Anyway, we have anyone virtually alderwoman Scott yet.
Yes, I'm here. Oh great. Okay.
Are we ready to go?
Yeah, okay.
Good afternoon, everybody.
The committee on ethics and government oversight will now
come to order we have 2 items on today's agenda first a
subject matter hearing regarding outside income for older
persons and second a subject matter here in the office of
Inspector. General's audit of the Department of Family and
support services Outreach to people experiencing
homelessness. We will begin with a roll call to establish
Quorum. Please note that your yes or present response will
be deemed a yes vote when Quorum is called to be used as a
reference vote for later items, but we will not be voting
on anything. Uh chair Martin is present Vice chair Haden.
alderwoman Lee
Alderman OSHA
alderwoman Taylor
alderwoman to bars present, uh alderwoman Scott will be
remote we'll get to you in just a second Alderman Talya
Ferro.
alderman waguespack
Alderman spaz
alderwoman Nugent
Alderman Vasquez Alderman Reilly Alderman Lawson
with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 with 8 members present. We have a
quorum alderwoman Scott has requested remote participation
in this committee meeting under rule 59 due to a qualifying
event. Is there a motion to allow alderwoman Scott to
attend remotely?
So moved by Alderman Vasquez all those in favor signify by
saying I
all those opposed independent the chair of the ice have it
old and Scott is allowed to attend the committee meeting
remotely. I don't believe we have anyone signed up for
public comment at this time. So our first order of business
is the rule 45 report from December 2023, which was
distributed to the committee via email. Can I have a motion
to approve the rule 45 report?
So moved by alderwoman Haden all those in favor signify by
saying I all those opposed and the opinion of the chair of
the ice have it. I will also recognize non-members who are
present, uh, alderwoman dowel. Uh, Alderman Napolitano
Alderman Bernett if I have everybody good. Um, so we will
begin, uh, the subject matter hearing regarding outside
income for Alder people would like to introduce uh, uh,
Steve Berlin the executive director of the board of Ethics
to provide remarks. Um, Steve if you want to
Join me over here. That would be terrific.
Thank you, Steve.
Good afternoon, everybody, uh chair Martin Vice chair Haden
honorable members of the city council's committee on ethics
and government oversight and non-members.
It's my honor to testify before you today on proposals that
would further limit and or ban outside, uh ban outright
outside employment or business activity by City Council
Members, the board of Ethics takes an agnostic approach to
such legislation and defers to the city council as to
whether current laws should remain in place or more
restrictions or
Or a Prohibition should be enacted.
Currently 7 members of the city council have disclosed
outside employment on their 2023 statements of financial
interests.
The board has examined these and none present any
significant or inherent risk of corruption conflicts of
interest are unethical Behavior.
Similarly 11 City Council Members have disclosed owning
property in Chicago in addition to their homes but property
ownership or being a landlord also does not per se present
significant risks of conflicts of interest or unethical
Behavior rather our ethics laws and Personnel rules address
the dos and don'ts for those City officials or city
employees who have such outside interests rather than
prohibiting them altogether.
And over the years the list of those don'ts has been
expanded particularly with respect to City Council Members
some history here is in order.
The board has been advising city council members on
prospective and actual outside employment since our
Inception in 1987 and has advised thousands of city
employees on outside employment as well.
The ethics ordinance has long had Provisions that while not
outright prohibiting city council members from having
outside employment impose restrictions and prohibitions on
a member's ability to use their position to benefit their
outside employment or outside business interests.
As I mentioned these have been tightened over time.
The city's improper influence and conflicts of interest to
parents of impropriety Provisions effectively prohibit them
from using their City position or authority or directing
someone else to use their City position or authority to
advance the interests of any private outside business that
employs a city council member or their spouse or in which
either they or their spouse have an ownership interest in
whole or in part.
Moreover in 2019 and 2020 the city council enacted further
restrictions and prohibitions banning any city council
member or city council employee or any City employee for
that matter from lobbying anywhere in Illinois on private
clients or from deriving any income or compensation from
lobbying by others and in 2019 the city council passed
legislation making it illegal for City Council Members to
have any outside law or other practice that involves
property tax appeals or that would have any impact on the
city's revenues or finances or the health safety or welfare
of City residents.
The board has not yet had the opportunity to apply those
Provisions to specific fact situations. But once they were
enacted it became clear that any city council member with a
real estate property tax abatement firm had to make a
choice stay in the city council and give that outside
practice up or leave the city council and become a property
tax abatement attorney period
later in 2019. The board of Ethics itself made it illegal
for a city council member to practice criminal defense law
where that work would involve challenging The credibility
of a member of the Chicago Police Department and the board
was following clear precedent from the Illinois attorney
registration and disciplinary commission as well as the
Illinois Supreme Court, which has had a long line of cases
involving Chicago Alder people going back to the 1950s and
the basis for the board's ruling there was that practicing
criminal law, uh and cross-examining police officers. Let's
say on Tuesday and voting on, uh, settlements or a new
Police Superintendent on Wednesday is an inherent and
irresolvable conflict of interest and violates an older
person's fiduciary duty.
Put another way, I feel confident that the types of abuses
that Chicagoans have seen that stem from a city council
members outside law practice or say outside Consulting
business are now flat out prohibited by the governmental
ethics ordinance.
City Council Members must annually disclose in their
statements of financial interests, which are publicly
available the source of any income exceeding $1,000 that
they derived or received in the previous year.
I might well suggest more frequent disclosure. However to
require City Council Members to disclose their current
outside employment and compensation from it every year in
addition to their statements of financial interests, which
cover only the previous calendar year.
That said the board stands ready to administer and enforce
whatever the city council decides to enact Chicago could
become like Los Angeles which has 15 city council members
and bands outside employment altogether or like New York
City which has 51 city council members and bands outside
employment or income except for compensation for services
rendered before the individual became a city council member
or for copyright royalties or because this is New York
City. Her artistic performance is approved by the New York
City conflicts of interest board or teaching with the
approval of the Corporation Council of New York or the
conflicts of interest board.
or other activities that involve minimal earned income and
don't interfere with the performance of their duties or the
city of Chicago can remain in the same camp as Atlanta
Philadelphia San Diego San Francisco Seattle or Washington
DC and continue to allow most types of outside employment
but with guard rails
As my friend and colleague Alisa Kaplan is likely going to
posit and I agree with her following the lead of Los
Angeles would indeed send a clear message, but it could
also put a damper on activities that pose no significant
ethics ethics risks or problems and may discourage
qualified members of the business trades or professional
communities from seeking elected office as an alder person.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you
Steve. Before we go to Dr. Kaplan. Um, we did have 1 person
sign up for public comment, uh, George Blakemore. Um, uh,
we will um, uh hear from Mr. Blakemore for 3 minutes Mr.
Blakemore when you're ready.
Thank you.
This is Grace.
You have no public input look at the empty and this is a
very important.
Subject matter outside and on it a lot of our ultimate use
their position to get rich.
They I don't know what they look up with the assessor or
whoever to get rich they come in for
poor White
or black
and they leave an agent and his family and they leave rich
on that s that they
make I don't think so sir. This is really something a can
of worm ethics, but it's ethical. What is small?
You know why Chicago has the title?
Of the most corrupt city in the nation and Earth and the
state. What's the most corrupt state is, Illinois?
all of those City and the state they 69
they are corrupt you see because
they are not ethical.
in our model
if something wrong here, sir, and I don't know if you are
capable of straightening it out.
I don't know if they want to straighten this out.
ethic
What is ethical?
So time after time our Governors our all the people our
commissioners.
Have been indicted.
for criminal act
because they was not ethical. You must have a line when
you're a public service and you don't step over that line.
And maybe you get in the government. You deserve you
deserve the government you get a very important issue today
and look at these references.
Look at them.
Something is wrong here. Every author man and lady should
be here.
There's other feathers blocked together.
99% of them don't want to become awful to be a public
servant but to service themselves.
So again, this is why only break more pops up and that's why
they want to silence him.
Want to call the bomb in the police lock him up help help
me.
You need help here.
It's very important.
For outside job 69 hustling now your hustling on these
illegal immigrants.
Be things back to your mind. Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Your
time is up. I want to recognize 3 committee members, uh for
purposes of Quorum Alderman OSHA Lee and Riley as well as
non-member Alderman Moore. Um, we will now hear uh from
Alisa Kaplan the executive director of reform for Illinois
who will present brief remarks Dr. Kaplan. Go ahead.
Hey chair, Martin Vice.
committee members
Miss Lisa Kaplan, and I'm the executive director of reform
for Illinois.
We are a nonpartisan organization that advocates for
policies that make government more Equitable responsible
and effective.
We appreciate the opportunity to to discuss outside
employment of of elected officials a topic that's generated
much attention lately given recent corruption scandals in
our city and state.
I'm going to discuss some of the advantages of limiting
outside employment of elected officials and why
jurisdictions like New York City Los Angeles the federal
government and more recently New York State have
implemented more restrictive rules than Chicago currently
has
I want to emphasize is my colleague and friend Steve Berlin
did that every legal restriction has a downside and will
inevitably capture some ethical Behavior.
In this case, the major concerns are that broader
restrictions could deter good people from running for
office? Because they're reluctant to give out outside give
up outside businesses or jobs and that the council might
lose the benefit of members experience and other fields.
These concerns are somewhat offset by the comparatively
generous salaries that council members enjoy and the fact
that members will still bring their previous life
experiences with them to their seats.
Ultimately, it is for the city council to decide whether
the advantages to public trust and to the effectiveness of
the city's government are worth the trade-offs.
Given that according to the board of Ethics only 7 council
members have reported significant outside employment income
this year. It seems that more and more council members are
deciding that those advantages outweigh the drawbacks.
in the United States Congress outside employment is
completely banned where there is a fiduciary duty requiring
loyalty to a client such as a lawyer financial planner or
even an architect might have
With a few exceptions all other income is limited to 15% of
official salaries, which would be about $18,000 for an
older manic salary of $120,000.
Note that this Congressional restriction is less
restrictive than New York City's or LA's rules, which don't
have such an allowance.
As explained by the United States House task force on
ethics. These restrictions were put into place to ensure
that quote members are not using their positions of
influence for personal gain or being affected by the
prospects of outside income.
The task force explained that the current limitations on
earned outside income in Congress were prompted by 3 major
considerations quote.
First substantial payments to a member of Congress for
rendering personal services to outside organizations
presents a significant and avoidable potential for conflict
of interest.
Second substantial earnings from other employment is
inconsistent with the concept that being a member of
Congress is a full-time job.
And third many citizens perceive outside earned income is
providing members with an opportunity to quote unquote cash
in on their positions of influence.
Even if there is no actual impropriety such sources of
income give the appearance of impropriety and in so doing
further undermine public confidence and Trust in government
officials and quote.
There are few reasons that the federal government and other
jurisdictions have decided that more incremental measures
like chipping away at regulating conflicts of interest
disclosure requirements or chipping away at certain
professions were not sufficient.
For example, Chicago's current conflict rules prohibit an
official from participating in the making of a governmental
decision. If they have a personal economic interest in an
issue that is distinguishable from that of the General
Public.
Well, this is a robust restriction. It is far from
airtight.
