Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Politics / Clout City New City Council, just about the same as the old City Council
Posted by Mick Dumke on 08.30.11 at 06:43 PM
Anyone wanting a glimpse of how the Chicago City Council works should have taken in this morning’s meeting of its Committee on Special Events, Cultural Affairs, and Recreation—all two minutes of it.
Twenty-five items were on the meeting agenda, all of them involving permits, licenses, and fee waivers for events such as the Taste of North Lawndale Back to School Family Peace Fest, the Eckhart Park Run to Fun 5k, and the St. Jerome’s Croatian Fest.
Under current city law, each of these matters requires a separate ordinance that the City Council must pass before it goes into effect. Aldermen of the wards hosting the events typically introduce the legislation and their colleagues sign off.
So the five aldermen at the committee meeting today did their duty: They glanced over the list of ordinances before the measures were introduced as a batch. The aldermen approved them unanimously, with no discussion. The meeting was then adjourned.
It was just the most recent example of how Chicago’s legislative body often functions as little more than an administrative wing of city government.
Thanks to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s press office, there’s been a lot of talk recently about his first 100 days in office—so much, in fact, that it’s been easy to forget that the new City Council, featuring 16 first-termers, just passed that benchmark itself. While the depth of the mayor’s accomplishments so far are debatable, an analysis of the legislative record shows that little has changed in council chambers except the people who sit there for meetings.
• Since May 18, when the new council convened for the first time, 2,845 ordinances and orders have been introduced to the council, according to the City Clerk’s legislative information center.
• Almost all of them—about 95 percent—involved administrative and ward-level matters like permit applications, fee waivers, street signage, parking regulations, and sewer rebates; just 5 percent pertained to citywide matters such as air pollution standards and parking regulations for trucks. That’s virtually unchanged from the last six months of the previous council, when administrative and ward-level matters made up 96 percent of the total.
• A little more than half of the ordinances have passed so far—51 percent, to be precise. That’s down from the 66 percent rate of the previous six months, though it’s probable that the number will climb as more ordinances move through the committees in the coming weeks.
• As candidates, most of the new aldermen vowed independence, decrying the council’s well-established reputation as a mayoral rubber stamp. Yet all but two of the passed ordinances were approved unanimously, which makes for a dissension rate of about 0.1 percent.
• In fact, only four dissenting votes were cast in the council’s first 100 days: On June 8 Proco "Joe" Moreno (1st) voted against the mayoral appointment of Human Resources Commissioner Soo Choi; and on July 28 Rick Munoz (22nd), Scott Waguespack (32nd), and John Arena (45th) voted against a controversial new concession agreement at O’Hare.
• Meanwhile, the mayor continued to be the most active big-picture legislator. Emanuel was the sponsor or co-sponsor of 70 ordinances and orders with citywide impact, accounting for almost half of the total (46 percent). That means he’s got a little bit of work to do to dominate the council to the extent of his 22-year predecessor, Rich Daley, who had his hands on 57 percent of citywide ordinances.
• After Emanuel, the most active citywide legislator was Ed Burke (14th). As chairman of the finance committee, Burke regularly ushers through legislation to authorize payments of lawsuit settlements and medical bills for injured cops.
• Brendan Reilly, whose 42nd Ward includes much of the Loop and Near North Side, was the most prolific ordinance sponsor, with 346. All but eight were ward-level and administrative matters.
• Aldermen did introduce a handful of measures with potentially far-reaching impact, including an ordinance that holds financial institutions accountable for maintaining vacant properties they own. The ordinance was introduced by Pat Dowell (3rd) before 21 other aldermen signed on as co-sponsors, and Mayor Emanuel has taken to boasting about it. It has enough teeth that it raised the ire of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.
To see a chart showing how all the aldermen stack up, click here.
Aldermen say that their job is to pay attention to the little things in their wards, and note that their constituents wouldn’t like it if no one were vetting applications for new business canopies, handicapped parking signs, and sidewalk café permits. "If anything goes wrong with one of those permit requests, I can assure you that the first person to get a phone call is the local alderman," Reilly told me this spring.
Of course, taxpayers also fund city administrative departments that review and process these things.
