Tell me it's very easy
Good
morning, everybody.
Hey.
Good morning, everybody.
The Committee on Committees and Rules is now called to order.
Please allow me-
Can you hear me? All right. The Committee on Committees and
Rules is now called to order. We're going to do our roll call.
Vice Chair Hall.
He's in the lobby. Vice Chair Cardona.
Are you here?
Alderman Cardona. Okay.
Vice Chair Napolitano.
Alderperson Lospata.
Alderperson Hopkins.
Alderperson Dow.
Alderperson Robinson.
Alderperson Yancey.
Alderperson Mitchell.
Alderperson Beal.
Alderperson Chico. Alderperson Lee.
Alderperson Ramirez.
Thank you. Alderperson Quinn. Alderperson
Gutierrez. Alderperson Lopez.
Alderperson Coleman.
Alderperson Moore.
Okay, I'll come back to you guys at the
end. Alderperson Curtis.
Alderperson O'Shea.
Alderperson Mosley. Mosley. Alderperson Mosley.
Alderperson Rodriguez.
Alderperson Tabaras.
Alderperson Scott.
Alderperson Burnett.
Alderperson Irving.
Alderperson Taliaferro.
Alderperson Cruz.
Alderperson Waguespack.
Alderperson Quesada.
Alderperson Quesada, are you here? Alderperson Villegas.
Alderperson Mitts
Alderman Sposato.
Alderperson Nugent.
Alderperson Vasquez.
Alderperson Knudsen.
Alderperson Lawson.
Alderperson Gardner.
Alderperson Clay.
Alderperson Martin. Alderperson Manna-Hoppenworth.
Alderperson Silverstein.
In the room is Alderperson
Mitchell, Alderperson...
Did I miss anybody else? Oh, Alderperson Hall.
Does anybody else need to be counted towards our quorum count?
We have a quorum.
There are 35 members present.
Alderpersons Taylor, Citro, Lopez.
Yeah, that's what we on. Come on, y'all.
Alderperson Taylor, Citro, Lopez, Fuentes,
Rodriguez,
Sanchez, Conway, Riley,
Gardner, and Hadden have requested to participate in today's
meeting remotely for reasons stating in Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to approve their remote participation?
So moved by Alderman Beal.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed.
The ayes have it. Alderman Person-Taylor,
are you there?
Present.
Hi, guys.
Alderperson Citro-Lopez.
Present.
Alderperson Fuentes.
Present.
Alderperson Rodriguez-Sanchez.
Here, Chair.
Alderperson Conway.
Alderperson Riley.
Present.
Alderperson Gardner and Alderperson Hadden.
We now will begin the public comment period.
We've received one written comment, which you should have received electronically.
The committee did not receive any requests for virtual comment, so out of respect
for everybody's time and due to the number of people signed up, each speaker is
limited to three minutes. Our first speaker is
George Blakemore.
Good afternoon to the aldermen and
women and to our citizens who
are present. The timing is very
bad because other
municipalities have their meetings in the
evening where the working poor will be able to attend
around 6:00 or 6:30. And several aldermen
now are talking while I'm speaking.
So
they're out of control.
They're talking while I'm speaking.
I remember when we used to sit
right up here and
Burt was here.
Order here. That's what you're supposed to be doing, Michelle.
Right now, you're supposed to be hitting all this thing because that's being
very disrespectful to you.
Not only to me, you supposed to have order here.
You supposed to have order for me, to you here.
That's what you allowed
Blakemore. To Blakemore.
To Blakemore, come back this way, please.
Come back this way, please.
Oh, ah.
Because order
here are also resemble for Mayor Lightfoot took
ethics from you because she not an
ethical person and she gave it to Michelle
up in that woman.
And it used to be the rules committee.
Once it go to the rules committee with Michelle Harris, it would die in
the committee.
Three, six.
Oh,
pick y'all up.
Blakemore, that's a lot of talking.
Leave me alone. I still got my time. I don't need no mic.
I'm loud enough. I don't need no mic.
And when my time has had stopped. So
the queen,
the wagon.
Ms. Pratt, I don't know what this is about.
I don't want this table.
You welcome to this ethics. Because I know
all that, the rules committee. I need you all to stop keep doing
that. He used to clean house as the rules, and they will die
in those rules committees.
So Mayor Lightfoot said, "No, we're not going to
give you ethics."
Because this is a democratic,
oh
my God, what kind of hole is it?
It start with a F-H-I.
It's something inherently wrong.
I know government because I've been coming down here.
I know how it used to be. It's getting worse.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Nate Palmer.
Is Nate Palmer here?
Oh.
Uh, Alderperson.
This guy here.
And here we go. Three.
15.
While we're waiting for Nate to come to the mic, I want to acknowledge Alderman
Coleman and Alderman Gardner for purposes of quorum.
Keep going.
From sales.
And-
Can you just call the next speaker?
Next speaker is Rocio Gardner
Garcia, followed by Lester Griffin.
All right.
Garcia.
How long does he think we have?
I don't know.
Okay, great.
We're... Thank you. Hi, City Council members. My name is Rocio Garcia.
I'm the organizing director at the Grassroots Collaborative and the People's Unity
Platform. Today, we're here with a simple message.
Our communities deserve care, not surveillance.
Every budget is a statement of values.
And when a city spends millions on microphones instead of mental health care,
surveillance instead of schools, and technology instead of opportunity, it's
telling us exactly what it values, and we're here to say that we reject that
choice. Every dollar spent on expanding surveillance is a dollar that's not
spent on affordable housing and quality public schools, mental health
services, violence prevention, youth programs, healthcare, or good-paying
jobs. And on the eve of Marty Quinn's retirement that the alderman
just made public, the 13th Ward alderman is choosing to attack communities and
choosing to disinvest in already targeted communities.
On his way out, he's promising safety, but after years of spending millions of
taxpayer dollars, there's no evidence that these systems prevent shootings.
They don't stop someone from pulling a trigger.
They don't interrupt violence before it happens.
They do not create jobs, affordable housing, youth programs, or trauma
care. You cannot surveil your way to safety.
What these systems do create is more police deployments based on computer-generated
alerts, alerts that are completely unreliable and
harmful. And every unnecessary deployment
carries consequences. Chicago knows this all too well.
The police response that ended with the killing of 13-year-old Adam Toledo
from Little Village, my community. That began with a ShotSpotter alert.
At a time that armed and masked ICE agents continue to take more lives,
we cannot choose false promises over investments in what we know
works to prevent violence across communities.
We also know these systems are not deployed equally.
They have been concentrated primarily in Black and brown
neighborhoods, meaning those communities bear the greatest
burden of increased surveillance and police encounters.
That really raises serious civil rights concerns and reinforces longstanding
inequities in policing. And while communities are being watched, we are
still waiting for fully funded schools, for mental health
services. We're waiting for affordable housing.
We're waiting for more youth programs.
We're waiting for violence interrupters and more peacekeepers
year-round. The people living in these neighborhoods have been very clear about
what we want. The 2024 ShotSpotter report
that the people carried out identified that Chicagoans want investments
like schools, jobs, housing, mental health resources,
and activities for young people over continued spending on ShotSpotter.
