City Council Reports

Click on the Month to view the full City Council Report

2010

• JULY

• Zoning of a third Wal-Mart in Chicago
• Transfer of RCN Chicago to Yankee Cable Acquisition, LLC.
• Resolution for "comprehensive, fair, and sustainable fiscal reform"

• SPECIAL MEETING

• Chicago Firearms Ordinance and Handgun Ban

• JUNE (2)

• Walmart's entry into Chicago's retail market

• JUNE

• Future of the Blue Cart Recycling Program

• MAY

• "Legislative Inspector General" - cont'd
• Citywide Expansion of Blue Cart Recycling
• Ordinance to Restrict Therapeutic Massage Establishments - cont'd

• APRIL

• "Legislative Inspector General"
• Ordinance to Restrict Therapeutic Massage Establishments
• Chicago Clean Power Ordinance

• MARCH

• Special Meeting - Appointment of Joe Moreno to 1st Ward
• Jobs Transfer from Office of Compliance to Office of Inspector General
• Streetsweeping Issues
• FEBRUARY 
• Transparency and Honesty
• Misconduct Involving Aldermen
• Oversight
• JANUARY  
• 2010 City of Chicago Budget

2009 

• NOVEMBER/DECEMBER - See JANUARY 2010 Report

• OCTOBER
• Privatization of Snow Plowing
  
• Asset Lease Transparency
• Cab Driver Safety
• "Bubble Zone" Ordinance
• Limits on Diesel Truck Idling
• "Right to Know" Ordinance
  

• SEPTEMBER
• City Council authorizes Chicago's 2016 Olympic Bid (49-0)
• Olympics Oversight Ordinance follow-up
  

• AUGUST - CITY COUNCIL BREAK

• JULY
  
• "Air Pollution Control" Ordinance
  
• 2016 Olympics
• Olympics Oversight Ordinance
  

• JUNE
• Implementation of mandatory furlough days
• 2016 Olympics
• MAY
• “Dumpster Tax”
• Program for transport and reuse of soil and rubble in the city
• BPA-free Kids Ordinance
• APRIL
• Remarks on Parking Meter Lease
• Parking Meter Lease measures
• Adoption of TIF Sunshine Ordinance and “Legacy Plan”
• Proposal of mandatory furlough days for non-union city workers
• MARCH
• Inspector General Ordinance
• Parking Meter Lease Resolution
• FEBRUARY
• Employee Free Choice Act
• White House Urban Affairs Office Resolution
• Issues of transparency and fiscal accountability in Chicago politics
• Inspector General Ordinance
• Use of President Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package
• Tax Increment Finance (TIF) agreements to be made available for public search and review
• JANUARY
• “Legacy Plan” for the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid.

2008

• DECEMBER
• Parking Meter Lease Agreement
• 2016 Olympic bid
• NOVEMBER
• 2009 City Budget
• OCTOBER
• Lease of Midway Airport
• Restrictions on cell-phone use by drivers
• SEPTEMBER
• Proposal to lower ticket threshold for cars to receive the “boot”
• Ordinance to ticket drivers for texting or surfing the internet
• Ordinance to ban metal bats for baseball players ages 8-18
• AUGUST - CITY COUNCIL BREAK

• JUNE
• Proposal of a new Children’s Museum in Grant Park
• MAY
• Mayor Daley’s repeal of ban on the sale of foie gras in Chicago restaurants
• Ordinance requiring the recycling of plastic shopping bags
• APRIL
• Regulations on concert promoters
• Taxi cab fuel surcharge
• Regulations of junkyards and recycling facilities
• Chicago Noise Ordinance
• City contributions to funeral costs of police officers killed in line of duty.
• MARCH
• Laws to protect bike riders
• Property Transfer Tax
• FEBRUARY
• CTA funding legislation
• JANUARY
• Police conduct and oversight

2007

• DECEMBER - NO SUBSTANTIVE BUSINESS

• NOVEMBER (2)
• Remarks regarding the 2008 City Budget
• NOVEMBER (1)
• Mayor Daley’s revised budget and tax proposals
• OCTOBER
• 2008 City Budget concerns
• SEPTEMBER (2)
• Mayor Daley’s 2008 City Budget Proposal
• Resolution to void contract with Universal Security
• SEPTEMBER (1)
• Office of Compliance
• AUGUST - CITY COUNCIL BREAK

• JULY
• Office of Professional Standards (OPS)

Alderman Moore's July Report

Dear Neighbor,

Four weeks ago, after a long and contentious debate, Chicago's City Council voted unanimously to allow a zoning change for a Walmart to open a store in Chicago's far south side Pullman neighborhood (making it the second Walmart in the city, the first being in the west-side Austin area).

Who knew that the next Walmart proposal would be this month?

But sure enough, before the ink was dry on the first zoning change, Mayor Daley pushed for a third Wal-Mart--this time at 83rd and Stewart--to be approved at our July 28th Council meeting.

The Mayor submitted the proposal to the City Council Finance Committee, of which I'm a member. A month ago, I explained to you why I voted in favor of the Pullman Walmart--in recognition of both the serious negotiations between the company and Chicago's unions and the serious lack of retail and food options in the Pullman community. But now, it was time to slow the train down and wait to see if Wal-Mart lives up to its promises in Pullman. As the City Law Department acknowledged, there is no written agreement with the City binding Wal-Mart to its verbal assurances.

I voted no, and was the only committee member to do so.

The proposal reached the full Council on Wednesday. My concerns regarding Walmart's track record of predatory pricing, meager employee benefits, and anti-unionism have not changed. I voted no again, and three of my colleagues, Toni Preckwinkle (4th Ward), Ricardo Munoz (22nd Ward), and Gene Schulter (47th Ward), voted no as well. Still, of course, the measure passed, and a third Walmart will soon be built in Chicago. One has to wonder: Why the rush? As the Walmart juggernaut gathers steam, vigilance will be needed more than ever.

Yes, there was other business on Wednesday, too. Among other key items was a vote to approve the transfer of RCN Chicago to Yankee Cable Acquisition, LLC. This seems like a pedestrian financial item, but actually it included two very important issues that were of concern to me:

(1) Cable Access Network TV, or CAN-TV, is supported by RCN and the other cable companies, and it is extremely important that protections are in place for Yankee to continue this support.  CAN-TV, as you know, is a rare resource that provides television access to ordinary people--not just to those with money and power.  I was able to secure a promise on the record that Yankee Cable will honor RCN's commitment to CAN-TV. 

(2) Through hearings, we learned that the ownership of Yankee, although it includes women, lacks African American, Latino, or Asian-American representation. One has to wonder how a cable company can serve a diverse community if it is not diverse itself.

This lack of diverse ownership led me to vote "no."  Although the Council voted to approve the ownership transfer, the vote was surprisingly close (by Chicago City Council standards): 28-19.

Finally, in response to the State of Illinois's disastrous fiscal affairs, I sponsored a resolution calling upon the Illinois General Assembly and the Governor to pass into law "comprehensive, fair and sustainable fiscal reform."  Thirty-four of my colleagues joined me in this resolution.  Illinois currently ranks 42nd in its tax rates and 45th in state spending on services.

For a copy of the resolution, click on the attachment below:

Fiscal_Reform_Resolution[1].pdf (61 KB)

We are all aware of the fiscal plight of the state (possibly the worst in the nation) and the resulting hardships to education, healthcare and general quality of life. Every ounce of fat and waste could be slashed from the state budget, and we still would be billions of dollars in the hole. The only responsible remedy is fair and increased state revenue, rather than additional service cuts, and this resolution urges the State government to take the necessary proactive steps to improve its fiscal bottom line.

The City Council recesses for the month of August and will reconvene on Wednesday, September 8th at 10 a.m. Look for another City Council report then.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore
http://www.facebook.com/joemoore49
http://www.twitter.com/joemoore49

Alderman Moore's Special Meeting Report

Dear Neighbor,

In the wake of last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision effectively striking down Chicago's ban on handguns, the City Council met in special session Friday to enact a series of new measures to protect Chicagoans from gun violence in the streets and in their homes.

The "Responsible Gun Ownership" Ordinance passed the City Council by a 45-0 vote.  Some of its major provisions include:

• Anyone who wishes to possess a handgun in his or her home must first obtain a Chicago firearm permit.
• Those who wish to obtain a firearm permit must first take four hours of firearms safety training in the classroom and one hour on a firing range.
• A person will not be eligible for a permit if he or she has committed a violent crime, lacks vision sufficient for a drivers' license, or received two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• It will be illegal to carry a gun outside your home.  Guns will not be allowed in hotels, dorms, and group living facilities. 
• Each person who owns keeps firearms in his or her home must keep no more than one firearm assembled and operable.  All other firearms must be broken down in a nonfunctioning state or have a trigger lock in place to keep it inoperable.

For a complete summary of the ordinance and a copy of the ordinance itself, click on the attachments below:

Responsible_Gun_Ownership_Ordinance_Summary.pdf (65 KB)

Responsible_Gun_Ownership_Ordinance.pdf (212 KB)

If you read my City Council reports on a regular basis, you know that the Mayor and I don't always agree, but in this case, I applaud the Mayor for his bold and decisive leadership.  The safety of Chicago's residents is at stake. 

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns overturned years of settled law in which the Court had ruled no such right existed.  Those who oppose gun regulations point blindly to the Second Amendment, but few have actually read the text.  The amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (emphasis added).

