meetings 2023 to 2027 pursuant to the Chicago city council
Rules of Order and procedure rule 49. The sergeant-at-arms
sets forth the following rules of conduct to be followed
during the public comment period and the duration of all
committee and City Council meetings profane vulgar
threatening abusive or disruptive language is not permitted
demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech
directed towards others is not permitted disruptive
behavior, including disruptive or disrespectful content
during others presentations is not permitted banners Liars
or signage are not permitted backpacks large bags and sharp
objects are not permitted clear bags not tinted in color
that do not exceed 12 by 12 by 6 in will be permitted in
our subject to search health food and beverages including
in metal canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room individuals must remain seated public comment
speakers are permitted to stand only when providing public
comment small handheld devices may be used only while
seated and the user must refrain from interfering with the
view or hearing of other individuals individuals or groups
failing to adhere to these rules will be asked to see such
disruptive conduct and failure to comply will result in
there being subject to removal from the meeting by the
sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago city council rules of conduct for public
meetings 2023 to 2027 pursuant to the Chicago city council
Rules of Order and procedure rule 49 the Sergeant at Arms
sets forth the following rules of conduct to be followed
during the public comment period and the duration of all
committee and City Council meetings profane vulgar
threatening abusive or disruptive language is not permitted
demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech
directed towards others is not permitted disruptive
behavior, including disruptive or disrespectful content
during others presentations is not permitted banners flyers
or signage are not permitted backpacks large bags and sharp
objects are not permitted clear bags not tinted in color.
That do not exceed 12 by 12 by 6 inches will be permitted in
our subject to search health food and beverages including
in metal canisters are not permitted cell phones must be
placed on silent prior to entering the meeting room
individuals must remain seated public comment speakers are
permitted to stand only when providing public comment small
handheld devices may be used only while seated and the user
must refrain from interfering with the view or hearing of
other individuals individuals or groups failing to adhere
to these rules will be asked to see such disruptive conduct
and failure to comply will result in their being subject to
removal from the meeting by the sergeant-at-arms.
City of Chicago city council rules of conduct for public
meetings 2023 to 2027 pursuant to the Chicago city council
Rules of Order and procedure rule 49. The sergeant-at-arms
sets forth the following rules of conduct to be followed
during the public comment period and the duration of all
committee and City Council meetings profane vulgar
threatening abusive or disruptive language is not permitted
demeaning discriminatory or harassing behavior and speech
directed towards others is not permitted disruptive
behavior, including disruptive or disrespectful conduct
hearing others presentations is not permitted banners
flyers or signage are not permitted backpacks large bags
and sharp objects are not permitted clear bags not tinted
in color that do not exceed 12 by 12 by 6 in will be
permitted in our subject to search all food and beverages
including in metal canisters are not permitted.
Cell phones must be placed on silent prior to entering the
meeting room individuals must remain seated public comment
speakers are permitted to stand only when providing public
comment small handheld devices may be used only while
seated and the user must refrain from interfering with the
view or hearing of other individuals individuals or groups
failing to adhere to these rules will be asked to see such
disruptive conduct and failure to comply will result in
there being subject to removal from the meeting by the
sergeant-at-arms.
Okay.
Good morning, everybody. This meeting on the committee on
rules is called the order.
There are 5 items on the agenda will now call the roll.
to establish quorum
Please note that your yes or present response will be
deemed a yes as a vote when we uh, when this Cornwall call
is used. Uh, as a reference vote for later items chairman.
Harris is present Vice chairman Hall.
Vice chairman Cardona is present Vice chairman of politano.
Alderman Espada
Alderman Hopkins
ottoman Alder person Dow
all the person why
all the person Mitchell
all the person bill
all the person Chico
all the person lie
all the person Ramirez
all the person Quinn
all the person Lopez
older person Coleman
all the person more
all the person Curtis
older person OSHA
all the person Taylor
all the person Mosley
all the person Rodriguez all the person to Baris
all the person Scott
all the person seat your Lopez
all the person brunette
all the person Cruise
all the person wagons pack
all the person Rodriguez Sanchez
all the person Vagas
all the person's pisado
all the person newent
all the person Vasquez
all the person Riley
all the person Lawson
all the person Martin
all the person Mana hopping worth
and all the person Silverstein
rule 49 has been uh requested to attend, uh, several of our
colleagues have requested to attend this meeting by remote
means under rule 59 due to unrelated circumstances all
those in favor of Permitting all the persons to attend
remotely respond by saying I
All those opposed and opinion of the chair of the eyes have
it.
All the person Gardener all the person Irving all the
person who went test all the person hadn't all the person
Conway all the person talifero all the person admits all
the person clay all the person Gutierrez all the person in
Robinson all the person who knit penuin all the person
Ramirez Rosa and all the persons to vars have been allowed
to Pro, uh to participate by remote Madam Madam chair.
This is and Alderman Hall. We give permission for Alderman
Hall to attend.
remotely autos and favor signify by saying I
At this time, we'll begin the public comment period out of
respect for everybody's time. Each speaker is limited to 3
minutes. Um, there are no virtual speakers today. Our first
speaker will be toan Sims.
Good morning committee. Um
A few weeks ago I well when I first came here I expressed to
to you all about a incident that was taking place in my
life dealing with 50 West Washington a woman named Diana
Williamson. She's the manager over there at the domestic
relations.
And a continuously kept bringing this up 23 D 79597 is the
case that I'm dealing with. My child name is yasuke
Roosevelt Sims. I've been striving to you know.
See some type of Justice some type of resolve anything.
However, I keep bringing this up to the Committees.
Well this morning I read that the rules committees has
affecting over the clerks the city clerks.
And 50 West Washington, that is an Estate Institute, but a
city institution here.
So I would say that um this committee and is comprised of
all 50 alderman.
Has a saying and and what happens over there, but I was
told by Alderman Conway that you all had no effect in them.
And that I should be and he deferred me to the
commissioners.
which I find to if I didn't just go through that little
research
for what reason? Why why would 1 of the all the people
misdirect me the same way Diono Marti Williamson
misdirected me abused me and misguided me.
And I'm just driving to get to my child.
So I had to look at this and and imagine. Wow, how
How how why why.
It says affecting in the city clerks you all have an effect
with the city clerk and I'm coming here telling y'all that
there's a criminal working over there in the 50 West
Washington building. I'm telling y'all that she misguided
me misdirect not only her but also and what is his name
Andy or something like that a host of people have used
their powers have used their subordinates to derail.
Whatever little chance. I have it being a father.
And that's a great that's a human rights hindrance. I'm
supposed because I got the right to be a father. I got the
right to do my duty that God gave me.
But I come to the older people and say hey I got this issue
and I'm turned away and even lied to by 1 of the older
people and tell hey, we we we have no say in that you have
to go to the Commissioners, but then I see that you all
have an effect thing in the city clerk's office that y'all
can do things in there.
So
for what reason?
And how do we resolve that right there? Because I'm just a
simple man.
Coming to you all because I come to you all with my
situation with my circumstance as my elected.
Representatives all of y'all. Hope y'all don't get it
y'all. I hope y'all getting this now.
I'm holding all of y'all accountable Conway not just only
accountable because y'all know that y'all can affect
something in the city council, but y'all keep hearing me
come up here and talk to y'all about what's going on with
me and my child and this lady over here in 50, West,
Washington.
