represented while those questions are being worked through.

Residents as participants, not just observers

Rethinking the Council workflow could also create an opportunity to rethink the resident’s role. Traditional public-comment periods usually allow residents to speak to the Council, but they do not necessarily create a discussion with the Council. Residents may make a statement, while Council members are free to move on without questions or exchange.

Discussion-oriented working meetings could be designed to allow more structured two-way participation before decisions are made. Residents could answer aldermen’s questions, respond to concerns raised during the discussion, suggest alternatives, and hear what considerations are shaping the Council’s thinking. The goal would not be an unlimited town hall. It would be to give residents a meaningful opportunity to participate while ideas are still being developed rather than only after positions have hardened.

A real-world example

Rolling Meadows, Illinois, uses both regular City Council meetings and Committee of the Whole meetings. The City describes its Committee of the Whole as a workshop where items are discussed in more depth and no voting is conducted. City of Rolling Meadows meeting guide Its current agenda archive also shows separate Council and Committee of the Whole meetings. Agenda archive Elmhurst would not have to copy that model, but it shows that separating discussion from formal action is a practical municipal workflow, not a theoretical idea.

The opportunity

A Council of seven is not fourteen with seven chairs removed. It is an opportunity to design a legislative process around seven people: more discussion together, fewer layers of delegation, clearer separation between deliberation and final action, and more room for residents to participate before decisions are made. The exact rules would be for a future Council to decide. The important point is that reducing the size of the Council creates room to reconsider how the work gets done.

This paper presents options for consideration. It is not a proposed set of Council rules.

How a Council of 7 Could Get Things Done

Ideas for organizing the work of a smaller Elmhurst City Council.