BGA to Chicago City Council: Delay Infrastructure Trust Plan

An open letter to aldermen says the Mayor’s blueprint needs greater scrutiny and more public accountability. It urges the City Council to vote no, or to delay and review, the controversial ordinance.

April 17, 2012

Dear Aldermen:

It is the position of the Better Government Association that the ordinance creating the Infrastructure Trust lacks measures to ensure the transparency, oversight and accountability necessary to protect taxpayers and to properly inform the public about the Trust’s motivations and actions.

The BGA urges you to vote “no” on the ordinance creating the Infrastructure Trust or to defer and publish it, which would postpone its passage long enough to allow further review and possible revisions. Here’s why:

More time is needed to understand the scope and scale of the Infrastructure Trust.

The fast-tracking advocated by the Mayor’s office leaves too little time for Aldermen and public interest groups to fully examine and evaluate the ordinance. The revised ordinance from the Mayor’s office—the one you will be called to vote on tomorrow—has only been public since Friday. An ordinance to create a multi-billion dollar trust with taxpayer money deserves a longer period of time between introduction and passage, and public hearings would help Aldermen and citizens understand the merits and pitfalls of the Mayor’s proposal.

The Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act do not apply to the Infrastructure Trust, a non-profit agency.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Open Meetings Act (OMA) are state statutes that apply only to public bodies. The Illinois Attorney General has jurisdiction over public bodies that fail to comply with the requirements of FOIA and OMA, and a special office (the Public Access Counselor) to assist citizens who are unable to obtain documents via FOIA.

Unlike public bodies, non-profits like the Trust are not subject to Illinois FOIA or OMA. A city ordinance cannot unilaterally extend the authority of the Illinois Attorney General over a non-profit. That means that if the Trust fails to comply with FOIA or OMA, the only recourse is litigation in the courts. Citizens and members of the press submitting FOIA requests to the Trust will not have the protections and assistance offered by the Public Access Counselor, who ensures that public entities comply with FOIA.

The Chicago Inspector General does not have jurisdiction over the Infrastructure Trust.

The Chicago Inspector General does not have jurisdiction over the Trust because the Trust is a separate entity from the city. To the extent that the Trust enters agreements with the City, the IG could potentially examine those specific agreements. However, the IG’s authority does not extend to deals with related agencies, some of which do not have their own Inspector General. As you know, related city agencies include the Chicago Public Schools, the Housing Authority and the Park District, taxpayer-supported agencies that have great impact on residents’ lives.

For these reasons and more we urge you to vote “no” or move to delay a vote. This is not to denigrate the mayor’s plan but to improve it by adding enough transparency, accountability and oversight measures to avoid another fiasco like the privatization of the parking meters. Let’s go slow and get this one right.

If you have any additional questions, do not hesitate to email or call Emily Miller, BGA Policy and Government Affairs Coordinator, at emiller@bettergov.org or 773-203-9654; or Robert Reed, BGA Director of Investigations and Programming, at 312-203-5722 or rreed@bettergov.org.

Thank you.

Andy Shaw
President and CEO

Emily Miller
Policy and Government Affairs Coordinator

POLL: Cut Chicago’s City Council?

Is 50 aldermen 25 too many?

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:

Should Chicago Cut the Size of its City Council? BGA Analysis Does the Math (re-posting from Dec. 2010)

Streamlining government and eliminating duplicative services are top priorities for the Better Government Association. Today, streamlining government made front-page news in Chicago. To help frame the issue, we are re-posting our December 2010 analysis of the size of the City Council.

City Council Chambers (City of Chicago website)

Should the size of Chicago’s City Council be significantly reduced?

That’s a question being raised with increasing frequency during the Chicago mayoral race as candidates wrestle with new proposals to slash city spending and streamline government operations. What follows is a Better Government Association analysis, along with a historical perspective, of this important and timely issue.

History of the Size of City Council
Chicago has not always had 50 wards. From 1901 to the 1920s, the council had 70 aldermen representing 35 wards, with two aldermen per ward. The two aldermen served alternating terms, with one of them up for re-election each year. Since 1920, aldermen have been chosen in elections with a run-off when no candidate gets a majority of the vote in the first round. In 1923 the City was divided into 50 wards, instead of 35, and each of those got their own alderman. Since 1935 Aldermen have served four-year terms.

Size of the City Council
Chicago has one of the country’s largest city councils. According to the US Census Bureau, Chicago’s population reached 2.8 million in 2009. The City is broken down into 50 districts, or wards, each with its own alderman to represent it in City Council. That gives each alderman roughly 57,000 constituents to represent. In contrast, New York City has 51 City Council members, and each of those represent over 164,000 constituents. Los Angeles City Council members are only 15 in number, representing over 250,000 constituents each. A look at the 10 most populous cities in the country reveals a similar finding—each have a higher number than Chicago of constituents represented by each city council seat.

