Caveat Emptor: IVI-IPO Endorsements Are Not Independent, But Evanston Machine

     Kevin, you must not have been "searching" very hard, because my number is in the phone book, and you have my e-mail, and you haven't asked me about this process.
     Had you ever been involved in IVI-IPO, you would know the answer to your questions. But since you haven't, I'll fill you and other readers in, and gladly discuss my limited role.
     IVI-IPO has been around a long time. I'd suggest reading its wikipedia entry or its website. It has done, and continues to do, a lot of good things. For instance, yesterday I attended a forum it co-hosted at Truman College, the only public forum anyone has organized to vet those vying to replace Mike Quigley as Cook County Commissioner.
     It is a volunteer organization that has had membership as high as 1000+ in the past and usually is about 400-500. Typically they only have 1 or 2 employees, an office manager and, when cash flow permits, a Springfield lobbyist. This year the organization is employing a lobbyist to push for campaign finance and other election reform in Springfield. Its Independents Day Dinner will feature Gov. Pat Quinn as its keynote speaker.
     I was a board member for a number of years during the "Council Wars" era in Chicago; my membership lapsed after I moved to Evanston, and when the organization was distriacted by some internal squabbles during the 90s. I re-joined at the behest of some who are trying to reinvigorate the group.
     The organization is open to pretty much any person of any political stripe: Republican, Democrat, Green, independent, Libertarian, ticket-splitters. As gerrymandering has produced more polarized "safe" districts, IVI-IPO, based in the Chicago area and originally most focused on good-government issues, has tracked that trend and has become both more Democratic and more liberal in its leanings over the years. However, there are still Republicans involved, such as the gentleman who was chairing the session you attended. Most of those involved share a concern for good government, but, obviously, any membership organization is potentially subject to some gamesmanship.
     Compared to Chicago, or to Cook County as a whole, Evanston has historically been regarded as a lot more "clean" politically, and in part because of this, and in part because the big independent-v.-machine battles were in the City, IVI-IPO membership in Evanston and other suburbs has lagged. Those who join tend to be folks who are pretty involved politically. And, in Evanston, most of those -- like most of the town itself -- tend to be Democrats.
     Evanston IVI-IPO membership probably was at its peak in the 1970s and 1980s. I recall a well-attended endorsement session for the 1990 state representative primary between Jon Baum and Jan Schakowsky. I also recall traded accusations about "stacking" the endorsement session. I am pretty sure that chapter membership has been less than that peak in subsequent years, especially with the lack of contested primary races in the area, and also because of DPOE. DPOE despite its imperfections is far more open than the average Chicago ward organization, and has been an outlet for progressive political energy. IVI-IPO has not tried to compete with that.
     I do not recall IVI-IPO making an endorsement in prior Evanston municipal elections. Some member must have requested it for the mayoral, 1st Ward, 4th Ward, and 7th Ward races this time -- apparently no one asked for the 6th. I know I didn't.
     However, every IVI-IPO member received at least a postcard notice of the session, and also, probably an e-mail. Thus any "Far North" chapter member could have attended. Only 5 did. Of those, three were former Evanston Township committeemen: Larry Suffredin, Steve Bernstein, and Jeanne Cleveland Bernstein.
     It is possible that the 5 in the room that day -- and the three above had the votes to issue a recommendation for anyone they wished -- were not representative of the chapter membership as a whole. However, IVI-IPO places some premium on self-selection. It's sort of like voting generally: if someone can't be bothered to get out of the house to participate, they don't have much cause to complain about the outcome.
     It's also quite possible that the results would not have been that different if every Evanston member had shown up. For instance, Daniel Biss, who I know is a member, was not there, and he would have been a sure vote for Liz Tisdahl.
     I know of at least one or two members who are not Tisdahl supporters, but I haven't had a chance to discuss their absence with them.
     Because those voting were not a sufficient quantum, especially in the aldermanic elections, the vote was not binding but only went to the state board as a "recommendation." However, the state board will not often overturn a chapter recommendation completely.
     In this case there was spirited discussion at the state level of some of the races. There was actually sentiment, and a motion at the state board level, to reverse the 7th Ward recommendation completely and endorse Jane Grover, because, frankly, the Board was most impressed by her questionnaire answers. However, because the recommendation had been for John Zbesko, the final resolution was simply not to endorse. I thought that that was appropriate and fair. Note I am not a board member, but I was at the board meeting, and the board was aware of who attended the chapter session, and their affiliations.
     My personal preference would have been to see IVI-IPO not endorse in the Evanston races at all because I don't feel that the organization has that great a feel for the nuances at this level and that, on IVI-IPO's key issues, the differences between candidates are not sufficiently distinguishing. The IVI-IPO questionnaire was nowhere near as detailed and nuanced as CSNA's. However, I would have been a minority of one on that fight, and the endorsements that were made were hardly inconsistent with others IVI-IPO has made. IVI-IPO has backed, in the past, most of the legislators you would call part of the Evanston "machine." I supported the motion to endorse Liz because, based on my knowledge of the chapter membership as a whole, I believe she would have enjoyed its support even if every member was present.
     You could make an argument that the IVI-IPO endorsements for Evanston are not based on as lengthy or broad-based a process as people attribute to other endorsments it makes. But your post that the endorsement is "Evanston Machine" is just wrong.  Not one person on the state board who voted for the endorsement is part of any such creature.
     No one is going to pretend that the IVI-IPO process is not political. But it is an open process. The organization has been around for more than half a century. It provides a good potential political home for those who don't feel entirely comfortable in partisan politics, although, obviously, partisans may get involved as well. I have participated in both DPOE and IVI-IPO because I have historically been an independent Democrat.
     The bottom line is that you could have joined at any time. Where have you been?
     Those who are not part of any political "machine" typically vastly outnumber those who are. If a machine flourishes, it is in part because of popular indifference. If you want to be part of building something different, you have to (a) get involved, and (b) work with others.