Presumption of innocence, unless it gets in the way of partisan politics

It is one of the pillars upon which our society´s criminal justice system is based – one is presumed innocent of any criminal charges they may face, until the moment they are found “guilty” by a jury of their peers.

BURKE: Not guilty until proven otherwise

That includes Alderman Edward M. Burke, who earlier this year was named in a criminal complaint alleging some improper activity (trying to shake down the operators of a Burger King franchise in his home neighborhood) – but who learned this week the charges against him are now upgraded to include a whole slew of criminal acts.

IT WOULD SEEM that the U.S. Attorney’s office for Northern Illinois (ie., Chicago proper) is planning on making a priority this year (and probably next) out of going after the man who has managed to survive a half-century in the City Council.

But instead of celebrating the 50-year mark with a gift of gold, there are those who want the color orange to eventually predominate (as in an orange jumpsuit like those worn by prison inmates).

Now I’m not trying to defend the conduct of Burke. I’ll be as interested as anyone else in seeing what kinds of details come out of any criminal proceedings that put Burke on trial before a jury of his peers – who will mostly be people who don’t have the clout to get out of jury duty.

It will be intriguing to see if federal prosecutors actually manage to prove their case against Burke to a degree they can get a criminal conviction against the already 75-year-old alderman who probably thought he’d finish up his time as a political elder statesman.

LIGHTFOOT: She wants Burke out NOW!!!

NOT AS A potential federal inmate colleague of the oft-despised former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.

I don’t doubt, however, that some people aren’t willing to wait out the process – the enforcement of which is what gives our society the moral high ground and keeps our courts from being amongst the more tyrannical systems of the world.

Which is why I’m bothered by just how swiftly Mayor Lori Lightfoot jumped all over the Burke name this week in trying to demand his immediate resignation.

It would seem the one-time federal prosecutor is counting on her one-time legal colleagues at the Dirksen Federal Building to knock off the man who’s made it clear he doesn’t view her mayoral election as being some sort of great moment in Chicago history.

FRIAS: The lone acquitted alderman

WHICH ACTUALLY WAS the area in which Burke liked to think of himself as a master. He was the alderman who used to like to end City Council debates on issues with long, drawn-out statements that were loaded with historical trivia and political factoids that supposedly put every issue into context.

But which all too often made Burke seem like an overbloated ego with too strong a sense of his own self-importance.

Perhaps that’s the reason Lightfoot is eager to see Burke (who managed to win re-election earlier this year with ease) out immediately, and doesn’t feel like waiting for the courts to do their business and reach a “guilty” verdict that would force his immediate resignation.

Will it be the 'feds' challenging … 

It would be a lot fewer headaches for Lightfoot – even though someone of her legal background knows full well she doesn’t have the authority to force him to quit now. If anything, his continued presence at City Hall is more about political spite.

NOW IT’S VERY likely that a “guilty” verdict eventually will be reached. The process really is rigged against anyone whom prosecutors decide to go after.

Much is often made of the 30-plus aldermen who, since 1973, were found “guilty” of some sort of criminal act. Much less mentioned is the name “Ray Frias,” who is memorable because he’s the lone alderman indicted who ultimately managed to get a “not guilty” verdict.

So it may well be that Burke’s place in Chicago political history will be the most prominent alderman to wind up “doing time” for actions prosecutors deem criminal, but which some will try defending as, “the way Chicago politics works.”

… City Hall business-as-usual in Burke trial? Photos by Gregory Tejeda

Lightfoot may get her desire for a Burke-less City Council, but she’d better be wary of her own behavior. Because there’s also no doubt some might try to twist her own actions into criminal behavior – perhaps out of a desire they could add a mayoral name to the dozens of aldermen, Illinois governors and Congressmen, who have wound up doing time.

 -30-

How much of a change-agent can Lori Lightfoot really represent for Chicago?

Come Monday, Lori Lightfoot will take the oath of office essentially promising to uphold the constitutions of the United States and Illinois while overseeing the municipal structure of the city of Chicago.

Chicago's new 'first' family, Lightfoot, wife Amy and daughter Vivian. Photo by Lightfoot for Chicago

It is one that she has engaged in quite a bit of rhetoric implying she plans to revamp everything about the city. I also don’t doubt one bit that many of the people who voted to give Lightfoot three-quarters of the vote in last month’s election have visions of sugar plums dancing about in their heads.