The Cost of the City Council
According to the 2011 budget released by City Hall, the City Council budget for next year will be $24.5 million. Without knowing how other cities calculate their City Hall budgets, it’s hard to make a comparison. In addition to the $110,000 salary Aldermen receive, they get $176,484 a year to pay for three employees. They also have a $73,280 expense account, which, according to Title 2 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, they are free to use in ways ranging from travel costs to the “payment of miscellaneous, ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the performance of an alderman’s official duties.” That’s approximately $350,000 taken up by operating costs for each aldermanic office. This does not include the amount spent on pensions and other benefits. To see how your Alderman spent his or her expense account, take a look at this Chicago Tribune app. Just enter your address.

Savings from Cuts to the Council
If Chicago reduced the city council’s size in half, from 50 to 25, there would be savings for the city. The city would save $2.7 million in alderman salaries on top of another $4.4 million that would be saved by eliminating the salaries of the three staffers per alderman. Nonetheless, a reduction in the number of wards would not necessarily lead to the elimination of all ward staff because each ward office would have to double the number of constituents it serves. But there can certainly be some reduction in duplicative roles when Aldermen staffs are combined.

Streamlining government by eradicating wasteful and inefficient levels of government, and getting rid of redundant or unnecessary positions within the bureaucracy, is the most compelling argument for reducing the size of the city council. For example, on top of the savings from the elimination of aldermanic and staff salaries, combining wards would lead to a change in the streets and sanitation budget. Currently, a ward superintendent who receives an average of $90,000 a year runs each ward.  They manage garbage collection, snow removal, and the blue cart recycling program within their wards, and only within their wards.  Even if it would make more sense for a garbage truck to continue its pick up down, say, a one way street, ward boundaries—not common sense or efficiency—dictate the route.

City Council Chambers seating chart from the City of Chicago website.

If the number of wards were cut in half, offices of Ward Superintendents could be combined, again with duplicative positions eliminated. In addition, garbage collection and snow removal procedures would be restructured, allowing the opportunity to have efficiency dictate truck routes instead of ward boundaries. These changes in operation could reduce the budget by well over $1 million. Fewer numbers of elected officials could also mean that elections cost less. According to the City, expenses for elections are shifted from the Cook County to Chicago beginning next year. That will add $5.8 million to the Board of Elections budget, making it $18.8 million for 2011.

With only 25 open slots instead of 50, there would be fewer candidates, fewer petition challenges, and fewer taxpayer dollars spent in the election. While reducing the size of the City Council won’t solve Chicago’s financial problems, it may be a step in the right direction—a move toward eliminating unnecessary levels of government that cost money but don’t provide a tangible public service. At the very least, reducing the size of the Chicago City Council is an important topic that should be discussed seriously during this mayoral campaign. Do you have concerns about the size of Chicago’s City Council? Contact the BGA at 312.427.8330.

Research for this report by Samuel Cuomo, BGA Policy & Government Affairs Department.

Statewide Update—Jan. 18, 2011

• Southtown Star (AP)—Tax credit is incentive to hire temporary workers, “Gov. Pat Quinn has signed legislation providing a $2,500 tax credit to employers hiring trainees from the Put Illinois to Work temporary jobs program.”

• State Journal-Register—Thousands hired in Illinois ahead of new pension system, “Thanks to the eight-month span between Gov. Pat Quinn’s approval of a pension reform bill last spring and its implementation Jan. 1, any public worker hired in Illinois as late as Dec. 31 was enrolled in a far more lucrative pension plan than those hired after that date.”

• Chicago Sun-Times—Black wards adding more voters, while Hispanic wards lag behind, “In just 10 weeks since the November midterm elections, every ward in the city showed a jump in the number of registered voters, indicating a high level of interest in the upcoming mayoral contest.”

• WBEZ—Cook County commissioner wants family hiring ban, “The county government has long had a reputation for nepotism. Recently  Assessor Joe Berrios hired two relatives soon after he took over the office.”

• (Gatehouse News Service) Peoria Journal Star—State Comptroller informed that 38 appointees not confirmed, “The Senate of the 96th General Assembly did not confirm any of the listed persons… With their nominations no longer valid, I am unaware of any legal authority permitting the formal nominees to continue to draw a salary or receive expense reimbursements.”

• Peoria Journal Star—Durbin changes stance on death penalty, “U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking member of the U.S. Senate, said Monday he has come to believe that states should not impose the death penalty.”

• Chicago Tribune—State Sen. Lou Viverito of Burbank resigns, “Sen. Lou Viverito’s resignation was effective Saturday, though the 78-year-old from Burbank remains the Stickney Township supervisor, a job he has held for about 35 years.”

• Chicago Sun-Times—Quinn, former state rep. say job not traded for tax-hike vote, “During her final days in office, former state Rep. Careen Gordon scored a lucrative state job after casting an important vote that helped pass Gov. Quinn’s controversial 67 percent income tax increase.”

