The municipalities of Hinsdale and Clarendon Hills are considering a proposed merger of their police departments—a move that would save the villages collectively an estimated $700,000 to $800,000. Earlier this year, the Village of Winfield studied consolidating police services with surrounding villages or contracting with the County Sheriff Department.
Consolidating entities and sharing services are options for municipalities looking to streamline government and more efficiently utilize taxpayer dollars.
Different year. Different administration. Same story: the city of Chicago has a fiscal mess to clean up.
To that end, Inspector General Joseph Ferguson releases a “Budget Options Report” meant to “support efforts to balance the budget by arming the public and City officials with context, basic data, and analysis needed to inform the tough choices ahead.”
The report includes some 63 options that would purportedly save upwards of $3 billion. Here are a few examples highlighted by the IG’s office:
Reducing the ratio of managers to non-supervisory employees in City government to save more than $100,000,000 annually
Eliminating all Tax Increment Financing Districts to increase tax revenues to the City’s general fund by an estimated $100 million annually
Increasing the work week of all City employees to 40 hours to save approximately $40 million annually
Implement Congestion Pricing for vehicular traffic that is estimated to generate an additional annual revenues of $235 million
Here’s the statement from the IG’s office:
September 26, 2011
Focused on meeting its mandate of promoting efficiency and effectiveness in City government, the City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (IGO) today released its annual report of Budget Options for the City.
The IGO’s Budget Options report for the 2012 budget provides a total of 44 separate, stand-alone options to cut spending. This year’s report also includes 19 possible revenue generating options, including new or restructured taxes, tolls, and fees. In total, the 63 options detailed in the report provide background for nearly $3 billion in possible savings or new revenue for the City. Each option includes a brief overview of how proponents and opponents might argue each option, as well as a new section that notes important questions and discussion topics for the public and decision makers.
“In last year’s report, we provided data and analysis explaining that Chicago’s budget was fundamentally broken” said Inspector General Joseph Ferguson. “One year later, the situation remains difficult. The new Administration has candidly acknowledged the fiscal mess it inherited and has publicly committed itself to fixing it. This report is meant to support efforts to balance the budget by arming the public and City officials with context, basic data, and analysis needed to inform the tough choices ahead.”
The list of options is not meant to be an exhaustive one, and the inclusion of any option in this report is not, and should not be, construed as an endorsement by the IGO. The IGO intends to use public feedback and official responses to the report in order to provide periodic updates and corrections to this year’s report.
Illinois just took one small step toward streamlining government sprawl.
Under the new law signed by Gov. Pat Quinn on Friday, residents in individual townships in Cook County can now vote on whether to eliminate the office of highway commissioner – generally the township government post with the largest taxpayer-backed budgets.
Townships are a form of government that began in the 19th century, before population centers formed, and municipal and county lines were drawn.
As discussed on this blog before, townships can be necessary links between citizens and their government—particularly in rural areas where county and municipal governments cannot provide the community outreach needed to serve the needs of their citizens. But the role townships play in more urban areas—and whether that role is necessary—has been under attack and questioned by disgruntled taxpayers and growing number of lawmakers.
In townships, highway commissioners run the road district, and are responsible for caring for unincorporated roads not served by municipalities or counties.
However, townships with multiple municipalities located within its boundaries (with their own public works programs) have very little road to tend. Nonetheless, the costs of maintaining these roads can be very high.
Under the new law, the board of trustees of a township in Cook County can submit a ballot measure giving voters the opportunity to eliminate the road district in that township. That ballot can appear in a general or consolidated election.
If a majority of voters say “yes”, the road district and the position of highway commissioner is eliminated as of the following January 1. The township board absorbs the duties of the highway commissioner, and can decide whether it wants to handle the duties of the highway commissioner itself, or if it should enter a contract with local municipalities and counties.
That means that if a township board decides to put the question on the ballot, taxpayers could be voting on the question as early as November 6, 2012.