First interests that are quote distinguishable from that of
the general public can be difficult to Define and may
exclude some actual or perceived legislator biases.
Does a store owner for example have a distinguishable
interest in sales tax policy from the General Public?
Second the Rule leaves the door open to backroom deals or
influence that may be against ethic rules, but would be
difficult for the public to scrutinize.
Finally the rule relies on disclosure which isn't
foolproof.
For example, a Maryland legislature working on cannabis
policy failed to disclose that a marijuana company was 1 of
his Consulting customers.
officials may also use their public position to boost their
business a Rhode Island state senator advertised his
legislative work as a reason to hire him as a defense
attorney in drunk driving cases his advertisement read
archambo literally wrote this law and knows exactly what to
do to succeed for you.
This is a flagrant and Theatrical illustration of the
appearance of impropriety. But you could imagine much more
subtle examples.
Outside employment also introduces as a New York state
corruption commission put it quote the risk of criminal
Behavior.
While Chicago strengthened its restrictions following the
Ed Burke Scandal the current rules only ban representation
that might harm City finances or the welfare of City
residents.
A council member could still abuse their position to drive
business to their outside job as long as that business
doesn't fall into that narrow category.
And other person could still for example offer favorable
City action in exchange for someone's use of his
construction firm or a lease of his property.
Even if such a demand isn't explicit, it may be understood.
In addition outside businesses can sometimes be used to
hide bribes. For example, a New York State Assembly member
created a consulting firm to receive payments from the
healthcare industry in exchange for official action.
Some of these examples would be violations of existing
ethics rules or even criminal law.
However enforcement remains challenging even with
increasingly complex ethics rules outside employment
restrictions are intended to reduce opportunities for
misconduct and prevent it from arising before it ends up in
the newspapers and undermines the Public's Trust.
After all what Ed Burke did was illegal too, but it was his
outside business that enabled him to do it and great damage
was done.
It's also important to note the role of employment
restrictions in avoiding. Even the appearance of corruption
or impropriety. Even if legislators are genuinely acting in
what they believe to be their best interests of their
constituents, the existence of outside Financial interests
can cast doubt on their actions and character damaging
their legitimacy in the eyes of Voters.
Bounty Banning outside employment could therefore offer a
significant and much needed boost to the Public's trust in
Chicago government?
It's worth noting that Chicago is now the largest American
city whose Council does not ban outside jobs.
These are a few reasons to consider broader limits on
outside employment. I appreciate that. The council is
engaging in this discussion and would be happy to take any
questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Kaplan. We will now open the floor to
questions starting with members and then non-members
starting with Alderman spaz.
Thank you chairman. I have a bunch of questions here.
First of all, we have 2 attorneys up there is this even
legal first of all to say that Sam can do me a favor and
slide over a little. Thanks.
Is this even legal to say that?
alderman
can't have outside employment and and I'm a little confused
on her because there's a discussion on is it outside income
or is it outside employment? What is it?
First of all, I guess I should say I guess that would be to
you chairman. Are we talking about outside employment or
outside income outside income could be I could have an eBay
business. Yeah, and and I got income from my selling
baseball cards or selling, uh, uh Widgets or something like
that. So yeah, I I appreciate the question. Um from my
perspective. It's both income and employment. Um, this was
to have this subject matter hearing came at the
recommendation of the board of ethics.
Several months ago. So I'll I'll turn things over to
director Bolin both to talk about that distinction, which I
think is an important 1 as well as to answer your initial
question around the legality of existing and uh potential
restrictions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Alderman Pat, that's a good
question. I agree with the chair that um, I think what's in
front of of this body right now, it would be limiting or
Banning both. Okay, and I'm looking at the um, or limiting
both at least perhaps Banning outside employment but
allowing certain types of outside income, but I'm looking
specifically at Alderman Vasquez is um, you know his
proposal from last spring which would um, which would ban,
uh compensation from any work related to real estate
developments, uh, any legal representation, uh, and but it
and certain uh types of being a landlord if you own 5 or
more properties, for example, so you're talking really
about kind of a mixture. It's a mixture of of uh, limiting
or Banning outside employment which generates income but
also limiting certain types of outside income. So 1 of the
things that does not address is for example dividends if
you own, you know, if you own shares of Oracle or 4.
Or whatever or Philip Morris which pays a big dividend, you
know, that wouldn't be limited. So so legal representation
I could see if
If I was an attorney, but as you all know, I'm not um, if I
was an attorney, I'm representing someone that's suing the
city I could 100% understand that but what if what if I'm
an attorney and I'm an asylum Seeker attorney?
How many Asylum seeking cases do you think we're going to
have from now to the next 10 years, but if that guy that's
on the council is representing people Asylum seeking.
With that and that apply. I understand if somebody's a
zoning attorney. Uh, I understand. Um, I don't know a a tax
attorney but there's certain things and there's some
attorneys on there. I think we have 4 attorneys on the
council. I don't know how many of them work or not. I
certainly know 1 of them does um, but um, what if what if
somebody's an attorney and they've basically don't quite do
stuff pro bono but a a a Steve, you know, cost me a
thousand dollars to do this for you, you know, you got to
give me a thousand dollars is that this easy really making
money off of that he's doing work for you kind of pro bono
because it says it says limiting income and then it's also
says outside income. So it's unclear to me for talking
about limiting or eliminating. So there's a big difference
with me limiting or eliminating so
Well, I think any of these possibilities are open to the
city council. Okay, um, you know, that's the way that's the
way I see it. Uh, I will tell you that historically, um,
You know, I've been I've been in the job for more than 30
years is probably most of you know, and I have spoken with,
you know, numerous, uh, not only City.
Council members, but numerous city of of city employees who
are also attorneys who may want to have an outside
practice. We have a number of uh advisory opinions on our
website and based on the way. The law has always been
written. The board of Ethics has always taken the position
that there's no flat-out ban, um, except now since 2019,
there are certain bands, uh with respect to outside law
practice, but there's no there's no specific ban on having
an outside legal practice unless you're in the Law
Department which by departmental rule bars its attorneys
from having certain types of outside law practice, but
that's a that's a departmental rule, but we've always
advised people there's no prohibition but there are guard
rails and if you're going to be driving in 85 miles an hour
practicing law and being an older person, you're going to
have to observe these. Otherwise you're going to get in
trouble and over the years people have gotten in trouble,
but it's not a ban, right? So what if what if my wife and
me had a family business? What if we we had a daycare and
that I made money from it.
That would be I can't do that.
Well, I mean again, I'm I'm just that's 1 of the things
that is up for discussion. All right. Okay, I'm bringing
up. I I'd like to think I'm bringing up that question. I
think is better addressed to your colleagues, but I'm just
throwing them out there because you're here for a reason so
sure so I and as you know, I would also say that in
addition to the practice of law. We've also taken the
position that certain types of outside employment.
Are not banned but there are guardrails and there are
certain dos and don'ts so whether it's the outside practice
of law or it's somebody who may have an insurance brokerage
or we haven't had a situation where somebody has run a a
daycare but it could come up. I'm just throwing stuff came
to mind. All right, the advice would be largely the same.
Okay, not prohibited, but your subject to a bunch of
restrictions. Okay. All right. Um
I would somewhat insulted by our guest speakers comment
that now the generous salaries we make yeah, we make a
decent living but I was making the same amount of money
working a lot less before this job. I know some people were
were got this job after we're making have a minimum wage
jobs. I certainly wasn't 1 of them. I made a good living my
whole life. So if if you go by per hour, I I I I'm not so
sure we make that much money because I I'm just guessing
I'm just guessing most of the all are in are working 60 80
hours a week. So if if if we have any concern it should be
about 4 years ago. We had a guy.
It went dark and got a salary for 6 months and he was never
came to any meetings never he he ran a committee never
showed up that that individual was collecting money for 6
months and he went dark and we never saw him anywhere or
anything like that. Um, so that that to me is more of a
bigger issue than John Smith is a uh, um, a tax attorney or
Mary Johnson's a an accountant and they're helping their
friends or they got a little small business personally. I
don't know how anybody could do another job with this job
because it's a very demanding job. I think we should be
focused more on.
People that have closed their offices for 6 months 9 months
or a year when they did that that to me was unexcusable
that somebody would close their office for that amount of
time that that was more.
More of a travesty than somebody having a legal practice
and helping somebody or making a few bucks. So with that,
um
never figured out on my salary is per hour, but maybe I'll
figure that out and figure out how many hours I put in a
year and how much I make you know, I'm not the lowest paid
all of them are in in the council. I believe I'm the 17th
or 18th lowest. So but for for a number of years for my
first 8 years, I was the the third or fourth lowest paid
other and so with that thanks Steve. Thanks chairman for
answering the questions. Thank you Alderman, uh Alderman
Vasquez followed by Alderman Lawson. Thank thank you Mr.
Chair. Uh, I guess my first question is can we get Nick
when those tests to see what job he might fit into because
he's got a lot of side hustles. He's thrown out here. Um, I
I appreciate the fact that we've got
Conversation here. Um, I I'll speak kind of to to my
experience prior to being elected. I think we would look at
folks who were in Council and hear stories about the
corruption about fed cases about Landing the tuna about all
the things and have a a real distrust in what this
government is here in Chicago. And so I think to miss
kaplan's point about some of it being um, actual
violations, but some of it being public confidence in
government. I think there's a case to be made now before I
got elected I
Had a full-time, uh career. I was actually making more than
I currently make as an alder. Um, I made the decision once
I got elected to pick the lane. I was going to continue
doing the work in because that passion spoke to me now as
it pertains to California or other places where they have
banded.
I'm curious because I often hear the narrative and which uh
about you know, the highly qualified people who make so
much more money who might not look at this as a a thing
that they want to do and and want to know if there's any
data behind it or if it's anecdotal as to when you do ban
it you're losing.
Quote unquote qualifications because I think for some of us
kind of to my colleagues Point, uh, going through the
experiences of being a marginalized and broken this city is
a qualification that we need more of in the council. And so
I just wondering if in places where it has been banned has
there been this loss of knowledge or anything that that's
Quantified. I'm not aware of those studies. They may have
been done and it might it might be in a
Political science journal but I will tell you then in the
professional circles that I travel in and that Lauren
travels in, you know Council on government ethics laws. Um,
it most it's anecdotal. I'm not aware of any hard data of
people who've said I'm going to decline to run for Los
Angeles city council because I'd have to sell my you know,
sell my family business that may be the case, but we don't
know about it. Yeah, and and the reason I I kind of
mentioned this because often I think it actually plays the
other way somebody who's making so much money. They're
like, I can buy myself a campaign and just figure out this
seat that I think sometimes that's a concern for folks who
are looking at the positions. Um, so I I think I want to
look at through a a a different lens part of what I was
looking at through this which is also outside before
getting elected is something
I would bet every single Alder here has heard and all this
before us is your constituent coming up and saying these
guys all got part-time jobs. I can't believe you're getting
paid for part-time work and in a municipal code. It is
listed as part-time work. So I'm curious as to
Why that's the designation because my assumption was that's
part of the reason that it's labeled as part-time work is
to allow for the outside employment is that tied together
or can that just be changed to be formally called a
full-time job?
I I don't know the answer to that question. I will tell you
that 1 of the things that we researched was whether the
language in our in our peer cities laws use the term Fuller
part-time and the only 1 that does is New York City.