There is no doubt that the City Council has become a public punching bag. “Cut the alderman pay and their expenses” is the most popular item in the administration’s online budget suggestion box. And the biggest applause at last night’s budget hearing came when Emanuel was asked his take on cutting the number of aldermen in the City Council.
“Most of them are useless!” called out a bespectacled man in the audience near me.
“That’s right!” said a woman nodding her head several rows away.
Emanuel was noncommittal—a politically astute position for him to take, since it would be unseemly for the executive to lead an effort to reduce the size of the legislative branch, and since the large number of aldermen reduces the chances that any one of them will amass the power and popularity to challenge him.
The mayor did note that state law would have to be amended to cut the size of the council. He pointed out that the savings would only fill in a small part of the city’s budget hole—currently the entire council budget is about $25 million a year. "It wouldn't close a $637 million deficit," he said.
“But it would help!” said the woman.
The mayor said he understood the frustration. “We’re not done reforming the City Council,” he promised.
Comments (17)
Showing 1-17 of 17
like
dislike
The part people don't seem to 'get' about reducing the number of alderman is that it dilutes their own power as voters. Blind 'outrage' is not conducive to 'though' is it.
Aaron, Bull Shit! It puts more pressure on 1 of 35 , than it does 1 of 50. Its called less is more....more accountability.
Coconuts is correct. Citizen is wrong. Any resident of Chicago who wants to make their voice heard doesn't have to be worried about their power being diluted because of the a smaller council's larger ward population. It would be one thing if someone's ward was filled with engaged citizens who were deeply active in expressing their opinions about the issues facing Chicago. But that doesn't occur in Chicago. Absolutely anybody who wants to could easily become the most active resident in their ward at exercising their power as a citizen of expressing their opinions to their alderman and to others who would influence their alderman and other city leaders. It would take three or four hours a week at most. It's not as if there are a whole lot of other politically active residents that one needs to compete against to get their voice heard. So an increase in the population of the ward isn't going to make a meaningful difference.
And if anything the larger wards will actually enhance the ability of people to vote on their interests in the voting booth. The issues facing aldermanic elections normally effect a greater area than the ward boundaries. For example, last election's 43rd aldermanic race race was considered by many to be a referendum on the proposed development at the former Lincoln Park Hospital. But residents who live just a few blocks north in Alderman Tunney's ward, who presumably would have just as much interest as those living a few blocks east or south, couldn't express their opinion in this so-called referendum. That illustrates how it is more likely for someone to have their ability to express their opinion arbitrarily cut-off in a larger council (though it probably isn't a good example since there really didn't seem to be as many people interested in that issue as one would think by how much it came up in the campaign, this is evidenced by the amount of comments on a Ben Jorovsky article about the controversy at a time when the final decision was still undetermined: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/43rd-… ).
Why should Chicagoans have less representation per capita than other Illinoisans ?
Currently with 50 Aldermen, and 2.9 million population the ratio is 58,000 to 1. Reducing by half increases it to 116,000 to 1. That is unwieldy for a local office and would concentrate too much local power in to too few hands.
However, across the state, the ratio’s are a lot smaller.
Rockford has 14 Aldermen and a population of 150,000 (10,000 to 1)
Aurora has 12 Aldermen and a population of 140,000 (11,000 to 1)
Naperville has 8 Aldermen and a population of 130,000 (16,000 to 1)
Peoria and Springfield have 10 alderman and a population of 112,000 (11,000 to 1)
Joliet has 8 Aldermen and a population of 106,000 (13,000 to 1)
I could care less about what they have on the East (NYC) and West(LA) coasts. I like my local elected official to be more accessible. And if yours is not, then vote him out.
The whole reducing the City Council argument is classic Rahm Emmanuel from his days of learning about triangulation strategy from Bill Clinton. Find an issue that resonates with the people, whether or not you can do anything about it (like this one, which is under the auspices of the Illinois Compiled Statutes), rise the people's anger about it, and turn them into a mob. Josef Goebbels was pretty good at doing this sort of thing.
