Standards for Chicago Aldermen | Voting Records and Positions Taken | Inclusiveness | Campaign Contribution Charts
It has been suggested that Chicago’s aldermen rule their wards like fiefdoms, exercising almost total control over decisions made within their borders. But that power comes with a price. The mayor allows aldermen to do as they wish within their wards and supports them by ensuring access to city services and patronage positions. In return, the aldermen support the mayor’s citywide initiatives. This process is greatly aided by a system that allows the mayor appointment power to vacant seats. Sitting aldermen often resign early so these appointments can be made, ensuring new appointees’ loyalty to the sitting administration. The current mayor appointed 22 of our current aldermen (including the three that began in December), with many others indebted to him for providing campaign funding and volunteers. This loyalty is evidenced by the rubberstamp quality of today’s City Council.
Chicago has more Council positions than Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia and Los Angeles combined. While this makes lobbying a difficult enterprise for community organizations, it does give citizens a certain advantage. With such personal representation—the average population of each ward is 60,000—we have the right to high expectations of accessibility and responsiveness. aldermen can leave an imprint on everything that impacts their wards, from street repair and snow removal to housing and school funding. Those who work with their constituents and vigorously advocate for their needs can have a significant impact on a resident’s quality of life.
Evaluating aldermanic performance is difficult. Each neighborhood and each ward is vastly different from its counterparts. It is impossible to judge two aldermen using the same criteria—for example, while we may be able to criticize certain North Side or downtown representatives for failing to create affordable housing, it would be unfair to do the same in areas where there have been no opportunities for such development. Furthermore, assessing an alderman’s stand on a variety of justice and democracy issues is difficult because there is a dearth of such votes cast in the City Council.
We can, however, paint a picture that helps each community make its own judgments.
In conceptualizing the Report Card, DGAP had the help of many civic leaders (several formerly were elected representatives) and community leaders in establishing a vision of the qualities of what makes a good alderman. While we do not believe this list to be comprehensive, we have come to certain conclusions.
We feel that it is critical that aldermen act in an inclusive and open manner when making decisions. Too frequently they heed the imperatives of the Mayor’s office or the lure of deep-pocketed interests that generally do not reside in the ward. often residents are not consulted in meaningful ways and, as a result, the neighborhood suffers.
Unfortunately, this lack of inclusiveness and transparency is encouraged on a systemic level. There are great problems that encompass the entire City Council that could not be addressed in this report, but that we would like to mention. The Chicago City Council has more committees and spends more money than any other city council in the United States. The committees are solely controlled by the council faction in power, and do not provide information for all aldermen and citizens. Neither citizens nor aldermen know what legislation is pending. There is no simple, usable voting or debate record to inform citizens on how their aldermen voted.2
In compiling much of the data on these pages, we found ourselves thwarted by deep-seated suspicion and a general lack of willingness on the part of the Mayor’s office, individual departmental offices, and aldermanic and committee offices. Very few (although there were grand exceptions) of the above responded to our requests, despite the fact that we were asking for public information. We were forced to omit certain details because we were denied information, or sent from one city office to another, one desk to the next, or dumped into a never-responding voicemail machine.
Although we are reporting on individual representatives, we encourage Chicagoans to ask questions of their aldermen and their challengers that address these issues.
In evaluating the individual aldermen, these reports look at three different areas: aldermen’s voting records on split votes and/or positions on important proposals, the inclusiveness of their decision-making process and campaign contributions. The following pages contain a key for how to read the individual pages.
Standards for Chicago Aldermen
- Advocate for All—Aldermen must vote for or against ordinances and resolutions that benefit all Chicagoans, particularly their constituents and those in the most need (i.e., low income, minorities, people with disabilities, etc.);
- Transparent Decision-Making—Aldermen must have an open and inclusive decision-making process when it comes to making changes in their wards (i.e., oversight committees, sufficient notification, etc.);
- Accessibility—Aldermen must be accessible to their constituencies—both in person and through their staffs (i.e., satellite offices, office hours, handicap, etc.);
- Services—Aldermen must offer services tailored to meet the needs of their constituency (i.e., parking services, smoke detectors, online links to pertinent city sites and requests for services, etc.);
- Programs—Aldermen must offer effective programs tailored to meet the needs of their diverse constituent bases (i.e., state service day, recycling, medical services, etc.);
- Outreach—Aldermen must conduct outreach activities to inform their constituents of all important aspects of ward activities (i.e., information sessions about property tax relief, job fairs, etc.);
- Communication—Aldermen must have effective means to inform their constituents on all aspects of important matters in their ward (i.e., television programs, email notification, newsletters, flyers, etc.).