So, um, you know, that's a that's an interesting question.
Um, I'm not sure where that language part-time comes from.
Um, it certainly was in the municipal code long before I
became an attorney in 1984. So there are obviously is a
history there. But what the meaning behind it is I couldn't
it would just be speculation. Okay? No, I appreciate it.
Because I know I've seen like in other, you know smaller
municipalities where it's not that kind of a of of a job
right you're checking in at Council meetings that I
understand is more of a part-time nature compared to what
we actually do in our positions, I think.
To Nick's point if 1 were to divide by The Hours worked. I
think there's a different case to make um, let me ask this.
I guess this is whether through the chair.
Miss kaplan's point is is very very valid to me that
although something may be written on the books as being
unethical like the enforcement part is something that I'm
curious about. So have we ever had any thing where the
board of Ethics specifically like caught somebody violating
as it pertains to any of the existing laws relating to
employment or is that just been fed cases catching people?
Yes. Yes. We did. Um a number of years ago and um if
Alderman Wags pack is here. Yes, you are here. You may
remember that. Um Alderman Burke, um, we find Alderman
Burke the maximum find of thousand dollars. That was that
was the maximum problem. Of course, the board was subject
to some ridicule because that was the maximum fine for um,
there was a matter that involved 1 of his law firms
clients, and apparently he had a brain blip at the moment
and um, the matter was called for 1 committee and he yelled
out another committee which automatically pursuant to the
City council's Rules sent the matter to the rules
committee.
And we had a complaint that was filed.
And uh, we did an enforcement action and we found that
Alderman Burke had violated the law because he needed to
recuse himself completely because it was his outside law
firms client and therefore somebody else could have made
the motion that it was going to the wrong committee and
thereby send it to the rules committee, but he was not
allowed to do that. So that's that's an enforcement action
that we had and that's that that goes to what I was saying
before which is, you know, if a person's going
To have an outside law practice then effectively. What
they're doing is they're driving on the highway at well
above the speed limit and they have to be really careful
because accidents could easily happen. So that's that's
been the approach. Yeah. No, I I appreciate that. If you
could do the chair kind of provide any other ones if
there's like cases or or or what that's looked like just to
get a sense of it because I think
this
Sometimes government I think needs to count for the fact
that people don't necessarily operate in good faith. And so
although people might be driving at high speed and what
would assume they follow the, you know rules of the road we
know in reality some folks don't and I think that you know,
when there's there's things that could be bribery as kind
of was mentioned in some of the the testimony but also even
during Co and you know, I I won't go too deep but I think
we know we had remember the castle weather outside job, and
it wasn't
It wasn't a conflict in a way that I think it was
intentional. It was somebody who had a business to operate
that actually shouldn't have been operating during Co but
was that led to like larger stories and larger lack of
confidence in government and I think that's kind of more
the approach there. Um, but I think lastly I guess if you
have recommendations, uh, both you and Miss Kaplan as to
What more could be done potentially if it's not outright
Banning, you know is is it placing further limits? Is it is
it really that at but I think sport field like no, we're
good. We're not going to have issues with top-notch. You
know, I think I think we can always improve and the reason
I ask that is I think as I talked to our colleagues in the
committee and the council really finding what works and
what we can find agreement on makes sense because you know,
we thought about potentially grandfathering folks who are
currently employed or future dating legislation, but I
think even something as simple as changing it from
part-time to full-time could get large support and just
figure out where else so if you could if you have any
recommendations and are willing to send those that would be
appreciated too. Sure. Well 1 recommendation I did mention
on my opening remarks is I think there could be more robust
disclosure, you know, our statements of financial interests
with respect to outside employment are retrospective.
So it only asks about what happened during the previous
year. There's no requirement that if an older person or for
that matter, well her city employees. If you have outside
employment, you are required to have your commissioner
approve it but um that's not publicly disclosed especially
by those employees that don't file statements of financial
interests. So what you could do, um and the board the board
could administer this the clerk could could administer this
the city council itself could administer. This is any older
person with any kind of uh, outside employment or sources
of outside income that you identify would each year have to
disclose it for the current year and keep those disclosures
up to date. Okay.
Know I think that's appreciated. And and thank you chairman
for for uh, and the board for having. This is an agenda
item to discuss I think is we talked to the committee you
were looking to figure out a solution looks like but I I
greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you Alderman
Alderman Lawson followed by Alderman Reilly.
Uh, thank you chair. Um.
Just to to build on what Alder Vasquez was saying. Um, I
understand we find Ed Burke for a violation of our code,
but we've never had a case where a complaint was made to
the board of Ethics that resulted in criminal charges.
Have we yes we have but it it did not involve an older
person. Okay, it goes back to the late 1990s and it
involves the then City Treasurer.
Okay. Okay. Um, that's helpful because I I I I feel like
Whatever we've done to our code. It's been the feds who?
Get the big fish, right? Um, and we're adding Hoops for us
to go through which in some states.
Cases make a lot of sense and others seem a little
laborious. Um, but you know, if we're only finding people
thousands dollars for for things or you know, the feds are
still getting the big the the well, yeah good point. The
other thing I would say is that my colleague the Inspector
General is here and um, I wouldn't be privy to this but um
to the extent that she might be able to discuss how her
office is interacted with the United States attorneys on
federal cases federal criminal cases, you know, that might
be something that you might want to ask her the board the
board itself because we don't have
Have investigative Authority. We would not in a complaint
that was filed with us. We would typically not work on a
federal prosecution. We have cooperated with the US
attorney in numerous instances giving them documents that
we have though, or with the IG make the referral to the
feds. It would likely be the IG it wouldn't be us. Okay.
Great, I I'll leave that there. Um, but thank you for for
that answer. I I think um, maybe a question that we can get
through the chair is this part-time work Clause is that in
the state code just like everything else our title our date
of election our silly rules. Sometimes if it is, you know,
I think that's something we could change if we could do it
on our own we should I think that's probably a low hanging
fruit here.
Um, I'm also curious about I have some concerns about
property owners versus outside employment because I think
they're different things and I think people who are
investing in their communities, uh, or in communities
around the city, you know, that's a good thing and and we
want them to to, you know, help help bolster communities,
but are there exemptions in LA or New York specifically
around landlords or um,
Everyone just put in a trust in their spouse's name. I mean,
there's lots of games you play if if we're gonna you know
make changes here.
Uh, there's not an explicit exemption, but we would have to
contact our colleagues at New York City New York City does
have a provision where?
Um certain types of income can be allowed with Advanced
approval from the office of the general counsel, which is
essentially the New York City Law Department, right and
we'd have to make an enquiry as to whether they've had
people who have been landlords City Council Members who've
been landlords and if they have Exempted those sure and can
I recognize just uh, Dr. Kaplan in case she has anything to
add about those other jurisdictions. Thank you. Sure.
My understanding and and Stephen I should probably confirm
this um is that rent collection is allowed under New York
City. Um Steve if you have evidence to the contrary there,
but that's that's my understanding and I don't I don't I
didn't see a property ownership limitation, but I would
have to go back and confirm in Congress being a landlord is
allowed. Um, it's it's it's been under some um, it's been
criticized, uh sometimes but it has been allowed since
these other restrictions went into place. I'm not sure
about La I couldn't find anything, you know in the research
that I did that suggested that there would be an exemption
for that. But it I couldn't find explicit mention of it
either.
Great doctor. Thank thank you because I I just want to
point out for my colleagues. I think there's a difference
from having a law practice on the side or collecting rents.
You know, if I own a 3 flat I'm going to collect rent from
2 units probably, um, you know, we don't we don't want to
stifle that and certainly, you know, when I think about
that there are certain things that a landlord and an all
that's an older person shouldn't be doing right. They're
not granting zoning changes. They're applying for zoning
changes on property. They own they probably shouldn't be
using the shared cost sidewalk program. Um, you know, the
the aldermanic tree removal things like that that I think
we would get in trouble for in the media maybe before
anything else if it came up, but maybe there's a way to
look at rules for landlords that make sense. Um, you know,
when it's an obvious conflict with the city because I I
don't know that we have anything in that specific right
now.
Well, um.
did but they've been
the ordinance was
18 and 2020
Uh, the feeling was that lobbying having an outside
lobbying practice was inherently conflicting and certain
types of law practice, which are now illegal were obviously
conflicting as well. Right? Right, but if we look at at
Property Owners specifically there's things that the
council you know has oversight over the city is involved
with or our offices are
Um, and then uh, I would just brought the suggestion. Why
don't we why aren't we required maybe to update our
disclosures quarterly if you haven't you have an annual
form, but if there's any change on a quarterly basis,
Well, actually the law does provide that um, the forms do
have to be updated the problem with outside employment. Is
that the on the form itself or in the law for statements of
financial interests outside employment relates only to the
previous year, right? So if I let's say I didn't have a
job. Let's say I was an older person and I didn't have an
outside job in uh, 2023. Well, I would file my 2024 in
March of this year and I would indicate no outside
employment in 2023. So even if I did then pick up an
outside job in 2024, I wouldn't have to disclose it until
2025. That's why I was suggesting that we could add the
city could add an annual outside employment disclosure.
Or or within 60 days of yes, you know, I mean, I think
there's a way to tighten that up current um to keep it
current and I'd be happy to work with you on that or
support something like that. The current law doesn't
current law doesn't require that right that that makes
sense because the year is a long time a very long time when
it comes to stuff like that. Yeah. Um, that's all I have to
share. Thank you. Thank you. Elderman Riley.
Thank you chairman. I just have a few questions and I
wanted to uh, actually I don't have a real strong position
on this. I've kind of gone back and forth on it.
Um, but
kind of along the lines of of alderman Vasquez is
questioning.
Asking for data on the the the impacts of these policy
changes.
Do you have any data that shows that outside employment
bands reduce corruption?
I'm not aware of any such studies. Yeah, I'm not surprised,
you know, but that having been said obviously if you remove
the possibility of an outside job, then you're also
removing the possibility of out of corruption coming from
an outside fair enough. That's total logical, you know, but
there are there are lots of ways for an elected official to
land his or herself in jail.
Uh, whether they're a guard rails or not.
And you know along with the same line of logic there have
been many many older people who have served here without
outside employment who have not broken. The law have not
been prosecuted by the feds who have not gone to prison.
Um, it comes down to the individual and the how serious do
they take their sworn oath and and their job
and in the case of Ottoman Burke
who clearly abused his power and a court has found so
Um, it seems the system worked.
uh, obviously he perpetrated a whole host of
Bad things uh, and he was caught and he's being brought to
Justice and it seems that that system is working. Um,
does it make sense to ban outside employment for 1 class of
political leader in Illinois, but not others. Obviously.
The state legislature is a part-time legislature many
members of the general assembly have out outside work. It's
not very often. We read about a state legislator going to
federal prison for corruption, um having worked in the
legislature. I worked at lots of part-time legislators who
frankly gave it full-time hours, but then found time on the
weekends to do their other work, um, does it make sense for
only certain positions in Illinois government be full-time
versus part-time.