The issue becomes a "heat shield" that takes the public's eyes off the fact that Rahm has over 900 Shakman exempt positions that he could cut from with the stroke of a pen. Assistants to the Assistant to the Deputy Assistant, etc. all making over $100,000. In fact, City Wide there are over 3,000 people making over $100,000 (a total of $300,000,000+). Cut half of those and you are a quarter of the way to eliminating the budget hole. But those jobs are political payoff plums, like Anna Gazzi - who cannot work a computer but is an 11th Warder in Special Events and works as an "office manager" - managing 2 people who answer the phones and is paid $100,000. Examples like this are all over the city.
But Rahm, by putting this in his campaign disussion takes the public's eyes off of the real personnel costs of these desk jockey, political hack paper pushers.
"Absolutely anybody who wants to could easily become the most active resident in their ward at exercising their power as a citizen of expressing their opinions to their alderman and to others who would influence their alderman and other city leaders. It would take three or four hours a week at most."
Obviously not true. There are plenty of wanna-be politicians who go to meetings every night and people get pretty tired of them.
"stay classy" ?
what is your point in making that comment ? are you disputing the fact that Herr Goebbels was a master at twisting and manipulating public opinion and even though he was evil, is widely recognized as a master at his craft ?
"Stay classy ?"
How about stop kow-towing to political correctness ?
Orion,
You could also make the ratio about 6 to 1 and have 500,000 aldermen. Does that give you more representation? I certainly don't think so. It may be easier to get your voice heard by your alderman (and you may actually be able to literally choose him yourself) but he is going to have a much more difficult time pushing for his ideas when he is only one of 500,000 people. So a smaller population in each ward does not automatically equal more representation. A larger council will often often any advantages. That is where you are going wrong. And like I said, its not as if there is a huge amount of political active residents in each ward. Whether the ratio is 58,000 to 1 or 116,000 to 1 there are not a lot of voices to compete with to get your opinions heard.
IAC - I dont know where you live, but the recent snow blizzard and the innundation of the aldermen's offices by the public clearly refutes your position that there are not a lot of voices to compete with to get your voice heard.
"How about stop kow-towing to political correctness ? [sic]"
How about you stop being an obvious crank?
IAC doesn't realize that buttonholing your alderman doesn't accomplish a whole lot unless you have money and/or voters behind you. A fair number of them are puppets anyway. Does anyone really think that James Balcer runs the 11th Ward?
"...Chicago’s legislative body often functions as little more than an administrative wing of city government."
Thanks for this report and analysis! This issue may seem like a side-car but IMO is the crux of reform in Chicago.
My former alderman may he rest in peace led the charge to eliminate our IG. But what if the taxpayers had 50 inspector generals of their choosing in City Hall? I know it is too much to ask for voters to elect qualified pols, but what if each alderman had one staffer with actual public finance experience or training, instead of relatives?
In the real world when you do the same mindless repetitive tasks over & over at work you have a responsibility to try to figure out how to reduce or eliminate those kinds of tasks. We all know the person in the office who always manages to look busy but never seems to get done what they are supposed to. Chicago alderman are like bad husbands ensconced in their recliners who reply to every request by touting how they change light bulbs and take garbage out.
We need to make 311 a real modern 21st century customer service management system. About 95% of the current "work" of the Council could be accomplished by administrative functions by a little judicious rule-making. We need to take their busywork away from our aldermen so they focus on their real job: budgetary oversight.
Mick! Don't look now...
Today the Council is voting to ban crib bumpers!
Amazing stuff. Recession + job loss + budget shortfalls + dwindling revenue = a ban on crib bumpers.. YES!
Related Stories
-
Aldermen examine new protest rules before doing what they're told
Somehow Mayor Emanuel gets his way again
- Jan 17, 2012
-
The jugglers and the clowns do their ward map thing!
The city council gets ready to approve a ward map
- Jan 17, 2012
-
All I want for Christmas is a City Council with a backbone
Mayor Emanuel already got his gift: a new set of rubber stamps
- Dec 15, 2011
-
Chicago, Meet Your New City Council
The Reader's guide to the hacks, geeks, lawyers, and other assorted characters who will serve as aldermen under Mayor Emanuel
- Apr 28, 2011
