EXTRA: All-too-predictable, City Council gets new Latina member

Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a pick Friday to fill an aldermanic vacancy, and it seems that Hizzoner made about as safe an establishment pick as possible.

TABARES: Latest to move up to alderman

The new alderman of the 23^rd Ward on the city’s Southwest Side is Silvana Tabares, who for the past five years served as a state legislator – a member of the Illinois House of Representatives covering one of those city districts that spills over a tiny bit into the surrounding suburbs.

WHICH IS WHY most Chicago-types regard a move from the General Assembly to the City Council as a political promotion – they no longer have to concern themselves with suburban issues.

Plus, they no longer have to worry about maintaining a part-time residence in Springfield or making the trip to work at the Statehouse. Unlike most municipal official types who’d view a state Legislature as a promotion of sorts from the mundane local issues they deal with.

But Tabares’ promotion was predictable in other ways. She replaces Mike Zalewski, who resigned his post last month because of the changing demographics of the ward.

The one-time ethnic composition that looked favorably upon a Polish-American person as one of their own no longer does so. The ward has about two-thirds Latino population (heavily Mexican-American, to be exact).

Emanuel and Madigan strengthen their hold … 

IN THAT REGARD, Tabares will fit in much better, while also boosting the number of Latino aldermen to 12 (roughly one-quarter of the council’s composition). Something that will allow Emanuel to bolster his credentials amongst Latino voters – whom he’s hoping will be a significant part of the voter base that keeps him in office for a third term come the 2019 election cycle.

It even helps boost the chances of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, since Tabares is also the state central committeewoman from the 3^rd Congressional District – where she is the party counterpart to Madigan himself, who serves as the district’s committeeman. She's definitely not a "radical activist" type of politico.

… on power with their actions

Don’t be surprised if people start touting Tabares’ advancement to alderman as evidence that Madigan is of benefit to women and their political advancement.

What with all the Democratic officials who are providing tidbits of dirt that lean in the direction of sexual harassment, people will use everything they can to help cleanse up their image. While the political establishment manages to strengthen its hold on power in the process.

  -30-

EXTRA: Ill. House says “aye” to elected Chicago Board of Education

When all was said and done, it seems the Illinois House of Representatives treated the idea of an elected board to run the Chicago Public Schools as a no-brainer.

MARTWICK: Bill wins, but do voters?

The House on Thursday voted 110-4 in favor of a bill by state Rep. Robert Martwick, D-Chicago, to take the power of appointment away from the Chicago mayor in picking school board members.

MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL’S picks will get to remain for the time being. But under the bill that still needs state Senate and gubernatorial approval before it can become law, there would be elections in 2018 for five-year terms for school board members.

After that, school board members would serve for four years at a time – with school board elections being on the same calendar as the municipal elections.

Meaning Chicago voters would have to pick a mayor and other citywide offices, an alderman AND a school board member from their home district.

For the city would be split up into 20 districts, and a school superintendent would run city-wide – 21 new people who will get to go around with titles proclaiming them to be somebody important.

AND BECAUSE IT’S the schools, they’ll claim in their best Mrs. Lovejoy voice (think “The Simpsons”) that it’s all about “the children.”

I was sort of surprised by how overwhelming the vote would be. Then again, I suspect most of our legislators just gave it a knee-jerk “aye” vote before moving on to the next bill.

Only four legislators voted “no” – Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago; Minority Leader Jim Durkin, R-Westchester; David Leitch, R-Peoria; and Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford; with Chad Hays, R-Catlin, somehow not voting at all on the issue.

Personally, I’m inclined to think the four of them got it right. I’m skeptical that putting school board members on the ballot will make them any more accountable to the public than they are now.

MAINLY BECAUSE I think it creates even more obscure political posts for uninformed voters to have to cast ballots for on Elections Days of the future. Just think of the confusion and apathy surrounding all those judicial posts you vote for, and multiply it by school board members.

You’ll have more posts that the political party hacks will wind up picking people for, then getting the voters to uphold because of their electoral cluelessness.