But no to no effect.
Let's just keep spinning spinning wheels. Let let them keep
coming up that breathing answer this microphone to no
effect.
Thank you. Our next speaker is George Blake Moore?
This is this great you you have no rules that you obey.
But you you'll get up at in a citizen will go over a minute
or 2 and you will arrest him.
Or put it out.
When you supposed to start these meeting on time, that's
what you're getting paid for. It's a time to harvest it's a
time to plant and use the most notorious.
Of all of them but shell Harris.
the most notorious ultimate of all the 50
every 1 of you are 69. The machine is broken.
You white ones you Hispanic you Asia when you you you black
black ones all in the same boat, and this boat is stinking.
And if he can saying a solution go red.
Go red.
The black How could a black man and a black woman vote for
sanctuary?
When your black a need sanctuary in a cache system.
At the bottom of this cache system Mr. Blakemore, that's
not this is not India. It's the cache system here each 1 of
you striking the other 1 back 50 years this man sit here
ultimate B, and he just didn't start doing this. Yeah, you
know what the other ones are doing because all of you are
doing the same damn thing I bam that this so Bam Bam Bam
Bam Bam open this door.
You know, if you was in Corporate America and you you don't
come on time, you know, what they would do they would fire
you but you can't they won't fire you because you guarantee
4 years then you'll give them turkey and fix up a little
Street or curved or something and keep doing your dirty
work. It's something evil here something out of American
here something wicked here, but always Mr. Blakemore. It's
something wrong with Mr. Blakemore. Maybe it's something
wrong with the system.
If I said it's over and over come in his Channel all 1
party.
Russia all 1 party a dictatorship. No democracy here.
Not at all. And then you use these police would have to be
on time.
This man starting a Bombs over here. He got to be on time.
Who Do You Think You Are
What the kids?
All did he say that? Yes, he did. That's what you was
telling me when I have a family at the door, but when this
club goes out, your account is charging a lot that's going
out.
in the house
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Our next speaker is Michael Young
bae.
Uh
I think a lot of
you all man.
Some in particular I ain't gonna go down the list.
but
y'all need to refresh ourself on the rules.
if you ain't refreshing yourself on the rules then
You know something wrong then it become intentionally like
Vasquez over there running his mouth while I'm speaking.
See it's in y'all rules and policies that y'all impose to
get up while roll call being dead while I vote is being
done.
Etc
and yet you violated a person writes, but see that's why
I'm not happy with the speech. I spoke last week, you know
what I'm saying? Because I really don't get down like that.
But you the prime example Vasquez why I got down like that.
Because like I said when a person get the cousin and
yelling and all this nonsense of selling you hit that you
like. Oh, you said that you said that and like I told you
yeah, I can say what I want to say on this mic. I'm
speaking to the public you is the public and anybody else
is the public and this is a public speech. So I'mma say
what I want to say and how I want to say it whether you
like it or not.
So don't try to violate my freedom of speech.
And don't you never intervene while I'm speaking?
And I mean that you like you say directed to the chair that
applies to you. You apply that to the mayor you direct that
to him.
But I'm speaking publicly.
But I had to say what I say just to get some people
attention because that's all a lot of people understand is
the ignorance.
They understand they understand the violence.
They understand that.
But if y'all do things properly a study trying to make up
little rules to keep a person out of me know or go through
the hassle just to come up in the meeting.
You know and y'all supposed to be working for the citizens.
Yeah, uh when the person come up here and speak shouldn't
nobody be having no sidebar conversation. Y'all can do that
stuff over the phone when y'all discuss what what um,
whatever y'all gonna come up with.
on whatever committee like to like the mayor said he give
y'all a briefing and y'all can talk that at another time
when y'all go to lunch or whatever, but when a person on
this floor, they should get your under divided attention
whether you like what they saying or not.
It don't mean it's true or not.
Because if you can disrespect the citizens, that's come
take time to come down here. Then you certainly disrespect
your citizens in your Wars.
and it shows
it shows y'all keep talking about all this violence and
everything. It shows by. What y'all doing here.
Thank you. Um at this time we um, there was 1 written
comment submitted from John Paul Jones, which was sent via
email to each Alderman. This concludes the public comment
period also for the purposes of forum all the person Moore
is present.
As stated earlier, we have 5 items on the agenda. Um the
approval of the March 20 the March 12th, 2024 monthly rule
report for the committee on committees and rules which was
uh transmitted electronically to all members. If there are
no questions. Can I get a motion to recommend approval of
the March 12th, 2024 rule 45 report by Alderman Scott
and
Okay, automatic spider move. So moves all in favor. Say I
all those opposed and opinion of the chair is your eyes
have it for corn. We also have Alamos Mitchell all the
person Mitchell is present.
um item 1 is ordinance 202400008108 a correction of the city
council Journal proceedings of December 13, 2023.
Um item 2 is ordinance 202400009561 a correction of the
city council pamphlet copy of old 202400008842 issued April
19th 2024.
Item 3 is a ordinance 202400000095 0009588 a correction of
the city council pamphlet copy of s02 0240007 38 issued
April 19th. 2024 item 4 is ordinance 202400000095 89 a
correction of the city council, uh special pamphlet copy
issued April 24th, 2024, uh regarding the issuance of the
general obligation and or sales tax securitization
corporate bonds for the economic development and affordable
housing.
ordinance 20240000818 Ordnance 2422, uh 202400000956
Ordnance 202400009588 and ordinance 202400009589 if there
are no questions, can I get a
A motion, uh to recommend approval of the correction of the
city council journal or proceedings and pamphlets all the
manner hopping worth so moves.
all those in favor
of approving
again, 02 02024 0008108 0242495 61
0240000 9589 respond by saying I and I and in the opinion
of the chairs the eyes have it. These items are approved
and will report be reported out at the next meeting.
We have um item 5 is a resolution.
uh, 202300000049 76 Amendment of the rules 1810374046 and
51 of the city council Rules of Order of legislative
Council. Um and to allow members to speak.
Seek counsel on the Rules of Order when another member is
speaking.
Alderman Bill and Alderman Reilly
Thank you madam. Chairman, uh, and thank you fellow members
of the rules committee.
As you all know we've been working on uh an ordinance to um
empower the city council with more tools to better
effectively do our jobs as partners in government with the
executive branch. Uh, this is not something that was
initiated under Mayor Johnson.
Uh or mayor light foot we actually started having these
conversations under mayor Emanuel.
And the last Administration, um jammed this up and frankly
played off of disagreements between different members of
this committee on how this ordinance should be crafted.
Um, and so Lightfoot was able to run out the clock.
Um now we have a new Administration. Um, we've actually
made some modest changes to the proposal. Um, none of them,
uh more aggressive than the last version yet. Now, we have
an Administration actively
Working a roll call against a good transparency and a good
government ordinance versions of which have been supported
by the better government Association the League of Women
Voters and the Civic Federation all good government groups.
Um and frankly, I think it's telling that in the 11th Hour.
This Administration is working a roll call against this
good government ordinance. They've had many many months to
raise concerns about the drafting of this ordinance yet.
It's just today that the Law Department shows up to raise
some concerns red herrings. I would say
and I'm not surprised because this body has been held
captive by the law department for decades.
Somehow we have seated our knowledge and authority to a
bunch of unelected bureaucrats and a lot of Department to
tell us what we can and can't do based on their
interpretation of the rules and shockingly the law
departments interpretation of the rules almost always
benefit the executive branch to the detriment of the
legislative body that we all serve in.