People are telling us what makes them feel safe, so we should listen.
If this technology doesn't prevent violence, if it drains millions from community
investments, if it increases surveillance in Black and brown neighborhood, then
why is 13th Ward Alderman Marty Quinn leading the charge to
disregard the voices of people most deeply impacted?
Public safety is not built through constant surveillance, and
it's built through stable housing, quality education,
accessible healthcare, and all of the other things that I've named.
We need all of-
Thank you. Lester Griffin.
Peace, everybody. How y'all doing?
I'm here to represent PNAP. That's the Prison Neighborhood Art
Project, as well as the 60% of men and women from Cook
County that's held captive in IDOC custody.
My thing with the ShotSpotter thing is, it makes no sense.
It's nonsense. It does nothing to do with prevention.
ShotSpotter has nothing to do with a guy determining that I want to take
someone's life. That money that's being derived to that
need to be
actually sent and utilized in these 50 schools that Rahm
Emanuel closed, where we can have group, where we teach conflict
transformation,
emotional intelligence, parenting. You know what I mean?
Life skills, HVACs, electrician, plumbing.
This is where this money need to go to.
The police come after the fact. You're talking to a man that just spent 25
years, four months, and a day incarcerated. I've been gone since I was 18.
Nothing can stop a young man from taking someone's life if that's what his
mind is set out to do, besides being conscious
and understanding the consequences of what he doing, and understanding the fact,
the value of life.
Once again, this money is being derived to these companies, to the guy with
the red hat. Where these lobbyists come and get these folks to do whatever
they want them to do. And most of these cameras are in the African American
community. So, what does that mean? We got empty lots.
If I see a camera, that equates to murder.
I don't want to invest in this community. You see what I mean?
And then here it is. We have lack of education,
lack of healthcare.
And once again, what we do, send all our youth down to
these towns that you had never heard of unless there was a prison in it.
This is the constant problem. It's like the hamster brain effect.
Until you address the actual cause, we'll have the same thing, and
ShotSpotter ain't going to do nothing about it.
Once again, I'm not talking from saying I'm perfect or I'm a saint.
I'm telling you what I've been through, and the phone calls that I take collect
every day, and the men and women that I've been around for the last 25
years. We all have the same story. Parents on drugs,
fatherless homes, grandparents taking care of us, kids
unwed, like
having kids. You know what I mean? It's the same story.
But until we address that, it's going to be the same thing.
Once again, the police come after the fact.
If you had basic community policing, whereas back to
Officer Friendly, some of these things might not transpire.
But once again, it goes back to the mindset.
If I'm in a fight or flight mentality, and I'm already undeveloped, I'm already on
drugs, I got emotional behavior disorder.
Mama can't tell me nothing. Grandma can barely raise me. What are we going to do?
It's either going to be a community approach, or it's going to be, once again, the
same thing with the guy with the red hat, set tripping.
Well, we're going to worry about my community.
We're going to take the Black and brown and put them in prison.
We're going to give them a mental health institute, but hell, the mental health
places done closed. So be it.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Adeline Bracey, followed
by Dan Ashurst. Before they come, I want to recognize for
the quorum call, Alderperson Rodriguez, Alderperson Burnett.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Adeline Bracey.
I'm a canvasser, and I've canvassed for quite a few alderpersons
that are here,
and proudly so.
And I'm wanting to represent those of us who knock on those doors,
talk to those voters who are telling us they do not want
their money wasted on
ShotSpotters.
I know because I talked to them. I've not visited all 77
wards of Chicago, but I do plan to. I've canvassed a lot of them.
And in my personal opinion, I feel that money can be
redirected to a lot of those closed schools that were
closed, and I was one of those who took an arrest.
No more school closing. Yes, they put the little plastic cuffs on me.
Anyway,
we have a huge homeless population.
Some of those schools could be used as SROs, single room
occupancy for Chicago's homeless,
and also we need trades brought back into our public school system
because every parent cannot afford to send their sons and daughters to away to
college with large student loans.
So we need that money redirected, not on something that
is ineffective. It's effective when you use your cell phone or
call 911, 311, what have you.
And as a Chicago police dispatcher
with three police departments, I know what I'm talking about.
So again,
we need to
address mental health,
nip it at the bud before it gets started, offer them something.
And as the gentleman before me and the speaker before me have alluded to or said,
this is real. Mental health is real. People are hurting.
Housing, unhoused is real. Everything is extremely
high. We know this. So offer people an
alternative.
And also,
safety and security would be hire our young people.
Invest in our youth. They are our future.
I'm a senior. I can pour into them the knowledge that I
have that would maybe help direct them on the right path.
So again, I thank each and every one of you for your service, and
please vote for the people who elected you, not
yourself. Vote for who elected you, and that is your constituents,
your voters. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Dan Ashurst.
Good morning, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Dan Ashurst.
I'm the Executive Director of Fair Vote Illinois, which advocates for ranked
choice voting.
I want to make the case briefly for why ranked choice voting would be worth putting
before Chicago voters and why February 2027 would
be the right time.
My first point is cost. Chicago's 2023
runoff election cost the city about $19.8
million for a second trip to the polls.
Ranked choice voting would produce a majority winner in one election.
The winner still has to earn a majority.
Voters just don't have to come back weeks later,
and the city doesn't have to pay for them to come back weeks later.
Second, it's good for voters. In cities that use ranked choice voting, it's
associated with stronger turnout, with more women and candidates of color
winning office, since candidates have to build broader coalitions to try
and earn voters' second and third choices.
Studies also find it does not disadvantage incumbents.
What really drives a race is the number of candidates, not the form of the voting
system, ranked choice voting.
As for today, this would be an advisory question, so it wouldn't commit the city to
anything.
This issue of ranked choice voting is currently live in
Springfield as a local option bill.
Senate Bill 2004 was introduced this last session with nine Senate
sponsors, many of which are in leadership, and we're building towards a push
next session for RCV local option legislation.
A February 2027 question would let voters weigh in
heading into the spring legislative session.
While that effort is underway, a clear signal from
Chicago would carry a lot of weight in that process.
That's why I would point to February, and I would respectfully encourage the
committee to consider keeping that option open.
Thank you. And Fair Vote Illinois is glad to be a resource where it's helpful.
Thank you. Nat Palmer, are you back in the
space?
Yes. Hello, good morning, good afternoon, whichever you prefer.
I'm Nat Palmer. I use she and they pronouns.
I'm here with Black Youth Project 100, as well as Lucy Parsons
Labs and the People's Unity Platform.
I'm here today to advocate against the proposed
referendum that would put the misleading and
deliberately
undemocratic question around gunshot detection on the ballot.
The phrasing of this question deliberately leaves out that there is
no credible evidence that gunshot detection works.
What gunshot detection does do is allow for police to
come into our neighborhoods and stop and frisk anyone who's there, which is why
Michael Williams, for example, spent two years in Cook County Jail
for a murder he did not do.
Often, after years of fighting and
years of showing that our narrative was the correct narrative and that our
solutions were the correct solutions, the company Sound Thinking has shifted
their
messaging into, well,
there might be someone who is bleeding out.