And I'm talking about legislative positions not executive
branch positions. Yeah, there is that there is that
argument and in fact in the city. This is not by law. This
is by Personnel rule. Uh, and this Personnel rule goes back
to 1997 when Mayor Daley Rich Daly was the mayor
Uh, and I remember the Scandal that it arose out of uh, but
the Personnel rules prohibit any um, non-clerical employee
of the mayor's office. Any department heads such as me.
Um or any member of the mayor's security detail from having
any kind of outside employment.
Um, so there there is I mean aside from the ethics
ordinance. There are Personnel rules that um that limit it
but you know your question I think relates to whether
elected officials, uh should be held to a quote higher
standard and that argument is has made relatively commonly.
My my colleague Lisa can probably comment on that as well.
Um, but that the headlines the biggest headlines involve
elected officials as opposed to department heads, um, or
even aids to a mayor that said, you know, if a department
head is caught or a senior aide to a mayor and a big city
has caught that's going to make headlines too that just for
whatever reason doesn't seem to happen as often.
So I think it seems to me that the you know, this body
addressed the biggest chunk of that problem without outside
conflicts with lobbying and certain types of legal
activity. That's occurring.
To me it it does just speaking with ottoman enpal Tano who
had to leave. He asked me and I encouraged him to ask you
but he had to leave uh that he coaches a youth hockey
league and he's paid a stipend.
Of about 6,500 dollars a year.
Um, technically that's outside employment.
Yeah, so he would have to then resign from his Youth Hockey
League as a coach, correct?
Or not be compensated. Yeah that depends on how you would
word whatever you would wish to pass. But as I read, uh,
the proposal that was submitted back in the spring. Yeah, I
believe that that would have that that kind of outside work
would have to be given up that doesn't make any sense to
me. Um,
When when he's done with his point?
I'm okay chairman if if almonds pisado would like to
thanks, but we also have a colleague. That's a coach that
coaches Chicago public high school baseball and I'm sure he
gets a little stipend and basically these people lose money
being coaches. So I forgot to put that on my list but that
was on my list. Also if somebody's coaching they're making
some money for that but we have 1 individual who's a
Chicago public league High School coach. So which would be
terrible to say he couldn't coach those kids anymore. But
thank you. Thank you. Thanks for indulging me. Thanks
Solomon. Thank you chairman. You know, I'm almost done. Um,
you know, look, I'm not criticizing my colleague for
bringing forth the proposal to further limit outside
employment. I think that's worth the discussion. The point
I'm trying to make is that there are all sorts of outside
jobs that have absolutely no impact on what happens in this
building where there are no clear conflicts whatsoever and
to just throw the baby out with the bath water because we
have some
Corrupt colleagues here who can't honor their oath I think
is a shame. And so if if there are folks here that have an
appetite for expanding the list of prohibited employment
opportunities. I'm I'm interested in having that
conversation. I'm sure there's some more things to add to
that list, but we don't need to swat a fly with a nuclear
weapon here and I think the argument that it's going to
discourage smart talented people from running for office. I
agree with ottoman Vasquez. I don't think it really will.
Um, but there are folks who served in this body that are
employed outside of this chamber, um who have not violated
as far as I can tell any public laws have not engaged in
corrupt activities and they serve their Awards well as
evidenced by being returned here by their constituents
every 4 years. And so, you know, look, I'm all about
rooting out corruption and cleaning up this building and
our city government. Um, I just don't think it would be
wise for us to overstep too far here, um forcing people to
choose between their career and public service and a career
that they've been doing for many many years.
Full disclosure. This does not apply to me. I do not have
another job here. Um, but I've served with a lot of folks
here over the last 17 years who served honorably and have
had outside employment. I've also served at turns out.
Years with some folks who weren't honorably executing their
oath. Um, but that's what we look to the Inspector General.
To a lesser degree your office and a special the US
attorney's office when folks are violating these these
these laws and and our code of ethics. So again, I'm I'm
I'm sympathetic to where the folks uh, who would like to
see some some more changes made here. I'm sympathetic to
that idea. Let's just not overdo it. Um, I think it's
unnecessary and frankly suggests that that anyone who's
currently, uh working 2 jobs here is somehow doing
something on toward. My final question is if if this is
being considered for city council, and I know there are
other classes of city employees, you mentioned the mayor's
security detail and certain members of the the fifth floor
team. Uh, is it also being suggested then that this would
be applied to
all other city workers like police and firefighters. I'm
not aware of that suggestion. Now, the the only thing that
I'm aware of is is your your proposal which would be
limited specifically to City Council Members. Okay? All
right. Well, that's those are all the questions. I've got
just food for thought. Uh, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't
have these conversations and consider further changes. I
just don't want us to be too extreme, um having people quit
Coaching jobs or stop being a nurse or these sorts of
things where there's really no.
Intersection with with with the business in in this
building. So thank thank you chairman. Appreciate it. Thank
you Alderman. Uh, I think Dr. Kaplan has something to add
and then we'll see if anyone else has questions.
I just want to jump in quickly on the issue.
$100 stipend that
would care of either
carve out for situations like that or you know as in
Congress you now in New York state there is there is a cap
on how much outside income you make as long as it doesn't
involve a fiduciary duty. Um, so it's 15% which is I said
under with a kind of typical older manic salary would be
around 18,000. Um, it could be more so there are definitely
ways to incorporate those types of projects and make sure
that council members wouldn't have to give them up.
Right. Yeah, go ahead Alderman just to finally close and I
appreciate that response. Um and understand it the other
way to look at it is rather than have a large blanket
prohibition.
With dozens of exceptions perhaps we just have a very
definitive list of these are the sorts of jobs. You just
can't do and you need to you may need if you want to be an
ottoman you got to make that choice, but those in my view
would be jobs where
there are lots of intersections with City Hall and city
government and City approvals.
Yeah, I'm okay with that. Let's limit those opportunities
for people to make mistakes. Um, but I think a big blanket
ban with a million different exceptions is just as
confusing as as the other way. So, um again, just my 2
cents. Thank you chairman. Thank you alderman waguespack.
Thanks chairman. Um Steve.
You mentioned that uh that 1 fine that happened, uh on that
1 item that was sent to rules but do you recall the
conversation and the uh passage of uh work that we did
where we had a lot of the city at uh Council attorneys.
If you recall there was a pretty big debate about conflicts
of interest and fiduciary duty. I don't know if you want to
touch on that a little bit, but I I kind of recall. Um, I
mean it was a little bit of a battle but I think people
came around and said fine if there's a fiduciary duty that
I have um, it can't be in conflict with that. I don't know
if you could elaborate on that a little bit because I
thought that solved a lot of our issues with um, instead of
creating a thousand carve looking at that and just saying,
um, you know, and and we've had the Law Department talk to
us about
Fiduciary duty in committee on finance briefings as well
recently telling Alderman. You cannot go out and Broach
that fiduciary duty.
Um, you know in different ways where it can damage the
city, uh bottom line as well. So we have different types of
conflicts here that I think we're running into but maybe
you could elaborate on that just a little bit that was in
20
18 I believe. Um, actually there have been several several
rounds. Um, we had a number of debates about that. Um 1 of
the biggest ones was around lobbying but uh, there was also
a debate around uh, what was passed in 2019, uh, it was at
the end of the Emanuel administration at the beginning of
the Lightfoot Administration which resulted in the change,
uh that my colleague Alisa referred to before
uh in section 2 1566090 that resulted in the specific ban
of certain types of employment certain types of legal
representation. But uh, we and then and then later on in
2019 based on fiduciary duty and inherent conflicting
interests, the board issued an opinion and then later had
an enforcement action that was challenged in court. Uh,
Holding that practice of criminal law in the city where
you're going to have to cross-examine Chicago police
officers is an inherent conflict of interest. So you got to
make a choice.
So there have been a number of debates like that, and
there's actually a pretty robust body of case laws. I
mentioned before before the Illinois Supreme Court.
um, the most recent 1 is is a case that we relied on uh
with respect to a Springfield Alderman but kind of the
leading case here is the 1990 Supreme Court case involving
former older person Edward dolak and that's kind of a
that's kind of the magisterial opinion on um,
Uh practicing law and being an older person at the same
time and um, even the Supreme Court though didn't ban the
practice of law altogether what essentially it said was
that um, an older person could not represent clients in
workers compensation matters, um against the city
essentially because they owe a fiduciary duty to the city
and they also owe a fiduciary duty to their client and they
cannot by definition satisfy both of those.
And both the client and the city are owed 100% of an older
person's fiduciary duty. And if you're if you enter into a
situation like that, it's impossible to uphold that so that
Court said you can't do it and was that the case that was
cited and that 28, uh early 2019 discussion that we had.
Yes. It was that is the leading case, you know.
Ed Burke, um
doing appeals or assessments and it was uh, some of our
colleagues who were doing criminal work.
uh or defending, uh criminals against um the cities
Fiduciary interests. Um, but that I thought that was the
case was a separate case Okay, um that that arose a little
bit later but uh because the board had never, uh, the board
had never been presented with a fax situation where where
we knew that somebody was actually practicing criminal law.
And uh cross-examining police officers, but once the board
found out about that the board said you can't do that right
there is precedent from other places in the state that say
the same thing. So, yes, we've had robust discussions, but
they're all really based upon this leading case the bordea
case. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman any other questions before we move on in
the next topic Mandel?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not a member of your
committee, but and I don't I I see and I do not have any
outside employment. But you know I came here today because
I think this is an important topic and I do not believe we
can legislate Integrity, you know, you either have it or
you don't.
Um and that um, I wanted to just suggest that as we move
forward as a council in this conversation that um, I like
your concept of guard rails versus outright bands and I
think we need to take a more, you know a surgical approach
because I'm thinking of things like, um, you know people
who might have opportunities to teach um, or people who
have uh, uh property whether you have a 3 flat or you own I
don't know what the magic of 5 is what that the magical
number of 5, but you know, you may there may be people that
own uh property or Inherited property and that needs to be
taken into consideration or um Consulting that might not
even take place in the state of uh, Illinois that could uh,
work with Suburban communities or other states. And so I
hope that we're very thoughtful and
How we uh approach this I do not and would not support, um
an outright ban. Thank you.
Thank you Alderman, uh seeing no further hands. Oh, I'm
sorry Alderman Moore. My apologies. I will get along so
well, I just want to Echo what Alder medal said that the
exact same thing and you cannot legislate it and I just
want to concur that I go on a record every I don't need to
repeat it to waste time everything. She just said is so
awful. And so please note that
And let's let's just consider that thank you. Thank you
chairman. Thank you Alderman, uh director Berlin. Thank you
as always for your time Dr. Kaplan. Thank you to you as
well. We will move on to our second and final item. Um,
which is a subject matter hearing regarding the office.
Of Inspector General's audit of the Department of Family
and support services Outreach to encampments of people
experiencing homelessness. I would like to invite up
Inspector General Deborah witzburg to provide a brief
summary of oig's report on this matter.
Go ahead and inspect your general when you are ready.
Okay, good afternoon. And thank you for having me I my name
is Deborah witzburg. I'm Inspector General for the city of
Chicago.
Um, I I always appreciate an invitation to appear before the
council and to speak with you all about our work. I am
particularly pleased to be here today to talk about this
project because this is a very good news story and we don't
necessarily get as many opportunities as any of us would
like to tell good news stories about the operations of city
government. Um, I'm going to talk about a report that we
published a few months back. It was an audit of the
Department of Family and support services Outreach to
encampments of people experiencing homelessness.