Reading the plain language of the Second Amendment in the context of the period in which it was adopted (when many of the colonies were hesitant to join the new union), the amendment clearly was intended to give the states (not individuals) the right to maintain their militias as a safeguard against the centralized power of the federal government.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court majority's decision, flawed as it is, represents the law of the land.  Though the Supreme Court said individuals have a constitutional right to own guns, it did not hold that right absolute.  The Court has recognized that states and localities still have the power to enact reasonable restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms.

That's what the ordinance we passed represents-- a set of common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make sure that adults who believe they need to own a gun for self-defense meet a standard of responsibility.

In some respects, the Supreme Court ruling may be a blessing in disguise.  The city's new regulations will allow the thousands of residents who owned handguns in defiance of the ban to come out from the shadows now that they can legally own their guns.  In so doing, we can ensure that these citizens understand how to handle and store their weapons properly.

Though we read much about the gang and drug-related shootings and homicides in Chicago, not much attention is given to the hundreds of people each year who are maimed or killed because of accidental shootings in the home among friends and family members.

Studies have shown that guns kept in the home are much more likely to be used in unintentional shootings among friends and family members and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense against an intruder.

One study published in the Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care found that for every time a household gun was used for self-defense, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and eleven attempted or completed suicides.  Overall, the study concluded that guns kept in the home were twenty-two times more likely to be used in unintentional shootings and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense.

Another study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine  found that people who keep a gun in the home are almost two times more likely to be murdered with a gun and almost seventeen times more likely to take their own lives using a firearm.  The findings are consistent with many previous studies that showed that guns in the home are associated with domestic violence, especially against women at the hands of an intimate partner. "Only 3% of female victims who were killed in their own home were known to have been killed by strangers.  Eighty-two percent were killed by someone they knew."

These grim statistics belie the so-called "conventional wisdom" spouted by many that guns in the home make us safer.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's flawed decision lifting Chicago's ban on handgun ownership will likely result in even more individuals owning a gun in their home, and hence more incidents of accidental shootings and domestic violence.  The City's new regulations represent a valiant effort to mitigate some of those harmful effects.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's June Report (2)

Neighbor,

The City Council on Wednesday turned its attention once again to one of the most contentious issues it has faced in recent years--Walmart's entry into Chicago's retail market. 

Four years ago, a closely divided City Council voted to oppose a zoning change to allow a Walmart store in Chicago's south side 21st Ward, while voting for a zoning change to allow Walmart to open a store on Chicago's west side.  I led the charge then against Walmart entry into Chicago because of the retailer's horrible track record on labor relations and the harmful effect Walmart's presence could have on existing small businesses.

The battle against Walmart inspired labor and community activists to propose the "Big Box Living Wage Ordinance," which required stores of 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their workers a "living wage," of $10 an hour and provide at least $3 an hour in benefits.  I was the lead sponsor of the ordinance, which passed the City Council by an overwhelming vote, and forced Mayor Daley for the first time to exercise his veto pen.  We fell two votes short of overriding the Mayor's veto, after the Mayor was able to convince two members of the Council to switch their votes.

A proposed zoning change for another new Walmart--in Chicago's Pullman neighborhood--was up for a vote on Wednesday, and this time the vote was unanimous to allow the zoning change, and hence Walmart into Chicago.

Why the unanimous vote?  After years of demanding more from the world's most profitable retailer, Walmart representatives finally sat down with representatives of organized labor and agreed to increased wages for its new workers and other concessions that will result in good paying construction jobs and other community benefits.  

As a result, Walmart agreed to pay a higher starting wage for its workers--$8.75, which is fifty cents above the current minimum wage in Illinois.  Walmart also agreed to pay its workers at least $9.15 and as much as $9.35 an hour after the first year on the job.  This will make Chicago's starting Walmart workers, the highest paid starting Walmart workers in the nation.

Walmart also agreed to allocate $20 million in for job training and economic development programs in Chicago, and entered into a Project Labor Agreement, in which it agreed to use union labor for all its store construction projects in northern Illinois and increase employment opportunities for minority construction workers and provide minority apprenticeship opportunities.

In the face of some of those who argued that we should simply give Walmart a blank check and be grateful they were willing to enter the Chicago market, Chicago's community organizations and labor groups demanded more from the world's largest retailer, and I was proud to be one of the many City Council members who backed them up and refused to vote for the zoning change until they agreed to meaningful concessions.

I voted for the zoning change to allow for the Walmart because I wanted to honor the hard work of the labor and community organizations that fashioned the agreements and because I recognize Walmart is the only retailer that has promised to bring fresh produce and other products to the Pullman community's "food desert."  I cast my vote with great trepidation, however.

Walmart recently announced plans to open dozens of new stores in Chicago's neighborhoods, including stores that could be as small as 25,000 square feet in size.   This means that neighborhoods, such as Rogers Park and Edgewater, could potentially be home to a new Walmart store.  Given Walmart's track record of engaging in "predatory pricing," and other measures to drive out the competition, I am gravely concerned about the long-term impact on our small and locally owned businesses of dozens of new Walmarts in Chicago.

A Loyola University and University of Illinois study of the impact of Chicago's west side Walmart concluded that stores near Walmart were more likely to go out of business, eliminating the equivalent of 300 full-time jobs--about as many as the new Walmart created.  The study supported the contention that urban Walmart stores absorb sales from other city stores without significantly expanding the market.  I have provided a link to the study below: 

http://luc.edu/curl/pdfs/Media/WalMartReport21010_01_11.pdf

In short, Walmart is not a panacea to our unemployment problem, and in fact may make the economic development climate worse in Chicago neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods that already have locally owned stores that pay employees more than Walmart wages.

Rest assured I will look at any future Walmart proposal with more than a healthy share of skepticism.

The City Council plans to hold a special meeting tomorrow to consider new proposed regulations on handgun ownership in Chicago that are under consideration in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, which essentially overturned Chicago's ban on handgun ownership.  I will give you a full report after the fourth of July holiday weekend.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore      

Alderman Moore's June Report

Dear Neighbor,

In most of my City Council reports, I've focused on the resolutions, ordinances, and orders introduced, debated, or voted upon at that monthly assembly.  But another important step in the process is when the legislation is assigned to a City Council committee to be discussed and then sent back (or not) to the full Council for final approval.

This month I'd like to give you a snapshot of the meeting of the Environmental Protection, Energy, and Public Utilities Committee, of which I am a member. The committee met Monday, June 7 to discuss a matter very near and dear to many of us--the future of Chicago's Blue Cart recycling program.

As I reported to you last I month, I co-sponsored a measure introduced by my colleague Alderman Tom Allen (38th Ward), which would require the Daley Administration to expand the Blue Cart program to all 600,000 city households whose trash is collected by the City of Chicago.  Currently, only about a third of those households get Blue Cart recycling, with more than 400,000 households slated to receive it at some ill-defined point in the future.

For a map that outlines the areas of the city that receive Blue Cart recycling, CLICK HERE.

Unfortunately, residents in our 49th Ward are part of the majority of city households that don't receive the benefits of blue cart recycling.  Instead, those who receive city garbage pick-up and want to recycle must haul their recyclables to the city drop-off center at the 49th Ward Streets and Sanitation yard at Ravenswood and Schreiber. 

The hearing on June 7th was the first step in what promises to be a long fight to expand recycling citywide.  So it was heartening that almost twenty aldermen showed up to forcefully speak in favor of completing the expansion.

In fact, the voices of support came from almost every corner of the city, from Aldermen Bob Fioretti (2nd Ward, Downtown) to Pat Dowell (3rd Ward, Bronzeville/Grand Blvd.), to John Pope (10th Ward, Far Southeast Side) to Roberto Maldonado (26th Ward, Logan Square).  Clearly recycling is no longer an issue that only interests "Lakefront Liberals"--it has become a basic service that every sector of the city wants, expects, and deserves.

Many of us pointed out that recycling is the only municipal service not available to the entire city.  Can you imagine only one-third of Chicago's streets being swept or only one-third of our residents receiving police or fire protection?  We also noted the absence of any citywide education about Blue Cart recycling, as the program remains less than universal. The resulting confusion has contributed to relatively low--and dropping--Blue Cart recycling rates.

This hearing was just the beginning.  Budget hearings will start in the fall, and I promise you I will be working both in committee and behind the scenes to help recycling expand citywide--including of course, to our 49th Ward!

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's May Report

Dear Neighbor,

Like most City Council meetings, last Wednesday's saw hundreds of routine measures introduced or voted on. Two were of particular note--the establishment of a "legislative inspector general" who would supposedly be in charge of investigating City Council misconduct and the introduction into the City Council of a piece of legislation that would require the Daley Administration to expand blue cart recycling into every city neighborhood, including the 49th Ward.

Legislative Inspector General

To the surprise of no one, the Chicago City Council Wednesday voted to create their own "legislative inspector general," a post designed to quiet critics who rightly challenged the City Council's decision twenty years ago to exempt itself from the purview of the city's existing inspector general.

I voted "no," and spoke out forcefully against the measure on the floor of the City Council. It's not that I'm against City Council oversight. To the contrary, I've long advocated extending the powers of the city's inspector general to include aldermen and their staffs.

But this new post will do nothing to provide real oversight. As I said on the floor of the City Council, my colleagues have created a "toothless tiger" and put into place excessive reporting hurdles that will discourage all but the most courageous whistleblowers from stepping forward to report misconduct.

