Five days ahead of runoff elections that will determine Chicago’s next mayor and the fate 14 aldermanic seats, a divided City Council fiercely debated — and ultimately adopted — changes to their rules and a raft of new committees, increasing the total number from 19 to 28.
Proponents and detractors of the changes argued, sometimes angrily, over making such moves in the middle of a City Hall leadership transition. Backers argued the council had a rare opportunity ahead of the new term to assert its independence. Critics portrayed the changes as a power grab by current committee chairs who want to hold onto their spots under the next administration, and asserted the council had shirked several chances for independence over the past four years and were now trying to buy off colleagues with valuable committee chairmanships. Those chairmanships come with additional budget and staff.
A vote on the rules changes passed 34-10, while the establishment of the new committees winning approval by a 33-11 margin.
Those votes followed heated debates that at times devolved into harsh and colorful language.
Ald. David Moore, 17th, who’d previously pledged to stop the rules and chairmanships from going forward, said he couldn’t be bought.
Moore would not lead a committee under the proposed changes. He said he could’ve gone along and gotten a committee chair, but opposed the plan nonetheless.
“I ain’t got a price,” Moore said. “I ain’t no prostitute.”
Meanwhile, Ald. Nick Sposato, 38th, and Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, got into a heated disagreement on the council floor after Sposato criticized the plan.
“I’m gonna stand up for myself if someone says bull—- to me,” Sposato said loudly, as outgoing Mayor Lori Lightfoot pleaded with him for decorum.
Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, who will be the second-most senior alderman in the next City Council but isn’t receiving a chairmanship, ridiculed his colleagues for trying to assert independence after four years under Lightfoot.
Ald. Jeanette Taylor, 20th, echoed the point and taunted her fellow aldermen: “Now y’all have grown some balls.”
Beale said he was “embarrassed to be a Chicagoan” Thursday, noting he’d fought for various measures, including for the council to have its own attorney and parliamentarian “and you all have blocked every step of the way.”
“This is a corrupt process,” he said, referring to trading committee chairmanships for yes votes. “I don’t understand how some of y’all sleep at night.”
Others praised the leadership changes, in part because they gave Latinas leadership roles. Ald. Silvana Tabares, 23rd, would lead the Committee on Economic, Capital and Technology Development, while Ald. Rossana Rodriguez Sanchez, 33rd, would lead the Health Committee.
Ald. Scott Waguespack, 32nd, denied critics’ claims that any aldermen were locked out of discussions. “Everybody was invited. Everybody was asked for input. To say otherwise is wrong.”
New committees would “bring new focus” to neglected areas and rules changes would reduce mayoral influence over council deliberations. He said Lightfoot, who lost her bid for a second term when she failed to qualify for the runoff in February, had no role in formation of the rules.
The policy arm of the Better Government Association and the League of Women Voters both spoke out against Thursday’s votes as rushed, costly and without sufficient public input.
Ahead of the vote, the League’s Jane Ruby said if the council wanted to assert greater independence, it should do so with “integrity and transparency,” and that making changes without new members would do a “disservice” to the people of Chicago.
Under the rules, aldermen would be assigned to a maximum of 10 standing committees. Finance and Budget would each have a maximum of 35 members, but all others besides Rules would have up to 11 members, meaning quorum would be established with six members each.
The proposed committee chairmanships and rules were posted online just ahead of the vote. The new council, once sworn in, will have to reaffirm the rules when they are sworn in in May.
Among the rules changes: “additional transparency” around direct introductions of legislation, which are sometimes made in committee without public posting of the text. Direct introductions could only be made with an attached “statement of urgency explaining the nature of the emergency in detail.” They would also be posted “no less than 48 hours before” a committee vote and shared with “all members of the City Council along with an impartial and unbiased summary of the matter.”
No legislation could be directly introduced “when a substantially similar matter is currently pending before any other committee of the City Council,” the proposed rules say. “Routine and repetitive matters” such as parking permits, traffic signs or signals and the approval of legal settlements would be exempt.
Aldermen opposed to the changes had a range of objections: that new aldermen would not have an opportunity to sign off, that the rules had not been shared with the public to give adequate say, and that it was unclear how the city could afford to fund so many new committees.
“How are you going to pay for this?” Ald. Leslie Hairston, 5th, asked. “How are the taxpayers going to pay for this?” Hairston, who is retiring from council but was a longtime member of City Council’s Progressive Caucus, repeated an argument that many committees rarely meet, and aldermen often don’t show up. “Y’all don’t show up, and you’re going to expand it to 28?”
The question of paying for the extra cost of committees and staff remains an open one. At a news conference following the vote, Waguespack anticipated they would cost “a little over $1 million.” Budget Chair Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, said she would examine what existing committees have actually spent.
The current budget for committees alone is $5.6 million. Council’s current Office of Financial Analysis budget is an additional $318,000 and its Legislative Reference Bureau budget is $406,000.
The changes approved Thursday don’t touch on an independent counsel for aldermen, nor do they create a new position some aldermen want: a speaker or president to preside over meetings, rather than the mayor. Waguespack said the group “talked pretty extensively about” a new counsel position, but it would require “a separate ordinance that we would like to move forward with.” As for a speaker, “that piece of it needs more thought and input, and that’s another thing that we can come back and discuss.”
The new rules will need to be reaffirmed by council members in May.
Lightfoot, for the most part, sat silently on the rostrum, sometimes thumbing a booklet with the current council rules of order.
She later released a statement saying that “while this process and vote are unusual, particularly given the timing, if members of the City Council and committee chairs use this as an opportunity to put the interest of Chicagoans front and center in all their work, this could be viewed as a historic step in increasing the ways this body can advocate on residents’ behalf. However, if this expansion to 28 committees and other reorganization efforts do not have consistent wins on behalf of our residents, it will be viewed in a far less favorable light. Time will only tell which verdict will be rendered.”