Um, many of you are familiar with the audit work of our
office. This is work that is devoted not to looking at
whether anybody is breaking any rules, but whether city
government is operating as effectively and as efficiently
as it might
The objectives of this particular audit were 3 they were to
determine whether dfss.
Coordinates and plans accelerated moving events and
encampment cleanings with partner agencies in such a way as
to protect the rights of people, uh, experiencing
homelessness in encampments.
Second to ensure that encampment residents, uh receive
notice of cleanings in accordance with the city's rules and
finally to ensure, uh, whether dfss ensures that encampment
residents secure and retain housing through accelerated
moving events.
Um some brief background here just in terms of the issue of
homelessness in the context in which we studied it
homelessness in Chicago takes many forms many different
involved entities have different definitions of
homelessness. Um, this is sort of a a, um,
a a constricting circle's exercise in terms of group
definitions here. So there is the universe of all people
experiencing homelessness of all kinds there is the um
Housing and Urban Development definition of homelessness,
which is limited to those people living in shelters and
unsheltered. Um,
A subset of that is unsheltered or people experiencing
unsheltered or Street homelessness. And then finally a
subset of that last group is people experiencing encampment
homelessness or living in what are sometimes called tent
cities aggregations of people experiencing homelessness
staying in outdoor public spaces.
Uh in 2023 just buy in terms of sort of scope of the
problem and the affected population here in 2023. Chicago's
point in time count of people experiencing sheltered and
unsheltered homelessness was just over 6,000 people.
Needless to say Chicagoans experience homelessness for a
variety of reasons. The ones shown here are ones reflected
in dfss 2022 point in time study, but they range across a
variety of kind of Life circumstances.
I mentioned accelerated moving events. We're going to talk a
little bit more about these. So I want to briefly talk
about what those look like aims are a housing first driven
initiative. Um, they are designed to streamline the process
by which people experiencing homelessness who wish to
obtain and stay in permanent housing, um are able to do so,
so at those events people, um, they're sort of
multi-disciplinary events where all of the services are
brought together and people experiencing homelessness can
complete all of the steps that they need to complete to
secure stable housing All In 1 day. It's sort of a 1 Stop
Shop exercise the Department of Family and support services
held 17 of those events for encampment residents between um
in in approximately a 2-year period from November of 2020
through the end of of 2022.
Um in terms of what those events look like 2 2 important
pieces the the first part the first chapter of the story
here has to do with how dfss and all Chicago which is a
nonprofit partner agency go about preparing encampment
residents to participate in those events. We sort of lay
out the steps here. So dfss will identify an encampment
site identify potential participants. Make sure that those
participants have completed the necessary assessments.
um
And then refer those participants to an accelerated moving
event, um, which is upcoming then at that event dfss and
partner agencies actually transport participants from an
encampment site to the event.
Um provide documents. Once they are there participants will
select available units of housing a liaison will help
people fill out the paperwork. The idea here is that we're
lowering barriers that people experience to entry into
stable housing participants select furniture from the
Chicago Furniture bank and then return to the encampment
stay in encampment site or stay in a shelter or hotel until
move in day until they are ready to move in to the housing
site, which they've selected and prepared for at that. Mmm.
So I say all of that kind of by the way again by way of
background on the topic, which we studied here this I want
to say a little bit about the scope and methodology of our
project here. Um, our scope included dfss and partner
departments adherence to City policy. The city has a
document called policy and procedures go governing
off-street cleaning, which says what the city is and isn't
allowed to do in its handling of encampments that policy
is, um an outgrowth or an evolution from the Bryant
agreement which was a court order, um court ordered
agreement which arose from litigation in which the city was
involved dealing with encampments under Lower Wacker Drive,
the agreement itself applied only to that site.
And expired 5 years after its entry but the city adopted the
language from that agreement into this policy which which
remains in place, um, and the policy is designed in an
effort to balance the rights and needs of people
experiencing homelessness in encampments and Chicagoans who
are trying to use public spaces like parks and roadways and
sidewalks and so on and so the policy reflects the city's
effort to sort of balance as I say balance those interests
and needs.
um
In our scope. We're Amaze held between November 1st of 2020
and May 31st of 2022 for purposes of 1 of our findings that
date range is important. We'll talk more about that in just
a moment.
In our methodology, we conducted interviews of many city
employees many of you and your colleagues who have
encampments in your Wards. We spoke with um service
agencies and advocacy groups management and staff at dfss
the department of streets and sanitation and the police
department and we spoke with encampment residents and
people who participated in these accelerated moving events.
We looked at cleaning schedules and outreach program
documents. We observed Outreach and we observed in
encampment cleaning. We went out and watched the process of
cleaning an encampment. We made both announced and
unannounced visits to encampments where the city was
planning cleaning events or Aime Outreach to see whether
um, you know notices were were up stickers.
Were on items people had been contacted as I say, we made
both announced and unannounced visits to do that and we
analyzed records, um from accelerated moving events.
So 2 findings came out of this endeavor. Um
The first is this as articulated in the report the
Department of Family and support services does not
permanently displace encampment residents from public
spaces and the city makes reasonable efforts to protect
encampment residents portable personal possessions. This is
really a a finding of compliance with the city's policy the
finding here is that both the Department of Family and
support services and the department of streets and
sanitation during our period of inquiry followed the rules,
uh, requiring notice to encampment residents when a site
was to be cleaned, um, and by posting information about
scheduled cleanings and stickering unattended items. We
went out and and looked and to see if um, pairs portable
personal possessions of people in encampments had the
required notices stuck on them, which basically say, if you
don't claim this or move this piece of property, it will be
discarded on a on a specified date.
Um, the second finding um, is that the accelerated moving
events that we talked about are largely successful or at
least they were during this period of inquiry in ensuring
that participating residents secure and retain stable
housing. So I mentioned that period of time that that uh
period of inquiry November of 2020 through May of 2022
during that time dfss, hosted 14 acceleration moving events
238 encampment residents participated in those events
altogether.
And of those of this is this is sort of the headline of the
report from my perspective of those 238 participants 224 or
more than 94% of them were moved into housing. Um, it took
on average 46 and a half days from participation in an
accelerated moving event to entry into housing, um for 90
more than 94% of those participants.
Again of this universe of 238 people who participated in
the accelerated moving events that we studied.
Those events ran through May of 2022.
Um more than 3 quarters of those people 78.6% of them
remained in stable housing as of October 3rd of that year.
So that is at least
Um, at least from May of 2022 to October 3rd of 2022 and
some of them for much longer those who participated in the
Amaze early in that time period that's an important success
in terms of helping people to secure stable and long-term
housing. We made a single recommendation arising out of
this report. And in fact, the only recommendation that we
made had to do with uh dfss is communication with all of
you. Uh, and we recommended that dfss include information
about the city's policy and procedures in the information
that they provide to you all um to inform you about how
this looks and how this works in your reward. We
recommended additionally that dfss should communicate with
council members regarding the policy and the steps it is
taking to protect the rights of people experiencing
homelessness dfss responded committing to do so to provide
additional information about that policy and its practices
to all of you. Um dfss also noticed noted in its response
that the that they in coordinate.
With the Department of Housing, um is newly responsible for
creating an annual report to the city council on
homelessness and housing in Chicago including to report on
progress of some of the initiatives we studied here.
With that chairman, I'm happy to uh talk more about that
that's of any particular interest or to answer any
questions. Thank you General. Uh, we're now going to turn
things over before questions, um to representatives from
dfss if we could have Deputy Commissioner chadam introduce
yourself and introduce, uh, the others in the box and then
uh, share your uh, insights before we turn it over to
committee members sure. Um, thank you and good afternoon.
Thank you for um, inviting us here for this opportunity to
hear my Martin, um and for welcoming us committee. Um, we
just want to say we are grateful to have the opportunity to
present this information from the office of Inspector
General's report on on our Outreach of encampments. Um,
And uh, I I want to again before I get started with my
remarks just introduce myself Andrea Chapman Deputy
Commissioner of homeless and gender-based violence for the
Department of Family and support services to my right. Uh,
Shandra Libby who is the director of homeless Outreach and
prevention for our hop team and uh to my left Kim Howard
who is our director and our homeless services for um
policy.
So, um, I just want to say again. Thank you inspector
Weisberg for the the amazing reflection of our work in your
findings. Um,
this was a great opportunity to highlight our collaboration
in our coordination of the work that we do to enrich
encampments and the progress that Chicago has made to
house, um folks that are are unsheltered and unhoused
through a housing first approach, um dfss, primarily funds.
Oh,
I'm sorry. Sorry I had.
Go ahead. Okay, go ahead. Sorry dsss is the primary funder
for our crisis response system for people experiencing
homelessness in Chicago and we work closely with the
Chicago Continuum of Care and other City agencies who fund
affordable, um, and houseless, uh, dedicated dedicated
housing with our partners. Our goal is to prevent
homelessness whenever possible maintain a safe accessible
crisis response system for a households who do experience
homelessness and to support households who experience
homelessness in rapidly.
returning to stable housing
1 of uh, the priorities from Chicago's homelessness
response is addressing unsheltered homelessness and
encampments which has several key components which has been
explained from the report from um, Inspector General, but
the first is dfss coordinating with multiple agencies in
response to conduct Outreach to homeless encampments
monthly and provide sustained Social Services connections,
these these things include things like, um access to low V
various shelter medical attention substance abuse
treatment, um for all interested parties, and we coordinate
this daily throughout Street Outreach with our street
Outreach teams, um, including the Hop team that Shandra
leads and 11 delegate agencies to build that Rapport
relationship with ex individuals experiencing homelessness
to just meet the basic need and engage them in services.
Secondly, we coordinate monthly to schedule our encampment
cleanings with the Department of streets and sanitation for
large encampments and conduct cleanings at small
encampments on it as needed basis. We follow the policies
and procedures for off-street cleanings that seek to
balance the right of encampment residents while maintaining
Public Safety, um in the public ways.
Dfss, team post notices of upcoming cleanings 7 days in
advance and then during our regular Outreach dfss, staff
remind encampment residents of um, upcoming cleanings and
Mark collapsed or abandoned tick tents with stickers
providing notice that they may be discarded if they're not
claimed or removed from the public way.