With just over 1,400 townships in Illinois, beginning to streamline the townships of suburban Cook County is just a small step. But for Cook County residents who see their township road districts as inefficient and redundant government entities, this is a first step they will no doubt be eager to take.
Chicago Sun-Times—Tax-free-palooza: Music fest that hired Daley nephew got pass on tax, “Lollapalooza got its latest waiver from the city’s 5 percent amusement tax in the waning days of the administration of Mayor Richard M. Daley, whose nephew Mark Vanecko has been a lobbyist and lawyer for the festival promoters, helping to negotiate their current 10-year contract with the Chicago Park District.”
Chicago Tribune—In a sea of red ink, Emanuel focuses on small fixes, “By taking so much off the table before negotiations begin, Emanuel is virtually ensuring that balancing his first budget will be accomplished through a series of smaller-scale measures rather than sweeping fixes to cut costs or raise money.”
State Journal-Register—Quinn vetoes COGFA health contract bill, “Quinn said the legislation if enacted into law would lead to “politicization” of the purchasing process, which would undermine the state’s ability to secure health care contracts at the best cost.”
Daily Herald—Township leaders’ benefits, “Taxpayers spent more than $1 million last year to cover health care benefits for 77 elected leaders in suburban townships. Those same officials paid nothing for their insurance coverage. An investigation of insurance costs for 50 suburban townships showed 29 offered health care coverage at no charge to elected officers who held full-time positions like supervisor, assessor and highway commissioner.”
(AP) Rockford Register Star—Report: Some elected county officials get far better pension deals than other county workers, “Hundreds of elected county officials throughout Illinois – including some who earn more than $100,000 despite working only part time for a portion of their careers – enjoy far more generous pension plan benefits than those offered to other government workers, according to a published report.”
State Journal Register— Outside attorney’s costly to the state in personnel disputes, “Updated figures from the Illinois Department of Transportation show that outside lawyers hired to defend the agency in personnel disputes, including a series of 2004 layoffs, cost the state nearly $2.4 million.”
That’s the overriding sentiment of more than 100 BGA followers who participated in an ongoing online poll about streamlining the size of the Chicago City Council—one of the hottest civic discussions underway right now.
1) Do you think the number of Chicago aldermen should be cut in half?
2) If not, do you think the number of Chicago aldermen should be reduced?
In answering the first question, an estimated 62 percent respondents said “yes” to halving the number of City Council seats to 25 from 50, while about 29 percent said “no” and nearly nine percent said “maybe.”
And those who did not agree with eliminating the 25 aldermanic seats agreed the time is ripe to reduce the size of Chicago’s City Council. Nearly 62 percent of those taking the online poll said “yes,” while 29 percent said “no” and nine percent replied “maybe.” (Results are as of March 31.)
Beyond the raw numbers, BGA followers have a lot to say about this issue, which has been recently raised by Chicago Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel and other civic leaders. Indeed, the issue is being debated and discussed on BGA President Andy Shaw’s Facebook page, which features at least 45 comments on the topic. The vast majority of those Facebook respondents are advocating for fewer Chicago aldermen but others offer a different point-of-view.
One thing appears certain: We haven’t heard the last of this issue.
This blog entry was reported and written by Robert Reed, the BGA’s director of programming. Contact us with tips, suggestions and complaints at (312) 821-9030, or email our investigative team at rherguth@bettergov.org.
Should Chicago cut the size of its City Council? It’s a conversation the BGA initiated back in December, with a look at council sizes around the country. Last week, Chicago Mayor-elect Emanuel indicated he was open to the idea as a way to cut costs.
Since then, newspaper reporters and columnists have been abuzz about the possibility of reducing the number of aldermen.
Mark Brown and John Kass both took issue with the idea, questioning whether its implementation would result in anything good.
The Sun-Times editorial board also examined the issue, questioning whether cutting the number of aldermen in half would reduce constituent services.
That’s what they’re asking. Here’s what we’re asking:
Illinois, 1875 -- 25 years after the first township was formed
Townships are feeling the heat.