I wrote extensively in last month's City Council report of the many shortcomings of this proposal. Under the measure, the City Council would appoint its own inspector general. Who can blame the public for rightly asking how the fox can be trusted to guard the hen house?

Investigations can only begin after the whistleblower signs a sworn complaint that is shared with the subject matter of the complaint. Who in their right mind would subject themselves to possible retaliation, especially if the complainant is an employee of the subject matter?

The inspector general can only investigate alleged misconduct that occurred within the last two years. Any investigator or prosecutor will tell you that witnesses to wrongdoing often come forward only after they've severed their ties with the alleged wrongdoer, and that often occurs more than two years after the wrongdoing takes place.

What happens if the city inspector general's investigation leads to an alderman or aldermanic employee? Who conducts the investigation from that point forward? The city inspector general or the legislative inspector. The new law is silent on this question.

Finally, by creating two inspectors general, one for the executive branch and one for the legislative branch, the City Council created an entirely new level of bureaucracy at a time when we're cutting back on essential city services. The ordinance creating this new position contained no cost estimate for the new position.

My City Council colleagues who support limitations on the powers of the inspector general claim they are necessary to avoid politically motivated investigations. I'm not so naïve as to believe politically motivated investigations do not take place. But the way to minimize the possibility of such investigations is to increase the independence and oversight of the inspector general, not limit his or her power to investigate misconduct.

I'm afraid that my colleagues' attempt to assuage the public by creating a new inspector general post, have instead served only to fuel the public's anger and cynicism about the City Council's true commitment to reform.

Citywide Expansion of Blue Cart Recycling

Also adding to public anger and cynicism is when elected leaders make promises that they don't follow through on.

Three years ago, Mayor Daley's Administration announced with great fanfare the launch of the City's "blue cart" (a/k/a "blue bin") recycling program. The blue cart program replaced the long-discredited "blue bag" recycling program in which homeowners were told to place all their recyclable materials in blue bags, which were tossed into the same truck that collects trash.

I opposed the blue bag program from its very inception, sharing the concerns of environmentalists that the program wouldn't work. As it turned out, our skepticism was justified. Less than ten percent of the waste collected was actually recycled.

The blue cart program was supposed to change this pathetic recycling figure. Residents were to put recyclables into a separate blue trash cart, which would be hauled away by a recyclables-only truck and taken to Resource Management, an organization that specializes in recycling. The program was to start out on an experimental basis in a few wards and then gradually expand to include the entire city by 2011.

One problem: the expansion has stopped. Only one-third of the city now enjoys the benefits of the blue carts. Residents of the other two-thirds of the city, including the 49th Ward, must haul their recyclables to a drop-off center, or they simply don't recycle at all.

At a time when environmental stewardship, conservation and saving our planet are at the forefront of the public's consciousness, Chicago is the only large city that fails to have a comprehensive citywide recycling program.

That is why I was pleased to co-sponsor my colleague Alderman Tom Allen's (38th Ward), "order," directing the Daley Administration to extend blue cart recycling to all Chicago households before September 1st. Hearings on Alderman Allen's order will be held shortly and I will keep you apprised of its progress.

Ordinance to Restrict Therapeutic Massage Establishments

You might recall from my last City Council report that I delayed a vote on a misguided piece of legislation that restricted the ability of "massage establishments" to operate in business districts.  Fortunately, this legislation did not come up for a vote at this City Council meeting, and I'm told discussions are underway to amend the proposal to make it far less onerous.  I will keep you apprised of this legislation, as well.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore
www.facebook.com/joemoore49
www.twitter.com/joemoore49

Alderman Moore's April Report

Dear Neighbor,

Last week's City Council meeting was notable for the legislation that didn't pass--a misguided attempt to create a "Legislative Inspector General" and an over-reaching ordinance aimed at restricting therapeutic massage establishments.

Both pieces of legislation were set for a vote last Wednesday, but I invoked a parliamentary rule to stall their consideration. The rule allows two or more aldermen to "defer and publish" for at least one City Council meeting any matter reported from committee to the full City Council. This right is absolute and one of the few avenues available to independent aldermen to slow adoption of bad legislation.

Legislative Inspector General

My colleagues--Bob Fioretti (2nd Ward), Brendan Riley (42nd Ward) and Mary Ann Smith (48th Ward)--joined me in delaying the establishment of a "Legislative Inspector General," the proposed "watchdog" of the Chicago City Council, whose function would be to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by aldermen and their staff.

At first blush, this sounds like a good idea. After all, over twenty aldermen have been convicted of criminal misconduct in the last twenty years. And the current city Inspector General has no power to investigate aldermen since the aldermen twenty years ago voted to exempt themselves from his investigatory purview.

However, after peeling away the layers of this legislation what emerges is a paper tiger that will serve only to further fuel public cynicism and disgust.

This new Legislative Inspector General could launch an investigation only on the basis of a "sworn complaint," which would be shared immediately with the subject of the complaint, i.e., the alderman or the aldermanic staff person. How many people with knowledge or criminal activity will report any wrongdoing if they knew their identity would be revealed immediately?

It's like telling a police officer he must obtain a sworn complaint from a citizen who witnesses a drug deal and share that witness's identity with the alleged drug dealer before the officer could begin to investigate. What citizen would report the illegal activity under those circumstances?

Having two inspectors general, one for the executive branch and one for the legislative branch, also creates more bureaucracy and conflicting jurisdictions at a time when we're cutting back on essential city services.

The sponsors of this measure have attached no cost estimate to this new position. What is the salary of this new inspector general? How much staff and support services will he or she have?

What if an investigation of an executive branch employee also involves misconduct on the part of an alderman or aldermanic staff assistant? Who conducts the investigation? Wouldn't the requirement that witness identity be disclosed deter the executive branch inspector general from cooperating with the legislative inspector general?

We in the City Council should demand answers to those questions before we vote on this legislation.

My colleagues say a separate City Council inspector general is necessary to avoid the possibility of being intimidated and harassed by an inspector general who is appointed by Chicago's Mayor. Yet, ironically, under their proposed ordinance, the legislative inspector general reports to the Chicago Board of Ethics that is appointed by, you guessed it, the Mayor!

I'm not unmindful of the need to have an inspector general who is completely independent of the Mayor, nor am I unsympathetic to the legitimate concerns of my colleagues who fear an unaccountable inspector general.

Our nation's history is replete with notorious examples of rogue prosecutors and investigatory authorities who abuse their authority to harass and intimidate often for political purposes. But the answer to that concern is not to create a sham inspector general, but to give the City's current Inspector General complete independence and extensive oversight.

Last year, a dozen of my colleagues joined me in introducing an ordinance to establish an independent commission that would recommend to the Mayor and the City Council three candidates for the City's Inspector General. The Mayor would appoint one of the candidates from the list of three subject to the approval of the City Council. The Inspector General would then report to and be overseen by the independent commission.

This commission would consist of respected law enforcement officials, former judges, members of the bar and other respected community leaders.

Unfortunately, my proposal never saw the light of day and remains buried in the City Council Rules Committee, the traditional resting ground for reform legislation.

If my colleagues were truly interested lifting the cloud of public cynicism that rests over city government in general and the City Council in particular, they would embrace my proposal for a truly independent inspector general who could investigate public corruption aggressively and fairly and free from political influence.

I appeared recently on FOX Chicago Sunday to discuss the proposed ordinance.  To view the interview, CLICK HERE.

Ordinance to Restrict Therapeutic Massage Establishments

My colleagues Brendan Riley (42nd Ward) and Mary Ann Smith (48th Ward) also joined me in delaying a vote on another misguided piece of legislation--a restriction on the ability of "massage establishments" to operate in business districts. The legislation would limit massage therapists to heavy-use commercial districts only, such as outdoor storage areas and car lots, and prohibit them from operating in areas typically used by small businesses and retail establishments.

The sponsor of the measure, Alderman Ray Suarez (31st Ward), introduced the legislation because a house of prostitution in his ward masqueraded as a legitimate massage establishment. Though I‘m sympathetic to Alderman Suarez's plight, the solution to the problem is to enforce existing laws against prostitution, not stigmatize a legitimate profession. As any small business owner can attest, it's already extremely difficult to operate a small business in Chicago. This measure just sends out another signal that Chicago is not small business friendly.

Massage therapy is recognized as a legitimate profession by the National League of Cities and is a licensed profession in the State of Illinois protected by the Massage Licensing Act. The 49th Ward is home to many licensed massage therapists, many of whom work closely with doctors and other medical personnel to treat chronic ailments. As our population ages, the demand for massage therapy services will only increase. To limit these businesses to zoning districts that are intended for high-intensity uses only makes absolutely no sense unless you operate under a misguided and outdated stereotype.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail.

Chicago Clean Power Ordinance

Though last week's City Council meeting was focused on stopping some bad legislation, some very good legislation also got introduced. Together with nine of my colleagues, I introduced an ordinance that would reduce significantly the soot and greenhouse gas pollution from Chicago's two coal-fired power plants. The Chicago Clean Power Ordinance would make Chicago the only city in the nation to regulate pollution from coal plants.  A summary of the ordinance and a text of the ordinance itself are attached below:

CleanPowerOrdinanceSummary.pdf (89 KB)

CleanPowerOrdinance.pdf (107 KB)

The Fisk and Crawford plants belch out about 2.8 million pounds of soot and five million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year--nearly two tons for each Chicago resident. Chicago suffers from one of the highest asthma rates in the nation, and studies have linked the pollution from those plants to serious respiratory conditions suffered by thousands of Chicagoans.