Um as the oig report highlights a critical component of
this or of these practices are consistent is the
consistency, um in our in in our role and and the defined
roles of each department that's involved in this
collaborated effort. Um, we work the the work that is Led
is put into practice through training coordination and with
all involved parties, um, thirdly the and most importantly
we connect households experiencing unsheltered homelessness
to housing. We know that the solution to homelessness is
housing. It's the national best practice the housing first
model and approach prioritizes putting permanent providing
permanent Supportive Housing to households experiencing
homelessness, and it works. Um as highlighted there we from
2020 to date there have been 22 encampment a&es and 450
households have been housed from unsheltered locations
through Ames 80%
% of which are still housed today. Um, so our housing fro
approach the housing first model that approach to
unsheltered housing or homelessness continues with the
American Rescue plan funding and new city Investments, uh,
the city's annual investment in Rapid rehousing has
increased but uh from 2. 8 m i l l i o n in 2022 to over 17
million dollars this year. Um,
With this increased investment of just over 7 million, we
will be able to house over 200 additional households from
shelters and unsheltered locations. Um, so I just want to
highlight that work that has been done that will continue
to be done. But this housing first model works and housing
is the solution
Thank you very much, uh appreciate the testimony and more
importantly the work. I think the the 80% finding is
incredibly encouraging knowing that you and your team are
working so hard on issues that are so challenging and
especially during the height of the pandemic, um, and that
we have the results to show for it, right? Not just that
we're working hard but we're working efficiently, um, and
and with important goals in mind that we're ultimately
achieving, um, before we turn it over to questions from
committee Members First in the non-committee members would
ask through the chair to questions 1 being broken down by
year starting in 2020 your funding sources, um and overall
Dollar amounts, uh that were used to support your work. Um,
so 2023 2023 and then similarly, um, FTE, uh that were uh,
uh doing that work, um, annually 2020 through 2023. Um, uh,
we'll hear first from Alderman spaz.
Thank you. And I was just raising my hand because I wanted
to be first I wasn't trying to distract our speakers there.
So because I have another meeting in 9 minutes. So I have a
question specific to me. Miss. Libby is very well aware of
it. So, um my my it's not a not a homeless encampment. It's
a 1-man show Carl at Irving and Nan who we've tried helping
this individual for 4 years. He does not want to go
anywhere. We can't get them out of there. Um, we can't get
them in a home. I mean, I I talked to the commissioner a
lot about this right now. I hear he's in a either a
hospital or in a hotel. You may know my question to you is
at what point at what point if he's gone if anybody knows
maybe the IG knows the at what point do we have to leave?
It's not an encampment but it's the 1-man tent and bags and
whatever at how many how long do we have to keep that there
before? We say he's gone. He's in the hospital. He's in a
hotel. We found a place for him to live. How long do we
have?
Have before we could do something to clean up that property
and whoever can answer that.
I just mentioned your name because I know you're you're
aware of them. So and if you could identify I'm calling the
candy man. I call him Carl you get identify everyone. I'm
Shandra Libby. I'm the director for the homeless Outreach
and prevention program.
Um with what you're asking it's usually we once we know
that they're gone or that they've been placed in housing or
that they've been placed in a hotel. We will post the tent
for 7 days and then remove, um, what I can do is actually
offer him to come back and pick up anything. He met wants
to re may want to retain and then I can have it posted and
removed so that those items are still there. We can work on
getting it are you aware of I mean, I don't know where he's
at. Are you aware of where he's at? Um,
No, not right now, but I can yeah because I heard both I
heard I do know the hotel. So right I do know the area. I
do know the well, I know you're familiar with that and I
appreciate your help. So so it's probably we did Place him
in a hotel for the winter. Um, and we can help him to
rebuild whatever he needs once he's back out on the street
if that, you know, he don't want to go on a home though.
Right? I mean you're well aware of that. We've offered him
everything every year. I stayed as poor guy he's going to
die out there and you know, I don't know how he survives
through this bitter cold, but he does yeah, and those are
the ones that we just continue to follow up with and kind
of monitor, uh, what is going on with them and hopefully
know what
Ends up happening with them. Thanks for all you do you're
doing God's work. Thank you. Thank you chairman. Thank you
Alderman, uh Alderman Reilly followed by Alderman Moore.
Thank you chairman. Um and good afternoon.
commissioner, uh
I guess kind of a basic question who actually approves each
of the missions the weekly missions that we do with these
homeless encampments meaning I guess who's the final
decision maker on whether or not a cleaning and engagement
will occur at any given location.
any given week
I don't.
Thought this was a softball guys.
Okay.
Get approved.
so
General okay. So let me say that in the beginning of all of
our organized, uh cleanings. We kind of just took the major
areas that were constantly being requested, um for
cleanings for
Outreach for anything and we the approval actually comes
through
I guess the Alderman's office because they are the original
starters of the request and then we take it from there and
add that information to our list. But um, my executive
Administration is always monitoring, um, everything that we
do, um, a lot of what is it the oig was saying is that a
lot of what we're doing was really based on the brain
agreement, uh, the lawsuit against the city back in 2010.
And so we're just taking that information and applying it
to our practice and hoping that that would help um to
ensure that we're meeting the needs of the clients as well
as hopefully the city residents as well. So the approval
really is just starting at the Alderman's office Alder
person's office and extending to my executive of men at uh
dfss, and then we just move from there to our department of
different departments streets and sanitation. Um as well as
Chicago Police Department got it.
So this this is these aren't decisions that are being.
Sent all the way up the flagpole to the mayor's office for
the mayor to review and personally approve or deny. Is that
correct?
I know it it's not it's not um, uh given to the mayor's
office only if there's an extreme situation or or a
complicated problem. I should say. Could you give me an
example of a complicated problem? I'm trying to remember
the last 1 we went to the mayor's office on um, and usually
it's like, um the area up around Lakeshore Drive and Wilson
Wilson and Lawrence, um, trying to
Take people out of a location in order to um construct some
items under the vidok like bike paths and just really
trying to improve the community area. Um, but it also means
dislo relocating, uh, homeless individuals for that
purpose. So we go up to the mayor to really notify the
office and to get direction on how to legally handle things
from there. I appreciate that Miss Libby and again, I'm a
huge fan of the work you do. I've been here for 17 years
and I've seen you work your magic. Thank you. Um,
Could you explain to us and I guess to those who in the
public who are tuning in at 2:30 on a Thursday, um the
difference between a homeless encampment and an open air
drug Market.
Well, to be honest with you, they are coming becoming 1 in
the same. Um homeless encampments are being in infiltrated
by uh, the criminal element to use it as a disguise to
block what they're doing. Um,
We try to engage we try to get uh police to participate
with us. When we notice that these things are occurring and
it's pretty obvious when it's happening, um that we can
tell that who is actually there as drug dealers who are
actually there selling the drugs, um, the manipulation and
the the play that they do.
To um, the use of tints for prostitution, um, you know, so
just multiple illegal activities that are occurring and we
can identify those and that's when we kind of work with CPD
to help us to rid the element from that group so that we
can continue to provide quality care to the clients and I
understand what a challenge that can be. Um, and I spend a
lot of time in the viaducts too. I I purposely walk through
them to and from work.
um, and it's pretty obvious, you know, who who's truly
homeless and who's there to try and game the situation
exactly and I'm also aware because I have family members
who experienced homelessness
that um mental health and and addiction often, uh,
complicate matters. Some folks can't get into the
facilities that we offer them because
they're too mentally ill and or to an ebi to recognize this
is good for them.
And I think that's where we see kind of the chronic
homeless, you know the folks where you know them by their
first name. They've been there so long
Um, it's it's a tragedy. It's a it's a horrible thing to see
play out. Um, you've got guys with 2 3 guns thousands of
dollars of drugs in these tents thousands of dollars in
cash.
And we're seeing lots of overdo. I know you're seeing lots
of overdoses the fentanyl, uh problem. We're seeing play
out especially over here in the Lake Street Viaduct, right?
Um, and you guys have done really great advocacy work and
really engaged with the folks, you know offering all the
services that we have. But when a camp like that is
essentially co-opted by
whomever the drug dealer controlling that Turf this month
happens to be
um, you don't have clients there, you know at that point.
It's really just the place you go to get your smack.
by the red line or by Sorry by the by the L stop
and um, I'm sympathetic to those folks who are truly
homeless and really do need this help.
I want to get the bad element out of there too, and I can
tell you it's real scary for for constituents. So I hear
from them a lot and all my my automate my colleague to the
west of me Bernette and almond Conway have this issue too.
Is that you all go and do your great work?
And you know every once in a while you guys especially in
these tougher camps you score some victories and get some
folks to take help.
And the team goes in and cleans it up and it looks great
for a day.
And then a lot of the bad element folks come right back
because it's valuable Turf to them to sell drugs.
And people see it putting on all the hard work and the
effort.
and then within hours to them, at least the perception is
it's all been erased and um
Kind of like CIS of this, you know pushing that boulder up
the hill every single day, right? I'm sure there's
something there. Um, what can we do to either give your
department or streets and sand or CPD or all of you?
Better tools to help us separate out. These folks are there
to prey on people and sell drugs and commit violence versus
those folks who truly need help.
well, we actually have had a successful situation like
that, um over there on um,
Federal and Harrison, I believe that's the third or fourth
Lord. Um, there was a an intermingling of uh, the criminal
element an individual who was actually living in the tents.
Um, and he was at he was uh selling um drugs to the clients
there, but also the community at large because people
Just stopped by to do that. Um CPD, uh First District
actually helped us to go in they did a drug bust. Uh, they
ended up arresting the guy um, and they were able to move
that situation on but it also helped us to get all of the
necessary housing we needed to in order to help those who
were willing to go into um housing and get them housed. Um,
and then the other few people who were just not ready for
that, uh moved on to other locations because of it. So it's
really trying to get um, everyone to understand the
separation between social services and what a legal and
police intervention is needed and in those kind of
situations with the encampments, we really do need to start
beefing up the um legal portion of it. Yeah, and I and I
mentioned that because we have a couple of locations, you
know in my order near my award.
Um where it's clearly, you know, it's turned to the corner.
It's it's definitely illicit drug activity and the concern
is that and I admire the you guys are doing great work with
your resources. What's frustrating is that um, even if the
cops come in and do a mission and they remove the drug
dealer
Uh that you that usually has an impact for a day or 2, but
because it's valuable drug Turf that person is almost
always backfilled either by a colleague or a rival.
And then for a week or so that site is unstable and you've
got folks fighting over the turf and sometimes we've seen
people are shooting each other over that Turf and um,
that's my concern. You know, I
some of these locations have been there since long before I
was elected Alderman and that's a long time.
Um, and it just seems that you know, if we were able to
take away some of these valuable drug turfs and just deem
that a place where we're not going to do.
Tens of any kind because a lot of the activity happening in
these tents in certain locations are illicit.
That would be helpful. And I don't know how that how you
thread that needle with the Bryant agreement. Um, I do
think there's a big difference between protecting the
rights of truly homeless people.
And people who are taking advantage of the Optics of a
homeless camp.
Um, I would just like to find a better way to get at that,
you know, um, because people aren't scared of or or worried
about people experiencing homelessness. It's the criminals
that that embed in these communities that they're very
scared of because those guys have guns and they do use
them, you know, so that's that I think is a frustration for
a lot of us in the central business district where there's
a higher concentration of folks and there's obviously more
foot traffic.
Meaning more potential clients for drug dealers, right? Um,
that is I think the Crux of it for for many of us downtown
and the other and when you mentioned the tent issue and
you're correct about that, the city still has not made any
kind of um,
legal stance about the uh tents. Um, we're trying to go
back to like Parks going adhering to their ordinance where
they say you cannot have tents in the Park after 11 oclock.
You cannot erect a tent with without, uh, some kind of
license or permit to do that. So those are the little
things that we have to start looking at to because we've
made it very comfortable over the years mostly because of
Co, um, just trying not to disrupt the flow of things
because of the uh epidemic that was going on, but that's
that's another start that we can make and I just want to
turn it over to my deputy.
And I I do want to say that you know.