There's also been a lot of misinformation spread by the
mayor's office over this weekend. I'm sure many of you
received telephone calls.
Again, raising small concerns about different aspects of
this proposal The Proposal before us today in this
committee is a resolution that impacts only our rules.
This has nothing to do with subpoena Powers. This has
nothing to do with parliamentarians. Um 2 of the issues
that were brought up over the weekend this simply allows
our lawyers the legislative reference Bureau to provide us
with the advice.
In assistance, we need during debates.
Like almost every legislative body in America currently has
today.
Um, so for some reason of all the big cities in America
this city council has never availed itself of these powers.
And these abilities uh, and that's because frankly this
Council has been comprised of members that would rather
plate whomever that is in the mayor's office at the time.
Rather than standing up for the institution of the city
council.
And so again this ordinance before us today. It's actually
a resolution only impacts our rules and all it does is
Empower our lawyers to give us the same advice during
debate and during Council meetings?
That the mayor gets to do.
that the mayor benefits from
and the way it works today is if we have concerns or issues
about procedure protocol rules. Who's the final arbiter?
It's the mayor's lawyers shockingly.
And the mayor always gets a ruling from the chair that he
or she needs.
And so again, uh, this is a very simple resolution before
us. I have a substitute that I'll ask the chairman to
accept.
It only has a minor change. It does not change the name of
lrb to olc.
But you will see that it simply allows lrb staff to be
present on the floor of the city council and during
committee meetings to advise alderman.
Permits Alderman to seek advice on the Rules of Order and
procedure from the law department or lrb while another
Alderman is in possession of the floor.
And on upon request of an ottoman and possession of the
floor lrb would be allowed to advise or assist the Ottoman
and considering any legislation pending before city council
or committee.
And this would be uh put into effect immediately rather
than a 6-month effective date after passage because we've
been waiting years to get this passed.
Um, and so Madam chair perhaps before we proceed I'd like
to make a motion to accept the substitute resolution. Um,
which simply has that name change, uh removed?
There's a motion on the floor to accept the substitute all
those in favor.
all those opposed
Thank you. Thank you chairman. The eyes have it most The
Substitute is accepted. Thank you chairman. And so there
are some concerns that were raised about a companion
ordinance that is in the the budget committee and chairman
Irvin's committee.
And we have always had the idea that we will introduce uh,
substitute amendments to that proposal as well that
proposal handle some of the sub some of the substantive
issues related to subpoena Powers ra some some issues were
concerned about that.
Related to Alderman using subpoena power as a political
weapon to subpoena each other. Um, and certainly we don't
want that. We want it to be a rarely used but effective
tool to compel testimony and to get data from agencies or
private sector entities that don't want to share that with
this body.
Um by Statute, we've always had these authorities we want
to codify that but again that's in the budget ordinance
that we have prepared not in the ordinance before you
today. Uh, we have Michael howlet here from the legislative
reference Bureau, um on the panel next to the chairman. Um,
it would be helpful chair with with your leave if um, if
Mr. Howlet could walk us through the technical aspects of
this resolution before us today. Um, and then I think would
be happy to answer any other additional questions members
may have but thank you madam chair and I defer to Alderman
bill you can hand he can speak automobile. You can speak.
Can I just acknowledge Alderman Curtis and all a person
Curtis and all the person Coleman for forum.
Thank you madam, chairman members of the committee. Um,
this is a giant step forward in something that me and
Alderman Reilly have been pushing for to empower this body.
towards independence
and this is just the first piece that we need in order to
get to the bottom of the manipulation of rules that has
taken place over the past few Administrations.
Uh, we are bound by law to follow Robert Rules of Order.
and when we don't follow Robert Rules of Order
The administration is advised by the Law Department. Uh,
however, they see fit to fit the narrative.
and unfortunately, uh, you know historically, uh, this body
has been reluctant to do the right thing and always do the
convenient Thing by just doing whatever the Law Department
advises the administration on because we don't want to be
seen as going against the administration.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is nothing against the
administration. This is about empowering this body to do
the job that we are elected and challenged to do.
And when we are putting forth ordinances against our own
interests.
And we are holding ordinances against our own interests.
is mind-boggling to me when we put forth ordinances to
have this body do the right thing.
And we want to torpedo it.
Because we don't want to be seen as going against the
administration. But again, this is nothing against the
administration.
This is the first piece.
Towards the parliamentarian.
We need our own budget analysis.
Department that's in the budget committee and when I say
independent
every other body has the right to go to a department within
their government and give them an ordinance or a resolution
or whatever the case may be and say I need you to vet this.
To let me know how this is going to affect the city of
Chicago.
But we are always Bound by whatever the administration.
gives us
which is sometimes factual. Sometimes it's not.
If we had had these tools in the tool box for us, maybe we
had we may not have voted for the parking meters.
Maybe we not may not have voted for the skyway.
Because we're getting true answers instead of just giving
us what they want to give us.
So this is about Freedom you all.
Freedom to finally be a strong City Council.
Finally to be able to do the job that we are elected to do.
And so I challenge everybody in this body.
Be the leader that you were elected to be.
Be the elected official that you are elected to be.
This city needs us to step up right now.
This city is in turmoil and it needs us.
to stop
the ill things that are hurting this city
so this is the first piece that we need and hopefully you
all see fit to come back through the budget committee and
finance committee for the other 2 pieces that we need, but
ladies and gentlemen, this is a great great start.
In the right direction towards Freedom here in the city
council. Thank you madam. Chairman
Thank you.
Mike are you ready my call?
Morning, uh chair Harris and the rules committee. Uh, my
name is Mike owlet. I'm the director of the legislative
reference Bureau.
closer
Uh almond, uh, Riley and almond Beal gave a very good
overview of the resolution. I just wanted to dive into a
few of the technical aspects. Uh, The Substitute as
Alderman Reilly mentioned removes all name changes, uh and
related Provisions from the originally filed resolution, uh
Section 1 of the resolution immense rule 8 to explicitly
allow lrb staff to be present in the Box during City
Council meetings, uh under the current rule 8, uh members
of the press X Alderman and uh, those persons invited by
the mayor are allowed to be on the floor.
The section 2 uh permits that uh, while a different member
of city council is speaking or a committee is speaking, uh,
another member of uh city council May request, uh,
parliamentary advice from either the lrb or the Department
of Law, and those will be as quiet and brief as possible,
uh, the third and last section immense rule 51 to allow
essentially the same thing as section 2, but for a member
in possession of the floor, so that would in practice look
like, uh, let's if I were an alderman presenting, uh, and
then Alderman had a question or there's a motion being
made, uh, the person uh in possession.
Floor could briefly pause request the pause from the
presiding officer turn and ask a question or 2 and then
return back and answer the question, uh a good example of
that in practice would be tech review in Springfield, uh,
or really anytime you see an elected official
and turn back.
Uh, and then as almond wryly noted this would take effect,
uh upon passage in publication instead of 6 months after
passage. Uh, so that presumably if we follow the August
recess calendar would be sometime in septembar.
Uh, and as old maybe mentioned this is not affect the
parliamentarian the parliamentarian is uh,
Chosen by the presiding officer and the parliamentarians
will also advise the presiding officer. This would be for
everyone who is not the presiding officer during City
Council.