Supported by a coalition of over 35 business and nonprofit groups, the ordinance will help Chicago achieve its goal of becoming the greenest city in the nation and lead the nation on a path to cleaner air and cleaner energy.

I will keep you up to date on this path-breaking legislation in future e-mails, but in the meantime if you would like to learn more, visit the web site of the Chicago Clean Power Coalition: http://cleanpowerchicago.org.

The next City Council meeting is set for Wednesday, May 12th at 10 a.m.  I'll provide another full report then.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's March Report

Dear Neighbor,

Normally, City Council meetings are held once a month. But special council meetings can also be called by either the Mayor or by any three aldermen. March saw both kinds of special meetings in addition to the regularly scheduled one on March 10th.

The first special meeting was called by the Mayor for March 26th. Its purpose was to appoint Joe Moreno as new alderman to the 1st Ward (replacing Manny Flores , who resigned to become Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission) and Deborah Graham to the 29th. (replacing Ike Carothers, who pled guilty to corruption charges and thereby forfeited his office).

The meeting was also held to officially transfer several job positions from the Office of Compliance over to the Office of the Inspector General to satisfy the Federal District Judge who is overseeing City hiring purusant to the Shakman decree. Since I opposed the creation of the Office of Compliance in the first place, I had no problem with this long-overdue move to give the Inspector General the right to investigate hiring abuses.

This was all fine and good, except there was another matter at hand that was far nearer and dearer to my heart-and, I think, to yours.

The Daley Administration had just announced a new cost-saving plan to reduce dramatically street-cleaning service to our ward and many others. As long as anyone remembers, each ward has had its own street-sweeping truck and driver, who work five days a week to clean every street in each in a regular and timely way. In the 49th Ward, this means each residential block is swept at least once every four to five weeks.

The new proposal would have reduced the City's 50 sweepers to 33 and eliminate local control by each ward's Streets and Sanitation Superintendent (in our case, one of the best--Mr. Greg Wagner). Instead, streets would be swept according to a grid pattern, ignoring ward boundaries. The result for us in the 49th Ward and other densely populated wards would be an almost two-month wait between cleanings and little ability to respond to any special street-sweeping needs.

Though I completely support the idea of providing city services more efficiently, this dramatic reduction in the delivery of an essential city service was simply unacceptable.

The Administration's new street sweeping proposal was presented to the aldermen just ten days before the April 1st start of street sweeping season, after the regular March City Council meeting, but before the April meeting. The March 26th special City Council meeting offered the only opportunity before the April 1st start of street sweeping season for the City Council to officially order the Daley Administration to reverse this decision and reinstate the 50 sweepers with local ward supervision.

Several of my colleagues and I drafted a City Council "Order" to that effect, and at the March 26th special City Council meeting, I moved for a "suspension of the rules" to immediately consider our order. The Mayor, who presides over the City Council meetings, ruled my motion "out of order," stating that the City Council could consider only the original, printed agenda items.

For a copy of the Order, click on the atachment below:

Street Sweeping Order.pdf (75 KB)

On to Plan B. Early the next week, I joined together with Aldermen Rick Munoz (22nd Ward) and Willie Cochran (20th Ward) to call a second special meeting ourselves. This is something that any three aldermen can do under City Council rules, but an aldermanic special meeting has not been held successfully since the "Council War" days in the 1980's. A quorum of 26 aldermen must be present in order to actually do business, and most aldermen have been extremely reluctant to attend a special meeting over the Mayor's objections.

The response by the Daley Administration was quick in coming. The Administration rolled out a compromise plan, which would cut the sweepers to 40 rather than 33. The plan allowed for a complicated shifting of street sweepers among the wards during the week, but the bottom line was that each ward would be able to maintain its regular street sweeping schedule and respond effectively to special needs that arose.

It was a far better plan than the original cuts, but my colleagues and I still decided to go ahead with the special meeting and have the proposed order referred to a City Council Committee in case the revised plan didn't work out.

So on Wednesday, March 31st, we showed up at City Hall to find out if we would reach a quorum. Many aldermen, of course, were encouraged by the Daley administration to stay home, and others felt the compromise was good enough. But 25 aldermen did attend. In fact, my friend, Gene Schulter (47th ward) even flew back from a Florida vacation to join us! Unfortunately, even after we called a recess to find any last council members in their offices, we ended up one alderman short of a quorum.

In spite of not passing the order, it was still a victory. The compromise never would have happened without pressure from aldermen, and the plan seems to be working well in the 49th Ward. Best of all, the streets of the 49th Ward will be swept regularly, and when special clean-ups are needed, be it after a car accident or before a block party, our Streets and Sanitation Superintendent can respond in a timely and efficient manner.

By the way, our 49th Ward 2010 street-sweeping schedule can be found by clicking here.  Or visit my web site, http://www.ward49.com/ . and click on the "Street Sweeping" link on the right side of the home page. When you check it out, please remember that nothing in this town comes easily.

The next (regularly scheduled] City Council meeting will be held today, Wednesday, April 14. You will receive another City Council Report shortly following today's meeting. Though these reports take time to write and my plate is very full, it's important that you receive the reports as soon after the meeting as possible. So I will endeavor to turn over a new leaf and get the reports out as soon as possible!

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's February Report

Dear Neighbor,

The City of Chicago last month took another small step forward towards more honest and transparent government.

Mayor Daley introduced into the City Council an ordinance I had championed last year that would give the City's Inspector General the power to investigate allegations of misconduct involving aldermen. Amazingly (although perhaps not so surprisingly, given that it's Chicago), the aldermen twenty years ago voted to exempt themselves from the Inspector General's purview when they established the office.

At a time when yet another alderman has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes, and public mistrust of city government is at its zenith, it's outrageous that many of my colleagues still continue to act as though they are above the law. I appeared recently on WTTW's Chicago Tonight to debate this issue with one of my colleagues who opposes the expansion of the Inspector General's power. To see the debate, click here.

My ordinance expanding the Inspector General's authority to include aldermen has languished in the City Council Rules Committee since I introduced it last year. So I was pleased to see the Mayor jump on board with the idea. With the Mayor's support, it seemed there was a real possibility that this could become law.

But not so fast. . . . Since its introduction, a number of my City Council colleagues have been working in overdrive to water down the legislation, if not kill it completely. In particular, they have raised the fear that an Inspector General would act at the behest of the Mayor to harass and intimidate members of the City Council with bogus investigations and allegations of corruption.

Ironically, the Council members expressing those concerns are some of the most loyal Mayoral supporters on the City Council and would be the last to be targeted by the Mayor. Furthermore, the current Inspector General, Joe Ferguson, and the last Inspector General, David Hoffman, have hardly been Mayoral tools, having conducted numerous investigations of key members of the Daley Administration.

I am the first to acknowledge that everyone, including the Inspector General, needs oversight, which is why I have proposed that the Inspector General be appointed and overseen by an independent panel, consisting of the U.S. Attorney, the Illinois Attorney General, the Cook County State's Attorney and representatives from the Better Government Association and the various bar associations.

If my colleagues were truly concerned with maintaining the Inspector General's independence from the Mayor, they would embrace my proposal. Instead, they've ignored it because, in truth, they're far less concerned with Mayoral power, and far more concerned with shielding themselves from the Inspector General's purview.

The rush to either limit or control IG oversight of aldermen perhaps shouldn't be surprising, but I am still sometimes taken aback by the desire of many in the City Council to stymie any change whatsoever. It's as though they are deaf and blind to the voters' real anger and disgust toward their insistence at remaining above the law.

There was some small progress on the reform front, however. This time it was the passage of an ordinance to ban aldermen from hiring their relatives, using a small payroll available for "contract workers."

The Chicago Tribune has referred to this fund as a "stealth payroll," but actually it's never been a secret in the 49th Ward.  It's an annual amount of $26,500 per alderman that I've used to hire part-time or full-time help on contract for the Ward Service Office. I have never hired relatives with this money (nor hired relatives with any City money), but unfortuntely it's a practice in a number of other wards. Some aldermen consider their office just another family business!

Currently, the 49th Ward contract worker payroll is being used to pay for the services of Nicole Summers, whom I hired last fall to work full-time on my Participatory Budgeting initiative. She's doing yeoman's work, and anyone who's worked with her knows that the taxpayer's are definitely getting a bargain for her services.

Although this ordinance didn't ban all hiring of relatives by aldermen (it just stopped the use of one payroll line), the legislation still couldn't get enough votes until the current relative-employees were grandfathered in. And then, five aldermen still voted against it. But it did pass finally (and included my "aye" vote). One small step forward, indeed!

I'll continue to keep you posted on the progress of the Inspector General Ordinance, and other efforts to make city government more honest and transparent.

The next Council meeting will be held this Wednesday, March 10th.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's January Report

Dear Neighbor,

It's been several months since I last provided you with a City Council Report . With this summary of the difficult budgetary choices the Mayor and the Council faced last year, I'd like to get back on track with my regular reports. The city's economy is still feeble, which means that the Mayor and the City Council will continue to face extremely difficult budgetary choices as we move into this year, and you deserve to know why and how those choices are being made.
The City Council late last year approved the Mayor's proposed budget for 2010 with only a few amendments. I was one of 12 aldermen who voted against the budget.