ALMOST AS THOUGH the coming of Lightfoot is a Christmas holiday present for Chicagoans, along with residents of any other community whose operations are impacted by the Second City – only St. Nicholas’ visit has come along with the May flowers.

But I’ll have to admit that whenever I read the reports about how Lightfoot is going to come in and make significant change and is prepared to push around anyone who tries standing in the way of her vision – well, I’m skeptical.

Mostly because I can see all those political people of experience and influence who aren’t about to let their own amount of control be reduced by some woman who’s never held a day of electoral office before in her life.

Same kind of rhetoric once was used  … 

But then again, I also have been skeptical of the whole image that has been peddled about Lightfoot, the candidate. I actually think many of her backers have created an image of Lori that bears no reality as to who she really is.

THE LIGHTFOOT I saw during the campaign cycle (I never really paid much attention to her prior to this year’s elections, as did most Chicagoans, I suspect) had her experience with the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago – along with a corporate law firm and that stint she did with the Chicago Police Board.

She may well be a prosecutorial-type who viewed city government from the perspective of trying to figure out who needs to be taken down a notch or two – and who now thinks she has the authority to do just that.

But we may well find out that the daily operations of the city may be beyond her grasp. As though she has a learning curve to go through before she can truly get a grasp on the city’s operations and trying to figure out which of its problems she can actually have influence over.

… to describe Jane Byrne's 1979 mayoral victory

Otherwise, she could find herself bogged down in the morass of the city structure. Which would result in Lightfoot finding herself four years from now having achieved nothing of lasting significance.

SHE COULD BE the woman who made it through her term as mayor having been thwarted by aldermen at everything she talked about trying to achieve, but couldn’t because aldermen weren’t about to be reduced to the level of insignificance that some of Lightfoot’s backers, I don’t doubt, dream she’s going to do.

Of course, I suspect that the number of people who were concerned about having a person of some experience in charge of city government is probably about 26 percent.

That figure is the number of voters who actually cast their ballot for Toni Preckwinkle in the run-off election back on April 2.

When you combine that percentage with the roughly two-thirds of Chicago’s registered voters who didn’t even bother to cast a ballot for mayor, you realize how embarrassing the 2019 election cycle was for the city.

'House that Rahm built' will host Lightfoot inauguration

THE REAL QUESTION may well be how much more embarrassing will it become if Chicago’s municipal government structure devolves into petty bickering by the over-bloated egos of those officials who are going to be in charge of our city – and the influence it exerts over other parts of our Midwestern society.

Now I’ll concede it’s possible that I could be underestimating Lightfoot or exaggerating the level of pettiness that the City Council will exert against her.

But then again, my years of writing about political influence in Chicago have taught me that far too many things have been wrecked by the egos of all who have managed to gain a majority of the vote in past election cycles.

So come 10 a.m., when Lightfoot takes her oath at the Wintrust Arena (a structure that likely wouldn’t exist if not for the vision of soon-to-be former Mayor Rahm Emanuel -- despised by many of Lightfoot's most vociferous backers), we’re likely to see for ourselves just how much (if any) of the political trash-talk stands a chance of becoming reality.

  -30-

How “weak” will Mayor Lightfoot be?

It’s one of the big jokes that people like to point out when they discuss the structure of Chicago municipal government – we have a “weak mayor” system.

LIGHTFOOT: Will she be the boss?

Meaning its supposed to be the 50 members of the City Council who really dictate policy with the mayor being an administrative figurehead. A notion that is hilarious in that we usually expect our mayors to behave like political bosses and the aldermen merely serving as “rubber stamps” who sign off on what the mayor tells them to.

BUT IT SEEMS that we may get a change in the way our city government operates.

Lori Lightfoot will begin on Monday the four-year term to which she was elected last month. She’s already made it clear what her priority will be – she wants to do away with the concept of aldermanic privilege.

That concept is one of the underlying principles under which our city has operated for decades. It’s the one that says that when it comes to zoning issues and development that relate to a specific ward, the judgment of the alderman is to reign supreme.

If an alderman wants a project to be developed in his/her ward, the other aldermen are expected to side with his/her desires. It gives the aldermen that little bit of power that encourages them to go along with the desires of the mayor on larger-scale issues.

CONSIDERING THAT MANY aldermen think the neighborhood issues are the reason for their existence, it reinforces the idea that they’re political “bosses” within their own wards.