Okay on Riley.
And uh, thank you chairman. I just want to ask a couple of
very quick questions of of Mr. Howlet, um to address some
of the uh,
false information being spread by this Administration. Um,
you mentioned tech review in Springfield. Um, for those of
you who aren't familiar tech review or staff lawyers that
work for the legislative body sound familiar, uh in
Springfield and there are some members here who have worked
in Springfield others who have served in Springfield. Um,
members of the legislative body at the state
have had this at their disposal. So the effectively nlrb at
their disposal that can provide them with this kind of
procedural advice during proceedings.
For about a half at least a half a century if not longer.
Um and Illinois is considered 1 of the the less Progressive
States many other bodies have had this much much longer.
So the fact that we have the third largest city government
in America.
Still would out this ability.
In 2024 is crazy. Um, but my could you explain how um the
lawyers in Springfield interact with members of the House
and Senate?
Rank and file members not the pleasure of the governor, um
during proceedings.
certainly, um
Essentially both in committee meetings, uh, so in committee
meetings tech review generally serves as the
parliamentarian for the committee chair, uh, which is not
necessarily contemplated by this resolution, but I suppose
we're not be prohibited if a chair wanted to seek
parliamentary advice during a committee meeting, um during
an actual meeting it it is more or less as I described.
will call someone over or if they know that it's going to
be a contentious issue. The lawyer will just go immediately
and stand next to the presenting. Uh sponsor or the lead
opponent, uh, as it were um, I I think some of the
Some of the reasons why uh, it may look a little different
here is that we don't have a part of we're this is a
non-partisan body at the end of the day. So there's not a
republican house staff in a democratic house staff. Um,
but as I think many of you have known and interacting with
our office, we do a very uh,
We work very hard to keep things separate as if we were,
uh, representing partisan, uh offices in the sense that
let's say. I'm tasked to help Alderman Reilly and a
different Alderman had uh questions about it then uh, Mike
Malo, I think most of you know would be
advising that person so uh, it is as needed and uh really
kind of short quick parliamentary questions or substantive
if there is a question. Okay, and I I asked that question
because 1 I knew the answer but secondly because um, it's
been a concern has been raised that
This resolution and these rules changes allowing us to have
a quick pause during debate to get advice from 1 of your
staff would pose an undue burden on this body by making
these meetings incredibly long and unwieldy.
Um yet somehow Springfield gets the people's business done
every day, um having worked in the Illinois house for a
number of years and under this system I can say and I think
if you were to call any of your state legislators that
represent your respective Wards, they'll tell you the same
thing.
This does not result in unreasonably long debate. It is not
abused and at the end of the day the chair in this case the
mayor presiding officer or in committee the chairman.
Could determine that it's taking too long and speed things
along.
Um that is never really been the practice in Springfield.
And again, um, this is not meant to impact negatively any 1
Administration. These rules are forever.
So whether you love the existing Administration or you
don't this will apply to Future Mayors. Um, and and and
that's I think an important distinction to make as well
again, um,
if you could just 1 last time, um
try to explain, um the difference between the advice you're
giving and how that does not interfere.
With established law that governs parliamentarians so we
can get rid of that red herring as well.
Definitely, um 1 thing on the on the previous question, uh,
just to note that this resolution would not change the uh
rules that deal with time limits on debate. So Alderman
would still be subject to the time limits on debate either
set by the chair or uh in the rules and Rule 51 the new
proposed rule 51 would still be administered and
implemented and rulings would be made by the presiding
officer. So there it's still
subject to the rest of the Rules of Order, uh
Could you I'm sorry. Could you repeat the last question for
that? I think you handled it and thank you chair. And and
and thank you Mike for explaining this very simple change
to um our city rules. Um, thank you.
Thank you.
Hi there other questions.
Other questions or comments? Okay ottoman lawsuit.
Thank you madam. Chair. Um, I I think most of mine were
answered. I just had some some clarifying. Um,
Because right now I mean I could pull you aside at the rail
and ask you a question. You can give me advice.
But this allows you to be on the floor in the Box along
with the other the other staff at lrb. Yes. Uh, yeah,
that's correct. I I would note. Um, we typically tend to
sit in left field as it were. Um, so for instance, uh
Alderman sitting on this side of the chamber that maybe not
practical um, and just the nature of our conversations tend
to be kind of sensitive and confidential so not all
aldermen are necessarily comfortable having that in a
crowded Gallery during a city
Council meeting fair enough fair enough, but there's no um,
there's at no point. Would you be giving advice publicly,
you know, I'm not going to ask for LR based opinion and you
would stand up and and give it
uh, never not during not on parliamentary procedure and
that's not the role of a parliamentarian. Either it that
would probably require a change in the form of government
because under state law the mayor's designated as a
presiding officer. We'll keep our form of government.
uh for now at least um
so I guess those were sort of like clarifying questions, uh
on that uh
Yeah, I'll I'll shoot back the floor. That was it. Thank
you Autumn and Vasquez.
Thank you very much. Um, I guess uh,
I appreciate our colleagues moving this forward. Um, I
think 1 question which might be due to the chair first is
uh, is there a record of any time that a mayor has had uh,
corporate Council Jeff LaVine or anybody go against their
ruling
I don't know that anybody here could answer that question.
We I'd have to we'd have to do some research.
yeah, well and and and well and again, whether it's whether
it's this mayor or Lori Lightfoot around manual or any
mayor at all, if there's any record at all of any person in
that position going against a mayor's call, I'd love to see
it because when we think about what we're trying to do
here, which I appreciate it's about good government. Um,
I don't think about this mayor in this position. I think
about what happens when we're no longer here, but I do
think about what's happened in the past with our colleagues
when they move forward legislation that maybe the
administration is not in favor of they've done everything
possible to stop it from happening right when Alderman
Moore was moving stuff. There's a couple months ago every
tool in their box was used to stop whatever was going to
move forward rather than being a legislative body that we
are that's empowered to be a co-equal branch and I don't
believe we've had a co-equal branch. I think people treat
this current iteration of the council is an anomaly because
it's not 49 votes to 1.
Because they are closer and to me that signifies more of an
evolution of what this government should be as we're
watching our national government.
We're looking at the Supreme Court rulings that make you
question what happens when an executive is putting power
that is too exorbitant being compared to its legislative
body.
And so instead of thinking about what about a current mayor
would look like
this may sound hypothetical. But if there was a mayor Trump
over there in that seat, I think it would be a lot quicker
on this vote.
I need no 1 would second. Guess what we would need to do to
be a body that actually acts as a body we talk with our
colleagues who don't want to have hybrid meetings. We
should be here in person to do the people's work, but let's
not get the tools to do. It fully. It's not an argument to
stand on.
And so none of this creates. Um
This large Council War as we saw in the past. This is
people being able to act actively do their legislative jobs
and anything that inhibits that from happening leads to a
government. That's not as healthy as it could be. We're in
times of great crisis of difficult conversations and as
colleagues, I think we've shown the ability to have the
conversation. Sometimes there's tents having the tools to
be a legislative body and move things forward is a good
thing for all of us.
I don't believe as some are trying to kind of.