The good news was that the budget contained no new or increased taxes, fees or fines. The bad news was that the budget deficit--nearly $550 million--was plugged almost entirely by dipping into the reserves created by the Skyway and parking meter leases ($75 million and $370 million respectively). Another $35 million was used for a property tax relief program. Those amounts, combined with earlier expenditures from the proceeds of the long-term leases, means that over two thirds ($1.3 billion) of the $2.1 billion combined Skyway/parking meter lease proceeds will have been spent in just a few years' time.

With another equally challenging budget next year, which is an election year, it's likely the Mayor will call upon us to dip into the reserves again. Keep in mind that these are very long-term leases (99 years for the Skyway and 75 years for the parking meters). What are we going to do once we've depleted those reserves? We've turned over control of those assets to private companies, who will continue to reap all the revenues from those assets for generations to come, with nothing left for the taxpayers.

Once we've plundered those two assets, what's our plan to balance the budget in future years? The Mayor's answer to the press? "That will be my worry next year."

Actually he does have the glimmer of a plan. He is reportedly looking over the rest of our City assets and considering more sales and leases! The water filtration plant and the city's waste transfer stations are said to be two prime candidates for future privatization moves. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of new fees or tax increases or deeper cuts in services, but to mortgage our City's future by selling our assets is not an acceptable method to balance the City's budget.

The remaining portion of the 2010 budget deficit was filled by a number of measures, including requiring city workers to take 24 days of unpaid leave (about a 10 percent cut in pay); a 20 % reduction in operating hours for branch libraries, and a proposed 21% reduction in support for local development and commerce organizations, such as the Rogers Park Business Alliance.

Also on the chopping block was the City's Department of Public Health, which received a 12% reduction and the Bureau of Tourism, which lost over $1 million in funding despite the fact the city is hemorrhaging convention business.
Finally, the Mayor proposed suspending the blue-cart recycling expansion, which means that only one-third of the City will receive recycling pick-up, leaving the rest of us to haul our recyclables to one of the city's drop-off sites.

I worked closely with my colleagues in the City Council's "Progressive Caucus," including Alderman Toni Preckwinkle and others, to restore some of those cuts. We had some modest success. We reduced by half the cuts to the local development corporations and chambers of commerce, we restored some of the funding to mental health services and we were able to restore about $500,000 to the Convention and Tourism Bureau.

Unfortunately, that wasn't nearly enough to convince me to support this budget, and I joined 11 of my colleagues in voting against it . While a prudent use of some of the asset lease reserves to balance the budget is appropriate in these difficult economic times, using hundreds of millions of dollars to plug the budget hole with no real long-term plan to address the city's structural deficit constituted an irresponsible mortgaging of our children's future.

Of course, in the depth of a recession, there is no magic bullet. Revenues are down, and cuts are inevitable. However it is the job of elected officials to carefully weigh the options, make the tough choices and do everything we can to develop a safe, sustainable, and responsible financial plan as possible to bring Chicago through these exceedingly difficult times.

As we enter into an equally challenging year, I will continue to do everything in my power to move our city government in that direction.

The City Council meets tomorrow (Wednesday) at 10 a.m. I will provide you with a report of the proceedings soon thereafter.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's October Report

Alderman Moore's September Report

Alderman Moore's July Report

Alderman Moore's June Report

Alderman Moore's May Report

Alderman Moore's April Report

Dear Neighbor,

"Follow the money."  That's always been good advice for anyone who wants to understand Chicago politics.  And given the current economic downturn, it's even more true today in the City's decision-making process.

Take the parking meter lease--passed overwhelmingly in December, based on the dire, if not apocalyptic scenarios spun by the Mayor's Budget Office.  The 75-year lease was billed as an essential action to keep the City afloat, yet now that the meters have been transferred to the private company, LAZ Parking, chaos and confusion have taken over.  And questions have arisen over whether it really was a good deal for the City.

Yes, I voted for the agreement.  But it's a vote I have come to regret.  I'm still open to the possibility that the parking meter lease may prove to be a long-term financial benefit to the city and its taxpayers.  But the process for adopting the agreement stunk. 

The City Council did not need to rush to a vote.  Allowing more time would have given the press and other independent third parties an opportunity to analyze the deal.  Their input would have informed the debate and given the aldermen and the members of the general public time to make a fully informed decision.  It would have also given LAZ Parking more time to adequately prepare to take over operation of the meters.

As I informed you in my previous City Council Report, I introduced a resolution for hearings on the process leading to the lease agreement, as well as the deficiencies in its implementation, and steps to remedy these deficiencies.  This resolution was introduced at the April 22nd meeting, co-sponsored by 13 other aldermen.

I've attached a copy of the resolution below:

Parking_Meter_Lease_Resolution.pdf (50 KB) 

I was also pleased that three other measures addressing the parking meter issue were introduced at the April meeting.  One would forbid any new parking rate increases until vending machines accepting credit cards were universally installed.  A second measure calls for hearings to address why the standard requirements for minority participation were waived for LAZ Parking. 

And a third would initiate a 30-day waiting period before City Council could approve any new privatization of City assets.  (This is in reaction to today's status quo, where we aldermen are sometimes given less than a week's notice of the latest Mayoral plans.)

I am also pleased to report that the City Council at its April meeting adopted two sound pieces of legislation--both of which I co-sponsored: (1) The "TIF Sunshine Ordinance" which requires tax-increment funding documents to be made accessible on the web, and (2) the "Legacy Plan" for the 2016 Olympics, which would ensure that the Olympic Village would be converted to affordable housing and that jobs and contracts would be apportioned fairly to minorities and women.

But the news from City Hall is certainly not all positive--and that's all about money, too.  As you may have read, the City's tax revenues continue to drop. And adding to the pain, the recent deal to lease Midway Airport fell through. 

In response to a $250-$300 million projected annual shortfall, the Mayor's Budget Office proposed that all non-union city employees (about 10 percent of the city workforce) face 17 unpaid days (seven unpaid holidays, three city "shut-down" days and seven unpaid furlough days) through the end of 2009. This of course will not be enough to close the gap, so the unions are being asked to make similar concessions.  The result will be yet another reduction in the services the City can provide.

The Mayor has asked the City Council to vote on these draconian measures tomorrow (Wednesday).  And once again we are told this is an emergency and we must act quickly, leaving the aldermen very little time to debate and analyze the proposal.  This despite the fact that City budget officials have known for months that city revenues were falling far short of their so-called "conservative" projections.

These are hard times indeed, but nothing has been presented thus far that compels us to act tomorrow versus a week or ten days from now.  I will urge my colleagues tomorrow to delay the vote and take more time to fully analyze and debate the Mayor's furlough proposal.  It's long past time for the City Council to begin to act like the co-equal branch of city government it was meant to be.

I will give you another report after tomorrow's meeting.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's March Report

Alderman Moore's February Report

Alderman Moore's January Report

Alderman Moore's December Report

Alderman Moore's November Report

Alderman Moore's October Report

Alderman Moore's September Report

Alderman Moore's June Report

Alderman Moore's May Report

Dear Neighbor,

Recent City Council meetings have been rather unremarkable, and so I generally wait a few days, or even a few weeks, before I issue you a report on the goings-on at Council. Last Wednesday's meeting was an exception, however, and the events that unfolded should be of profound concern to those who believe in good and open government.

Perhaps you saw the TV coverage or read in the newspaper that Mayor Daley and one of his City Council allies rushed through a repeal of the ban on the sale of foie gras in Chicago's restaurants with no public input and no City Council debate. You may have supported the ban as an important statement against egregious animal cruelty, or foie gras may be one of your favorite foods--but in either case, I hope you are as troubled as I am about the sad state of democracy in Chicago's City Council.

How should the legislative process work? Laws to be passed (or repealed) move through committee hearings first before progressing to the Council floor for a vote. The committee hearings are where the voices of average citizens can be heard. Anyone can testify on any piece of legislation.

The committee hearings also provide aldermen with a opportunity to learn more about proposed legislation, to debate among themselves, and to amend the legislation as result of the public input and debate. Then at the Council meeting itself, there is another chance for debate before the matter is brought to a vote.

The initial foie gras ban was passed only after a great deal of public input and discussion among the aldermen. But not so in this case. Instead, 44th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney last year introduced an ordinance repealing the foie gras ban. He did so at the behest of the Illinois Restaurant Association, an organization he once chaired. The measure was sent to the City Council Rules Committee, where it sat for over a year.

Alderman Tunney never asked for a hearing on his repeal ordinance, even though the committee chair indicated he was willing to hold such a hearing, and none was ever held. Then yesterday in a surprise manuever, Alderman Tunney invoked a seldom used state law that permits an Alderman to move to "discharge" a matter from committee without a public hearing.

I attempted first to argue that we should hold the matter in committee for a public hearing, but the Mayor, who chairs the City Council meeting, ruled me out of order, without citing any legal authority for that ruling. I then demanded to be recognized so that I could debate the issue of the repeal, and the Mayor, in complete violation of City Council rules, simply chose to ignore me and demanded that the clerk proceed immediately to a roll call vote.

The entire incident was reminiscent of City Council meetings 40 years ago, when the Mayor's father, Richard J. Daley, would turn off the microphones of dissenting aldermen. I was also disappointed in my fellow aldermen, who with a few notable exceptions, sat passively as the Mayor short-circuited the democratic process.

