As you know, earlier this week the City Council voted on a number of measures related to the City’s budget for 2008.   I was grateful to hear from some of you throughout the budget process, and I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the questions and concerns raised by residents and stakeholders in the 46th Ward as well as throughout the city.   

As usual, prior to the vote, the City Council Committee on Budget & Government Operations held two weeks of hearings during which aldermen had the opportunity to ask questions of the City’s budget director and department heads.  I continued to get emails, letters and calls from you throughout those hearings.  The ideas, questions and concerns expressed by you were of considerable help to me throughout the budget process.  As your representative, I wanted to be sure that I truly understood the budget package I would be voting on.  I asked questions on your behalf and was able to make an informed and careful decision when it came time to vote.

For me, the main question during the budget process was whether or not the City of Chicago   really needs to raise taxes to continue to provide the services we need. And, if so, what taxes should be raised?

The cost of operating the 3rd largest city in the nation continues to grow, and with the absence of any significant help from either the federal or state levels, the burden falls upon us. We do not have exorbitant pay scales for either white or blue collar labor. City services, from police and fire to waste removal to healthcare, must be provided.  The City must purchase goods and services from the private sector, and we all know those costs continue to rise.

Who should pay for the increasing costs has been hotly debated.  Many ideas have been suggested, some of which I agree with.  For example, I support some form of taxation on commercial space – not residential - within the downtown area as a means to offset the higher percentage of property tax burden that now falls on residential property and small business than on the larger commercial properties that tend to be clustered in the downtown area.  And I have proposed a few ways to either save a few million dollars or add a few million dollars to our budget without raising property taxes.  In all these instances, I strongly urged this administration to continue to work on these fronts, maintain an open mind and find common ground with the council. 

The concerns raised in your emails and messages generally focused on two areas: corruption and waste.  First, let’s talk a moment about corruption. A large expenditure next year is required as a direct result of various scandals that have occurred over the last three decades. Some people like to focus on the salacious aspects of those scandals—because that is what makes headlines.  And for many of us we have been frustrated by the Burge torture, the hired truck scandal, the patronage scandals, and/or the recent police SOS scandals.  We can’t change history, so all we can do about yesterday is resolve the outstanding lawsuits. What we can do about today and tomorrow is an altogether different story.

We now have three agencies that are new or that have new mandates and authority to act independently. Each of these agencies is or will be run by an executive director that is appointed for a four year term from which they can only be removed for cause. These agencies are the Inspector General, the Office of Compliance and the Independent Police Review Authority (formerly OPS.)

Bureaucracies consist of people.  And all people have the potential for both bad and good. The issue, from a policy standpoint, is not what percentage of people are good or bad, but whether there is a sufficient system of accountability, of checks and balances.  In any bureaucracy where individuals are given wide discretion, there is an opportunity for abuse of that discretion.  The manner in which those abuses play out will generally reflect the biases and prejudices inherent in a society—thereby impacting those people and communities that are most vulnerable. 

Government often plays the role of holding private bureaucracies accountable.  It is up to the legislators to also ensure that public bureaucracies are also held accountable through structures and policies that limit the abuse of discretion by individuals. 

For the next fiscal year we have no choice but to fund the judgment fund to ensure that the victims of the Burge torture get their proper settlements.  We have no choice, because the federal courts will tell us what to do, but to fund the compliance oversight for hiring and contracts.  But all of us, as members of the City Council, have an ongoing obligation to ensure that there are policies of accountability in all of the agencies and departments that operate as part of city government. 

Yes, there was waste and corruption in the City of Chicago.  And of course it should be fought against and consistently rooted out. But what bothers me about these arguments is the position that somehow the public sector will always be filled with waste and corruption and the corresponding implication that somehow the private sector is immune from wasting money and corrupt practices, and all we have to do to lower the cost of government is to act like the private sector.

But we have governmental responsibilities and consequent expenses exactly because of policies in the private sector. If there is a major layoff in the private sector because that is how a company is balancing their budget, the now unemployed workers are likely to need any amount of city services if only for a short period of time. In 1991, what was then the equivalent of today’s Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, received nearly $57 million in federal grants.  For 2008, we anticipate receiving just under $34 million.  And that’s not adjusted for inflation. So when people need job training or placement assistance we have fewer federal dollars to assist them and are consequently forced to spend local dollars to maintain the same level of service. Some people might argue that then we should not take on this responsibility. But not to do so in my view ultimately costs us a great deal more.

If anyone believes that the $3.25 they are paying for a gallon of gas contains no significant waste or corruption, they have not been paying attention.   The recent doubling of electric rates by private utility companies this past year and the doubling of natural gas rates last year were certainly reflective of significant waste and corruption.

In recent weeks, President George Bush has vetoed several bills designed to relieve the financial strain on families and individuals because he is “certain” that these public programs will contain waste and corruption.  And yet how much of the $10 million an hour we are spending on the war in Iraq is going to fund the health, mental health and housing needs of our veterans? Very little. And who is taking up the slack? The city’s corporate fund.

During the budget process, I looked at Chicago city budgets from years past.  I knew that we were not receiving the kind of support we used to get from the federal government, but I wanted to see just how much of that support we have lost.  It was astounding.    Furthermore, a large amount of the funding we will receive from the federal government must be spent according to their very strict guidelines.  Rather than relying on local governments to know their city’s needs, the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security dictates exactly how we must spend the money they give us. In Chicago this means that as much as $45 million that is spent on personnel and materials that are directly related to homeland security related activities must come out of our corporate fund.

The services the city provides are needed and expected by people who live here and who do business here. With the exception of the Police and Fire Departments and the Office of Emergency Communications which runs the 911, 311 and homeland security initiatives of the city, every department has been subject to cuts, a hiring freeze and/or reorganizations. Our property tax levy pays for our legislatively mandated pension costs, the health benefits for our employees and pensioners and our debt service. Everything else is covered through other taxes and fees.

This is a tough budget. I voted yes on the 2008 Budget package to be able to continue to provide and pay for the services that my constituents and all Chicagoans utilize every day. I look forward to continuing to find opportunities to strengthen our city and ensure accountability and efficiency throughout our local government.