But Lightfoot made it clear throughout her campaign for mayor she hates the idea of aldermanic privilege. She sees it as aldermen acting like mini-dictators.

Not so much that they stand in the way of projects that would provide serious development to Chicago. But that it encourages aldermen to behave in ways that require business interests to cater to political whims.

How hectic will things get at 'da Hall' Photo by Gregory Tejeda

With some aldermen acting as though their political enrichment is the all-important concern.

ALMOST AS THOUGH aldermanic privilege is nothing more than legalization of political bribery – a concept that the one-time federal prosecutor in Lightfoot finds abhorrent.

It’s almost like she’s still thinking like a member of the U.S. attorney’s office in saying she wants to go after the source of so much aldermanic power and influence.

Lightfoot has said her first order as mayor will be one that eliminates the concept of aldermanic privilege. She says that the aldermen are going to have to think of the needs of the city as a whole.

She also points out that, having won a majority of the vote in all 50 wards, she thinks that’s evidence she has the public’s support – and that many people will be inclined to think that aldermanic objections to losing their privilege is just a matter of being deprived a perk they should never have had to begin with.

BUT ALDERMEN AREN’T about to give up their influence so quickly. We may wind up seeing them go out of their way to remind Lightfoot who the “boss” of Chicago politics truly is.

New friend in Ivanka? Photo provided by White House

Things could get ugly, particularly after Tuesday, when Lightfoot is expected to meet with the council to discuss the aldermanic privilege concept in greater detail.

It may wind up being that the aldermen need some consoling to get them to pipe down with their objections. Because it seems some aldermen are upset that much of Lightfoot’s recent mayor-elect activity has focused on trying to win over the enthusiasm of the D.C. crowd instead of catering to the aldermen. That photograph of 5-foot, 1-inch Lightfoot being towered over by 5-foot, 11-inch presidential daughter Ivanka Trump really turned off a whole lot of Chicago political people.

Because no matter how much Lightfoot wants to assert her authority over ego-overblown aldermen, she’s going to have to remember how much she’ll need them if she’s going to accomplish much of anything on issues – while Ivanka probably won’t have much of anything to say the next time that Donald Trump feels compelled to utter another of his tweets-from-a-twit against the concept of Chicago.

  -30-

Is the presence of Democratic Socialists in City Council really much change?

The concession by Deb Mell of her defeat for re-election to her City Council seat (the one held previously by her father since 1975) has some speculating about the significant change our aldermen will undergo.

RAMIREZ-ROSA: Head of new 'caucus?'

Particularly with the fact that this means there will now be six (out of 50) of the city’s aldermen choosing to use the political label of “Democratic Socialists” to identify themselves – rather than straightforward Democrats.

YET I CAN’T really see significant change in the ways of the City Council. Other than that there may be a few more loudmouths willing to refuse to speak in lock-step with the desires of the mayor.

Then again, with this new mayor who will take over May 20, these not-quite Democrats may well wind up being Lori Lightfoot’s biggest allies. Unless they decide they just want to be outspoken opponents of anybody who happens to be mayor.

Much of my own feeling about the idea of Democratic Socialists in the City Council is based on the fact that most of these so-called radicals (five of the six) are going to be members of the Latino caucus.

Jeannette Taylor, the new alderman of the city’s 20^th Ward on the South Side, is an African-American woman. She’s the lone exception.

OTHERWISE, THIS DEMOCRATIC Socialist movement appears to be something that is a part of the Latino segment of Chicago. It could mean that paying attention to the Latino caucus will be the thing to do for individuals who want to see government officials who can’t get along.

GARCIA: If they challenge Chuy, that's radical

Yet that isn’t a radical idea.

If anything, the idea that Latino politicos aren’t a single, unified voice is nothing new at all. It is the reason why Latino political power and influence isn’t anywhere near as strong in Chicago as it should be.

The city’s Latino political people have always been something to be split into two groups – known informally as the Daley-type aldermen and the activist-type aldermen.

BASICALLY, THERE WERE those people of Latino ethnic origins who made the effort to become a part of the city’s government establishment – figuring that to become part of the system would ensure that the Spanish-speaking enclaves those officials represent would get their fair share of the municipal pie.

MELL: No more!

They were the ones who would ally themselves with the former Mayors Daley and be supportive – figuring that they weren’t a strong-enough entity on their own to be able to resist.