If this is the City Council of the future, we're all in trouble. From the Children's Museum to new property taxes to TIF's, is this how future legislative decisions are going to be determined with no public input and no debate? Let us commit ourselves to a more decent, democratic vision.

Aside from the personal attacks and the distraction of the repeal, some City Council business was actually accomplished. For example, the Council passed an ordinance requiring the recycling of plastic shopping bags, which will go into effect in six months. The ordinance copied parts of a New York City law, but the final version fell short of its model.

In New York City, all stores larger than 5,000 square fee or part of a chain must set our bins for recycling and report on the results. But in Chicago, the ordinance is limited to grocery and drug stores, no matter the size.

The result? Any little corner grocery will have to find a way to recycle bags, while some of Chicago's largest stores, from Office Depot to Best Buy to Macy's, will be of the hook. I'm not only concerned about the loss of plastic bag recycling from the larger stores, but the extra burden this legislation will place on all the little groceries and bakeries in the 49th Ward and elsewhere.

Will the City seriously address the important issues of educating the public and store owners about the plastic bag recycling and oversight? There's no qestion that disposable plastic bags waste natural resources (like petroleum) and create ugly litter, but Chicago's ordinance is not necessarily the most effective solution. And unfortunately, other approaches, such as plastic bag bans, were not even considered.

I reluctantly voted in favor, but will revist the ordinance and monitor its results as the law becomes operational.

The City Council will next meet on Wednesday, June 11th, when it is likely that the Council will consider the Mayor's proposal to move the Children's Museum to Grant Park. Just another boring meeting, I'm sure!

I will report on the results.

Sincerely,

Alderman Moore's April Report

Dear Neighbor,

Alderman Moore's March Report

Alderman Moore's February Report

Dear Neighbor,

The City Council meeting this month occurred on February 6th, the day after the Illinois Primary Election.  Although a number of aldermen were sleep-deprived after the long election night, almost all were in attendance because of the vote needed to save the CTA.

As you know, the basic operation of our public transit (CTA, Metra, and PACE) was on the line for the past year while the Illinois General Assembly haggled over a solution.  Thanks in great part to the work of State Rep. Julie Hamos (who represents the northeastern portion of the 49th Ward in Springfield), the State Legislature finally agreed to a quarter-cent sales tax increase (and Governor Blagojevich's last-minute free-rides-for-seniors amendment) to provide long-term relief for mass transit in the Chicago region.  An audible sigh of relief could be heard across our ward, which would have lost the 147 Outer Drive Express and the 96 Lunt among other routes with the threatened "Doomsday Scenario."

But the Legislature didn't completely fill the funding gap.  It also demanded that Chicago's City Council increase its property transfer tax by $3 per $1000 of sale value to complete the package.  This is a tax that is paid by the purchaser of real estate at the time the ownership of the property is transferred. 

The property transfer tax should NOT be confused with the property tax, which is a tax on the assessed value of your property and is billed in installments every year.  In fact, just last November, I voted against the Mayor's proposed property tax increase. 

The transfer tax only affects you when you buy property.  The vast majority of us pay the transfer-tax when we purchase our home, and thus most of us pay the tax only once or twice in our lifetime.  Moreover, because most people include the cost of the tax in their mortgage, the transfer tax burden is amortized over the length of the mortgage, usually a period of 15 or 30 years.  Nonetheless, the proposed transfer-tax increase was a bitter pill to swallow.

But the alternative was unsupportable.  If the City Council had voted against the transfer tax proposal, the entire CTA legislative package would have unraveled, and school kids, workers, and seniors no longer would have had access to reliable public transportation.  Any changes to the transfer tax proposal would have required state legislative approval, a nearly impossible task given the realities of the current political climate in Springfield.

The CTA, under its new leader Ron Huberman, has undertaken significant structural reforms, including obtaining significant wage and benefit concessions from the labor unions.  The unions, however, reserved the right to remove those concessions from the table if the legislative package failed.  Given those realities, I voted "yes" along with the majority of my colleagues, and the increase passed by a vote of 41 to 6.

I want to thank those who phoned or e-mailed their comments in advance of the vote.  Many good arguments were raised on both sides of the issue.  For example, some raised concerns that the transfer tax would hurt real estate sales.  But my greater concern was the even greater loss of property values, and the quality of life in our city, if reliable public transit was no longer available.

All in all, I believe I made the right decision, and with all the snow and ice this month, I feel much better knowing that trains and buses are there to help us get to work, to shopping, and to school.

And an addendum: Looking ahead to the warmth of summer, I co-sponsored a City Council resolution urging President Bush and Congress to allocate $2 billion for a real summer job program for one million youth nationwide.  Last year, over 40,000 young people in Chicago applied for only 18,000 available government-funded jobs!  This lack of concern for our youth must end and I hope our voices here in Chicago will make a difference.

The next City Council meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 12th.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's January Report

Dear Neighbor, 

January 9th saw the first City Council meeting of 2008, and amidst an abundance of resolutions and commendations, there was actually a sense of real progress.  This was especially so in the matters of police conduct and oversight,

Most importantly, City Council approved a long-awaited settlement of $19.8 million with four victims of alleged police torture.  The cases, dating back to the 1980s, are by now well-known:  The victimized men claim that officers serving under former south-side police Commander Jon Burge tortured them into making confessions to murder; they then served prison time based on those confessions.

The City has been abysmally slow in making restitution to the victims, in spite of pressure from community activists and a number of aldermen, myself included.  But even Mayor Daley--who served as State's Attorney during many of the years of the torture--finally commented on the rightness of the settlement.

However, there is still more work to be done, including bringing Burge himself to justice.  (He continues to live off his police pension in Florida.)  The story is clearly not over, but as I said at the Council meeting, "a horrible chapter in the City's history has ended."

The day's second City Council action regarding the police was all about the future.  For the first time in almost 40 years, an "outsider" has been recommended and confirmed as police superintendent.  Jody Weis (pronounced "Weese") comes to Chicago after serving with the FBI for 23 years, most recently heading the Philadelphia bureau.

He may face a steep learning curve here, coming from a much different environment, and one not as attuned to community policing.  But I'm willing to give the Mayor a lot of latitude to appoint his top officials, and an outsider viewpoint may be necessary to really bring about change to the Chicago Police Department and route out those bad police officers who besmirch the integrity of the police force as a whole.  Again, this is a story that surely has more chapters to follow.

And finally, a bit of non-policing news.  Congratulations to 49th Ward resident Scott Bruner on his appointment as Director of the Department of Administrative Hearings!  Scott has prior experience both in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and as Director of the City's Department of Business Affairs and Licensing.  His new job entails overseeing more than 400,000(!) cases a year involving violations of building, fire, zoning, health, environment, consumer protection, and parking codes--and more.  Good luck, Scott!

Sincerely,

Joe Moore 

Alderman Moore's Nov. Report (2) 

Dear Neighbor,

The City Council yesterday voted to approve Mayor Daley's proposed 2008 budget that called for $276.5 million in taxes, fines and fees, including a revised $83.4 million property tax increase, the largest in Chicago's history.  The budget passed 37 to 13, and the property tax was approved 29 to 21.  They were the closest budget votes in Mayor Daley's 19 years in office.

I voted to oppose both the budget and the tax increases.  Given the many documented instances of waste, fraud and corruption, I did not believe the budget contained enough assurances that the taxpayers' dollars would be spent honestly and efficiently.  And I was also concerned that the tax package placed a disproportionate burden on low and middle income residents.

The budget contained one bit of good news.  The blue cart recycling program will be expanded to the 49th Ward next year.  If you receive city garbage pick-up, the city will also collect your recyclable materials once every two weeks.  Implementation of the program will begin in the second half of next year.

Below are my remarks on the budget, which I delivered in the City Council.  Please feel free to share your comments.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

REMARKS OF ALDERMAN JOE MOORE
REGARDING PROPOSED 2008 CITY BUDGET
November 13, 2007

Mr. President and members of the City Council, this is the 17^th time that I will cast my vote on the City of Chicago budget and the revenue packages to finance the budget.  Over the years, I have supported far more Mayoral budgets than I have opposed.  Unfortunately, this is one proposed budget I will not be able to support.

I am very mindful of the budgetary and fiscal challenges our city faces, challenges of a size and scope not seen since the Great Depression.  Chicago is not alone in this regard.  Cities and towns across America face financial crises more dire than our own, and have been forced to drastically cut even the most vital public services.

Our Budget Director, Bennett Johnston, has performed yeoman's work in crafting a balanced budget during these very difficult financial times.  I congratulate him on his professionalism.

The cost of providing for police and fire protection, affordable housing, quality schools, adequate health care and basic city services continues to increase and the resources to pay for those essential needs continue to dwindle.

The current slowdown in the nation's economy undoubtedly contributes to our budgetary difficulties.  But an even greater contributing factor is our federal government's completely misplaced priorities.

We may have our disagreements over this budget, but let's make very clear who the real enemy is.

The Bush Administration cut spending on Community Development Block Grants, Head Start, education, child care, affordable housing, energy assistance and a vast array of other programs to help people.  At the same time, it gave the richest five percent of Americans tax cuts of $92 billion in one year alone.

While federal assistance to cities and towns faced the chopping block every year since 2001, the Bush Administration doubled the spending on national defense.