Increasingly, these often-obscure units of local government—which were spawned in Illinois during the 19th century—are coming under fire from critics and lawmakers who dispute the need for having 1,435 taxpayer-supported townships in 85 of 102 state counties.
A buzz is building against townships in the current General Assembly, so look for some streamlining legislation to come down the pike this spring session.
The township critics’ objective is to pass a law that will pave a way toward getting rid of unnecessary townships or, at least, vastly reduce their number.
While not mentioning townships by name in his inaugural speech this January (see video), Senate President John Cullerton asserted that the time has come to “re-examine the need for so many units of local government that result in higher taxes and less efficiency.”
The BGA agrees that township government is ripe for reform.
In late 2009, a BGA investigation with ABC7 News uncovered startling inefficiencies and redundancies within the township governments.
The BGA, which favors streamlining Illinois government and making sure taxpayers get value from every tax dollar, continues to focus on township reform and is a resource for advocates in Springfield looking to appropriately curtail this local level of government.
There’s plenty to examine.
For starters, the boundary lines of townships are based on geography, not necessity or population centers. The lines, originally drawn to be 36 square-mile areas, were set long before cities expanded to include the areas they now occupy.
As a result, a single township can contain numerous cities whose own boundaries straddle both township and county lines.
Consider Northfield Township in Cook County.
That township contains parts of seven municipalities, each with their own governing bodies: Glenview, Northfield, Prospect Heights, Northbrook, Wilmette, Glencoe and Deerfield, according to the office of the Cook County Clerk.
Moreover, townships are permitted, but not required under law, to provide a hodge-podge of various services to residents.
The services a township may provide range from senior and public health services, to prohibiting animals from running at large, to providing fire protection. They can also purchase land and maintain roads in unincorporated areas.
As a result, townships levy taxes on their residents to pay for such services—services that critics say could often be efficiently absorbed into the county operations, which would likely make delivery more practical and less costly to taxpayers.
Redundancies don’t necessarily end there.
There’s already a county assessor, so why have separate township assessors or assistant assessors?
Roads get plowed and maintained by overlapping municipalities or the state, so why do the township road crews do it too?
And general aid and assistance to the poor is handled by a plethora of government-supported human services agencies, so what exclusive support role do townships perform?
What’s more, township taxes also pay for the salaries and pensions of the township’s elected officials.
Elected officials in township government usually include a supervisor, highway commissioner, assessor, and four trustees who make up the township board. Townships also employ clerks, deputy level commissioners and assessor, and other support staff.
That is, at least, seven salaried elected officers per township, plus salaried department staff.
Which begs the question: Is the township delivering services that a city, county or state could not?
For many residents the answer is “No.”
Yet, even if outraged voters wanted to rid themselves of an unwanted township, the task would prove to be almost impossible.
Under state law, voters cannot vote to dissolve their own township. In order for a township to end, or “discontinue,” every other township in that county must also vote via referendum to discontinue it.
That means even in townships where residents want to eliminate the organization, they must act collectively by getting 10 percent of voters in every township in the county to sign a petition to get the issue on the ballot as a referendum in the next general election.
This is an unreasonable standard.
In cases where residents of townships have seen first-hand the waste, inefficiency, and redundancy of township government, they should be able to use an easier referendum vote to purge all or parts of townships that are no longer adding value.
There are Township Supervisors, like Sam Yingling of Avon Township in Lake County, who want reform. In fact, Yingling is a rare township employee—he’s actually advocating for the elimination of his own job by calling on state lawmakers to make it easier for a township to discontinue itself.
Even with such reform, communities that are being well served by their township government can choose to keep it. But those who wish to discontinue their township and streamline the layers of government in Illinois can also do so.
Altering the township landscape in Illinois won’t be an easy task.
Advocates for townships argue these government entities provide an important link between citizens and their government, particularly in rural areas where city and county governments may not be as easily accessible to residents.
In Illinois, the first township was formed in 1850. The past 161 years have changed the make up of Illinois; population centers have formed and the cities of Illinois have sprung up without regard to township lines.