In doing this work our hop team our delegates are also
experiencing these things and they're going in and it does
create un unsafe elements to the work that they need to do.
But for dfss, our role really is providing the social
services the support and trying to connect folks to
housing. And so that's always going to be our primary goal
and when we're going into the the encampments or in any
situation, how can we connect folks to Services? Um those
that will and want to accept those services
And most of the the the criminal element that's really a
public safety thing that we really do try and work with CPD
on but that's where we're going to have to really tap into
other departments or supports from other departments
because it really is a public safety issue that impacts the
work that we need to do as well in that environment. I
appreciate the completely. I know that's not part of your
core Mission that's for CPD and others to handle. I just
flagging that to know there's some prize from folks
upstairs watching us right now. Um, so I'm hoping they're
taking a couple notes 1 last question chairman and then
I'll I'll I'll stop talking so much um, and this has been
really bothering me because I see them everywhere.
And preco there was a so there's an condition in central
business district where um years ago 3 or 4 years ago. Um,
many of the restaurant tours were storing their propane
tanks, uh in alleys and chain these 20 tanks to a light
pole and an ally um, because they were using them for their
outdoor heaters and these sorts of things and I remember
the the fire department the inspectors came through and
they wrote lots of tickets to all these restaurant tours,
which I think looking at it made a lot of sense because
each of these containers if used properly improperly is a
bomb
Right and the city cracked down and said no, you can't store
these on the right of way. It's too dangerous. They can
explode and kill people.
And same reason why you're not allowed to have a gas grill
on a balcony in the city of Chicago whether or not you obey
that law. Um, they're dangerous.
and I know coid had has changed lots of protocols here, um,
you know not because we wanted to but we still had to
as a result since Co
there is a proliferation of propane tanks in these
encampments. I'm not talking about 1 or 2 tanks. I'm
talking about and Miss Libby knows she sees them too dozens
and dozens and dozens of these tanks.
and I understand there's kind of uh
Who's on first situation going? No 1 want to address the
issue of these tanks and I guess my concern is that that
many of the locations in my ward where I'm seeing these
lots of them.
Are under very sensitive infrastructure?
um viaducts 1 thing, but under an active train line is
another
um adjacent to Major Commerce areas is another
um, and the fire department was very very
Um insistent several years ago that these cannot be
tolerated here people are going to get killed yet now.
No 1 want to even look at them and that is not a family
services issue, um, but I wanted to raise that
can someone explain to me why it is suddenly we don't deem
propane tanks to be a hazard to Public Safety.
When they're piled up literally piled up on the right of
way under important infrastructure.
Can anybody you have you guys been giving a story on that?
I know that's not your
Your ball of yarn but um, you're out there seeing it too
Miss Libby. I know you have I my ward soup sure does the
cops sure do I know it's a fire department jurisdictional
issue, maybe oemc but
It hasn't changed at all and that worries me greatly.
So we have not been given any kind of complete
understanding of how these things should be handled. I know
when the first book, uh explosion of a um, propane tank
that occurred in the city on 12th in uh 12th in displays.
Um, they um, we did get together fire department came in
and literally collected everything and disposed of them
properly. We thought that that would be the process
continuing on from there because um people were actually
giving encampments propane tanks and not understanding that
they did not have the right equipment to use those items.
Um, so the the homeless were just breaking off the seal and
allowing the gas to escape and then lighting at a gas and
that just became an issue of of what we had to deal with
but we just haven't been able to get any kind of real
understanding of how to deal with it since then, but we
have been during our cleaning is confiscating, uh, these
tanks putting them to the side and hopefully we can get
them disposed of okay. Well, I'll take that up with a
different department. I know that's that's not you guys.
Um, but we need to get better at that because it's just a
matter of time and I hate saying this because whenever I
say that something
Really horrible happens. Well, I I think that's a very
important flag that you raised will separately make some
inquiries as well on the committee and then follow up with
you to see um, what sort of collaboration can happen to
help support that I think we're all very sensitive as we
get into warmer months knock on wood, but also knowing that
we have a number of large events coming up this summer
including the DNC where uh, we want to make sure that um
safety continues to be top of Mind especially given, um,
what what you just noted in terms of an increase in this
particular type of problem. So we'll be following up with
you as well as with the Departments. Thank you chairman. I
appreciate your Indulgence. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you
Alderman, uh lastly Alderman Moore
Thank you, uh chairman. Thank you for calling this meeting
and um, thank you. Um
Inspect again for whisper for um been here, um, appreciate
you every time you come and uh, we either giving us some
good directives, but especially when there's some good
positive, um news, um out of it. So definitely appreciate
the hard work. Um, you've done I also want to um command,
um, commissioner Brandy kanazi on her leadership in the
department of dfss and The Trusted staff that she has who
um, you know, undoubtedly did the work, um to make this
happen. So um very much, um, appreciate you all before I
get a couple of my questions, um chairman dial had to leave
so she just wanted me to um present um, 1 question, um to
you, um, inspect the general whisper if you can say the
706%
Who owns this 74% I think.
No, 76% that remained unstable housing. Um, what were the
factors?
Where they stayed in versus um, others who didn't so
whether you know, so we can look at those, you know
elements. That's a very good question not 1 that we studied
here, but I think that the answers the answer to that
question what keeps people in stable housing and what
separates the population of people who who can stay in
stable housing from the population that can't that's sort
of a Next Generation question, which I think the answer to
that question would very much go to how we build more and
more successful Ames the information that we do have. Um,
which I think gets us a little bit of the way there is is
around breaking down that number into into some more
categories. So, um, we started with this population of 238
people who participated in an AME During the period of
inquiry 187 of them remained in stable housing. So what we
know about those 187 people is that um among them there's a
group that was had been housed for fewer than
12 months in their am placement a group that had been housed
for more than 12 months in their am placement people who
had found alternative stable housing before they had been
in their am housing for either less than a year or more
than a year.
Um and people who had been immediately placed in
alternative stable housing. They actually never made it to
their am placement because something else came up. So we
see kind of a range of experiences all of which kept people
housed or at least this period of time afterwards and then
we have a little bit of information on the people who
didn't stay housed the people whose whose housing through
an AME wasn't successful or wasn't stable.
um
some of those people were simply never placed and they
never got an AM placement others of them, um went to a
placement briefly but then exited
So, um, we had there were 17 17 residents in this
population who were not housed when we checked in October
of 2022. Um, some of them had exited, um had exited their
am placements back to shelter or Street homelessness, um,
or to some situation that we didn't we weren't able to
identify. Um, some small number of clients were deceased by
the time we checked some number of months later. So I say
all of that to say we don't actually have the answer to the
question. You're asking although I think it's a very good 1
what we do know is that there are there are sort of a range
of experiences in which people stayed housed and arranged
of experiences where they they didn't.
Stay housed in their AME placement. Um, I would certainly
defer to dfss if there's more to say there about what we
know about those populations.
So I don't think that we have any.
Uh statistical data on this but I think if we ever do
consider it in the future, we're going to have to look look
at some of the demographics of the clients. That did not
stay.
Um, because the majority who do not participate are usually
um, chronically, uh chronic they're dealing with chronic
addictions or chronic mental health issues. So we have to
look at every piece of what is going on with those
individuals to determine why um, they're either not staying
housed or not accepting housing.
Okay, so that's something.
that
with so what we have we
those people are we still are in contact with those?
76% right
or no. Those are the ones that are helpful. Yeah, the ones
that are still housed the ones that are the ones that are
not sheltered who are working with them. I'm not I'm just
talking about that 76. I want to focus on that 76 so
somehow we still in contact. So I guess you you part of
your answer is you guys can somehow possibly go back and
see what are some of the
Common factors like I guess you're alluding to okay. What
are they on drugs? Were they not dealing with mental
illness or you know, it may be a combination of we just
don't have that answer yet. But is that something we can go
back and see the housing they received was appropriate for
what their needs were versus the others who housing may not
have been but we don't know that answer yet. We have to go
back in exactly and and can I can we probably commit to
going and do that?
I don't want to leave. I mean, I think I think Alderman Dal
ra is a good question. So the the whole part of this is to
see what's working.
You know so that we can you know.
I think we can continue to commit to that process right
identifying what works when folks are remaining housed and
and coming up with best practices and soul Solutions around
uh, implementing that right whether it is connection to
other social services agencies, uh, Healthcare entities
that really support and again, but we have to also factor
in some of the outliers that we see and that could be that
um the unit it could be something specific with the unit.
It could be the area. There are a lot of factors that go
into why someone stays into housing but I think that is
something that we can always commit to continually, um,
identifying assessing and understanding that better as we
especially since you in contact with them and I I guess it
becomes
But I I guess I remember from statistics that you're asking
people you may see it, you know a diagram that goes like
this dots just going over everywhere that there's no
pattern but asking those questions you may see a common
pattern so it may be you know, 1 or 2 things even that
says, okay. This is why so I think it's I think it's
worthwhile. Um, um doing um, now I can get to hoping my
questions if I can. Uh, remember them, let's get back to
uh, the 10th in the Parks because in in Chicago lawn,
that's why I've had uh a couple issues so
Did you say or did I hear you? Say that?
The practice the ordinance can't change. I I think we just
was a little lenient doing Co but the
ordinance is still in place right about the
for the policy that in order to put tents up in the park.
You have to have a license and all that. That's that hasn't
been removed, right?
No, it hasn't. We're actually um using that in certain
situations right now. Uh, we just haven't done a globally
throughout the uh City of Chicago right? I just want to be
clear. So we just relaxed it. If you will we were just
relaxing it if you will and during during Co and help me
understand when we talk about um encampments. Um,
Can doesn't encampment include?
Someone taking over a uh, a vacant property or a vacant lot
on a city block even if they're not inside the house, but
they're in the yard and they set up, you know their little
Camp there that that that do you identify that as an
encampment as well?
Um, technically that's considered trespassing. So if the
owner does not want that to happen, the owner would have to
take the steps to have those individuals removed. Um, we do
not condone taking over people's properties or their Lots.
Um, and we talking about probably and it's probably vacant
because the owner is probably not around so that's that's
so then if if no 1's launching a complaint about it, uh, we
will not force them all. I guess I'm saying because when
you said it comes from the automatic office then do we
still have to follow that process? I guess. That's my
question coming out of this does the does that process?
um
apply to the normal or what you call a traditional
encampment versus something that's on a block, um that
process and the reason why I asked before you answer that
question is because sometimes we're dealing with children.
Going to school walking to school things like that parents
are concerned things like that. So sometimes presents a a
whole different other element. So do I have am I?
am I stuck to um
having to follow that process or can that be you know done
immediately taken away immediately without going through
the encampment process of removal know.
You have you have we actually have to follow the process,
correct?
Um now let me say this, um with schools.
Um homeless are not supposed to be around or living around
school property.
um
And they could be asked to get off their property by the
school, uh principles or security or or what have you um,
in order to remove their possessions. I would take them
through the process of um, posting the area
Um and uh, having them understand that in order to keep
this they need to take it with them when they leave know. I
got you. I just want to be clear for the record because we
have to make make make sure we're covering ourselves. I get
the school part, but I'll specifically asking about blocks
and I think you did answer it. Um, but I just wanted to be
clear I was specifically asking about blocks and that
encampment site can be
a block or even 2 blocks away from a school but that child
is walking past that encampment site on the way to school
and um parents are concerned. And so if somebody snatched
them and I bet and I'm just going to record and say phone 1
will snatch them. Nobody's going to go through a process.
