City Council Reports

2008

• June
  
• May
  
• April
• March
• February
• January

2007

• DECEMBER - NO SUBSTANTIVE BUSINESS
• November (2)
• November (1)
• October
• September (2)
• September (1)
• AUGUST - CITY COUNCIL BREAK
• July

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 Laws to be passed (or repealed) move through committee hearings first before progressing to the Council floor for a vote.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 ourseves 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