John W. Williams, Political Science

Principia College, Elsah, IL 62028

This paper is a sequel to an initial study of the Village of Godfrey and was published in The Godfrey Advantage newspaper.

On April 2, 1991, the citizens of Godfrey (Illinois) Township voted to incorporate their township into a village by vote of 2,582 (54.8%) to 2,128 (45.2%), with 55.4% of the registered voters participating. In November 1991, with 50% of the voters going to the polls, the citizens of the newly incorporated village elected their first village government. A special municipal election was held concurrent with the general election. On April 20, 1993, the citizens will have an opportunity to reassess their government by voting in the next regular municipal election.

The incumbent mayor is running for reelection, challenged by a member of the village's Liquor Advisory Board. The challenge was a candidate for village trustee in 1991 and a former student of the incumbent. Five of the incumbent trustees are running for reelection. The sixth incumbent trustee dropped from the race when he was challenged for failing to properly file certain election forms.

The village trustees serve concurrently as the township trustees, with the village and township being coterminous. This relationship causes confusion as the trustees sort village and township business and keep the respective agendas separate. They usually meet as one body, then adjourn to meet as the other body. The uniformed observer is understandably confused. A contentious and confusing debate, complete with a series of votes and revotes, surrounded the establishment of salaries. The complexity of the debate was compounded by the fact that the same people received different salaries for their different duties.

In an unusual twist, the longtime township supervisor announced his retirement, to the surprise of many residents, amidst vigorous criticism from one of the trustees over the filing of financial forms with the state. The sixth trustee, having dropped from the trustee race, announced that he would be a write-in candidate for the supervisor's position. The switch seemed to happen so fast that critics claimed the two men planned the strategy. With self-depreciation, the write-in candidate claimed that neither man was "so damn smart that we could have fixed this thing." He credited his wife with his decision to enter the supervisor's race.

Supporters denied any conspiracy, pointing out that the current supervisor decided to retire after much negative publicity, including the vigorous public criticism by one of the village trustees. According to the mayor, a political ally, the supervisor had talked about retiring for sometime, although he had originally announced his bid for reelection. The sixth trustee was forced out of the trustee race by critics examining all of the election filing documents. In fact, supporters of the two men see a conspiracy in the attacks on the candidates.

The sixth trustee was one of the three trustees called the "yes men" for voting with the mayor while the supervisor's critic was one of the three trustees called "no men" (one of whom is a woman). Under the voting rules, tie votes are broken by the vote of the mayor. This consistently put the mayor in the awkward public position of breaking ties, thus becoming the critical vote on many issues. In a twist of logic, those with whom the mayor voted have been called his "yes men." No one has suggested the other alternative, that the mayor is the "yes man" for this group of trustees.

The battle over incorporation focused on issues of property taxes, development and zoning, government bureaucracy and police protection. Opponents of incorporation argued that a new village will mean increased taxes and expanded, costly government. They also feared that business expansion would be hindered by tightly controlled development and restrictive zoning. Proponents argued that incorporation meant control of their tax monies, land use and zoning. These same issues surfaced during the November 1991 municipal election. Although negotiation over a police contract with the Madison County Sheriff's Department raised some controversy, both mayoral candidates are in full support of continuing the contract. The challenger had originally proposed establishing a village police department. The other issues, however, did not seem to boil immediately after the election.

Instead, the village found itself embroiled in two other issues. First, the village board wrote a liquor ordinance. With some embarrassment, the board inadvertently left out a key passage the mayor had promised would be in the ordinance. The board quickly corrected the oversight. The mayor then engendered controversy by enforcing the liquor ordinance.

At the same time, one of the trustees (the one who was struck from running from reelection) led a campaign to challenge the federal government's 1990 census of the village. Critics argued that too much time and money was being spent chasing too few people. However, since key state and county monies are given to the village on a per capita basis, every person in Godfrey counted. While the recount identified more than the federal government found, it did not reap the bounty the village had hoped. Nevertheless, the increased count means more income for the village and the trustee points to his campaign for the recount with pride.

As 1992 got under way and the new government settled into office, seven issues appeared relevant: zoning, property taxes, police services, tavern hours, bureaucracy, census and controlling development. A year later, the police contract is established, village bureaucracy remains small, and the census recount has been completed. The tavern issue has been refocused to the question of vigorous enforcement of liquor ordinance, including enforcement of closing hours. Fear of an increase in property taxes remains, even though there has been no increase. And, issues of zoning and controlling development are especially contentious with the drafting and passage by a 5-1 vote of a comprehensive plan, and a highly publicized zoning controversy involving a local wood products manufacturing company.

In their only public debate, the mayor's challenger questioned incorporation but did not dispute it. He accepted the comprehensive plan as adequate and urged more economic development. Rather than focus on any of the past issues, he directly challenged the leadership of the incumbent, claiming that the village government had no procedures and that the mayor was inaccessible and worked behind closed doors. The challenger pointed out that the incumbent was often "in class," since the mayor (being unpaid) kept his full time teaching job at the local community college. The mayor continues as a political science professor at Lewis and Clark Community College where the challenger was his student. After the village board voted to establish salaries, the next mayor could quit his outside employment and serve as a full time mayor.