• Daily Herald—LeBlanc off ballot in Campton Hills but still in race, “Kristin LeBlanc plans to run as a write-in candidate for Campton Hills village president after the village clerk declined to put her on the April ballot because her nominating petitions were incomplete.”

• Center Square Journal—Ald. Schulter drops reelection bid; aims for County Board of Review, “Schulter has served as alderman since 1975. Rumors of his retirement have swirled since November, when a political ally of Schulter filed to run for alderman.”

Should Chicago Cut the Size of its City Council? BGA Analysis Does the Math

City Council Chambers (City of Chicago website)

UPDATE — Jan. 20, 2011: BGA’s Policy & Government Affairs Coordinator Emily Miller discusses the City Council on Outside the Loop Radio.

LISTEN HERE >>>

Should the size of Chicago’s City Council be significantly reduced?

That’s a question being raised with increasing frequency during the Chicago mayoral race as candidates wrestle with new proposals to slash city spending and streamline government operations.

What follows is a Better Government Association analysis, along with a historical perspective, of this important and timely issue.

History of the Size of City Council
Chicago has not always had 50 wards. From 1901 to the 1920s, the council had 70 aldermen representing 35 wards, with two aldermen per ward. The two aldermen served alternating terms, with one of them up for re-election each year.

Since 1920, aldermen have been chosen in elections with a run-off when no candidate gets a majority of the vote in the first round. In 1923 the City was divided into 50 wards, instead of 35, and each of those got their own alderman. Since 1935 Aldermen have served four-year terms.

Size of the City Council
Chicago has one of the country’s largest city councils.

According to the US Census Bureau, Chicago’s population reached 2.8 million in 2009. The City is broken down into 50 districts, or wards, each with its own alderman to represent it in City Council. That gives each alderman roughly 57,000 constituents to represent.

In contrast, New York City has 51 City Council members, and each of those represent over 164,000 constituents. Los Angeles City Council members are only 15 in number, representing over 250,000 constituents each.

A look at the 10 most populous cities in the country reveals a similar finding—each have a higher number than Chicago of constituents represented by each city council seat.

The Cost of the City Council
According to the 2011 budget released by City Hall, the City Council budget for next year will be $24.5 million. Without knowing how other cities calculate their City Hall budgets, it’s hard to make a comparison.

In addition to the $110,000 salary Aldermen receive, they get $176,484 a year to pay for three employees. They also have a $73,280 expense account, which, according to Title 2 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, they are free to use in ways ranging from travel costs to the “payment of miscellaneous, ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the performance of an alderman’s official duties.”

That’s approximately $350,000 taken up by operating costs for each aldermanic office. This does not include the amount spent on pensions and other benefits.

To see how your Alderman spent his or her expense account, take a look at this Chicago Tribune app. Just enter your address.

Savings from Cuts to the Council
If Chicago reduced the city council’s size in half, from 50 to 25, there would be savings for the city. The city would save $2.7 million in alderman salaries on top of another $4.4 million that would be saved by eliminating the salaries of the three staffers per alderman.

Nonetheless, a reduction in the number of wards would not necessarily lead to the elimination of all ward staff because each ward office would have to double the number of constituents it serves.

But there can certainly be some reduction in duplicative roles when Aldermen staffs are combined.

Streamlining government by eradicating wasteful and inefficient levels of government, and getting rid of redundant or unnecessary positions within the bureaucracy, is the most compelling argument for reducing the size of the city council.

For example, on top of the savings from the elimination of aldermanic and staff salaries, combining wards would lead to a change in the streets and sanitation budget.

Currently, a ward superintendent who receives an average of $90,000 a year runs each ward.  They manage garbage collection, snow removal, and the blue cart recycling program within their wards, and only within their wards.  Even if it would make more sense for a garbage truck to continue its pick up down, say, a one way street, ward boundaries—not common sense or efficiency—dictate the route.

City Council Chambers seating chart from the City of Chicago website.

If the number of wards were cut in half, offices of Ward Superintendents could be combined, again with duplicative positions eliminated. In addition, garbage collection and snow removal procedures would be restructured, allowing the opportunity to have efficiency dictate truck routes instead of ward boundaries.

These changes in operation could reduce the budget by well over $1 million.

Fewer numbers of elected officials could also mean that elections cost less.

According to the City, expenses for elections are shifted from the Cook County to Chicago beginning next year. That will add $5.8 million to the Board of Elections budget, making it $18.8 million for 2011.  With only 25 open slots instead of 50, there would be fewer candidates, fewer petition challenges, and fewer taxpayer dollars spent in the election.

While reducing the size of the City Council won’t solve Chicago’s financial problems, it may be a step in the right direction—a move toward eliminating unnecessary levels of government that cost money but don’t provide a tangible public service.

At the very least, reducing the size of the Chicago City Council is an important topic that should be discussed seriously during this mayoral campaign.

Do you have concerns about the size of Chicago’s City Council? Contact the BGA at 312.427.8330.

Research for this report by Samuel Cuomo, BGA Policy & Government Affairs Department.