It’s time for a closer look.
The people have a right to determine if a township still serves an important purpose or if it is a superfluous and costly relic of the past.
What does proposed state legislation about guns, child abuse, women’s health and gaming have in common?
Besides touching on some of society’s hot-button issues, all of these bills are scheduled for examination and debate before the Illinois General Assembly’s House Agriculture and Conservation Committee.
Surprised?
The BGA was taken aback upon learning that along with bills about deer and turkey baiting, the Agriculture Committee will also weigh in on legislation pertaining to:
concealed possession of hand guns,
waiting periods for firearm purchases,
changes to the criminal code for minors when handguns are involved,
rules requiring women to have ultrasounds before having an abortion,
required reporting of child abuse, and
gaming.
It’s unusual when bills on such controversial issues are funneled to one totally unrelated committee—especially to have seven of them at once take that pathway.
Indeed, one of the first major steps toward vetting a bill is to hold a hearing in the appropriate or related committee. The purpose of that committee process is to ensure that bills that reach the House floor for a vote are sound both in form and policy.
Typically, a bill gets sent to committee based on its subject matter; for example, bills involving trains get sent to the Mass Transit committee, and bills involving banks get sent to the Financial Institutions committee.
Sometimes, a bill topic may not appear to be directly related to the committee, but there is a nexus that links the topic to the committee. For instance, a bill that concerns the environment may actually be about regulating toxins found in baby bottles. Such a bill would be rightly placed in either the Environment or the Public Health Committees.
From there, the process unfolds.
Lawmakers are assigned to different committees based on their interest and expertise in the subject matter. That enables legislators, who have been following issues for years, to weigh in and help to refine legislation, hopefully for better.
Just as important, the committee process allows citizens to have their voices heard. Any member of the public can attend a hearing and voice support for or against a bill, but it’s easier to get such feedback when legislation comes before a related committee.
Throughout the process, supporters and opponents of the legislation work with lawmakers on the committee to, in theory, make sure the bill is good public policy before making its way to the House floor for a vote.
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
But when bills are placed in committees that have nothing to do with their subject matter, the entire legislative process risks being subverted.
Pam Sutherland, head of policy for Planned Parenthood of Illinois pointed out that placing a bill about women’s health into the Agriculture Committee is “like sending a hog-farming bill to the Public Health committee.”
House members were chosen to sit on the Agriculture Committee because of their expertise and interest in agriculture. They do not have the subject matter expertise that allows them to make informed decisions on legislation unrelated to that topic.
House Speaker Michael Madigan knows how to play the game and is aware that bills with little chance of passing in the correct committee can sail through another committee simply because lawmakers don’t know or care to ask the right questions.
Could that be why Madigan sent these non-agriculture bills to the Agriculture Committee?
When we called Brendan Phelps, a Democrat from downstate Harrisburg to ask why his gun and women’s health bills ended up in the Agriculture committee, he said “these issues are ‘wear-your-heart-on-your-sleeve’ issues. You want to put it to a committee where it’s going to get [voted] out so you can get it to the floor.”
Steve Brown, spokesman for Speaker Madigan, says this is a practice that has gone on for decades. “If a sponsor of a bill expresses a committee preference,” he said, “then the response is to send it there.”
When asked about his proposed women’s health bill, Phelps indicated that he had not asked for the bill to end up in Agriculture, but it was likely the bill’s supporters had spoken with the Speaker’s office about getting it into a committee where it would pass.
Phelps noted that pro-gun bills have gone to the Agriculture committee for years because it’s stacked with ‘downstaters’ who tend to be more pro gun. He cited the bills placements in the Agriculture committee as a plus, noting that if it went to the committee where the other gun bills go, it would never get to the floor.
That may be true. But that speaks more to problems with the committee process than the merit of arbitrarily placing bills in committees where they have the best chance of passing.
This appears to be a blatant attempt to push bills through the committee process without the appropriate level of public scrutiny.
While this is a completely legal tactic, and does not violate House Rules, it’s not a good government approach to passing laws.
