Progress Illinois

Dowell told us yesterday ... "As a new alderman... "

The "new alderman" schtick might have been amusing in the budget cycle of the Fall of 2007 or 2008, but sounds silly now. God forbid we should elect an alderman who brings the needed skills to the table and hits the ground running.

" ... the bill would require Daley administration officials to provide the City Council with a proposed budget for the next fiscal year at least four weeks prior to the the first scheduled hearing."

One month? What will the aldermen do the other 11? Budgetary oversight is the Council's single most important statutory responsibility under Illinois law. It's a full-time, year-round job. I'm old enough to remember when the aldermen prepared the budget.

"When the city council's Independent Caucus began making headlines ... "

Headlines? You mean on Progress Illinois?

" ... the council won't meet again until September ... "

The bill is unlikely to take affect, shouldn't that be in your lede?

"The Mayor ... shall provide the City Council with a proposed budget for the next fiscal year ... not less than 4 weeks prior to the first scheduled budget hearing of the City Council."

The Council can already do this - all the Council has to do is call their budget hearings for 4 weeks + after they get the budget. They don't need a new law. Is Dowell trying to regulate the Mayor or her own Council? How about a rules change - no hearings until after a reading month.

Hugh, your knowledge of City Council procedures and history is obviously extensive (as you remind us in your second comment). So why don't you give us your vision of a proper budgeting process? Starting from the current circumstances, what type of procedure would you like to see aldermen proposing?

We're interested in your ideas -- not so much your potshots and snark.

[Just saw the arrival of your fifth comment. Interesting point about the rules change.]

Aw, come on now, Josh, that's kinda sad if you need a dumb guy like me to come up with ideas. You know well the difference between a real budget process and one reading month. You know the difference between a real reform proposal and a politician attempting to immunize themselves from criticism. But in the interest of this thread I will take the bait.

The Council writes a budget. Where it is not obvious, assign City depts to Council committees. Start working on next year's budget with hearings in JANUARY. Zero-based. Each committee holds hearings, investigates program effectiveness, recommends cuts and funding and staffing levels, new programs and privatizations. If necessary, reconcile with an administration budget in the fall-winter. Repeat. Was that hard?

Have you been to the City Council's budget hearings? A dept head and maybe a few assts are shuffled thru and mercilessly grilled for an hour or so on minority hiring. The discussion needs to be a tad more broad. Even if a real substantive question is raised, an administration official is always free to plead "I'll get back to you on that" and even if the alderman is happy with that answer the time frame is such that nothing goes on the record and there is no transparency from the taxpaying public's point of view.

First of all Hugh, you are a well known apologist for the Mayor commenting extensively on blogs about city and state politics. That is fine with me. You are allowed to voice your opinion( or the Mayor's opinion) no matter how slanted and cynical it may be.

whether you like it or not though, the Progressives in city council have made quite a few headlines lately. Not all the headlines have been good (such as overwhelming council support for the ill conceived parking meter deal) but there have been headlines none-the-less.

Examples of the positive impact the Progressive Caucus is having on city politics would include the mryiad of transparency and accountability ordinances that have been passed by the council recently or soon will pass.

The active role many Progressives have taken questioning the Olympic bid, TIF policy, personnel layoffs and the city's budget deficit are yet other encouraging signs that the Progressive Caucus is coming into its own as a policy making body. Obviously, there is much more that can be done, but no one can say anymore that the Mayor has complete and unchallenged control over city government.

I don't think anyone can say with any certainty yet if this is the beginning of a more open and honest political debate in Chicago. All I know is that prior to the 2007 city elections no one dared ask some of the questions that are now being asked by the Progressive Caucus. Hopefully, this is only the beginning. Would I like to see more happening? Absolutely, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

Everyone involved in the 2007 city elections knew that this would be a long process. We all understood that it would take several elections to fundamentally change the character of city politics. But, the process has begun now and I think there are encouraging signs. Now, I fully expect Hugh to ridicule and scoff at my assessment. Go ahead big boy. I am waiting.

> ... you are a well known apologist for the Mayor

You have me confused. In any case that's an ad hominim.

> ... the Progressives in city council have made quite a few headlines lately.

What "Progressives?" What headlines?

> Examples of the positive impact the Progressive Caucus is having on city politics would include the mryiad of transparency and accountability ordinances that have been passed by the council recently or soon will pass.

What positive impact? Can you please highlight a couple few specific examples from amongst "the mryiad of transparency and accountability ordinances?" And ordinances that "soon will pass" are not examples of anything except possibly posturing.

> ... the Progressive Caucus is coming into its own as a policy making body. ... this is only the beginning. ... a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

If they're small steps, call them small steps. No need to go on about a "Progressive Caucus" "coming into its own as a policy making body." Keep it real.

> ... no one can say anymore that the Mayor has complete and unchallenged control over city government.

The Mayor has complete and unchallenged control over city government and several other local government agencies. If you think otherwise you're seeing things.

In Illinois a mayor has exactly the control over city government that the city council permits; in Chicago, that's complete and unchallenged, plus or minus bluster.

This thread would be very interesting without the personal nastiness. For instance, on the issue of whether what city council is doing lately is minor or major, there is room for debate. I would note that a majority of city council has very rarely taken the mayor on directly, almost never, until recently. But I believe it was last month that an ordinance passed, over the mayor's objection, to require 2 weeks review on major asset sales before voting. I believe that another ordinance may have passed that requires reporting on TIF moneys and asset sale funds on the web, in an accessible format.

If either of those things happened over the mayor's objections, I would say it is history making that council even proposed them, not to mention passed them! Where were the editorials from papers congratulating the council for jumping out of the mayor's lap?

On the other hand, I want to agree with Hugh that under Illinois law, Chicago has a strong city council form of government. There is no reason why council is weak, except that they have not organized themselves to be strong until very recently. But they do seem to be headed in a good direction.

" ... an ordinance passed, over the mayor's objection, to require 2 weeks review on major asset sales before voting. I believe that another ordinance may have passed that requires reporting on TIF moneys ... If either of those things happened over the mayor's objections ... "

The ordinance mandating a 2 week "waiting period" for asset sales is very week evidence of an ordinance passed "over the mayor's objection." It passed 6/3/09 after being watered down 50% from 4 weeks, and after Daley gave permission to his courtiers to vote in favor of it, saying at a press conference (paraphrasing) "Fine. They want two weeks. Fine." Besides which the ordinance was not worth fighting over since it did not curb the mayor's power one iota because the Council already controls its own schedule anyway - with or without this ordinance the Council can always defer an item. The Council vote was unanimous in favor, including the alderman who likes to calls himself Daley's "floor leader" and every other alderman generally considered a die-hard Daley loyalist.

Similarly, there is no evidence of mayoral opposition to the TIF Sunshine ordinance passed unanimously 4/22/09.

Recall at an earlier press conference Daley manned-up and took full responsibility for the parking meter privatization roll-out fiasco, signalling it was OK for aldermen to distance themselves by publicly criticising. One of the many services Daley provides the aldermen to keep them in line is taking arrows. After all, Daley was elected with 72% mandate, a much higher margin than most aldermen, so Daley has political capital to share. "Need to score points in your ward? Fine, take your best shot," he allows from time to time, where it doesn't matter.

The budjet of india is being changing rapidly there is no profit in the year,the mortgage is also being change.

bad credit home loan