The incumbent has campaigned on the original issues of property taxes, police protection and land use planning. He argued, "our record speak[s] for itself." According to the mayor, "Our village saved over $2 million. Has not levied a new tax. Has spent far less than budgeted. Has strong police protection. Has adopted a citizen-owned land use plan for our future."

An underlying theme in the campaign has been the issue of "special interests," a euphemism for opponents of incorporation and the decisions of the village board. Particularly since he has to cast the tie-breaking vote in village decisions, the mayor has become the focus of much of this opposition. The mayor, in his speech, claimed, "A few who opposed incorporation will not give up." He inferred that the challenger was supported by these "special interests" and referred to a recent report in the regional newspaper that the challenger had "strong support from tavern owners and developers." In May 1992, the challenger wrote to the newspaper that "the next time you see one of these special-interest groups, shake their hand and thank them for all they've done for us." This letter may have set the stage for the current political battle.

In February 1992, undergraduate students in the Political Science Department at Principia College conducted a telephone survey of 380 Godfrey voters. The respondents were surveyed by telephone poll, randomly selected by standard statistical guidelines from listed telephone numbers. There were two key limitations of the poll. First, the sample was selected from listed telephone numbers. Therefore, those people without telephones or with unlisted numbers were not included in the sample. Second, only registered voters were polled, since only registered voters can participate in the Godfrey elections. Nearly 1100 numbers were called. If there was no answer, the number was called two more times. Thus, among the reasons that so many numbers were called in order to get 380 valid responses -- no one answered after three attempts, household was not in the village, no registered voters in household, or refusal to participate.

The purpose of the survey was to develop a picture of the political position of the Godfrey voters, particularly with regard to the issues surrounding incorporation. The respondents were asked about their stand on incorporation, their stand on seven key issues of the time and on where they got their political information. Also, the respondents were asked several demographic questions. Some respondents refused to answer specific questions, so the totals may not add up to 380. The answers are based on the percentage of persons responding to the question.

Of the 356 people responding to the question, 244 (68.5%) said they voted for incorporation the prior April and 112 (31.5%) said they voted against incorporation. This was a higher split in favor of incorporation (54.8% to 45.2%) than the actual vote. This may indicate that the sample was slightly biased in favor of incorporation supporters. Since the sample was statistically random, the primary explanation is that voters with listed telephone numbers willing to participate in the survey, on the whole, are more supportive of incorporation. Even if those who refused to answer the question (24 people) were included as opponents, the percentage in favor of incorporation (64.2% to 35.8%) was still larger than the actual vote.

Of the 343 voters responding to the question, 243 (70.8%) said they would vote for incorporation if there was a revote (at the time of the poll), while 100 (29.2%) said they would oppose incorporation if there was a revote. Even if those who refused to answer the question (37) were included as opponents, the percentage in favor (63.9% to 36.1%) was still larger than the actual vote.

The voters were asked if they had any feeling of how their neighbors thought about the incorporation. Only 275 of the voters were willing to answer, with 221 (80.4%) saying they believed that other Godfreyites supported incorporation, while 54 (19.6%) saying they believed that other Godfreyites opposed incorporation.

The voters were asked if they owners or renters. Of the 367 responding, 90.7% said they owned their homes while 9.3% said they were renters.

Of the 264 voters with jobs, 23.9% had jobs in Godfrey, 58.9% worked in Illinois outside of Godfrey and 17.8% worked in Missouri. The remaining 116 voters were either retired, did not have jobs outside of the home or refused to answer. Unfortunately, the survey failed to distinguish between homemakers, retirees and those without jobs. However, less than a quarter of the voters appear to depend on employment within the village.

Approximately 55% of the respondents were women and 45% of the respondents were men. This may not be an accurate reflection of the sex of voters, since the telephone survey was conducted in the evening (Sunday through Thursday) and the first registered voter to come to the phone was interviewed.

Voters were asked if they went to school with people who still live in Godfrey. Of the 369 people responding, 47% said yes and 53% said no. This would indicate that nearly half of the voters are established residents in the Godfrey community. In fact, the average length of residence in Godfrey was nearly 21 years. At least one person claimed to live in Godfrey all her or his life, some 92 years! The newest newcomer had moved into Godfrey after the last election. It is clear from these two questions that Godfrey is a long established community.

Village officials have claimed that the major regional newspaper, the Telegraph (Alton, IL), has been biased in its coverage of the village. On a scale of 1 to 5 (very unfavorable to very favorable), the newspaper's coverage of the incorporation and the development of the village government was rated at 3.24, nearly in the middle. Godfreyites believe that the coverage has been fairly balanced.

When the survey was analyzed, there was no clear difference between owners and renters, where people worked, their sex or how long they have lived in Godfrey on how they thought about incorporation. Thus, there does not appear to be a predictable pattern of incorporation supporters or opponents based on home ownership, place of employment, sex or length of residence in the village. As expected, there was a strong correlation between how people voted in April and how they would vote today. Likewise, how people voted in April paralleled how they thought their neighbors would vote. The important issue here is how aware or ignorant voters are about their neighbors.