It'd be too strong to call it fear-mongering. But this idea
that a colleague is going to jam everything up and now
we're not going to be able to work doesn't really bear out
in reality. We know that because we have colleagues who try
to jam things up currently in his body. We don't take them
seriously when they keep moving legislation forward. We
know that it becomes part of the circus in the theater that
we get embarrassed by we ignore it and continue to move on
and do the job. So I I know our colleagues are wrestling
with
What this means?
it's a resolution that changes some level of rule to give
us more strength as a body to not just get our voices
squashed down by 1 person in 1 seat.
There's 50 of us as a body that should have the kind of
empowerment to work together to create legislation to make
the city better rather than to avoid that job and Seed it
to another Branch. So I I will be in support I would ask
our colleagues to do the same. Uh, thank you very much.
Alderman Moore followed by
Thank you chairman, just out of curiosity at the state
level. Um, since they got 2 different. Um, um parties do
they have each party have they own representation or adjust
the the house has is in the Senate has their
Yeah, so there's several layers of legal representation at
the state level. Um, they have an lrb, which is a little
different than our office. They're they're kind of
primarily and solely, uh, legislative drafters and kind of
everything goes through their office whether or not it's
um, you know from a from a Republican or a Democrat or
staff or what have you, uh, then each of the 2 houses have
2 sets based on party of legal representation, uh house
Democrats is called tech review, uh house Republican Senate
Democrats and Senate Republicans all have slightly
different wordings for it. But uh, yes,
Okay, so to be clear in this body, um, um.
A ruling is made.
by um
By um corporate Council. Um, we don't agree with it. Then
we we we have to call for a
a recess or do I just call that?
Person over from lrb, or do I go out to get clarification
take take me through that. Yeah. I I think it would be kind
of fact depending on the scenario. So um
let's say a parliamentary disagreement happens towards the
end of a meeting, uh, as a sometimes does um, and the
parliamentarian gives advice to the mayor who then makes a
ruling, uh, depending on
what the ruling is and the timing involved in that you
could either ask for a recess to talk to us. Uh, if you're
in possession of the floor, you could ask for a brief pause
under rule 51, uh, the newly proposed rule 51, um, or if
there's you know, if that triggers a pending vote and then
there's an appeal process. There may be more. Um, there may
be more time to discuss and collaborate but um generally
speaking the only remedy is to appeal the ruling of the
chair.
and and what I appreciate about this and I don't know if
this is added I was it shouldn't be added in here. But
hopefully it will come out of this is for those that's
concerned that it would take long time is early
collaboration and and for us to seek, um, any, you know
differences or changes over opinions, um before we even get
here and I think um, hopefully this encourages that I think
that's what more of us want. Anyway, um, if we get that
early collaboration get those things out the way that you
know, when we get to the floor then our voting is okay yes
or no, um versus you know, all the Maneuvers. Um, I think I
think this will invite that so um, this is definitely
something I support and hopefully will invite that early
collaboration so that we can um work and get answers
questions answered um in a timely fashion. Thank you so
much and thank you so much order and build and automate
rally for bringing this.
Thank you ottoman man. I hope and work.
Thank you chair.
Um, thank you for bringing this forward. I'll I'll be
supporting this I I do have a question though. Why are we
moving forward a resolution versus an ordinance?
Yeah, um, so the Rules of Order of city council are
established by resolution, uh at the beginning of each
term. Uh, so in order to amend them, uh, typically a
resolution is passed amending the rules. It's it's
structured very similar to a code Amendment but uh, that's
it was originally passed by resolution.
Um, but we are trying to codify our processes so that we can
move.
forward
in a way that's efficient and towards my colleague Alderman
Moore's point is that I think that this could help us
encourage us to to have more conversations before we come
into Chambers and I think that would be the goal.
Um, and I do believe that something like this, um should be
thought of as a structural change and it shouldn't matter
who's sitting in the seat of power, uh in the city of
Chicago where we do.
Have a strong mayor model.
But we are in in a transition phase right now where we we
can uh, do things differently and I so I appreciate that.
Um, and I'm also kind of flabbergasted that it's taken this
long.
To have this happen, uh, when there are so many groups like
League of Women Voters who are behind this structural
change.
So, um, thank you. Thank you for being here and thank you
madam chair.
Thank you any other okay followed by um ottoman Walter bet.
Just a question. Uh, I may have missed this but can someone
explain to me and simplest terms what this solves for?
Who wants to take this whoa whoa, whoa.
The lawyer who wants to take this. Yeah, happy done. Uhuh.
Okay, Alderman Reilly gets the answer followed by a
follow-up by the the the the legals. Thank you. Uh, thank
you chair, um to the question and for newer colleagues,
this is not an issue specific to the current
Administration.
Um over the I've been here since mayor Daly I think
chairman Harris has chairman Bill chairman Bernett and
others.
Um over the years we've had.
The issue that when it comes down to making rulings on
parliamentary procedure or Rules of Order, um, the mayor's
office has near unilateral authority to determine what is
right and what is wrong?
And this resolution won't change the powers or duties of the
the mayor's parliamentarian which by law the mayor is
entitled to select him or herself. Uh what this does it
provides us.
with a resource who's available to US during committee
proceedings and during the city council proceedings to
provide us with advice and counsel and in some cases that
would happen when a parliamentary ruling is issued.
Um, this does not replace the parliamentarian. This does
not usurp the authority of the parliamentarian. Um, this
simply gives us the same resources. The Administration has
to discuss protocol process and procedure during important
votes and when big procedural decisions are being made by
the parliamentarian and the presiding officer.
Um, as was mentioned earlier, um, this is a practice in
most legislative bodies around the country and has been so
for many decades inexplicably not so here in the city of
Chicago.
And over the many decades that we've not had this issue.
It's because we've had very strong mayors.
That felt felt it was in their best interest to keep this
body as uninformed as possible and with as few resources as
possible. So the executive branch could push through their
will
Again, this ordinance and these this resolution and
companion ordinance that is pending in the budget
committee.
Um does nothing to erode the mayor's resources. It's simply
empowers this body to do his job better.
And we've seen chaos break out during city council
proceedings. Not just under this Administration, but
previous Administrations.
And lots of questions raised about whether this body is
following the Robert's Rules of Order and the procedures
established by rule.
In this case now. Our lawyers will be allowed to provide us
with advice during the preceding in real time so that we
can raise questions or make a motion to overrule the the
chair and parliamentarian on their decisions rendered about
our process.
But to be very clear.
The reason why all these good government groups support
this ordinance and resolution.
Is because it makes us better at our jobs and I think
taxpayers they they certainly want a good and effective
mayor.
But they want a well-informed well-prepared legislative
body to be a partner to that mayor. Whomever that mayor is
And again, it was mentioned by my colleague almond Vasquez
and others. This isn't just a tool for this current
Administration in these next 3 years. This is a gift that
we're giving to Future legislative bodies into Chicago
taxpayers for many decades to come.
And again, we're not blazing new trails here folks. We're
the last in line. We're the last guys to show up at the
dance other bodies smaller governments have had this exact
stuff in place for decades yet. We've chosen not to
To the detriment of our constituents. So this is a real easy
vote folks. This isn't rocket science be on the right side
of this issue and be with the good government groups that
represent our constituents. This is not difficult stuff,
but I I do appreciate the question and hopefully that
answers it.
Okay, um otmc Joe Lopez is present for the purposes of
forum and Alderman Jason Ervin.
Uh, thank you madam. Chair. Can you hear me? I'm sorry.
Hold on for just 1 minute.