This is not something that I'm ignoring at all.
I know
a few people who have lost people due to bleeding
out from gun violence. What happened there was the police
showed up first. What happened there was the police showed up first as they
were bleeding out, put the yellow tape up, and prevented
life-saving help from coming.
The ballot referendum question implies that first
responders will show up. The only responders that show up for these calls are the
police. We are not trying to switch who responds to these
situations. We don't want gunshot detection.
Since the decommission of the gunshot detection, we have seen record lows in
homicides, in crimes, in everything across the
board, yet we still see the continued corporate
talking points for a surveillance company who has no
interest in keeping us safe, but has to report to investors
consistently. You can listen to how they talk about our communities on their
earnings calls. It's not nice, y'all.
It's not. As someone who lives on the West Side,
as someone who has people who have not only been victims of shootings,
but might also be the people that the police are picking up, as
someone who's been stopped and frisked because
of the police responding to a call for fireworks,
gunshot detection does more harm than good.
For every one call where someone may have
been shot, where there is evidence of gun violence, there are
hundreds others where nothing happened, where the police came and found
nothing. We wouldn't want our ambulances responding to these
because we have a limited amount. We wouldn't let a heart
surgeon perform surgery on us if they could only perform
one successful surgery out of 100.
I wouldn't want that.
Thank you. You are our final speaker.
This concludes the public comment period.
We have 22 items before us today. We'll begin with the
approval of the April 2025 monthly rule report and the September
2025 monthly Rule 45 report, which
was transmitted electronically to all committee members.
If there's no questions, can I have a motion for the approval of the
April monthly Rule 45 report
by the affirmative votes of all members present
to roll call--
for roll call to determine quorum?
So moved by Alderman Hall. All those in favor signify by "I."
All those opposed. The "I's" have it.
If there's no questions, can I get a motion to recommend approval of the September
monthly Rule 45 report by the affirmative votes of all members present for the
roll call to determine quorum?
So moved by Alderman Yancey.
All those in favor signify by "I." All those opposed.
In the opinion of the Chairs, the "I's" have it.
Items one through three. Oh, for the roll call, I want to
acknowledge that Alderman Robinson are in the room, and Alderman
Manneh-Hoppenworth, Alderpersons are in the room.
Items one through three are corrections of the City Council journal
of proceedings submitted by Clerk
Valencia. Item one is the ordinance
2025-0021-001, correction of the
City Council journal of proceedings of September 25th,
2025. Item two is ordinance
2025-0021-966,
proceedings for December 19th, 2025.
Item three is ordinance
2026-0022-459, correction of the City
Council journal of proceedings of December 19th, 2025.
If there's no questions, can I get a recommendation to approve
all three of the corrections of the City Council journal of
proceedings by Alderman Mosley?
All those in favor?
In the opinion of the Chairs, the "I's" have it.
These items are approved and will be reported at the next City Council meeting,
July 15th, 2026. Items four through six
are re-referrals, recommendations to the Committee on
Finance. We will not be discussing the substance of any of
these items today. We will have a single vote to
include all three items, and
for each item, I will state the ordinance number and a brief description
Item four,
ordinance 2025-0021-049 was
introduced by Alderperson Lopez and is an amendment of the Municipal
Code Chapter 2-32 by adding new sections
2-32-535, prohibiting city
funds from being invested in certain investment instruments,
entities or funds. Item five, order
2025-002-1075
was introduced by Alderperson Lopez and is a call on
Chicago City Treasurer to cease blanket boycotts of the
treasury obligations and resume investments in US
Treasury-backed securities. Item six, ordinance
2025-0021-074 was introduced by
Alderperson Lopez and is an amendment of the Municipal Code Section
2-32-520 to require city treasurer
to provide 30-day notice prior to any change in
investment policy. Given the subject matter of these items four
through six, the appropriate committee for the re-referral is the Committee on
Finance. And are there any questions or
comments on these re-referrals? If no, can I get a motion to recommend that
items four through six be re-referred to the Committee on Finance
by Alderman Mosley? All those in favor signify by aye.
All those opposed. And the opinion of the chair is the ayes have it.
The re-referral recommendations are passed and will be
reported out at the next city council meeting on July 15th,
2026.
There are a number of resolutions.
We are kind of going to go out of order so that we can handle all the
referendums at one time. And so we'll come back to
item seven. Item eight,
resolution
2026-0026-835
is a direct introduction from the
Mayor
Johnson and is a submission of the public question by
referendum to the Chicago voters at the November 3rd, 2026 general
election regarding whether the City of Chicago shall, if
authorized by law, impose a 3% surcharge on
individuals earning more than a million annually to fund Chicago's
public schools and community safety initiatives.
Are there any questions? Alderman Quinn.
Madam Chair, I motion we not accept a direct introduction.
I feel that there's some abuses of our rules going on by the
mayoral administration now, and we can't allow this to be common
practice. So I would ask for a roll call not to
accept the direct introduction.
Roll call.
Alderperson Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to piggyback on Alderman Quinn.
When we talk about direct introductions, direct introductions should be
of things that are urgent,
that need immediate attention in this body.
And this definitely does not meet the criteria of being an
emergency or something that needs to be addressed in an urgent matter.
And so I agree that this is an abuse of the rules and
regs in which we abide by, and so I piggyback on Alderman
Quinn in making that motion that we don't accept
it.
All right. So
what they can...
Let's do a roll call.
Roll call.
And we're doing
Alderman Ervin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree with
both of my colleagues in relation to their
statements, but I do think the issue of dates do matter in
this particular regard.
Pursuant to, I believe, I can't quote the section
of the ILCS, but the timing of ballot
referendums must take place at a certain point in time.
And to deny a direct introduction for something
scheduled that has a time deadline, I think would be a little bit of a
miscarriage in the application of our rules.
Again, it is a democratic process and I understand the desire
to block, but again, not doing it through this particular
manner is not, I believe, the appropriate way to do that.
If it gets a straight up or down vote, that's a separate matter.
But to deny the direct introduction of a matter that is
time-sensitive, I think is a misapplication of the rule.
Alderperson
Quinn.
I do appreciate with great admiration the gentleman from the 28th
Ward, but rules shouldn't be abused because the fifth floor doesn't have its act
together. So I renew my motion.
Okay. It's been a roll call vote for
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I see you conversing with law, so are we privy to your
conversation with law about it? I'm guessing you're talking about this.
I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but...
Go ahead. I'm so sorry. I didn't-
I said I see you conversing with law, and I'm assuming it's about this.
What does law say about this?
Law is saying that their position is that such an
adoption should be-- That it's time sensitive because it has
to be on a ballot by August 17th, 2026.
That's too bad.
Passed by August 17th, 2026.
That doesn't make any sense
So,
Alderman Lopez
Thank you, Madam Chairman, good afternoon members of the committee.
Generally speaking, under Rule 41, it says that the direct introductions are
in order to facilitate an expeditious hearing on said
matter, or where an emergency exists.
Ballot questions are not an emergency.
So I would suggest to my colleagues who
are saying that this is routine, this is not an emergency
situation, and the law department's interpretation of our rules would
be incorrect in the fact that anything could've been introduced
up until this point. We have three ballot measures that were
timely introduced, as my colleagues have noted.