At least with the current way, when the school board screws up we can come right out and place blame on Rahm Emanuel for picking incompetents to run the schools. Now, we won’t be able to directly do that! Then again, there are those of us who always will be able to find a way to "blame Rahm" for everything!

Besides, my own observation in suburbs where school board members are elected is that all it does is create another layer of people running for office to feed their egos – and that those schools aren’t run all that much better than those in the Chicago Public Schools system.

IT’S UP TO the state Senate now. But it seems that an “aye” vote does nothing more than create more political positions for people who, if they really wanted to help our society, would get off their duffs and get a real job!

Instead, they’ll go running around with an air of self-importance because they’re on the school board!!! And the schools aren’t likely to experience any significant improvement as a result.

  -30-

Politically partisan tactics have a knack of repeating themselves at Statehouse

It’s true that Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives used political tactics Thursday to take a partisan pot shot at the idea of the “right to work” legislation that Gov. Bruce Rauner so eagerly desires.

RAUNER: Took a political hit

The Illinois House pushed forward a bill that allegedly details the specifics that Rauner wants in a new law that would undermine the concept of organized labor and unions in this state.

OF COURSE, MADIGAN’S bill wasn’t put together by Rauner’s people. His staff had nothing to do with it.

The whole purpose of Thursday was a political stunt so that the Democratic majority that runs the Illinois House (and the state Senate too) could vote “no” in such an overwhelming manner that they could say the idea was dead.

This was a political hit, similar to the scene in “The Godfather” where Clemenza killed Paulie Gatto in the car. The only thing we don’t know is if the Madigan “hit job” involved ditching the murder weapon, but making sure to take the canoli.

So yes, Illinois House Minority Leader James Durkin, R-Western Springs, wasn’t totally out-of-line when he ranted Thursday that the vote – which was 0-72, with 37 other legislators voting “present” (and seven other legislators conveniently being absent from the House chambers when the vote was called) – was pointless.

“WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY... is really a disservice to this body, to this chamber and to this building,” Durkin said.

But excuse me for not being terribly sympathetic toward the Grand Ol’ Party, which I know is really only upset that they can’t use the exact same tactics on Democrats.

MADIGAN: Following Pate's lead?

I make that statement knowing it isn’t the least bit libelous because I remember the days of the mid-1990s (back when Republicans were not only relevant to state government, but were dominant) when the exact same tactic WAS used on the Democrats.

It was an issue in which there was an attempt at negotiation, of sorts. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar and then-Mayor Richard M. Daley had reached a compromise and had publicly announced their deal – which Daley was to then persuade Democrats to support while Edgar would do the same for Republicans.

THE REASON THIS issue sticks in my mind some two decades later is the fact that then-Senate President James “Pate” Philip was offended that HIS staff was not included in the negotiations.

PHILIP: His memory lingers

He didn’t like the idea of being told what to do, not even by a governor of his own political persuasion who was supposed to be his ally.

So the very next day, before any talks to try to persuade legislators to back the governor/mayoral deal could take place, Philip had his staff put together a bill supposedly based on the ideals of the issue.

Then, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously against it. All of the Democrats voted “present.” Officially, Philip said that the vote was legitimate because it showed “nobody wants this.” As I recall, a watered-down version of the issue eventually did get passage, although bitter feelings never truly withered away.

COULD THIS LATEST action have a similar effect – in that it makes it appear that the incumbent governor is weak and capable of being pushed around by a united front on the part of legislative Democrats?

Too many similarities to politics

It would be an equal response to the tough talk that Rauner has engaged in whenever issues of organized labor come up.

Although if it were to wind up that both sides of labor/business disputes were to wind up realizing the need for compromise and to back off the cheap trash talk when trying to resolve the issue, then perhaps something good will have come from Thursday’s politicking.

 

  -30-

Chapa LaVia versus the ‘reverse racist’ screechers? Sadly, it’s not a new issue

It has been several years since I covered the Illinois General Assembly on a daily basis. But my memories include a few moments when someone pointed out the fact that the Republican caucuses were all-white operations.