Voting Records and Positions Taken
From 2003 through 2005, the City Council voted on more than 4,000 pieces of legislation, yet only 29 of those votes were what are called divided roll-call votes—votes in which at least one alderman voted against the majority. This lack of independence (only twice did Mayor Daley lose a vote in council) brought many political experts to label it a “lame-duck” council. on average, aldermen voted with the mayor more than 84 percent of the time on the 29 divided roll-call votes. Yet from November 2004 to December 2005, a distinct shift of independence seemed to have taken place, with 20 of the 29 divided roll calls taking place during that period. This independence has continued in 2006, with 13 divided roll call votes cast in just 11 City Council meetings.3
Despite the lack of divided roll-call votes over the past four years, a number of those votes were very important to many community activists, organizations, and residents throughout Chicago. This report highlights nine votes that provide insight into the each alderman’s position on critical social justice issues. In addition to these nine votes, DGAP network obtained information on each alderman’s current stance on two legislative proposals—moratoriums on school closings and the inclusionary zoning ordinance proposed by Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th). Finally, the network analyzed the number of Chicago Partnership for affordable Neighborhoods units created by each alderman, and listed those who self-reported a self-instituted mandatory set-aside policy in their wards.
Each of the 50 pages in the aldermanic report card displays a chart illustrating how the alderman voted on specific split votes. Each alderman voted yes, no, was absent, or didn’t vote, which means he or she was present but chose not to participate. (Voting data were provided by the univeristy of Illinois at Chicago’s Political Science Department.) Below is an explanation of each piece of legislation included on the alderman pages.
1. Living Wage and Benefits Ordinance
The Living Wage and Benefits ordinance, proposed by Ald. Joe Moore (49th) and cosponsored by Manuel Flores (1st), initially was approved by the City Council by a vote of 35-14 in July 2006. The ordinance required stores with more than 90,000 square feet, which earned more than $1 billion per year, to pay their employees at least $10 per hour in wages and $3 per hour in benefits by the year 2010. Mayor Daley vetoed the ordinance in September, his first veto in 17 years in office. He convinced three aldermen to switch their votes, and the veto was sustained. Remarkably, the 31 aldermen who stood against the mayor included most of the Hispanic block and white aldermen on the Northwest and Southwest sides who have been among Daley’s strongest supporters over the years.4 Soon after the veto, Wal-Mart announced plans to open five new stores in Chicago—four in wards where aldermen initially voted against the ordinance, and one in the ward of an alderman who switched her vote to prevent an override.
2. Shakman Decrees
In 1969 Michael Shakman filed a lawsuit against the Democratic organization of Cook County “arguing that the patronage system put non-organized candidates and their supporters at an illegal and unconstitutional disadvantage.”5 The Shakman Decree, as it as known, resulted in a ruling by the u.S. District Court prohibiting the government from firing, transferring or otherwise punishing public employees for not supporting certain candidates for office. In 1972, the U.S. District Court went further, ruling that politically motivated hiring was unconstitutional. This decision led to a court order in 1983 that enumerated rules for hiring. The “Shakman Decrees” are collectively the court decisions that outlaw patronage hiring in Chicago and the State of Illinois.
Despite this ruling, the city refused to drop its case. In July 2005, alderman Joe Moore (49th) proposed a resolution that would order the city to drop its lawsuit. Alderman Moore’s colleagues rejected the resolution by a vote of 11 to 26.
3. Smoking Ban
In June 2005, Ald. Ed Smith (28th) and Ald. Bernie Stone (50th) introduced the Clean Indoor-Air Ordinance of 2005. The ordinance, which passed 46 to 1, took effect Jan. 16, 2006. As a result smoking is now banned in Chicago restaurants, bars, stadiums, other public places, and within 15 feet of entrances to buildings and areas where smoking is banned. Some bars and restaurants have a 2-1/2-year exemption from the ban but, in the meantime, must install air-filtration systems. Anyone who violates a smoke-free area faces a $100 fine. Owners and managers who do not comply face a $100 fine for the first offense, $500 for a second offense within a one-year period, and owners face $2,500 fines for each additional incident, along with a 60-day suspension or loss of business license.6 Mayor Daley initially opposed the ordinance (Three years earlier, he successfully defeated a similar measure) but dropped his opposition as support for the ordinance grew.