The administration did not, and now we have three options
available to us should we choose to act on
them. But our own rules say this is for emergency
matters. No ballot question on a
non-binding referendum is an emergency
per our rules.
Okay.
Are we moving to the roll call?
Okay.
Go ahead.
Is the motion that the alderman from the 13th Ward
made a suspension of the rules in this particular
case?
No, he made a motion that I
don't feel by law that we have to do a suspension of the
rules, because he said that we are not accepting it.
But I'm just asking the question because if he wishes to
do such,
he has the right to do that, but I take the
position that this is a suspension of the rules and would require a higher
threshold than a simple majority.
Law?
Rade Tukasa,
deputy corporation counsel in the law department.
I think the motion made
by Alderman
Quinn is
not to accept the direct introduction of this matter.
The right procedure
for this kind of situation
is the chair to make a ruling, and the
body to consider appealing that ruling.
That is the right procedure.
But there is no suspension of rules. Roll call.
Okay.
Yes.
The roll call vote is on the motion to table from Alder
Quinn?
No, no. It is not a motion to table. It's a motion to not accept.
To not accept.
Alderman Lopez.
Sorry, not to belabor the point. Since we have three direct introductions,
do we need three separate motions or
can we apply the same motion to all three direct introductions so we don't have to
repeat the same argument three times?
It should be
three. Now, the motion is made only on item number
eight.
First one, yes.
This motion is on item number eight.
Okay.
So when we go to
the subsequent items,
the body can make a recommendation to use the same roll call if needed.
Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Alderperson Bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we have corporation counsel here,
is it your legal opinion that this constitutes an emergency
to have this heard?
Yes, Alderman Bill,
under state law,
to put a matter
on an advisory referendum question
for the upcoming election happening, or scheduled to
happen on November 2nd,
this body must pass that resolution.
That's not my question. My question is in your legal opinion, does
this constitute an emergency under our laws?
Yes.
Wow. Thank you.
Roll call. Alderman Hall, Alderperson Hall,
vice chair.
Yes?
I can't hear you.
Come back.
No, you can go forward. You got to speak up.
Do it all the time. Come back, nothing.
Uh-huh.
On what yes and no-
Okay
... means, yes.
So,
if you
want to
dispose of this matter, you will vote yes.
If you do not, you will vote no.
Say dispose, not accept. If you don't want to accept this, his motion
was to accept, right? So if you want to accept this...
Oh, I'm so sorry. If you want to accept
this motion, you will be voting yes. Right?
His motion is yes,
to accept the motion. His motion is a yes vote.
If you want us to accept Alderman Quinn's motion,
that would be a yes. If you do not want to accept his motion, you vote no
Is that easy for y'all? Did I get it right? Y'all confused still?
Okay, you up. Vice Chairman Hall?
Vice Chairman Cardona?
Okay.
Vice Chairman Napolitano?
Alderperson Lospada?
I can't hear you.
Alderperson Hopkins?
Yes.
Alderperson Dow?
Alderperson Robinson?
Alderperson Yancy?
Alderperson Mitchell?
Alderperson Beal?
Yes.
Alderperson Chico?
Alderperson Lee?
Alderperson Ramirez?
Alderperson Quinn?
Yes.
Alderperson Gutierrez?
Alderperson Lopez?
Alderperson Coleman?
Alderperson Moore?
Alderperson Curtis?
Alderperson O'Shea?
Yes.
Alderperson Taylor?
No.
Alderperson Mosley?
Alderperson Rodriguez?
Alderperson Tabaras?
Alderperson Scott?
Alderperson Citro Lopez?
No.
Alderperson Fuentes?
No.
Alderperson Burnett?
Alderperson Irvin?
Alderperson Talaferro?
Alderperson Cruz?
Alderperson Waguespack?
Alderperson Rodriguez Sanchez?
No.
Alderperson Conway?
Alderperson Casada?
Alderperson Villegas?
Alderperson Mitz?
Alderperson Sposato?
Alderperson Nugent?
Alderperson Vasquez? Okay. You're in the wrong
seat. Alderperson Riley?
Yes.
Alderperson Knudson?
Alderperson Lawson?
Alderperson Gardner? Alderperson Clay?
Alderperson Martin?
Alderperson Manna Hoffenworth?
Alderperson Hadden?
Alderperson Silverstein?
Chair Harris is a yes.
We have 24 yays and 19 nays. That
matter
will not be accepted.
Alderperson Beal.
Madam Chairman,
I make a motion that we use the same roll call on the next two items, if there are
no objections.
We have to entertain a motion on them separately because the subject matter
on each is a little different, so we have to do them
separately. So...
Well, it'll be when the vote-
Seven call.
And on number eight was a 25 19.
The adoption as resolution fails and will be reported at the next city
council meeting July 15th, 2025. Item nine is a
resolution
2026-0026834 is a
direct introduction from the mayor and is a submission of the public question by
referendum to Chicago voters at the November 3rd, 2026
general election regarding whether the City of Chicago shall pursue
all lawful means to recover financial compensation from the federal
government for the costs and economic harm caused by the Donald Trump
administration's violence,
ICE operations, including the Midway Bliss operation led
by George Bravano to recover the
lost tax revenue, public safety response
costs, and the services provided to residents and families affected by the
operations. Are there any questions or comments?
Alderman Napolitano.
I motion not to accept this direct introduction as well due to
the abuse of the direct introduction, and I would call for a roll call as well.
Apply the same vote.
Or to apply the same vote.
Same motion as in the prior vote.
Same roll call, if there are no objections by the prior vote.
You object? You want to do a... Okay.
All right, roll call.
Y'all ready?
Okay. Alderman Sposato.
Madam Chair, roll call on the objection or roll call on we're
voting on the same vote?
Same as we did before on the last item where they're voting not to
accept.
Okay. All right, so it's the same thing, same deal.
Same deal.
All right, thank you.
Alderman Hall.
Playing a game.
Alderman Cardona?
Alderman Napolitano?
Alderperson Lospada?
Alderperson Hopkins?
Alderperson Dow?
Alderperson Robinson? Alderperson Yancy?
Alderperson Mitchell?
Alderperson Beal?
Alderperson Chico?
Alderperson Lee?
Alderperson Ramirez?
Alderperson Quinn?
Yes.
Alderperson Gutierrez?
Alderperson Lopez.
Yes.
Alderperson Coleman.
Alderperson Moore.
Alderperson Curtis.
Alderperson O'Shea.
Yes.
Alderperson Taylor.
No.
Alderperson Mosley.
Alderperson Rodriguez.
Alderperson Tavares.
Alderperson Scott.
Alderperson Citro Lopez.
No.
Alderperson Fuentes.
No.
Alderperson Burnett.
Alderperson Irving.
Alderperson Taliferro. Alderperson Cruz.
Alderperson Waguespack.
Alderperson Rodriguez Sanchez.
No.
Alderperson Conway.
Alderperson Casada.
Alderperson Villegas. Alderperson Mitz.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderperson Nugent.
Alderperson Vasquez.
Alderperson Riley.
Yes.