And we going to have the attorney respond to your question
auto man. See I'm sorry, uh almond Riley did uh, excellent
job explaining it. I I the only thing I would note is maybe
kind of 2 practical applications of it that I
see is the most common uh uses of this resolution 1's
negative and 1's positive. Uh, the the negative 1 is uh,
If something goes wrong, which no 1's to have happen. Of
course if something goes wrong, uh
And the rules are not followed generally speaking. This
body's only recourse is through appealing the ruling of the
chair courts, tend not to overturn even if it is wrong
under the rules for a variety of reasons. Um, so it's as a
legislature. It's
Pretty important to get it right in the moment, right
because there's not judicial recourse afterwards. Um, the
positive example is I would point back to Alderman Morris
comments. So at the end of a meeting if someone if
something's going a certain way and uh, a member wants to
make a motion or or challenge a ruling of the chair they
can come and ask us first or ask the Law Department ask
whomever. Uh, and we might say and we have done this. It's
1 of the less fun parts of my job is to say no you
shouldn't do that or no, you can't do that. Um, so
it the idea as Oldman Riley outlined it and the idea that
he had when he came to us to to prepare. This was getting
it right in the first instance and not having extra
emotions or dilatory motions or things like that.
Thank you. It was a request to hear from the city attorney.
Good morning, dear man Harris. Um, good morning members of
Uh the commission on committees and rules.
my
My name is sorry.
My name is Ari to Casa. I am a chief assistant Corporation
Council in the city slow Department.
Um
The law department has some concerns regarding this
proposed resolution.
Um
the resolution before you um
authorizes the staffers of lrb
um to provide legal council and advice
Um to the members of the city council during City Council
meetings or even during uh committee meetings.
Uh, effectively what that means is creating competing
parliamentarian role, uh during the preceding of meetings.
Um that would create confusion. It may also uh prolong the
duration of uh meetings because um, it is possible that
recesses to happen, uh to seek advice and consult uh from
um, the lrb staffer while um, the committee or the city
council is considering an item.
um, but
legally speaking.
under Illinois Law
The Corporation Council
Is the sole lawyer of the city of Chicago?
I repeat that the The Corporation Council is authorized to
be the sole lawyer.
For the entire city of Chicago including the city council.
Uh, let me just read uh portion of
section 21-11 of the revised cities and the village
Villages Act of 1941.
in pertinent parts that provision states that
the head of the Law Department of the city shall be the
Corporation Council.
The Corporation Council shall be and act as the legal
adviser of the city council.
And the several officers borders and Departments of the
city.
I repeat this statement The Corporation Council shall be
and act at the legal adviser of the city council and the
several officers boards and Department of the city.
This is a mandatory provision in the law.
um
The provision is mandatory exclusive.
And more importantly.
This act is approved by a referendum.
this act
Um the revised citizen Villages Act of 1941.
Was approved by the voters of city of Chicago.
in a referendum held on November 4 1947
More importantly. This has been also recognized by the
decision of the Illinois Supreme Court.
the Illinois Supreme Court in a case, um called Pagani
versus
police of uh, police Board of city of Chicago
Um stated that uh, this act provides the city's form of
government.
the court also in that opinion stated that the mayor
Corporation Council
City Clerk
City Treasurer and aldermen of the city
Maybe considered to be officers in the city's form and
structure of government.
The Abba provision as I already stated is a shall be
language.
And the Corporation Council it says shall be the legal
advisor.
And uh, it does not allow.
Uh for a legal advisor independent from the corporation
Khan.
So the law is clear.
And the grammatical correct reading of the provision
identifies the Corporation Council as the sole legal
advisor to the council.
Um, therefore what this leads to is that
altering the parts of the Corporation Council provided by
law.
amounts to altering
Um the form of government provided by law.
Which would under Illinois constitution requires a
referendum approval?
under article 7 section 6 F of the Illinois constitution
a home rule Manic the party shall not alter or repel a form
of government provided by by law without approval of
referendum.
Um, so
this proposal
Um in my opinion would cause a Serial a serious legal
concern a consistent concern because it shifted the
balance.
Uh of um, the corporate of providing, uh legal advice, which
is provided by law solely to The Corporation Council to a
different entity and the practically
and law matters the city needs to speak in 1 voice.
If the Corporation Council has 1 opinion on a legal matter
and there is a different opinion from a different source,
which is not under the corporation. Council's Authority.
Then that leads the city to speak in 2s is very
problematic. Not only in conducting meetings also in
defending the city's cases when we are sued by outside
parties.
This is the first issue. We see uh regarding, uh this
proposal.
Second, um this proposal also creates a separate
parliamentarian for the city council.
Uh and its committees as already has been stated. Um, there
has been a characterization that this is not a
parliamentarian, uh position. Um, the role of the lrb
staffer would be just to provide, uh legal advice and
consult during meetings, but effectively that is a role of
a parliamentarian.
If there is legal council provided during the preceding of
a meeting.
uh regarding motions and regarding uh, legality of um, uh,
the proceedings that is effectively the role of a
parliamentarian and that this would create a competing
parliamentarian or dueling parliamentary and situation, uh
in the city council and in even in city council committee
meeting us and uh, um, that again is uh problematic because
it changes
the balance between the executive and the legislative
branch created by law.
first want to rule 1 of um, the
Rules of Order and procedure
and under state law specifically 65 ilcs 5 slice 3.1 -40 uh
dash 30
the mayor is the presiding officer.
of the city council
Um who has a duty through on questions of order subject to
appeal.
The traditionally the parliamentarian role is just to give
advice to the chair and ultimately the decision on
parliamentary issues falls upon the mayor that is under the
law and if the body does not agree with the mayor's
decision they have every right to
Uh reverse that that decision by a majority vote.
and that create the balance between the executive branch
and the legislative branch of government, which is
beautifully created under state law and this proposal would
upend that would disturb that and it creates. Um,
uh constitutionality issues in my opinion
Thank you.
So from the Law Department, it sounds like this.
resolution is in conflict with
City law state law sorry state law state law. Yeah.
and the sponsor of this resolution has said that this form
of
Council
um exists in other places does does any can can someone
speak to an existing in another places in Illinois? Like
what is the thing that makes this?
Um normal outside of Chicago city council, but not
legally acceptable here and our Council.
The whole example I heard being cited is the state
legislature Springfield. Um, Springfield Springfield is a
different form of government. It's a bicameral system. We
do have
um
legislative uh system, which is not uh, uh represented by 2
competing parties and our legislature is headed by the head
of the Executive, uh branch, which is totally different
from how Springfield operates. Um, so it may make sense
under Spring Field, uh, Arrangement and the structure of
government. But under the laws that govern City Council of
this Approach at least in my reading of the law is not
constitutional.
And the numbers of questions now, um, Autumn and Jason
Irving.
Uh, thank you. Uh, thank you madam, chair, uh 2 things, uh
number 1 for my reading of the substitute. The only thing
that changed was to be the name of the group and its
respective things that the correct statement.
Uh, thanks shervin. That is correct. The changes from The
Substitute from the originally filed to the substitute is
removing the name change from lrb to olc and moving the
effective date to passage and publication.
So what difference is there were up there 2 or 3 other
paragraphs that are mentioned in the um.
In the uh change document that was provided are those not
changes or what? What what was the purpose of adding those
other 2 or 3 paragraphs there is there was no substantive
change to that.