4. Iraq Resolutions
In January 2003, by a vote of 49-to-1, the City Council approved a resolution sponsored by Ald. Joe Moore (49th) that opposed plans to go to war with Iraq. Then in September 2005, the City Council voted 29-to-9 in support of a resolution urging the U.S. government to “immediately commence a rapid withdrawal of United States military personnel from Iraq.”7 Proponents of the September 2005 resolution were concerned that the $2.1 billion coming from Chicago taxpayers could have been better spent on issues closer to home—such as health insurance for more than a million children or salaries for more than 31,000 teachers. In addition, aldermen felt the primary purpose the war—finding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—was no longer an issue as no such weapons had been found.
5. Proxy affordable housing vote
In December of 2002 Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (4th) sponsored an inclusionary zoning ordinance mandating a 15 percent affordable set-aside for housing developments with 10 units or more. Developers would be provided with incentives, such as density bonuses, to subsidize the cost of the affordable units. The Mayor countered in April 2003 with his own, much weaker, inclusionary housing ordinance that only applied to city developments. His legislation passed 30-14. At the first meeting of the new Council in January 2003, Ald. Ted Matlak (32nd) successfully introduced a measure (which passed by the same margin of 30-14), to defeat all legislation introduced before January 1, 2003. In effect this ordinance was proposed to eliminate the Preckwinkle ordinance, and thus became a proxy vote on a more liberal inclusionary zoning policy.
6. Patriot Act Resolution
In October 2003 the City Council passed a resolution sponsored by aldermen Joe Moore (49th), Helen Shiller (46th), Ricardo Muñoz (22nd) and Freddrenna Lyle (6th) opposing sections of the USA Patriot Act and related executive orders. The resolution sought to remove the portions of the legislation that “violate fundamental rights and liberties.” It expressed deep concern over the Patriot Act’s erosion of civil liberties, particularly sections allowing the government to monitor phone calls and emails, to inspect library and video rental records, and to detain indefinitely or deport people accused of a crime.8 The resolution passed, despite Mayor Daley’s opposition, and became his first official loss in City Council. At the time of the vote, Chicago was the largest of 150 American municipalities to pass such a resolution.9
7. Wal-Mart for the 21st and 37th wards
In May 2004, the City Council voted on amending the municipal code to allow for a Wal-Mart to be built in the South Side’s 21st Ward. Ald. Howard Brookins Jr. of the 21st ward supported the proposal, but the Council declined to grant the necessary zoning change. Proponents of the measure, including Mayor Daley, contended that the South Side was economically underserved, and that a Wal-Mart would bring needed jobs to the community. Opponents of the measure were concerned with Wal-Mart’s low wages and poor benefits, as well as with the inability of small neighborhood stores to compete with Wal-Mart’s volume purchasing and low prices.
On the same day as the Wal-Mart vote in the 21st Ward, the City Council approved an amendment to the municipal code allowing a Wal-Mart to be built in the West Side’s 37th Ward. Ald. Emma Mitts (37th) supported the proposal, as did Mayor Daley, and the action passed by a margin of 32-15. Some of the same aldermen who had denied Brookins his Wal-Mart in the 21st Ward voted for the store in the 37th Ward. Their reasoning was unclear, although many believe the change of votes resulted from personality clashes between Brookins and more senior aldermen.10
8. Right to Know
On July 26 the Chicago City Council voted 27-21 against Requiring Notification of Guests Concerning Work Stoppage, better known as the “Right to Know” ordinance. The ordinance would have required that Chicago hotels pre-warn their customers of any labor strikes or lock-outs. Hotels would have been required to notify third-party booking sites, reservation networks, travel agents, conference planners and trade shows if there had been a strike for more than 15 days by any nationally recognized union.11
9. School Closing Resolution
In March 2006, Ald. Michael Chandler (24th) introduced a resolution calling for a moratorium on further school closings by the Chicago Public Schools under its Renaissance 2010 plan. The moratorium would remain in effect until completion of an evaluation on the effects of moving children from closed or reconstituted schools. The resolution is still in committee, but 39 of 50 aldermen are on record as supporting the moratorium. CPS has closed 23 neighborhood schools and displaced some 8,000 students, most on the city’s West and South sides. It plans to close even more.12 Critics of the school closings complain that education is disrupted when students are transferred to different schools, and that the safety of high school students is threatened when they are transferred to schools in rival gang territory. They denounce the idea of busing children miles away to schools in unfamiliar neighborhoods, and claim that schools accepting the new students are not provided adequate resources.13
10. Preckwinkle’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
In December 2002 Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) introduced in the City Council an inclusionary zoning ordinance mandating that developments with 10 or more units make 15 percent of those units affordable to low- or moderate-income households. In return, developers would be granted cost offsets, such as density bonuses. To date 26 aldermen support the Preckwinkle ordinance. In April 2003, Mayor Daley passed a weaker set aside ordinance that applied only to city developments. Responding to continued community pressure, he announced in October 2006 a proposal to require a 10 percent set aside in all new developments of 10 or more units developed on land that is either purchased from the city, requires a zoning change that increases density, or is a planned unit development.14 This new inclusionary zoning proposal has yet to come to a vote.