Alderperson Knuson.
Alderperson Lawson.
Alderperson Gardner.
Alderperson Clay. Alderperson Martin.
Alderperson Manna Hoppenworth.
Alderperson Hadden.
Alderperson Silverstein.
Chair Harris is a no. Ah, yes.
Pardon me?
You can.
Yes.
She can. Yes.
Okay. Alderman Lee wishes to be a no.
Pica was a yes.
This item
fails 22 to 23.
So now we will take a vote on
whether to pass this item or not.
It's accepted already.
Okay.
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My understanding is that we still
have three other ballot
referendums that are on deck for the
November
3rd election. Is that correct?
Yes.
Should we
wait to see whether or not we have to decide between
these four or a possibly fifth introduction before we take up
this matter?
What's the will of the body?
I'm sorry.
Do you want me to
hold off and we'll figure out if the next item passes?
By a voice vote, all those in favor of waiting?
But there's not a
motion to do a roll call. It was a question.
So I'm asking to the chair,
how should we dispense with, we have one that we
just took as a direct introduction.
Mm-hmm.
We have another one pending as a direct introduction, and we have three
more that are pending the
review.
Should we wait to see which ones make it past before we go through, or are we
just going to vote on
them as they come along? Because if we say no to
too many, we'll leave an option open.
So I just want to make sure that we are...
The item is up.
We just accepted the item. We haven't voted
whether it's on the ballot or not. Yes.
This is item number nine.
Item number nine. Move do pass on item nine.
It's not out of order?
It's not out of order. He has a right to
do this. We were just debating whether we should wait and see if the other item
passes so people can determine which
items they really want to vote for. And I get that.
So we're going to go ahead, we're going to do a vote.
We're going to vote up item nine
by roll call vote
for passage
or fail.
This is for item nine.
This is a clarification. This is to accept,
to approve item nine. Roll call to approve item
nine.
Y'all ready? All right.
Vice Chair Hall
Vice Chair Cardona?
Yes.
Vice Chair Lampitano.
Alderperson Lospada.
This is for approval of item nine.
Yes.
Alderman Lospada, you're voting yes.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Dow.
Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Yancy.
Okay. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Beal.
Alderman Chico.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Lee? Oh, she's not here. Okay. Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Gutierrez.
Yes.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Coleman.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis.
Alderman O'Shea.
Nope.
Alderman Taylor.
No.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Yes.
Alderman Tabaras.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Chico Lopez.
No.
Alderman Fuentes.
Yes.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irving.
Okay, Alderman Taliferro.
Alderman Cruz.
Alderman Waguespack. Guess she's not in the room. Alderman...
No? Okay.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Yes.
Alderman Conway.
Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitz.
Alderman Spizalo.
Alderman Nugent.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Riley.
No.
Alderman Knudsen.
Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Clay.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Mannihofferworth.
Alderman Hatton.
Alderman Silverstein.
And Alderman Chair Harris says no.
Chairwoman, sorry, this is Alderman Chico Lopez.
I made a mistake. Please, I want to change to yes.
Oh, you made a mistake, huh?
Couldn't hear. Couldn't hear it.
After Chair Harris, the vote was closed.
Now y'all want to change y'all votes.
Let me check.
Okay.
What's your vote, Alderman Lopez, Chico Lopez?
What's your vote?
My vote is a yes.
24 yeses,
19 nos.
This matter passes and will be reported out at the next, at the
city council meeting July 15th, 2026.
What was the vote again? 20-
24-19.
Item 10,
Resolution
20-260026836 is a
direct introduction from the Mayor,
uh, Johnson, and it's a submission of the public question by referendum to the
Chicago voters at the November 3rd... Yes.
Alderman. Go ahead.
Hmm.
Okay.
And, uh-
Uh-
... is a submission of a public question by referendum to Chicago voters
at the November 3rd, 2026 general election
regarding whether the City of Chicago shall establish a permanent
property tax release fund to provide financial assistance to
eligible, uh, owners, occupant experiencing
significant property tax increases that have placed them at risk
of displacement or foreclosure or annual appropriate, uh,
sufficient funds that identify, um, devi- and
identify dedicated revenue sources to maintain these funds.
Are there questions?
Okay.
Um, I'd like to make motion not to accept this as a direct
introduction. Uh, first of all, this is not a good intro on the merits with
an undefined source of funds to pay for this.
But more importantly, um, this item too is
not an emergency that rises to the need for a direct
introduction under the rules of this council, and not, uh, and
has not been done in the past. And I'm a little, uh, perplexed as to
why corporation council has thrown that out there that
it's a state law or it's a state citation, because I've never seen it And
in past councils, it was never set up this way
for direct introductions to be made on these
types of ballot items,
as well as direct introductions in other committees.
And we had gone through this in the last term,
where introductions were made, and it was only a
certain type that were allowed on to move forward.
So I'm just perplexed as to why we keep
getting to this point,
because it is a violation of our rules and it needs to
stop. It will allow the fifth floor,
whether it's in this term with this mayor or future
mayors,
to essentially break the rules of the city council.
So I don't know why we keep continuing to move forward with these, ladies and
gentlemen. It is just simply a violation of our rules.
It's a violation of Robert's Rules, if you want to take it a little bit further.
And for corporation council to essentially bring it
up in the sense that, "Oh, it's a state law that allows it,"
I've never seen that citation because it doesn't exist,
and it breaks our rules here today, three times in a row.
I know a lot of us hate some of the stuff that, if you
look at the content of some of the things in here, I hate it as much as a lot of
other people do, but this is about the rules.
And if we're just going to sit here and let the fifth floor break them, what's the
point of being here? What's the point of voting on this stuff if you're just going
to let the fifth floor roll over the rules every time it comes
down to a vote like this? So Madam Chair, I just want to say that I
renew my motion to not accept this as a direct introduction. Thank you.
Are you asking for a roll call vote?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee.
I share my colleague's sentiment with regards to this, yet again, not being an
emergency, but I also want to go one further.
Because sitting in the Committee on Finance, having been
introduced on May of this year,
is a property tax relief fund
ordinance,
a manner in which we could return money to our taxpayers, a
fund that was introduced the proper way to a
committee for review, for adjudication by this
body.
We don't need a referendum question saying, "Should we give
property tax relief to our residents?" Because we know they
need property tax relief. The mayor has said that we need property tax
relief. CTU has said we need property tax relief.
Pat Quinn has said we
need property tax relief, along with congressional
nominee LaShawn Ford, who just filed today an
ordinance to make that happen.
There are
mechanisms in place, in our control right now to
effectuate this and negate the use of a ballot question to
determine whether we should actually do something to offer property tax relief
to our residents. If this is such an emergency, let the
committee, let the proper channels do its work, and we could actually have this
passed out by Wednesday if we wanted to.
That's how we could address this emergency, if that is in fact an emergency.
This is political theater.
This is garbage, because we have the will and
ability... Correction, we have the ability, but not the
will to make this happen. If this administration is
concerned about property tax relief, if any of you are concerned
about property tax relief,
then let's work on the
quarterly rebate program that I and a number of
others, Napolitano, Riley, and Gardner, I believe, all introduced in May.