Taxpayers rely on lawmakers to make good public policy decisions.
Effective public policy comes from a robust and informed dialogue on the issues. That type of dialogue on gaming, for example, won’t likely occur in the Agriculture Committee.
Bills completely unrelated to the subject matter of the committee to which they have been assigned should be sent to the appropriate committee, and future committee assignments should be made with subject matter in mind.
The following list of bills were sent to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee:
No more parking meter deals without representation! Or at least a financial audit!
That’s a rallying cry the next mayor of Chicago should heed before attempting to spin off any major public assets, such as Midway Airport or the city’s water system, to private investors, according to members of the general public who responded to the 2011 BGA Chicago Mayoral Questionnaire.
In addition, responses to the questionnaire indicate the public craves a tighter, leaner and more accountable city government. But a slim majority doesn’t want to reduce costs by chopping away at the medical and retirement benefits of current city workers.
A total of 32 people responded to the BGA questionnaire. Their reactions come after all six mayoral hopefuls participated in the questionnaire and their answers were posted Jan. 26 on the BGA website. At that time, the BGA invited the general public to take the questionnaire and have their responses posted online.
Admittedly, this is not a scientific poll but rather a means of gauging the candidates’ views and comparing them to a sampling of a broader public response. Here are some highlights:
Selling city assets
A solid 100 percent of the general audience said public hearings and greater financial accountability should be required before any public assets are spun off to private buyers. That answer coincides with all the mayoral hopefuls, who agreed that such basic measures are necessary before the city enters any new privatization deals such as the controversial parking meter deal.
Free Forum: Feb. 9 @ 8 p.m.
The BGA will explore privatization at the Feb. 9 forum, “Privatizing Chicago: The New Chicago Way?” at Columbia College, 618 S. Michigan Ave. at 8 P.M.
>> CLICK HERE for details.
Expanding the Inspector General’s reach
Of those responding to the questionnaire, 94 percent say the Inspector General should have the right to go beyond city agencies and investigate the legislative branch of city government. All six mayoral candidates said they favor this proposal.
Reducing the size of the City Council
Of those responding to the questionnaire, 75 percent want to cut the size of the City Council. Of the six mayoral candidates, Gery Chico and William Walls III said “yes”; Miguel del Valle, Carol Moseley Braun and Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins said “no”; and Rahm Emanuel did not respond within the questionnaire’s parameters.
Reducing the salary of mayor and aldermen
Of those responding to the questionnaire, 91 percent said go for it. Of the six mayoral candidates, Emanuel, del Valle, Chico and Walls agreed to consider it; Moseley Braun and Van Pelt-Watkins said “no” to that possibility.
Merging, streamlining or eliminating departments
Of those responding to the questionnaire, 94 percent said there are places to cut. All the candidates agreed.
Cutting medical, pension benefits for city workers
Of those responding to the questionnaire, nearly 55 percent said “no.” Five of the candidates also said “no” to such cutbacks and Emanuel did not respond within the questionnaire’s parameters.
Police and public safety
Of those responding to the questionnaire, 78 percent said they favor realigning police beats to improve public safety and cut costs. Del Valle, Moseley Braun, Van Pelt-Watkins and Walls said “yes”; Emanuel and Chico said “no.”
Meanwhile, 65 percent said the next Chicago police chief should come from the ranks of the city’s police department. Four of the candidates—del Valle, Moseley Braun, Chico and Walls agreed and said “yes.” Van Pelt-Watkins said “no” and Emanuel did not respond within the questionnaire’s parameters.
Personal Finances
Finally, the candidates’ personal finances are of interest to a large majority of those responding to the questionnaire; 87 percent think a mayoral aspirant should reveal his or her tax returns before the Feb. 22 election. Five of the six candidates agreed while Walls said “no.”
This blog entry was reported and written by Robert Reed, the BGA’s director of programming. Contact us with tips, suggestions and complaints at (312) 821-9030, or email our investigative team at rherguth@bettergov.org.