11. Ward Set Aside Policy
Despite the fact that there is currently no citywide inclusionary zoning policy for private developers in Chicago, individual aldermen have created unique affordable housing set aside policies in their wards to reflect their own principles. Each alderman independently establishes the percentage of units that must be set aside in order for the developer to receive support (zoning variance, etc.), for a proposed development. We have recognized those that self reported a ward set aside policy.
12. Creation of CPAN Units
Chicago Partnership for Affordable Neighborhoods (CPAN) was established by the city in 2002 to help moderate-income residents purchase condos at below market price. CPAN is a city partnership with developers that set-aside a certain number of units for first-time buyers who earn 100 percent or less of the Chicago-area median income; those earning 80 percent or less of the median may also have assistance with the purchase price.15 In neighborhoods with rapidly appreciating property values, CPAN can preserve racial and income diversity, keep long-term residents in the neighborhood, and open up rental housing for lower-income families. Depending on the level of development in their wards, aldermen have the opportunity to play a central role in ensuring that CPAN units are created in their communities.
In September 2006, the Developing Government Accountability to the People (DGAP) network sent out a citywide survey to each of Chicago’s 50 aldermen. The survey asked a series of questions to better understand how aldermen incorporate community interests into their decision-making; how they makes themselves available to their constituents; and what programs, policies and services the aldermen provide in their wards.
As a representative to the people living and working in their wards, we believe each alderman has a responsibility to respond to these types of questions, which should be readily available. The aldermen were given many opportunities to reply, and were solicited repeatedly by phone, fax, and email. In October 2006, an addendum to the DGAP survey was sent to all 50 aldermen, giving them the opportunity to detail their positions on certain issues. We have indicated which alderman replied to either survey in the inclusiveness section with the statement: “responded to requests for public information,” or “did not respond to repeated requests for public information.”
For those who replied to both surveys, we have included the majority of the information they provided.
For those who replied only to the initial survey, we have supplemented certain details by obtaining information from their personal or city websites (when available).
High Impact Legislation
Throughout the course of a year, many pieces of legislation have the power to make a significant impact on residents’ lives. An example is the Living Wage and Benefits ordinance, which would have raised the wages of thousands of Chicagoans.
Financial contributions have the power to affect how local officials make decisions affecting the lives of their constituents. Voters have a right to understand which interests are vying for the greatest influence over their elected officials. Each alderman’s page displays the top ten industries that contribute to his or her election campaigns. It is understood that aldermen need money to run effective campaigns; we believe nonetheless that they should adhere to certain principles in order to ensure transparency, accountability and responsible conduct.
Principles for Analyzing Campaign Contributions
- “Bad” Money—Contributions should not be accepted from sources that have no stake in improving the lives of the residents in the ward, and that only seek a financial profit for themselves or their companies. Examples of “bad money” sources may include housing developers, large national business chains, utility companies, etc.
- Political Influence—Accepting contributions from city employees and other politicians puts unfair influence on an alderman, who may be expected to support certain legislation as a “payback” for the financial support.
- Public Benefit of Expenditures—Discretionary expenditures by each alderman should benefit residents of the ward and not be used for personal or political gain.
- Community Context—Contributions can’t be analyzed in a vacuum. The alderman’s voting record, level of community inclusiveness, and programs such as an inclusionary zoning policy must be taken into account when grading an alderman on financial contributions.