Spending on the war in Iraq has cost our nation's treasury nearly half a trillion dollars.  Chicago taxpayers alone have spent $4.9 billion on that misguided and senseless war, nearly equal to our city's budget for an entire year.  Put another way, each Chicago ward sent an average of $98 million to Iraq.

Thanks in large part to these misplaced national priorities, the gap between the rich and poor is wider than at any point in the last 80 years.  Government can play a key role in alleviating this disparity, and ensuring that no one is left behind.  But tragically federal government policies in the last 30 years have served only to exacerbate that disparity, leaving millions of Americans to fend for themselves.

We at the local level have no choice but to step in and fill the void left by the federal government.  Over the last 20 years, Chicago has risen to the challenge.  Despite the lack of federal support, Mayor Daley, with the help of the City Council, has launched an array of initiatives to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods.  From affordable housing to AIDS prevention, from green roofs to community policing, from libraries to Neighborhoods Alive, I supported those initiatives and the budgets which financed them.

But those who believe in the power of government to promote the common good and build a more just society must do more than simply point out that city services cost money and the federal government isn't living up to its obligations.

We must also insist that the hard earned dollars we collect from the taxpayers are raised fairly and spent honestly and efficiently.

Unfortunately, the taxes and fees proposed in this budget are neither fairly raised, nor can we be assured they will always be honestly and efficiently spent.

The taxes and fees we are asked to support today fall disproportionately on poor and middle class individuals and families.  Of the 51 taxes and fees proposed, only one is targeted specifically at business.  And while both homeowners and businesses pay the property tax, it is a regressive tax that has a disproportionate impact on low and moderate income people and those living on a fixed income.

If more taxes and fees are necessary to maintain government services, the burden must be shared by all who benefit from those services.  Under the current proposals, average taxpayers are carrying far more than their fair share.

This budget also does little to assure taxpayers their dollars will be spent honestly and efficiently.

Nothing has eroded public confidence in our local government more than the constant drumbeat of criminal indictments and convictions of people who have enriched themselves at public expense. 

And nothing has made the public more cynical than the endless string of broken promises to end business as usual in city government.

How can we ask a retiree on a fixed income to pay another $100 in property taxes on her home when the City pays $1.2 million to a politically connected developer for property that the developer had bought for $50,000?

How many bottles of water must be sold to pay for the $12 million fund created to compensate victims of the city's rigged hiring system?

How many parking tickets must be written to cover the $10 million in legal fees that have already been spent to defend John Burge and his cohorts?

How many sewer and water fees must be paid to cover the costs of the fraudulent "minority" contracts awarded to politically connected white-owned businesses?

How many red light runners must be caught on camera to make up for the $40 million a year that was spent for do-nothing hired truckers?

Is there any doubt why people feel so angry and betrayed by their local government?

Before we in local government ask people to dig deeper in their pockets, we must demonstrate a true commitment to eliminating waste, inefficiency and corruption in our midst.

Unfortunately, this budget fails to do so.  The budget gives only a token amount of additional resources to the Inspector General's Office--the only agency in city government with any demonstrated record of uncovering corruption and waste.  And the additional inspectors in his new budget merely replace those that were diverted to work with the federal monitor in the Shakman case.

Rather than spend $2.5 million to create the so-called Office of Compliance, an agency of suspect independence that consists primarily of employees from other city departments, the Administration could have used those dollars to staff a truly independent agency that not only roots out corruption but also uncovers waste and inefficiency.

Such a commitment of resources would go a long way to convince our citizens that Chicago was truly committed to cleaning its house.

And rather than running up never-ending legal bills, and leaving the city taxpayers vulnerable to multi-million dollar court judgments, the city's law department could actually settle the Jon Burge cases and begin to heal the wounds from one of the most heinous police misconduct cases in our nation's history.

Such an action is not only the right thing to do morally, but could potentially save the city's taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

At a time when local government is needed more than ever to fill the void left by the misplaced priorities of our federal government, we must restore public confidence in our ability to raise revenue fairly and deliver services honestly and efficiently.

Because this budget fails to do either in any meaningful way, I must vote "no."

Alderman Moore's Nov. Report (1)

Dear Neighbor,

The City Council is moving closer to a vote on Mayor Daley's revised budget and tax proposals.

Last week, the two City Council committees that have been considering the measures--the Committee on Budget and Governmental Operations and the Committee on Finance--voted their approval, and both the budget and tax proposals were reported to the full City Council at its Wednesday, November 7^th meeting.

The Council deferred a vote on the measures until its next meeting on Tuesday, November 13^th.

I remain very concerned about the Mayor's tax and fee proposals.  Although he has reduced the taxes and fees somewhat from his original proposals, the Mayor is still proposing the largest property tax increase in Chicago's history, and the taxes and fees fall disproportionately on average working men and women.

Of the 51 tax and fee increases proposed by the Mayor, only one is aimed exclusively at business--an increase in the planned development review fee.  And while both homeowners and businesses pay the property tax, it is inherently regressive, meaning that the tax has a disproportionate impact on low and moderate income people and those living on a fixed income.

I'm not convinced the City has tightened its fiscal belt sufficiently.  But even if more taxes and fees are necessary to maintain government services,  the burden must be shared by all who benefit from those services.  Right now, average taxpayers are carrying more than their fair share of the burden.

In an attempt to remedy this unfairness, my colleagues, Aldermen Toni Preckwinkle and Ricardo Munoz, and I proposed a "public safety assessment" of 40 cents per square foot on all downtown commercial spaces larger than 5,000 square feet.  Under our proposal, the $16 million collected from this assessment would be used to reduce the property tax.

Predictably, the downtown business interests sent their lobbyists to City Hall with dire warnings of economic doom if our plan passed.  They conveniently ignored the fact that downtown businesses have benefited enormously from the many infrastructure improvements to the central business district funded by billions of taxpayer dollars, including hundreds of millions of dollars from the Central Loop TIF.

They also ignored the fact that it often costs more to provide the downtown area with government services, such as police, fire and homeland security.

No one likes to get taxed, and certainly no one likes to have their taxes increased.  But if taxes must be raised, let's do it in way that insures that those who benefit from government services share the burden of paying for those services.

Twenty-two of our colleagues have signed on to our plan, and we hope to put the matter to a vote in the City Council Finance Committee, which will meet just before the City Council convenes on Tuesday.

I will let you know the results of the vote.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's October Report

Dear Neighbor,

For most of October, my legislative life has revolved around the Mayor's proposed City Budget for 2008.  I've spent countless hours reviewing multiple books issued by the Mayor's Budget Office, attending budget briefings and hearings (held all day, every day, from October 15th to October 22nd), and listening to the comments and suggestions that so many 49th Ward residents have shared by e-mail and phone.

But the actual budget vote is still at least one week away--tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, November 13th.  In the meantime, a more routine City Council meeting was held on Wednesday, October 31st, where the main business was the approval of resolutions and commendations, as well as new appointments.

As is sometimes the case, the pre-and post-meeting activities were of greater substance.  Before the meeting, SEIU Local 880 held a press conference along with Aldermen Ed Smith (28th), Denise Dixon (24th), and myself, to call on the City's Purchasing Department to deny future funding to a large for-profit home care agency, Family Home Service, which has a history of poor senior care and bad labor practices.  Needless to say, when the well-being of seniors and workers are both endangered by a single cause, it is time to take action and challenge the source of the problem.

At the conclusion of its meeting, the City Council held a public hearing, in which members of the public were invited to offer their opinions about the proposed budget.  This is the only time of year when the public is invited to testify before the full City Council.  Usually, public testimony is heard only during City Council committee meetings.

Approximately 35 speakers signed up to testify, with some also answering multiple questions from aldermen.  Among those speaking were the president of the Civic Federation (against any new taxes, for more privatization), a Wrigleyville bar owner (explaining how increasing the liquor tax could hurt small businesses like hers), and many speakers on behalf of the Chicago Public Library (fearing that library funding would be imperiled if the property tax is not increased).

The issues of taxes vs. services, waste vs. efficiency, and out-sourcing vs. city jobs are complex and not well-served by simplified blog-like arguments.  I voiced some of my main concerns during the public hearing:

1. I find it unfair that the libraries are being singled out in the tax debate. Ten years ago, the libraries were successful in obtaining a dedicated source of funding through the property tax, which has helped them tremendously to expand (including the construction of our own Rogers Park branch).  It is simply wrong to put them on the front lines of the current fight, and I would propose that if the property tax proposal is scaled back, the burden should not fall on the libraries.
    
2. Privatization is not a panacea for budget woes.  We have all seen with such City scandals like "Hired Truck," where private companies, especially when they are politically connected and poorly supervised, are far more costly to taxpayers than operations staffed by City workers.
    
3. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:  It is imperative that the Inspector General receive adequate funding and staff to carry out his mandate, not only to address corruption, but to address waste and inefficiencies in the departments. 
   

Already, the hearings, the discussions, and the input from city residents are remolding the final budget.  Just yesterday, Mayor Daley and his City Council allies introduced revised tax and budget proposals (reducing most of the initial proposed tax increases, including the property tax), as well as restricting new hiring, adding unpaid furlough days for City workers, and eliminating vacancies.

Unfortunately, the City is also proposing delaying much needed new services, such as a six-month wait before the blue-cart recycling program is allowed to expand to additional wards, including the 49th Ward.