And all of you are welcome to co-sponsor and join and help make this something that
works for all of our residents. You could do that now.
You could do it today. We could have it done by July.
We don't need to wait till November.
We don't need to wait to figure out if people who are struggling need a
lifeline. We can show real leadership and not
play the games right now of making it look like we're doing something
while doing absolutely nothing.
All right. Roll call for item 10,
not to accept
the direct introduction.
Not to accept.
So a yes vote would be not to accept. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Napolitano.
Yes.
Alderperson Espada.
Alderperson Hopkins.
Alderperson Dowell.
Alderperson Robinson.
Alderperson Yancy.
Alderperson Mitchell.
Alderperson Beal.
Alderperson Chico.
Alderperson Lee.
Alderperson Ramirez.
Alderperson Quinn.
Yes.
Alderperson Gutierrez.
Alderperson Lopez.
Alderperson Coleman.
Alderperson Moore.
Alderperson Curtis.
Alderperson O'Shea.
Yes.
Alderperson Taylor.
Alderperson Mosley.
Alderperson Rodriguez.
Alderperson Tabaras. Alderperson Scott.
Alderperson Chico Lopez.
Nope.
Alderperson Fuentes.
No.
Alderperson Burnett.
Alderperson Irvin.
Alderperson Talaferro. Alderperson Cruz.
Alderperson Waguespack.
Alderperson Rodriguez Sanchez.
No.
Alderperson Conway.
Alderperson Casada
Alderperson Villegas.
Alderperson Mitts. Alderperson Sposato.
Alderman
Sposato. Go ahead, Alderman Sposato.
What's your
vote?
Alderperson Nugent.
Alderperson Vasquez.
Alderperson Riley.
Yes.
Alderperson Knutson.
Alderperson Lawson.
Alderperson Gardner.
Alderperson Clay. Alderperson Martin.
Alderperson Manna Hoppenworth.
Alderperson Hadden.
Alderperson Silverstein.
And Chair Harris is a yes.
Alderwoman Taylor is a no.
Alderperson Lee. Wait, wait. Alderperson Lee
is a yes.
Who's on the
screen asking?
Taylor.
Who's I?
Taylor, okay. Alderwoman Taylor.
No. Okay. The voting is now closed.
26 to 19.
This motion passes, and this item will be
held in committee.
Motion not accepted. It'll be held in committee.
26 to 19.
It's not
accepted. This motion is not accepted.
Go ahead, Alderman Beale.
Point of clarification. On the very first item,
you stated that it will be reported out.
There's nothing to report out because the first item is not accepted.
It'll be held in committee. I mean, it'll be
reported as not passing.
Well, the first item wasn't accepted, so there's nothing to-
Okay
... report out.
I'll straighten it out and get the legal,
make sure it's right. So we have two items that will not make it on the
report.
Item number 11
is resolution
2026-0025459,
was introduced by Alderperson Lee, and is a submission of the public question
by referendum to the voters at the November 3rd,
2026 general election on whether Chicago should develop permanent
festival and outdoor event spaces for large scale events.
Are there questions?
Can I get a motion for passage of this resolution?
Move to pass. All those in favor, signify by "aye."
All those opposed.
The ayes have an opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and
this item will be reported out at the next city council meeting,
July 15th, 2026.
Item 12 is a resolution
2026-0025451,
was introduced by Alderperson Quinn, and this is a mission of the public
question by referendum of Chicago voters at November 3rd, 2026,
general election on whether Chicago
should restart the use of gunshot detection
technology that informs first responders when gunshots are
detected. Are there questions or comments?
Go.
I move to table.
Okay.
There is a roll call.
It's a roll call.
Roll call to pass.
Roll
call to pass.
There
is a motion, so table.
Mm-hmm.
We can table.
Okay, I
need everybody to kind of pay attention. Someone moved that we table this item.
That supersedes all other motions.
Go ahead.
What?
The unknown assailant of that motion was never
identified.
If other
It's Alderwoman Rodriguez Sanchez.
I called for-
Excuse me, you were not recognized by the chairman, Chairman,
and as such-
Well, I am saying that I move to table
... Excuse me, you are not recognized, and you're not even recognized now.
I have the floor. The order from the chairman is,
you made a motion,
you called for a vote,
she was never recognized.
No motions.
Okay.
Alderman Arva.
So,
Alderman Lopez made a motion to move to pass,
and which is normal how we operate, and if someone comes
behind that person and makes a motion to table, the motion is always
accepted. This is not anything new or different.
The result would be the same either way, so just let it play out. That's all.
But if you want to go off the recognition of it, if
she wants to make that motion, allow her to make the motion, and we just vote up or
down. It's all.
Alderman Casada.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it was really inappropriate for the alderman of the
15th Ward to refer to another duly elected alderperson as an assailant.
That is the alderperson of the 33rd Ward. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Alderman.
Okay.
Just trying to get-
Chairman now. Okay. All right
All right.
So we have two motions on the floor.
One is to table, one is to
move passage of.
Let's take the motion to table and do that one first.
All right.
Vice Chair Hall.
This is to
table.
To table.
Okay. Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Napolitano.
Alderman Espada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Dowell.
Alderman Robinson.
Alderman Yancy.
Alderman Mitchell. Alderman Beale. Alderman Chico.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Gutierrez.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Coleman.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis.
No. Alderman Curtis is a no. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderwoman Taylor.
Yes.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Alderman Tabaras. Alderman Scott.
Alderman Citro Lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Fuentes.
Yes.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irving.
Alderman Taliferro. Alderman Cruz.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Yes.
Alderman Conway. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas. Alderman Mitts.
Alderman Sposato.
Oh.
Alderman Nugent. Alderman Vasquez.
Yes.
Alderman Riley.
No.
Alderman Knudson.
Alderman Lawson.
Alderman Gardner.
Alderman Clay. Alderman Martin.
Alderman Manow Hoppenworth.
Alderwoman Hatton and Alderwoman Silverstein.
Alderman Harris is a no.
30 to 15.
The motion to table fails. Motion to approve.
I vote.
All in favor.
All opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Item 13 is a resolution
2026-0025443, was introduced by
Alderperson Nugent, and is a submission of the public question by referendum
to Chicago voters at the November 3rd, 2026 general election
on whether Chicago should make its contribution to the city
pension fund and for the first quarter of the year to reduce long-term
debt. Are there questions or comments?
Alderman Nugent.
Move to pass, Madam Chair.
I can't hear you.
Motion to pass, Madam Chair.
All those in favor.
Aye.
All those opposed. In the opinion of the chair-
No
... the ayes have it.
No. Who's my no vote?
Rodriguez Sanchez.
Citro Lopez, too.
Three.
All three. Okay.
I can count.
Okay. Notwithstanding the no vote, this item passed.
Item 14.
Yes.
Who is this? Okay, Alderman Waguespack.
Who was the last speaker?
Uh-
Who said no on the pensions?
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Okay.
And Citro Lopez.
Mm-hmm.
And, okay.
All right. Yeah.
I'm sorry, I couldn't understand who voted.
Okay. Alderman Ervin.