Then there were the activist types – the ones who figured that being too close to the Daley or their backers would merely prevent them from trying to advance their own goals for their communities.

If anything, watching the Latino caucus throughout the years has always been an adventure in political infighting, and seeing how the two groups would try to undermine each other’s efforts. Come Elections Day, they’d each be endorsing opponents to the other side – with hopes they could knock off some incumbents and shift the balance to their side.

NOW, IT WOULD seem that some people who would have been outspoken proponents of this latter-type group are giving themselves the formal label of Democratic Socialists – which, simply put, believes in the social freedoms of Democracy while thinking that the business principles of capitalism undermines any effort to achieve a Democratic society

Although there are times I wonder if the people who spew such rhetoric have merely spent too much time in their youths wearing those t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara on them – without truly comprehending who Che was or what he meant.

I also think that those people who focus too intently on the “socialist” part of the label are missing the point – as I suspect the real Communists of the world would view the Democratic Socialists as the ultimate hostile enemy.

So is Socialism spreading to City Hall? Most likely, not really!

IT’S MORE LIKE the outspoken portion of the Latino caucus has given itself a new label, and has one ally amongst the council’s Black caucus. As far as the partisan split of the technically non-partisan aldermen, it is one Republican (Anthony Napolitano) along with the six (incumbent Carlos Ramirez Rosa, 35^th Ward, Daniel La Spata, 1^st Ward, Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25^th Ward, 33^rd Ward, who beat Mell, Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, Andre Vasquez, 40^th Ward, and Taylor) Democratic Socialists.

Still likely to be the same nonsense at City Hall

Which means that 43 of the aldermen still identify themselves as standard-issue Democrats. Most of whom can’t “play nice” with each other – meaning the City Council still has potential for political chaos, just like usual.

  -30-

Democratic Socialists too complex for entity that thinks its purpose is to pick up trash and plow winter snowfall?

It was the running joke of dealing with the Chicago City Council – you’d go to the alderman from the ward up around O’Hare International Airport, interview him, then say you’d spoken to the council’s Republican caucus.

ROSA: Senior of Democratic Socialist caucus

That literally was it.

THE CHICAGO CITY Council was a 49-1 partisan split between Democrats and Republicans. And if one wants to be honest, the Republican wasn’t that different from his Democratic aldermanic colleagues.

It’s the reason that people studying the aldermanic ranks for factions wind up becoming obsessed with race – that often was the breakdown that mattered in figuring out how aldermen would behave.

Particularly back three or so decades ago in the days of Harold Washington, Eugene Sawyer and the beginning of the Richard M. Daley era.

But things have changed, particularly with this now-complete election cycle. What with the development of the presence of the Democratic Socialists of America managing to get some of their supporters elected to City Council seats.

AMONGST THE COUNCIL ranks that takes over next month will be Jeanette Taylor in the 20^th Ward, Bryon Sigcho-Lopez in the 25^th Ward, and Andre Vasquez in the 40^th Ward.

SANDERS: 1st Dem Socialist most heard of

Along with the chance that Rossana Rodriguez of the 33^rd Ward will ultimately prevail in her bid to dump Deborah Mell from the aldermanic seat her father held for so many decades before her (a race that will go down to the final vote count of every single absentee ballot that can be dredged up).

They go along with Daniel LaSpata of the 1^st Ward, who won election outright back on Feb. 26. And Carlos Rosa of the 35^th Ward, who managed to win re-election. He’s no longer the lone Democratic Socialist in the Chicago City Council.

All of which means the council could have six Democratic Socialists in its ranks. Not even close to being able to control things – but enough people to raise up a stink on so many issues that they will be able to force the establishment Democrats (43 in number) to have to listen to them.

OCASIO CORTEZ: Most outspoken?

OR ELSE RUN the risk of seeing the City Council devolve into a clown show of ineptitude. Although some would argue the council has been in such a state throughout much of its history. What else would be new?

Now I know some people are going to overly emphasize the “Socialist” part of the label – and may even come up with distortive rhetoric about Communists taking over the City Council.

Although the one positive aspect of Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont becoming so politically prominent is that it has forced people to figure out just what a Democratic Socialist is. And that many people are intrigued enough by the concept to give them a chance.

While others see the outspoken nature of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York and become offended at her very presence. While some take joy in the irrational outbursts she provokes amongst conservative ideologues.