Again, the issues are not simple and the answers not easy.  I promise to keep you informed as the budget process continues.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's Sept. Report (2)

Dear Neighbor,

The Mayor recently introduced his proposed budget for next year.  The budget calls for several fee and tax increases and must be approved by a majority vote of the City Council. Over the next few weeks, the City Council Budget Committee, of which I am a member, will be meeting daily to hear from City budget officials and department heads, and will question them about their budget plans for next year.

I will appear on WLS Talk Radio, AM 890, this Sunday, October 14th, at 8 p.m. to discuss the Mayor's proposed budget and other issues facing the city and the state.  The program is hosted by political columnist Tom Roeser and is a call-in show.  Please feel free to call in with your questions and comments about the budget, the proposed tax increases and any other issues of concern.

I promise to share with you in future e-mails my thoughts on the proposed budget and my ideas for more governmental accountability and transparency. 

But first, back to my promise to report on each City Council meeting, including the latest, on September 27th, where we witnessed a small step forward in government transparency.

There, in the chambers, every word spoken by the Mayor and aldermen was not only available to those who ventured downtown to City Hall to sit in on the proceedings, but was shared-live, gavel to gavel-to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. And every subsequent meeting will be broadcast in the same way.

Three cameras have been mounted on the chamber walls, and a Bureau of Electricity foreman decides on the shots and the close-ups. Perhaps it doesn't add up to a cinematic masterpiece (one could imagine Sally Field playing Alderman Helen Shiller, with Donald Sutherland as Alderman Ed Burke, and Anthony Hopkins becoming Mayor Daley). Occasionally, moments of drama can be sprinkled among hours of routine legislation. (There was little, however, this time.) To watch in the future, just go to http://ward49.cmail1.com/l/262960/l/www.chicityclerk.com/ or http://ward49.cmail1.com/l/262960/l/www.committeeonfinance.org/.

Although much of the meeting was routine, an important moment for me was a unanimous City Council vote in support of my resolution that called upon the City's Purchasing Officer to void the City contract with Universal Security, a new provider of airport perimeter security. Here are several reasons why I introduced the resolution:

(1) Universal Security is paying its employees less than the City's mandated living wage, but claims compliance by providing extra "uniform and transportation" money. Of course, it doesn't pay employer taxes on this portion, and the result is a shift of the tax burden to the workers. The City Living Wage ordinance clearly requires private contractors to pay their employees a "living wage," and the definition of a "wage" does not include benefits. On that basis alone, Universal Security violated its contract.

(2) The company has no experience providing security for airports. In the past, the company has primarily provided retail security, and its past annual contracts were only for $1.5 million, while the new contract is for $33 million. It's questionable if Universal is even qualified to do the job.

(3) And finally, good union jobs with health benefits are being replaced by non-union positions with few benefits. Previously the turnover rate for Chicago airport security officers was one of the lowest in the nation. Now we can expect that a less motivated, less healthy workforce with high turnover will be responsible for our airports!

I spoke in opposition to the contract again at this meeting. But I didn't need to go on at length, as Finance Committee Chairman Burke, himself, also spoke out strongly in favor of voiding the contract. Sometimes you have to carry the water yourself and sometimes it's good to let others to go the well. Besides, he does look a little like Donald Sutherland!

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's Sept. Report (1)

Dear Neighbor,

Following the traditional August break, Chicago's City Council met on September 5th.  As I indicated in my City Council report to you last July, I will provide you with a report following each City Council meeting.

First, a piece of good news!  The City Council approved Mayor Daley's appointment of several new department heads-among them, Thomas Byrne, who will be heading Chicago's Department of Transportation (CDOT).  You may remember Tom and his service to our ward in the late 1990s as the 24^th District Police Commander.  He was an innovative, hands-on commander, who understood our unique community and was readily accessible to everyone in the neighborhood.

He was a firm believer in community-oriented policing, and established a 24^th District problem buildings task force, which was the precursor to the citywide strategic housing task force.  He worked closely with my office and the CAPS groups to clean-up several problem buildings, and presided over double digit decreases in the rate of serious crime in the 24^th District.

Since then, Tom has taken on ever-higher positions with the Police Department, focusing on improving police accountability and establishing oversight systems. Bringing this experience to lead CDOT can only mean good things for the streets and alleys of our ward.  We wish our friend all the best in his new job!

The heart of the City Council meeting, though, concerned the establishment of a new City Office of Compliance.  As its Orwellian name indicates, its purported role is to ensure that all city rules and regulations are properly followed, including the hiring and promotion of personnel.  Such an office sounds good on the surface, doesn't it?  After all, the City has a long and dishonorable history of handing out jobs and promotions based on political connections and precinct work, rather than merit.

However, the City's Inspector General, David Hoffman, is already overseeing current practices and investigating allegations of misconduct.  And by all reports, he is carrying out his job fairly and aggressively.   So do we really need (and can we trust?) a City-run department, whose head is appointed by the Mayor, to police city hiring, especially in light of the years of abuse?

The day before the council meeting, the City's head lawyer, Mara Georges, met with the City Council Budget Committee (of which I'm a member) and assured us that the Inspector General was completely on board with the new Office of Compliance.  Yet the next day's Chicago Tribune reported the opposite-that Mr. Hoffman had serious concerns about the duplication of effort between the two entities.  The new Office of Compliance, he believed, could well undermine the effectiveness of his own independent work.

I not only agreed with his concerns, but was angry at Ms. Georges' misrepresentations, so when the issue came up for discussion before the full City Council, I forcefully spoke out in opposition to the new office.  I am quite sure that you, too, are sick and tired of the City making procedural end-runs, rather than just doing the right thing.  You, too, want the best qualified people-not just the best-connected people-have access to City jobs.

The vote was taken and five of my colleagues, Toni Preckwinkle (4^th), Leslie Hairston (5^th), Sandi Jackson (7^th), Bob Firoetti (2^nd), and Rick Munoz (22^nd) voted "no" along with me.  The Chicago Tribune applauded our willingness to stand up to the Mayor on this issue.

While the ordinance establishing the Office of Compliance passed, the federal judge overseeing city hiring practices under the Shakman decree may well strike it down, at least with respect to hiring and promotions.  And of course, my colleagues and I will continue to scrutinize the office.

And finally, a footnote:  As you might recall, I was asked to appear on WTTW's "Chicago Tonight" the evening of the City Council vote to talk about the compliance office. Unfortunately, the producers cancelled the appearance, as they were unable to find anyone willing to go on camera to defend the new office.  So many votes, but not one voice.  Perhaps next time they'll let me debate an empty chair.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore

Alderman Moore's July Report

Dear Neighbor,

Just ten miles south of Rogers Park lies City Hall, where I serve along with 49 other aldermen as a veteran member of Chicago's City Council. Although the City Council can sometimes seem more like a distant planet, important work is done there which directly affects the people of our ward. Starting with the most recent meeting, on July 19, I plan to share brief, timely reports on the City Council meetings and what they may mean to you.

If you attend a City Council meeting (and they are open to the public), you'll find that there is no written agenda(!) but they always follow the same formula. First there are the honorary resolutions in praise of heroic service by police officers and firefighters, followed by individual resolutions for other Chicago citizens. What follows is a reading of the ordinances, resolutions and other legislation introduced by Mayor Daley and committee reports, which consists of ordinances coming out of the various City Council committees for debate and vote.

The most important ordinance discussed and passed on July 19 established a new Office of Professional Standards (OPS) with authority over the Police Department. It was written in response to years of ineffective oversight of rogue police officers who have sadly coerced and abused citizens under the cover of their office. I was deeply involved in advocating for a more independent Office of Professional Standards and moved to have consideration of an earlier version of the ordinance deferred because I didn't think it was sufficiently comprehensive.

To his credit, Mayor Daley worked with us in the City Council to fashion a compromise ordinance that my colleagues and I felt we could support. Under the modified ordinance, the OPS will have the authority to investigate allegations of improper police coercion in addition to actual physical abuse. The modified ordinance also contains more stringent reporting requirements so that the public can more closely monitor the progress of police misconduct allegations.

Why is this ordinance important for the 49th Ward?

First, we depend heavily on the many good and honest policemen and women who serve us every day. Unfortunately, the misdeeds of a small number of officers taint the reputation of all and make the entire force less trusted and less effective. By enacting a means to more effectively discipline the few bad members, the entire force - and our safety - will benefit.

Second, there's the money. Rarely does a City Council meeting take place without millions and millions of dollars going to settle cases of alleged police misconduct. Think of what this money could do for housing and healthcare, our schools, our parks, and beaches? It's a waste of resources that must stop! The ordinance isn't perfect, but it's a solid step forward.

Finally, every meeting ends with the introduction of new ordinances by the members of the City Council. Along with Aldermen Freddrenna Lyle, Toni Preckwinkle, and Ricardo Munoz, I was proud to co-sponsor an ordinance that would void a new contract that the City made with a private airport security company. The reason is simple: their terms are in violation of Chicago's Living Wage Ordinance. Vigilance on behalf of Chicago's workers is constantly necessary and I continue to pledge to fight for fair wages for all citizens throughout our city.

I hope that this initial report has given you a glimpse of my "other life" at City Hall. A good Alderman works to provide needed local services and improvements, while legislating in the best interests of our ward and our city. My goal is to serve you to the best of my ability in both spheres.

Sincerely,

Joe Moore