A series of questions about voter attitudes on current issues and their sources of information and news were designed to test the awareness of Godfrey voters. In every instance, Godfrey voters appeared very aware of the attitudes of other Godfrey voters, although there were minor differences based on the specific issue. There are a variety of explanations -- Godfreyites are very much alike and, thus, think alike; Godfreyites talk with each other and, thus, are aware of each other's attitudes; or Godfreyites are influenced by the same media.

The last explanation was the reason for asking questions about Godfreyites' sources of information. The voters were asked, on a scale of 1 to 5 (not influential to very influential), how influential eight media were on their vote in the November election. The most influential source of information (with an average of 3.4) were the voters' friends. The next influential group was the candidates themselves (average of 2.776). Telegraph news articles (2.4), candidate literature in the mail (2.3) and Telegraph editorials (2.1) were less influential. Least influential were ads in the Telegraph (1.8), the Telegraph letters and Sound-Off column (1.7) and ads on WBGZ (1.5).

Based on their own responses, Godfreyites claim they are most influenced by their friends than by any other source of information. They claim that they are not influenced by the mass media -- the newspaper, the radio station or campaign literature.

The voters were asked to rate the seven issues -- bureaucracy, census, controlling development, police services, property taxes, tavern hours and zoning -- on a scale of 1 to 5, one being unimportant and five being very important. No attempt was made to determine how voters felt about each specific issue, such as whether they favored greater or fewer tavern hours. The questions were aimed at only determining the importance of the issues.

Property taxes were overwhelmingly the judged the most important issue, with an average of 4.76 (five is very important). The next most important issue was police services at 4.48, followed by zoning at 4.18. Controlling development was listed fourth, at 4.01. Although the survey did not identify whether Godfreyites wanted more or less zoning, police services, taxes or development, it is clear that these four issues are important to the voters. Common sense would dictate that voters do not want more property taxes, but the same assumption cannot be made about police services.

Less clear are voters' stands on the last three issues. They rated the census at 3.52, bureaucracy at 3.45 and tavern hours at 3.26. Other than identifying the relative important of the seven issues, these answers do not allow anyone to argue that Godfrey voters have a specific position on any particular issue. For example, a 3.26 score on tavern hours only means that the issue is less important to them than the other issues.

The continuing saga of the birth of Godfrey as an incorporated municipality is not over. Opponents continue their challenge to incorporation through a lawsuit. According to supporters of incorporation, the opponents are supporting a slate of candidates for village office. Both sides, particularly incorporation supporters, believe conspiracies abound. However, neither side has publicly documented their its. The local media, including the regional newspaper and the radio station, have either failed to explore these fears or have determined that they were unfounded. If last year's survey of Godfrey voters is any indication, media coverage of the question may not be relevant. The voters claimed that they put more reliance of information from friends and the candidates, than from the mass media.

One private group discussed placing an ad in this community newspaper listing all the candidates and their supporters based on public documents filed with the County Clerk. The ad would have identified supporters as those who made campaign contributions or circulated election petitions on behalf of the candidates. The group, concerned about "special interest," had considered also listing the names of sponsors of the anti-incorporation effort as found in public documents in the County Clerk's office.

However, regardless of the character of their supporters, both mayoral candidates claim to support the general objectives of incorporation, including comprehensive planning, no property tax increase, and contracted police services. These were the same issues the voters identified as being most important to them. The campaign has generated heat and controversy beyond the issues. The regional newspaper reports that supporters from both camps have engaged in attacks on the character of their opponents. Other local media, other than reporting that the attacks occurred, have tried to defuse them. The media organizers of the recent candidate forum and debate did not ask "character" questions submitted by the audience. Instead, the organizers, including the publisher of the regional newspaper, tried to focus the forum on substantive issues.

If a survey of Godfrey voters were to be repeated, it should ask about the voters' stands on the various issues, rather than just rating their relative importance. And, it should account for the explosion in new media in the Godfrey market, including the special Godfrey editions of this paper, more thorough coverage of Godfrey by the regional newspaper, and expanded coverage by the suburban newspaper chain. And, unlike the last municipal election, this campaign has witnessed an explosion of leaflets and direct mail, as well as telephone marketing.

The outcome of the first mayoral election was difficult to predict because of the field of eleven candidates. Mathematically, the winner could have succeeded with only 11% of the vote. The winner took 38% of the vote. Now, with only two candidates, the winner needs 51% of the vote. Unlike the first election, the two candidates are clearly defined and fairly well known. The incumbent, a local political science professor and property owner, is running on his and the village's record. The challenger, in his second bid of local elective office, is challenging the mayor's leadership and style of governing. Apparently well-financed with a headquarters and professional consultant, the challenger is under 30 and articulate.

While the survey indicated that Godfreyites are very aware of their neighbors' concerns, no one has announced their prediction of the outcome of this election. The proliferation of media coverage and the underlying issue of "special interests" have complicated the process. Certainly, Godfreyites are tiring of the proliferation of yard signs. Yet, as the mayoral challenger recently commented, "Yard signs don't vote." April 20 will be the ultimate poll. And, as with any political analysis, hindsight will be more accurate than foresight.