PERSONALLY, I’M NOT inclined to think any of the City Council’s Democratic Socialists will develop as prominent a public profile as the congresswoman from the Bronx borough of New York – who actually has a growing number of her supporters upset with her for becoming such a nationally-prominent figure that she’s forgetting just where she came from!

Not ready to march the streets of Chicago. Not yet, anyways!

But I have no doubt the ideologues amongst us will still manage to use the new caucus as a reason for their rants. Although it could be a good thing if it forced those ideologues to knock off the irrational rants that try to claim every Democrat is a Communist at heart.

Then again, that’s not likely to occur. Rationality is not all that common – particularly amongst those in our society these days who approve of the Age of Trump in which we now are engaged.

But it’s bound to stir up some feisty debates in our City Council – with the Democratic Socialists taking up the theoretical argument that Capitalism is incompatible with Democracy and the freedoms it purports to give us. Which will really tick off those people who think the purpose of our municipal government is to pick up the trash and plow the streets during the winter months.

  -30-

Will Ed Burke be ultimate beneficiary of Solis “snitching” to the G-men?

Perhaps it’s the ultimate evidence of how superficial some people can be when they determine just who to cast a ballot for, but there’s a part of me that wonders if the recent reports of 25^th Ward Alderman Dan Solis will ultimately work (at least in the short term) to the benefit of Edward M. Burke.

SOLIS: Cooperating to cover own tracks

Burke, of course, is the half-a-century member of the City Council who now is the target of federal investigators who are digging into all sorts of political corruption. It seems much of the evidence they’ve accumulated against Burke comes from Solis.

IN THE FORM of Solis wearing wiretaps for the FBI so that he could get close to Burke and allow “G-men” to catch him on tape in the act of saying something self-incriminating.

Reports of Solis engaging in such activity with the FBI (as part of a deal by which they’ll agree to lesser criminal charges for things that Danny has done) came out this past week, and the reaction of many aldermen was shock, if not outright contempt, that one of their own would try to cover up his behind at the expense of a council colleague.

I’ve seen a lot of people quoting the ideals of organized crime, as expressed in films such as “Goodfellas” or “The Godfather” – the ideal of omerta and keeping silent about what one really knows.

Which to my mindset almost sounds like the real comparison ought to be to street gang culture and the idea of “don’t snitch,” particularly to law enforcement.

ALL OF WHICH means I can easily envision people wanting to think of Danny Solis or anybody like him as somehow worthy of retribution. How can “we” act in a way to make it up to Ed Burke?

Which makes me wonder if Solis’ Mexican-American ethnic origins will wind up coming into factor. Because Burke is the guy who’s facing all these allegations of his own alleged corrupt behavior at a time when he’s facing a re-election challenge.

With his challengers being people of Mexican ethnic origins themselves who are basing their campaigns against Burke on the idea that it’s time to dump the Irish guy whose ward is now an overwhelming (nearly 80 percent) Latino majority population.

BURKE: Could he become sympathetic figure?

I have no doubt that the non-Latino voters in that district will be motivated by the idea of keeping things the way they are. Will there also now be added an angry overtone of turning out in force on Election Day to keep those Latino voters from gaining any influence?

IT’S A STUPID, shallow and completely superficial line of logic. But it’s also something that would totally be in character with Chicago’s neighborhood mindset.

A Latino like Solis gets fingered as a significant part of FBI investigators and their case against the all-powerful, long-time alderman who had the influence to tell mayors what they ought to do within city government.

So now, the voters will think it somehow just to take it out on the three aldermanic candidates of Latino origins themselves who (as they probably see it) have the nerve to think they can run against Burke for his City Council post.

Combine it with the mindset of those such as the Fraternal Order of Police, which recently voted to endorse Burke’s re-election bid in the Feb. 26 municipal elections, and the significant campaign stash that Burke has accumulated for his own benefit – and I can easily see how Burke’s legal predicament can be overcome.

THAT IS, FOR now. Because it’s very likely that any effort to get an indictment against Burke with criminal charges more serious than the current allegations that he tried to shake down a Burger King franchise owner in his neighborhood will come up following the election process.

Burke could easily get re-elected, then indicted, before we reach the peak of the baseball season this summer.

So while I personally have an interest in the growth of Latino political empowerment and would be intrigued by changing ethnic demographics playing a role in Burke’s political downfall, I’m skeptical.