CHAPA LaVIA: What's a "half?"

Invariably, somebody on that side of the political equation would get snitty. There’d be a few moments of ire. Usually something along the line of how unfair it was to Republicans to point out the fact that all of the non-white legislators were in the Democratic Party caucuses.

SO WHEN I learned about the rant this week of state Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, and the reaction it has stirred up in Springfield, I can’t say I was shocked.

Because it’s really the same old nonsense. Even the people who are trying to claim that the “Lady from Kane” is somehow the ultimate bigot strike me as spewing the same nonsense. It’s as though nothing changes with the passage of time.

If you get the sense that I’m not terribly offended by the representative’s comments, you’d be correct. They were garish, but no more so than 99 percent of the rhetoric that gets spewed in the course of a day by the General Assembly.

I’m actually more bothered by the people who want to make an issue of this. Including the Chicago Tribune, which on Thursday editorialized against her and said she deserves public admonishment from the Legislature’s leadership.

NONSENSE!!! THE ONLY people who deserve admonishment are those who want to make an ongoing issue out of this. They really weren't entitled to the "apology" that Chapa LaVia felt compelled to make on Thursday.

For the record, the Illinois House of Representatives on Wednesday was debating a bill related to charter schools. The representative isn’t a fan, in part because she thinks they wind up focusing their benefits on certain people – while ignoring the educational needs of others.

And yes, by others, she means those people who aren’t white. So that puts the racial tinge on this conversation, which will make people uneasy enough.

ANTHONY: GOP contribution to black caucus

But then the rhetoric got stepped up when she said to her legislative colleagues, “Listen to me, minorities. I’m over here because we’re all over on this side of the aisle, right?”

WHICH GOT THE Republican side of the Illinois House all in an uproar because – back in August – a legislative vacancy out of Kendall County was filled by naming John Anthony as a representative. He’s biracial. So technically, the Illinois House Republican caucus isn’t as lily-white as usual.

She then responded to the GOP outburst by saying, “Wait! We have a half. We have a half.”

Which she since has told the Aurora Beacon News newspaper referred to the fact that she was directing her talk to the Democratic “half” of the Illinois House, rather than the Republican half.

Although the Chicago Tribune chooses to take this to mean that Anthony isn’t a real person – but is just a “half.”

ALTHOUGH WHEN I first heard the comment, I thought she meant that she was mocking the idea that the Republican black “caucus” of Anthony is somehow equal to the notion of the 20 Illinois House and 10 Illinois Senate members who are African-American.

Which, to me, is what the Republican complaining always tries to imply. Also consider that Anthony was the first black person to serve as a Republican in the Illinois General Assembly in three decades – meaning you have to go back to the days when the Legislature was structured in a way that every district HAD to pick people of both parties. Which meant inner-city districts sent Republicans to Springfield, just like the rural areas had token Democratic members.

I also can’t help but notice that whenever Anthony does get mentioned in news coverage, it always emphasizes the fact that he was a cop in Champaign and with the Kendall County sheriff’s department. As though Republican leadership doesn’t want to acknowledge his race UNLESS they think they can score political points off it.

The bottom line is that Republicans probably are the last people to complain about this issue – even if they don’t like having that fact pointed out to them.

AS FAR AS the explanations of what Chapa LaVia meant, I honestly think my interpretation makes more sense that hers, or the Tribune’s. But I’ll give the representative credit for being truthful in explaining herself.

More 'gloom' and 'doom' for the Statehouse Scene

“Half” meant the Democratic Party half of the Illinois House; which is the only reason I’m not willing to absolve Chapa LaVia of any blame in this whole nonsensical fiasco.

Directing her rhetoric solely to her allies, while trying to shut out the opposition? That’s the kind of stunt we often accuse the Tea Party types of doing. The fact that she would do it too makes her no better than the people she’d criticize.

The fact that she gave some political blowhards with racial hang-ups some ground to think they have a moral high ground on anything is worse than anything she actually said.

  -30-