Come on now.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The items related
to the February 27 and the
March 26 items that are not
extremely local, I would ask that we defer those because members
may, with time, may want to bring other items to the table
in that time, and we're under no statutory timeframe to do that
today. So I would ask that we wait on those particular
items while the council may come to a different
conclusion in that respect. So again, these are for
items which would be 14, 15,
16,
18,
and... I'm sorry, just 18, because the
others are local, and if someone wants to do something specifically in a ward,
that's one thing, but something that's citywide may-
Okay. Let me-
... may require this larger conversation.
Wait, let me finish up 13.
Oh, I apologize. I thought you finished with 13.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it notwithstanding the no votes, and
will be reported out at the July 15th, 2026.
Items,
wait.
No, you want to finish your point now? Then I'll go to Alderman Lopez.
Oh, that was-
Okay. Alderman Lopez.
I'll only repeat
my...
Alderman Lopez.
With regards to item 13 that just passed,
that is the fourth referendum question, correct?
Yes.
How many refer-
There will be the three that were passed first will be up here on the ballot.
So the purpose of passing a fourth one would be?
Because this committee just passed a fourth one, so I'm just...
Well, when you get to C... Look, they'll be reported
out
So we'll have this-
The top three will make it.
Oh.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
Item 14.
Okay.
It goes back to-
Yes, Alderman Hall?
You said the top ones would be reported out.
The first three that we voted out.
The first... Okay, thank you. That's all.
Okay. Alderman Villegas.
To pass item 14.
Okay. Alderman Urban,
was your in the form of a motion?
Yeah,
as I just stated, I would just move to table those because we're talking
about an election in February. You're trying to pass something now, and the body
may have a different position
in two months. There's no need to do this today because there may
be differences of things that we may think of between now and
then. What if something changes or something that we really need to put before the
voters in February? Damn it, it's July.
I mean, what's the rush here? That's all I'm saying.
We put that out there now and put ourselves in a position where we can't do
anything, and there may be something that we really need to go to the voters for.
Again, I know we need to have it in a timely manner, but we don't need to
be this far in front of the horse on this, not today at
least.
So I'll move to table that then, if that's what you need.
You can't... Uh-huh. Go ahead.
Thank you. Just for clarity, if you're motioning to table, you're saying 14 through
18 or just one?
I'm only saying to table what was motioned up, which was
Alderman Villegas' motion. I was asking for the
body not to consider because it would then give us an opportunity
if other things come up between now and then to make that determination.
If nothing comes up, then the three can roll.
But if something does come up, we should have the ability to
put that before the voters, versus making that decision today.
That's all I'm saying.
Understood. Thank you.
Tabled.
So we're going to do the motion to table first. Go ahead, Chairman.
Question. Do we have an opportunity to change
our mind in between now and February should something
else come up?
No.
Now,
I'll have to ask.
That's it.
Can we change our mind?
We can repeal, right, before it hits the ballot.
Could we repeal or-
Or amend
... ditch out?
Under state law, the first three
that passes
by the city council would
make it to the ballot.
Okay. And
if city council passes a resolution and
subsequently repeals
that resolution, that wouldn't count towards the three.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman.
Do we have any planned emergencies in the next two months for the February
direct introductions of new referendums from the fifth floor?
I can't answer that question.
But
I think the question is fair
because we had three that were proposed today at the
11th and a half-hour because we didn't adequately plan.
So, to Corporation Council's point, if we were to address
this now, approve them, then the matter is settled, and we don't have to
worry about rushing in December or January
to put something on the ballot.
Okay. Alderman Nugent.
Madam Chair, if there's not another motion on the table, I move do pass of item 14.
We have one motion ahead of you. Alderman
Vasquez.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
I cannot-
Sorry.
Okay, thank you, Chairwoman. I wanted to note and actually
agree with my colleague, Alderman Lopez,
that in the instance-- I know, stop the presses.
So in the instance where we saw an actual direct introduction,
it probably would make sense for us to vote in advance and not have the same thing
occur later. Thank you.
So we-
14, which is not debatable.
Okay, so we have a motion to table item 14, which is
not debatable.
So we are on
item 14,
which is a
referendum submitted by Alderperson Villegas and
submission of the public question by referendum to Chicago voters at
the February 2027
primary election on whether Chicago should
withhold
funding from its sister agencies that do not enforce debt
repayment plans for outstanding debt owed to the city.
It's a motion to table that item.
Motion to table.
Vice Chair Hall.
Okay, this is a motion to table item 14.
Yes.
Alderman Cardona?
No. Alderman Napolitano?
No.
Alderman Lospada?
Alderman Hopkins?
Alderman Dow? Alderman Robinson?
Alderman Yancy?
We're on a motion to table item 14.
Yes.
Alderman Mitchell?
Alderman Beal?
Alderman Chico? Alderman Lee?
Alderman Ramirez?
Alderman Quinn?
Alderman Gutierrez?
Alderman Lopez?
Alderman Coleman?
Alderman Moore?
Alderman Curtis?
Alderman O'Shea?
Nope.
Alderman Taylor?
Yes.
Alderman Mosley?
Alderman Rodriguez?
Alderman Tabaras?
Alderman Scott?
Alderman Citro Lopez?
Yes.
Alderman Fuentes?
Yes.
Alderman Burnett? Alderman Irving?
Alderman Talaferro? Alderman Cruz?
Alderman Wagerspack?
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez?
Yes.
Alderman Conway? Alderman Casada?
Alderman Viegas?
Alderman Metz? Alderman Fasado?
Alderman Nugent? Alderman Vasquez?
Are you? What are you?
Alderman Riley?
No.
Alderman Knudson?
Alderman Lawson?
Alderman Gardner?
Alderman Clay? Alderman Martin?
Alderman Manor Hoppenworth?
Alderman Hatton?
Alderwoman Silverstein?
Chair Harris is a no.
Yes.
What?
Okay, Yancy is a no.
28 yeas and 17 nos. This
item passes.
That roll call-
Motion
... motion to table is failed, so now we're
going to do a roll call vote on it. Or can we do a voice vote to pass it?
Okay. All those in favor signify by aye.
All those opposed. Motion,
in my opinion, it passes, and will be reported out
at the next city council meeting, July 15th, 2026.
Okay. All right.
15.
So item 15, resolution
2026-0025438 was introduced
by Alderperson Nugent, and is a submission of the public question by referendum to
Chicago voters at the February 23rd, 2027,
primary election on whether Chicago should create
permanent monuments celebrating Chicago's global contributions
to music and arts. Are there any comments
or questions? Okay. All
those in favor?
All those opposed? In opinion of the chair is the ayes have it.
This item
passes and will be reported out at the next city council meeting, July
15th, 2026. Item 16 is a
resolution
introduced by Alderperson Riley, and it's a submission of the public question by
referendum to Chicago voters at February 23rd, 2027,
primary election on whether Chicago City Council should establish to
fully fund its own independent legal counsel, separate from the city's law
department. Are there questions?
All those in favor
signify by aye. In
opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and this item will be
reported out at the next city council meeting of July 15th,
2026.
So,
the next item is
substituted by Alderman Robinson, and is
resolution 2023-005613,
was introduced by Alderperson Robinson, and is a submission of the public question
by referendum to the Chicago voters at the March 19th,
2020...