Sorry, uh chairman. Are you referring to the summary in
side by side comparison document?
Yes, I am.
Um almond Riley staff prepared that I believe they're
verbatim just to show that they were the same in both
versions, but I'll defer to him.
That's correct.
Okay, so essentially there there the only thing that
changes is the um, whatever you ever said in the in this
in. Okay, that's I just want to make sure I was there. Uh,
what is uh,
what is your response to what uh Corporation tells you the
state?
Uh, Mr. Howard.
Thank you Urban. I I think taking them in order. I I'm not
sure if I would agree that uh it giving advice on what a
particular Rule of Order says is legal advice or law
business of the city. Um, I I think that's parliamentary
procedure and really more legislative in nature than uh,
Legal in nature. Um, and I'm not sure I also don't know if
I agree that there would be 2 voices speaking on legal
matters on behalf of the city because by definition it
would be Alderman speaking, uh in Alderman would come up to
us and say, uh, can I move to do this? Can I move to do
that? What's the vote threshold requirement Under The Rules
of Order. Um, so I'm not sure again if I agree that that is
speaking on behalf of the city or uh, giving quote unquote
legal advice. Um, and I also don't think it creates a an
a an extra parliamentarian. So under under Robert's the
which is adopted by reference in our rules. The role of a
parliamentarian is to advise the presiding officer. Uh, and
this is not what that is. Just not what we're talking
about. This is uh, an ultimate has a question about a rule
and we tell them what the rule says.
Hold on for just 1 minute. Um Radio 2 has a
uh, uh, go ahead.
I would like to respond to uh Mike's observations. Um, I'm
just reading exactly from rule 41 the newly inserted
provision. Uh, what it says is that upon request of a
member in possession of the floor during the consideration
of any legislation by city council.
Or 1 of its committees office of legislative Council staff.
I'm reading from the old version. So it should be lrb staff
may advise and assist such member. It doesn't qualify the
advice and assistance May advise and assist such member in
whatever capacity it could be interpreting law. It could be
interpreting rules. Whatever. I read this as a very broad
authorization to provide legal advice and provide to
provide assistance in interpreting, uh the law so it
doesn't qualify it to only situations of uh,
You know meeting related parliamentary questions. In fact,
it is a very broad authorization and it amounts to uh doing
the low business of the city, which is Again by low
provided to The Corporation Council.
alderman
Uh, thank you, uh it back to uh, uh attorney Howard. Um,
what?
under today's construct
prevents a members from having a conversation with you.
Um
at all
There's nothing I'm sorry, uh, thanks sheriff. And the
there's nothing that explicitly prohibits having
conversations. This is more, uh, ultimate Riley and almond
B wanted the ability for the council to do it in real time
during meetings. So instead of walking to the gallery and
having a conversation in the uh,
amongst the members of the public, uh, or, you know having
us walk around the Long Way to the annex by the time that
happens, uh, especially if the doors locked or if there's
something else going on the moment may have come and gone
where in Alderman could uh, make a motion or exercise
another parliamentary, uh maneuver.
so
nothing prevents Alderman Ervin Alderman Dow has a point of
clarification.
Go ahead Alderman Ervin. I think you were going where I was
going. So I would uh hold off on my question. I think
you're going to ask the same question. I was going to ask
Go ahead. You might be different you go ahead.
So it's just a matter of location.
This would be a matter of location and giving Alderman the
time to speak during a meeting or pause the preceding for a
short period in the discretion of the presiding officer to
get advice.
Thank you madam chair. Can you clarify this?
And on that point, um, the the presiding officer could
choose to not give you the time.
to
because you're asking the presiding officer to stop the
meeting so he could choose not to give you the time.
That would be up to the presiding officer. Uh, and if they
denied it, it'd be handled through an appeal through rule
41. Um, but again, as I as I mentioned earlier, there's a
time limits and things like that that are Untouched by
this. So, uh, for example during the budget committee
meetings when there's you know, 3 and 5 and 10 minute
questioning periods. Those would still apply and and the
chair would administer and enforce that.
Okay, I got you down. I have all the balding and Bernette
then I have all them and Riley Bill kanu and then dou and
then Alderman Ervin still has the the floor.
Okay.
so
wait, that's the
you gotta get on.
Okay, Alderman Ervin, go ahead.
Okay, so in essence, um
this
really changes nothing
if you can still talk to.
a member of council
member Council can confer with you if they choose to. Um,
it's still respect the corporation's Council role.
What are we doing?
uh other than
it doesn't seem like we're we're changing anything here.
Uh, this is you know, we talked about
Uh, you know red Hearns this this this look like a red hair
in the be because nothing is changing. It's a lot of
activity a lot of conversation, but I really don't see any
fundamental change in what what's being asked for because
everything that could be done under this can be done today.
Um, so it seems like we're just going around in the circle
and uh, it's ironic, uh that uh, you know, the makers of
this, uh,
1012 I 2 served under mayor Davis.
uh since he fixed this
then or or
Until now, they are no longer sitting in the seat.
Um, and again, I think that we need to talk about the
perpetuity of this and the perpetuity of not creating chaos
in this body because that is what this ultimately will
achieve is to create additional case. That's all challenges
not bull Chicago for but to create more chaos and again,
I'm not signing up for chaos. I would like to get our city
on the right track and get us where we need to be. We just
had you know, a bunch of people shot killed over the
weekend and what are we doing to address that we have over
here arguing about who can who can talk to somebody doing
debate? I mean, we got to get Beyond this people it's time
for us to move forward and deal with the business of the
city. Now with our business. We should be able to solve
this without taking up this much time to do such things at
the end of this conversation. We have will have changed
absolutely nothing. So with that idea
auto man, Bernette
Thank thank you very much Madam chairman. So and I I may
have missed what some of the questioning that alderman.
Irving uh had but that was I think it's similar to what I
was uh concerned about is, uh,
couldn't people talk to you right now. I mean Kent folks.
Especially doing committee meetings people can talk to lrb
anytime in between all the time. Right? So so what I mean,
so if you was over in the corner or not, what what's the
big difference? I mean, what what would you do if everybody
here wants to talk to you you'll be running around talking
to everybody in here at the same time if everybody had a
different question.
So we would have um, I think vice mayor I I think in that
case we'd have other members of lrb Staff present, but we
have several members of lb staff running around here
because Alderman Moore got a question Alan Lopez got a
question Alderman, uh, you know rally has a question, you
know, uh, you know, all everybody have these debates all
the time. So you all will be running around the city
council while we have Council going on talking it won't be
private because you'll be talking in front of us. Unless
you're going to be whispering in people's ear. You're going
to be whispering in people's ear or writing stuff down or I
don't know so, I mean, it does seem like it's going to be
more chaotic to me. It's sick almost seemed like it's a
little nitpicking to me. Uh, basically, that's what I see.
Um, so I yield
ottoman Riley
Thank you chair. Well, I'd expect these arguments out of
the administration's allies that this could create chaos
and to be unwieldy yet other legislative bodies seem to
make it work. Um, I think it's incomprehensible that
members of this body.
want less information
less information about procedural and protocol
that's shocking to me. Um, this is not disruptive somehow
Springfield gets the people's business done quickly and
efficiently, uh, if there are members here that don't want
to Avail themselves of the excellent lawyers that serve
this body.
continue not to
um, you're the same folks that that pass ordinances that
don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes I think run a
foul of the state law. Um, but what we have here is
Corporation Council showing up at the last minute. This has
been pending for years.