It’s more likely that ethnicity will somehow benefit Burke in the short-term – and that fact could wind up being most embarrassing to Chicago.

  -30-

EXTRA: Emanuel not a lingering loser; he’ll remain a part of political scene

There are those people who are going to be determined to spin things in ways that say that Rahm Emanuel fled politics because he could see he was destined for a butt-whuppin’ – that he saw he’d wind up losing any bid for re-election.

EMANUEL: Will remain in spirit, no matter who wins

Yet anybody who looks at the situation objectively can see Emanuel had his backers, and may have won despite all the hostile rhetoric he’ll face in coming months from segments of Chicago society.

ALL ONE HAS to do is look at the finances that would have been available to him and to the people who were inclined to challenge him.

Rahm would have been capable of out-spending anybody who dared challenge him come the Feb. 26 elections (with a possible run-off April 2). Even now that he’s out of the race for mayor, he’s going to be spreading his influence around.

It’s likely that our city government will continue to have large segments of people who will owe their presence in politics to Rahm Emanuel, and who will be inclined to pursue the same kinds of ideals that Rahm would have pushed for if he were still mayor.

That’s a thought people ought to keep in mind if they’re the types of individuals who seriously want to believe they’ve dethroned the tyrant by getting Emanuel last month to announce he’s not seeking a third term in office at City Hall.

TAKE THE REPORT by the Chicago Tribune, which indicated the financial support Emanuel is giving to just over one-third of the City Council – members whom he believes were supportive of him on politically-sensitive issues.

The newspaper reported how 20 of the 50 aldermen were invited to a breakfast meeting at a restaurant within walking distance of City Hall. In addition to a morning meal where Rahm picked up the check, he also handed out checks to individual aldermen.

Roughly some $20,000 apiece, made out to their individual campaign funds, so as to help them financially with getting themselves re-elected.

As the Tribune pointed out, the money totaled some $500,000 – money that would have been part of his campaign fund IF he were still seeking re-election as mayor.

INSTEAD, HE’S ENSURING that the powers-that-be won’t be able to forget that Rahm Emanuel ever existed. Just because he won’t be working out of the suite of offices on the Fifth Floor of City Hall won’t mean people inclined to support him will be gone.

Now Emanuel is going about making statements about how the bulk of the money he had raised for a re-election bid will be returned to the entities that donated it to him.

But if he was able to cough up about a half-million dollars in checks for personal donations, it makes one wonder just how much he could have had to spend on himself.

As reported earlier this year, Emanuel had one day back in April where he received $1.7 million in contributions, and at that point in time had some $5.7 million available for use during the upcoming election cycle.

BY COMPARISON, THE mayoral hopeful with the most money now is William Daley – who this week received donations putting him just over the $1 million total. Just behind him is Garry McCarthy, the one-time Chicago Police superintendent, whom the Chicago Sun-Times reported has about $830,000 and will soon be over $1 million himself.

Financially, Emanuel could have buried either of them. When combined with the fact that there are going to be so many mayoral dreamers going about, it’s possible that Rahm could have taken advantage of that partisan split and prevailed politically.

So whomever does manage to prevail in becoming Chicago’s new mayor had best understand there are going to be elements of the ‘old way’ remaining at City Hall.

Anybody who thinks they’ve “overthrown” Rahm may well find themselves frustrated beyond belief in finding themselves incapable of getting anything done, what with all the people in place who owe their allegiance to Emanuel.

  -30-

Aldermen save Rahm by crowding out mayor term limit measure from ballot

I think I’d be more offended at the cheap, dirty trick tactic meant to protect Mayor Rahm Emanuel off the ballot in the 2019 mayoral election if it weren’t for the fact that the people who desperately want Anybody But Rahm as mayor are using their own dirty trick tactics to try to remove him from office.

EMANUEL: Saved! For now

A movement being led by former Gov. Pat Quinn may have been thwarted by the City Council, which on Wednesday approved a measure that puts three referendum questions on the ballots for the Nov. 6 elections that will be used in Chicago.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, state law limits the number of referendum questions that can appear on a ballot to three. Meaning even if Quinn manages to get the petition signatures of support sufficient enough to get his mayoral term limits question on the ballot, it won’t appear because this year’s ballot is now crowded off.

I suppose Quinn could still try to push his measure. But it wouldn’t apply to Chicago, so what would be the point.