Yeah, he substituted the date.
The
date will be substituted, but in the original it's March 19th,
2024, election regarding the renaming of Douglas Community
area in honor of Frederick Douglass.
This question
was submitted to the voters specifically in the
precincts in the third and the fourth wards only.
Is there a motion to accept the substitute?
Okay, we got to accept the substitute first.
Motion to accept the substitute. Okay, Alderman Dow accepts the
substitute. All those in favor of the substitute motion,
which is the date change to the right
election date,
say aye. All those opposed? In opinion of the
chairs, the ayes have it, and this
item will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
I just did a motion. Okay.
You accepted the substitute.
Okay.
I have to do another motion, y'all.
Motion to accept the substitute, move the substitute.
Alderman Dowell accepts. All those in favor?
In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and this will be reported out at
the next city council meeting, July 15th, 2026.
Item 18 is introduced by
Alderman Martin, and it has to be re-referred back to Rules
Committee. All those in favor of sending it back to,
referring it right back to Rules, signify by aye.
All those opposed. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and
that will be re-referred to Rules.
Item 19,
Alderman Fuentes also has a substitute,
which was introduced by Alderman Fuentes, a submission for the public question
by referendum,
and the primary election on whether new housing units should be limited in the
26th Ward to help address
Chicago rental housing shortage.
This question was submitted for voters in the 26th Ward only.
Can I get a motion to accept the substitute?
So moved by Alderman Rodriguez. All those in favor of
accepting the substitution say aye.
Aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it.
I need a motion to approve the substitute.
So moved
by Alderman Rodriguez, I think, to
pass this. All in favor signify by aye.
In the opinion of the chairs, the motion
passes and will be reported out at the next city council meeting, July 15th,
2026.
The next two items. Item 20 was
a resolution that was sent to Rules accidentally by
Alderperson Riley, and is a tribute to the late Sam
Salinas. And can I get a motion to approve?
So moved by Alderman Dowell. All those in favor signify
by aye.
All those opposed. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it, and
that will be
reported out at the next city council meeting, July 15th, 2026.
The next two items will be held in committee.
Oh, we at number seven still. Come on, Michelle.
No, item 21 and 22 will be held in committee.
Those were direct introductions.
We can't accept the other
and then pass these, right? Okay. So we are holding these
in committee. Item seven.
We're going back to item seven.
If anybody has questions.
Item seven is a resolution
2026-0023364, was introduced by
Alderperson Lopez and is an amendment of the city council rules of order
and procedures for 2023-27, termed by
modifying Rule 55 to require that video recordings of the
city council and committee meetings be downloadable.
Okay, go ahead, Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and again, members of the committee.
I'll make this real brief. This seeks to...
Hey, where's Andre? I need him again.
I
introduced this change to our rules that allow for our live
streaming to be more user-friendly and downloadable.
It's my understanding that the clerk's office has worked to address this
issue. But we want to ensure that per our rules, just as
the requirement for live streaming is in our rules, that the requirement
for accessibility is there as well.
Okay.
And it also corrects one minor error, a typo in the rules, too.
All right.
Go ahead, Michelle LeVar.
Hi, Michelle LeVar. I'm Deputy Director/Chief Legal Counsel for the
Office of the City Clerk. Good afternoon, everybody.
After we saw Alderman Lopez's resolution, we started working towards
seeing how we could make the videos, for both city
council and committee meetings, downloadable.
The initial concern that our office had was based on people
being able to splice and edit the videos if they were
downloadable.
However, balancing that with transparency, we have been able to
make these videos downloadable. We do have a
waiver up on our website that announces we are the only
official place for these videos. So if you see
them on another website, they may not be accurate.
And so we do have that going forward.
The clerk is happy to have these videos
downloadable. There is nothing requiring this clerk or any further clerk,
unless you do pass this resolution and
amend Rule 55.
Alderman Lawson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick questions.
Do we have to pay more to make them downloadable? Are we holding more space?
Is there a cost for us?
We are holding more space, but we do have this
open...
It's not much. I was told it's not really going to cost our
office, maybe pennies more. It's not much.
Okay.
Per the
retention schedule, we only have to keep them up for 60 days.
But our office has been doing them in perpetuity.
And this resolution will require us to keep them downloadable for
four years-
Right
... at a minimum. But it really is not costing our office much
more. It is something that is available.
It pretty much was just turning on a button on Vimeo.
Oh, right.
Yeah.
Um.
All we did was turn on the button that said it could be downloadable.
Good. I'm glad to hear that. Just on the privacy concern then, this is my last
question, is so
Is there any step we can take with the download to help protect the splicing
and AI work that we-
Once it's downloadable, really, no, there's nothing we can do.
It's out of our hands, but that's why we did put up
this waiver on all of our websites where you can
download, letting everyone know that the only official record of
these videos is on our site. I will tell you, people right now do
record with their own phones our videos, and we have seen
those-
Right
... out and about on social media. So people are doing it
already, just homemade. But this
would allow people who, if you do not have internet
access when you're at a library, you might be able to download and then watch it at
home.
Great. That's all I have. Move to pass if it-
Wait, wait
... Oh, nothing else. Okay.
Next request followed by Alderperson Espada, followed by
Alderperson Rodriguez.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate one of the questions that was asked because it is a Vimeo account, so
it's literally just clicking a button. Great.
And I just wanted to make comment as somebody who actively records off of
my phone to try to put the TikToks together, I appreciate I can just download it
and edit it now. So, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yep. Okay. Alderman Espada.
So I
want to make sure that I heard it correctly, that there is currently
nothing technologically that we can do to
prevent the editing or manipulation of this video once
it's been downloaded?
To my knowledge, no. Once it's downloadable,
a person can cut out pieces. They can
do different things. I
was just told that once we made them downloadable, then it becomes that
individual's...
They can do what they want with them, unfortunately.
But that's why people are already doing that by recording on their
own phones.
So we did kind of balance what would happen, and that's why we did put
up these acknowledgments all over that state that the
only official record... And they can't change our official record.
It's just when it's downloaded, I was told there was not much we could do
after that to protect them from being able to edit.
There's a part of me that's concerned that this facilitates
the potential spread of misinformation.
Yep.
We understand that, and that's why we haven't done this in the past.
But
based on the information that we have now,
for transparency purposes,
and the fact that people can do it already without it being downloadable,
we do get calls from individuals who do not have the
ability to-- They don't have internet access at home, so they
try to watch it when they are out at the library.
But they may have to leave and different things, so they were asking for this as
well.
Okay.
So we do have the capability. Our office just has to click a button to allow
it to be downloaded.
Huh.
Are there other questions?
No questions, no comments?
We're good?
All right. Alderman Lopez, you have a motion?
I think Bennett had the motion, but I'll gladly join him.
Okay. Move to pass. All those in favor?
All those opposed?
All those opposed. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Let me just look again.
This motion-
We can pass this
... passes.
That is it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michelle.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
There being no further business before this committee, can I get a motion to
adjourn?
All those in favor?
Say aye. All those opposed? The Committee on Committee of Rules is
adjourned.