I'm just I'm just saying that you know that they're going
to shut it down immediately. So we need to um, um be
proactive in my opinion when it when it's these 1
individual on a block situation, you know. Um, my last
question is, um,
because I'm also about um
bringing some resolution when we talk about
um
the ones that do not because you hear this a lot that um,
some homeless people do not like structure so they don't
want to be in a um,
as some shelter or anything like that with rules and all
that because they do not like structure. Um, what are you
all thoughts on these? Tiny houses situation or
even um
Um train cars, uh for homeless people, you know, um, um,
the attorneys like train cars if you will into like little
homes and stuff like that. Uh, can we sustain something
like that? Where at least they have somewhere to go if we
had a a a row of those in a selected places somewhere.
What I would say is I don't I
don't have
enough
information or data around if those things are um as
effective or uh, sustainable or the cost of those things,
but what I would say is what what we are doing that is that
is working right keeping that housing first approach to how
we are addressing folks that are experiencing homelessness,
but internally some of the things that we've done to
improve our shelter system and access to that 1, um putting
out,
Are low barrier shelter RFP are shelter rehab and
renovation? Um that's happening where 10 delegates have
been selected for re renovation. We're trying to make the
system that we currently operate more supportive. So that
more people will want to engage and access that and and
take up those things. We also have our shelter acquisition
project, um, uh in collaboration with Department of Housing
where we are trying to to take congregate shelter settings
and we will be making 5 new 5 shelves that are currently
operating in a congregate sell shelter setting non-
congregate. So it increase our capacity gives us increased
bed, but it also gives um folks that have to access our
system something that restores dignity it is safe. It is
supportive and it makes engaging uh, a little easier
because we are able to 1 address some of the traumas in
being a in this congregate environment. So
those are the approaches that we are immediately doing
those are things that are already um in the works. Those
are some of the solutions towards what we do have control
over what we can do to make our system our crisis response
system safe and supportive but really making sure that it's
low barrier and and and that the things that you know, you
you said sometimes structure may be a thing or rules maybe
a thing but having more low barrier barrier shelters where
things like curfew those things are not um causing a bar.
For folks that are unhoused or unsheltered that would like
to come into.
A shelter environment. Okay. Thank you. I I I think that's
you know, that's that's a start and I I think we need to
take that approach. I visited just as a side note. I'm done
with my questions. I I visited uh had not been to La since
95 and I'm gonna brag a little bit as an uncle my niece who
moved here moved from Chicago to La out of a thousand young
ladies with selected, uh to be on the roads for court at
princess on the Rose Bowl court. So I asked her to get her
uncle a ticket and she did and and and I went out to LA had
not been out there since 95.
And I was really saddened by what I saw in La uh, I had no
idea. It was like that. It's totally to me out of control
and I just don't want Chicago, um to get like that to the
point.
literally
people are
um defecating urinating on the street and I ain't talking
about hiding I'm talking about after they do it. They they
sit right back down in their spot. No police activity know
it's just the norm.
I'm not making nothing up and I'm not exaggerating this.
This is the norm.
and so and so I say that to say I had to come back and talk
about this because uh
to see that um it it was just disheartening and I just
don't want Chicago, uh to become that way in any type of
way. So thank you all again for the work that you do. Um,
and I appreciate you all so much and um expect the general
whisper as always I appreciate you so much. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you Alderman, uh to close us out Alderman
Vasquez. Thank you. Thank you very much came back. I wanted
to make sure that to follow you out there. I I thank you so
much for the investigative work. Uh, and for the work on
the ground as well. Um, I think we've seen a lot and I know
in 40 in the 40th, we're actually working through
establishing 1 of the non- congregate shelters with like
the wraparound services. And so I I really appreciate that
and I think something that that I I wanted to thank you and
your answer is I think my colleague Alderman Moore rates up
a good point right that that
what it feels like to us is that some of the folks who are
unhoused may not want structure but I think in the framing
of some of the folks that are experiencing it what they
really want to support and it may not feel like that's what
they're getting. Like, I I, you know, we had some folks in
40 who you know, the um dfss comes to offer support
services and they're told well the closest shelter is on
133rd Street.
and if you're somebody who's unhoused on
6400 North you have no idea what you're even stepping into
to accept that kind of support. So I think that's been some
of the push back. I think there's folks who
Because of the current shelter system as best as it tries,
it's still a a different kind of system with a bunch of
folks that feel like they're in a container and the rules
there's people who may not treat each other well in those
spaces because they're going through mental health issues.
And so I think
part of it is us having to reinvent what Continuum of Care
looks like because when we view it as beds as opposed to
people it becomes imprecise and you don't get to a solution
and so I think
As as the chair of the committee on immigrant Refugee
Rights. This is something that has come to the Forefront
because
in essence, we have 2 Shelter Systems where I believe there
should be kind of 1 unified 1 that you could then figure
out funding and what actual Continuum of Care looks like
based on a person's circumstance, but I think the question
I've got
related to to the the rapid rehousing work is
What language access look like, right if we get to a point
where you've got more and more buses and not enough shelter
beds and now folks are on the street and they only speak 1
language.
What does that look like when you're calling to find that
support system? Uh, how do you all is it is it equipped?
What does it feel like
um
Sorry Kim Howard. Um, I'm a doctor with this 1.
Okay, Kim Howard director with homeless services division
at dfss. Nice to see you.
Um, yeah, I think overall I mean I want to back up and say
I think this report really helps us.
You know challenge The Narrative that folks who are
sleeping on the street are not interested in housing or
not, you know willing not ready for housing. I think the
success of
Um these findings and our investment in Rapid rehousing
shows that you know, once folks are able to stabilize they
can then take care of, you know, all of the other sort of
parts of their lives that help them. Um, stay in housing.
Um, I think as we think about, you know, expanding um, and
integrating systems between you know, folks experiencing
homelessness and this this new population of new arrivals.
We need to keep that focus on housing as the solution to
homelessness. Um, we certainly want, you know, a strong
crisis response system. We need a good um, you know
accessible safe shelter system to meet the immediate need
but we're not
Going to solve uh homelessness with shelters. We need to
continue to expand the pathways to housing and I think
that's applicable to both populations sure. And and I guess
so how do you all feel as far as language access as it
relates to that? Yeah. And so I think then as we you know,
so just to sort of share the model of Rapid rehousing each
client, um is sort of connected to a case manager. Um, and
so we as dfss we fund um, all Chicago and nonprofit agency
to sort of manage the entire rapid rehousing portfolio,
they then subcontract with nonprofit agencies throughout
the city who actually uh staff those case managers and so
this is I think the space where we can really expand, you
know, who are the nonprofits that we're engaging in this
work as we seek to serve, you know, a larger population and
that's really where we have the ability to to bring on, you
know, Spanish more Spanish speaking staff or culturally
competent if possible due to the chair if there's any kind
of reporter breakdown of like the different folks
been Staffing that speak different languages and what that
looks like because I think we just seen that in different
departments and I think
where I've got a a a
looking forward if we're at the point where we have limited
funds when it relates to the new arrival of shelters that
are currently happening and you get to the point where some
of that has to be right sized or downsized those folks will
end up on the street and at that point we have
I think the concern is
some of our colleagues view the expenditure of the 1 5 0 m
i l l i o n as being too much because I don't think they
consider what the expense will look like on the other side
of that equation.
And so I I want to make sure that we know are we staffed up
do we have language access? Um and also
I guess any conjecture on what it would look like to scale
up rapid rehousing if you get another 5 to 10,000 people on
the street.
because that's
If we're not proactive on that situation, that's what I
fear. It's going to look like and so any conjecture any
recommendations there. Um, I would greatly greatly
appreciate um, that that's really all I had. I want to make
sure we get that information. I think oh, I guess lastly.
with the current migrant
mission is causes also an opportunity because if it wasn't
for this situation, I don't think you'd have this many
shelters to go from uh, you know now to 28 when you try to
set up 1 Shelter in a neighborhood you get every neighbor
pushing back on it. It makes it hard enough to even
establish 1 but now there is some level of infrastructure
to look at so has there been any conversation on what
potentially that could look like in a long because we
didn't have enough beds for the existing on house
population before the migrant, uh, you know, the crisis
that we're currently seeing have there been conversations
of like the actual brick and mortar and what that could
create as far as the network and then answering that if you
can make some reference to the consultant I believe dfss
has engaged to um help, uh continue to um,
Advise and and chart a course for how things can expand.
That would be helpful.
Absolutely. Um, I will keep that answer brief because we're
not exactly the right folks to speak to sort of the future
of the new arrival.
Shelter system, um, but there are ongoing conversations.
The city is looking to bring on a consultant to really help
us think through, you know, integration and expansion of
you know, the entire Resource Network to serve, you know,
the existing population experiencing homelessness in new
arrivals. So absolutely I know there's talk about the chief
homelessness officer. That'll be hired as well. So I think
knowing like who those folks will be as a team moves
forward so we can all be as informed as possible and make
sure that it helps inform policy legislation and we can
find ways to Advocate and we'll be
Extremely helpful. Um, thank you all for the for the work. I
mean, it's some of the most challenging work in government.
And so thank you and thank you as always inspector sometime
Inspector Inspector General General you guys, uh, thank you
for your work and being able to dig in so much that we get
the information that's data driven so we can continue
improving. Uh, thank you chair. Yeah. Thank you Alderman,
and I do want to um and quickly with my not of thanks, um
first to dfss for your work and of course being here
because uh, we all know at the aldermanic level and now
with the inspector General's office how hard you all work,
um available 24/7 and so taking time out of your normal day
to brief us on your efforts. We know that that Zero Sum
that it makes probably the rest of the day and the rest of
this week a little bit more challenging but part of why I
think it's important for this committee to shine a
spotlight on the work of the inspector General's office in
your work is that hopefully in the mid and long term we can
find ways to help based on this dialogue because we're
oftentimes as a committee.
Focused on IG reports looking at things that aren't working
well and how to improve that and this is a real bright spot
as general witzburg said, uh to say hey things are really
going well and so we're talking about as Alderman desk as
noted how to get you more resources and more support, um,
without kind of a lot of constructive feedback. Um, so we
know that especially coming out of the depths of the
pandemic that challenges around homelessness are only
growing I think General witzburg.
Report noted that in terms of some of our annual
year-over-year statistics in that regard and these I mean,
I hesitate to say statistics because we're talking about
people we're talking about neighbors. We're talking about
families. We're talking about children. So you all are
doing terrific work. We're going to be finding ways to
support your efforts more. Please don't hesitate to let us
know, um through the commissioner how we can do that in the
coming months both from a process standpoint as well as
resources at the end of the day, um, because you're on the
front lines, uh, helping us respond to a set of really
challenging issues, uh about as well as anybody else in
government. So thank you all thank you to you and your team
for your forward. Um, Alderman Vasquez, uh, uh, uh, uh
moves, uh that we churn thank you for that. Um hearing no
Nos and eyes from myself this meeting is adjourned. Thank
you all for your time this afternoon.