I’ll admit that anybody who tries to claim the City Council is taking on issues of great significance is oh so full of bull caca. The only reason for doing this is to prevent the term limits issue from even being contemplated by voters.

It’s a dirty trick, which means the tricksters of City Hall (who have a long, glorious history of such maneuvers in the name of electoral politics) win yet again!

BUT IF YOU think about it, the whole term limits referendum reeks of a dirty trick maneuver. Are we really supposed to feel sorry for someone who was playing “dirty pool” because they got beat at their own game?

For the record, Quinn wanted Chicago voters to be able to decide on a binding referendum that would say no one can serve more than two full four-year terms as mayor of Chicago.

It would have taken effect immediately upon being voted on. Which would mean that for the 2019 municipal election cycle, Emanuel wouldn’t be eligible to run for mayor.

QUINN: Will continue to fight

We’d have to pick from any of the other dozen-or-so mediocrities who have dreams of working out of City Hall and being thought of as the “Man on Five” (or Woman, to be technically accurate) all because they think a sufficient number of people despise the idea of Rahm Emanuel in office that they’ll vote for anybody else besides him come Feb. 26 (and again on April 5 in a run-off election).

BUT NOW, PEOPLE won’t be able to decide if they want mayoral term limits before next year’s elections. Which makes the issue a moot point for now.

Quinn, I’m sure, will continue to fight. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Quinn tried shaming aldermen to do the “right thing” in terms of letting his referendum question advance.

Let’s be honest. The idea of any political person doing the “right thing” or having a solid moral compass probably means that someone has been watching “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” a little bit too often. It ain’t a gonna happen!

As for Quinn’s suggestion that the courts could rule in a way that forces his referendum on the ballot, I’d only remind people that the courts in the past have not been sympathetic toward referendum access – at times kicking questions off the ballot even if sufficient signatures of support have been obtained (which Quinn hasn’t done yet).

SO WHAT ARE the questions we’ll get to offer our (solely advisory) opinions on come November?

The land of the political dirty trick, from all sides

Should money from (future) medical marijuana taxes be used to fund public education or mental health services? Should Chicago offer a homeowner’s property tax exemption for people who have lived in their houses for 10 or more years? And should Chicago outlaw plastic straws within the city limits?

All may be legitimate questions to put forth to the voters.

But in my mind, they reek of the same political stink that a term limits measure would have had if that was the only way Rahm’s critics could find to actually beat him on Election Day.

  -30-

What did police academy protesters accomplish with their screams?

I couldn’t help but be amused, yet also a bit embarrassed, by the reports of a City Council committee on Tuesday giving its support towards construction of a new policy academy facility in West Garfield Park.

Police Dept. would like to have new academy facility

The council’s Budget Committee heard from a raucous batch of protesters, many of whom were of the mentality that anything done on behalf of the Police Department was a waste of time and funds.

THE MORE HIGH-minded of them talked of how the measures being used to raise money for a training center, that also would be used by the Fire Department, would be better put to use to come up with more money for mental health and public education programs.

While others just talked of their distaste for the police.

Not that any committee members were swayed by such talk. The Chicago Sun-Times reported how once the protesters were removed from the room where the committee session was being held, the vote was taken and aldermen gave their support for the plan.

Specifically, aldermen backed a measure that would take some $20 million raised from the sale of a fleet maintenance facility on the North Side of Chicago and put it towards the $95 million cost of the training facility for police and fire.

WHICH WHEN COMBINED with the sale of air rights over an existing fire station and the sale of the current police and fire training facilities is expected to produce much of the money needed for the project.

A part of me wonders how many of the aldermanic types who cast votes Tuesday were emboldened in their attitudes against the people who oppose the police academy project.

,

Police dream of this new training facility, ...

Did the raucous behavior wind up strengthening support for the project that some activist-types were trying to say ought to be put somewhere else because they don’t want it in their neighborhood?

Humorous if viewed from the notion that the activists undercut their own argument with their rude behavior. But embarrassing if we view it as politicians being shallow enough to cast a vote out of spite.

ODDLY ENOUGH, THE one argument that didn’t seem to concern many was the notion that the $95 million needed for the new facility isn’t completely covered. The Sun-Times reported that city officials are about $37 million short of covering the tab.

Are people really that convinced city officials are capable of coming up with the cash? City officials say they’ll work with the Chicago Infrastructure Trust to close the funding gap – even though they admit it may involve the city itself having to sell (and repay) bonds to raise the money.

Which would mean taking on some long-term debt.

Not exactly the ideal solution for a city that has other financial problems to address and would prefer to take on as little debt as possible.

PERSONALLY, I DON’T have a problem with the police and fire departments for Chicago taking actions to improve the quality of training they provide to their officers. Such training could result in better-qualified cops and firefighters, thereby improving our public safety.

... replacing the current one on West Side. Images provided by city of Chicago

I’m also skeptical, in general, of people whose argument against something is that they don’t want it built anywhere near themselves. My three-plus decades as a reporter-type person means I have heard it made so many times.

One can always find someone to object to location. If that line of logic were allowed to prevail, nothing would ever get done with regards to any issue or project. In short, Chicago would go nowhere. That isn’t what anybody ought to desire.

But I don’t doubt that the people who got escorted out of a council committee hearing on Tuesday just before approval was given are going to feel particularly spurned. Which also is likely to make their future arguments against the project all the more intense and angry.

  -30-

Matter of ethics? Or ugly aldermen taking space from Hollywood glitter

The World Series returns to Wrigley Field on Friday, and there won’t be any aldermen in attendance. That is, unless the aldermen are willing to dip into their own pockets and pay the ridiculous fees that are being sought by ticket scalpers.

Not like World Series of days of old at Wrigley

Much indignation has been spewed in recent weeks about the fact that the Chicago Cubs included City Council members on the list of people who would get the chance to purchase tickets for the World Series games to be held at home this weekend.

THE PERK IS that even before the limited number of tickets that went on sale to the general public were put up for grabs, the aldermen were among a class of so-called important people who could have the chance to buy some seats.

Note I’m saying “buy.” Nobody was talking about giving aldermen the tickets for the ball games. Which is a concept I suspect offended at least some of the aldermen – who probably think they’re important enough to warrant freebies.

Also keep in mind that the official prices charged for World Series tickets are not the same as those charged for Cubs games during the regular season. They’re higher – a few hundred dollars per seat.

Which is cheap only when compared to the scalper prices – I have heard figures ranging from just under $1 million per seat if you want to sit in one of those prime seats up close to the action and where everyone watching the games on television will be capable of seeing you, to as low as about $5,500 per seat if all you want to do is stand in the upper deck in spare space and be able to say you were inside the building when the World Series returned to Wrigley Field for the first time in 71 years.

PERSONALLY, I DON’T think that kind of money is worth the experience. I think it borders on criminal that anybody thinks they can charge it. But then again, I have never thought Cubs fans had all that much sense, so perhaps they’re willing to give up a chance at retirement and can reminisce about the games they see this weekend when, in future years, they’re reduced to eating cans of cat food.

 

Won't be able to ignore Murray

But back to the aldermen, who had their perk taken away when the public got outraged – seemingly out of the belief that aldermen were getting free tickets from the ball club. Then, the council’s ethics board declared that accepting the ticket perk was something that bordered on unethical.

I can already hear the snide comments made about the absurdity of ethics from the Chicago City Council. But the bottom line is that someone decided to take the high road when it comes to political perks.

Although there are bound to be complaints. Take 31^st Ward Alderman Milly Santiago, who may well have created her moment of political infamy when she complained about losing the perk.

FIRST, SHE POINTED out that the seats she was being offered were those cheap ones in the upper-most rows of the top deck. Then, she said, “I’m a poor alderman. I cannot even afford to buy a $1,000 ticket.”

You just know she’s never going to live that line down.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a loss if there aren’t so many political people on hand. You know Fox television is going to be more interested in Hollywood celebrities who bother to show up at games.

Chances are, we’re going to be sick of seeing Bill Murray by the time Sunday rolls around. And if by chance Jim Belushi is among the Wrigley scene, you just know nausea will predominate among the television viewing public.

 

SANTIAGO: Poor alderman

THE KEY TO comprehending the crowds that show up at Clark and Addison this weekend is that they’re not going to be hard-core fans. Heck, even regular season Cubs games are more about the glitz, but this will be even moreso.

It may well be Chicago trying to put on a show of the kind of city that certain people wish it was, instead of what it really is.

If anything, the real reason to keep aldermen out of the ballpark is that it means there will be fewer ugly people taking up space that could better be used by whichever gorgeous starlet actor John Cusack decides to have as his date Friday Night for Game 3.

  -30-