Never heard these concerns until today.
And they are red herrings.
Um, the bottom line is that having a member of the lrb able
to be on the floor when we clear this chamber. They clear
our lawyers lrb out of here. They lock them out of our
Chambers.
This allows them the Sam same standing that the mayor's
lobbyists.
and lawyers have
these are our lawyers. They all went to law school. They're
just as good as Ray datu and his colleagues if not better.
But they work for us and they work for the taxpayer.
Ratu cannot point to you anywhere in this resolution The
Mention Of parliamentarian.
Nowhere in this resolution. Does it create a competing
parliamentarian and I would I would defy the Law Department
to find me that word in this resolution the answer is they
cannot?
So again, um to your point chairman man and vice mayor
Bernett.
These are not massive substantive changes again. These are
changes to our rules of procedure.
And we are the body governed by those rules the city
council.
Well not imposing new rules on the mayor.
This just gives us the ability to push back when and it
happens often.
The mayor's parliamentarian gives him or her the advice.
To conduct our council meeting with certain way.
This allows us to gain information to determine whether or
not we can object to that ruling by the parliamentarian
picked by the mayor. This does nothing to take that
Authority away.
And gives us the chance to participate in an intelligent
and informed debate.
So some folks here would just rather go along to get along
and that's what they've done their entire careers. Just
vote with the mayor and
be a good person.
Uh, or you can get up and do your job.
And and use some critical thinking aided by our lawyers.
Um to do the people's business properly.
I didn't hear any objections raised by Ray datu or any of
his colleagues in the law department when we created the
legislative reference Bureau.
I didn't hear anything about oh, we can't have competing
lawyers. There's only 1 Corporation Council only 1 Law
Department.
No 1 said anything about the lrb created so does that mean
our lawyers here shouldn't be our lawyers we have to fire
the lrb rate out to
so again, these are pathetic arguments. Um, it's a shame
that they're being raised desperately the last minute.
but if you take your job seriously
You're a legislator.
And if you're here enduring parliamentary ruling after
parliamentary ruling in many cases we disagree with.
And you don't want the Firepower to raise objections and
entertain motions that counter whomever the mayor is.
then vote against this vote against good government vote
against the better government Association vote against the
Civic Federation vote against the League of Women Voters
vote against doing your job properly. That's your right,
but people are going to remember this day.
So I again I fully expect the mayor's allies to raise as
many points as they possibly can. But if you read this
resolution nowhere in it does it say we are creating a new
parliamentarian that we are eroding The Authority the
statutory authority of the Corporation Council or their
roles or duties.
This simply gives us more information and more tools to do
our jobs better and to automate Bealls point. We may never
have sold those parking meters had we had this kind of
advice back in the day.
But we did.
And my guess is we're going to entertain a lot of other Big
Ideas in the next 3 years.
That we should probably have some additional information on
before we vote.
So again, this is a simple vote folks. We're not
reconstructing city government. We're changing Council
rules. That's it. You want to talk about the other
substantive pieces of this proposal? Those will be in
chairman Irvin's budget committee.
Things involving subpoena Powers these sorts of things. But
really this is the easiest piece of the legislative package
to vote for and I would strongly encourage my my my
colleagues to vote for it. Thank you chairman.
automobile
Thank you.
Madam chairman
this is a classic example of
you can't handle the truth.
and the truth is if our
Parliamentarian. Well, not parliamentarian if our lawyers
give us advice. That's true.
Against the administration whoever's there.
You have a hard time.
Doing the right thing.
But when you have somebody that's advising the
administration.
Whoever the administration is.
You've never seen them come down here and whisper in our
ear.
Have you ever seen the legal Law Department? Come down here
and say Bill.
You know the move that just happened was wrong.
No, we haven't.
No, you haven't.
So it would be nice to finally have somebody whisper in our
ear.
the truth to empower this body
and let me just let me just digress.
My if you can answer this, have you ever seen?
Just period through your career.
The administration moved something that was parliamentary
incorrect.
Because this body refused to override the ruling of the
chair.
I uh
apologies I I
Think that uh it that's a difficult question to answer for
a couple of reasons. Mostly because the proper mechanism of
the challenge is an appeal of the ruling of the chair. Uh,
and
generally speaking a City Council vote at the end ratifies
any procedural defense, so
Wrong may not be the right way to say it. But uh I get that
so let me let me try to rephrase it.
As long as you have 26 you're King.
Unless a higher vote threshold is required right unless so
regardless if the ruling of the chair whatever the ruling
is if it's wrong right or indifferent if you got 26 is
right.
Unless the higher vote threshold is required or there is
something under uh state law that's required that we
observe generally speaking. Yes. So let me ask the Law
Department. Have you all ever advised any Administration?
On a parliamentary procedure that was wrong and you advise
them that it was wrong.
And this body?
Overrode your recommendation through the ruling of the
chair.
Uh, thank you Alderman. Uh again, that's uh difficult
question to answer. Um,
Whatever parliamentary defectors, uh, there could be um,
they should be and would be ratified by the final vote. So
um, I personally, um
Uh did not encounter, uh, such an instance, okay.
Is the law Department?
At every committee meeting.
Yes, we are. You guys are not at every committee meeting.
We are we are.
Yes, uh, the law department is legal council division has 1
attorney for each and every city council committee
meetings. That is hard to believe Mike you had to follow
up.
You got to follow up.
Oh, yeah, I I thought of a successful appeal from last
term. I I believe there was a
uh
a a resolution to change the chair of the education
committee that uh was introduced on the was introduced at
the council meeting and then I believe Alderman King
appealed the ruling of the chair. That's the only example
that I can think of in recent memory, but okay so but my
point is there have been scenarios where this body has
Maybe not done the correct thing. But again, if you have 26,
26, you're always correct or more on the threshold.
Correct? Correct? Okay, so ladies and gentlemen, this is
again.
Just about empowering us to do the right thing.
This shouldn't be so hard.
We you know, we all we want to do is get sound advice.
For us as a city council.
So I know some people like to carry that bucket.
But that bucket's got holes in it.
And it's hard getting back to the house after you scoop up
that water you get back to the house and the bucket is
empty.
That's what we have y'all we have an empty bucket.
Let's fill those holes up and do the right thing and
Empower this body to move forward. Thank you madam
president. Thank you, um ottoman canoe.
Thank you chair. Um, yeah. I just have a question that I
think is best for Mike Howlett. Um, so Mike knows better
than anybody I use lrb. Um as partners on quite a few
things and I whether it's right or wrong. I view them as
just good policy Council and then in the same way I use to
as a bit of a gatekeeper and and often work in conjunction
with the 2. So my question for Mike is really just broadly,
uh, you know, should this go through
Through will this change the day-to-day operations within
lrb to an extent that you need to expand or make a change?
Thanks. Uh, thanks, man. Uh, I
I don't think so. Uh, at least this portion of it some of
the ordinance Provisions, uh, depending on the budget
committee. Um,
may or may not affect Staffing in that way. I but again
that's up to you.
50 members of the body that that's not my call. Uh, and of
course the pro president prom who oversees our office. Um,
But uh, you know, we we generally are either um in
committee today or at least someone's watching it, uh
remotely, uh, depending on if we have something that we've
been working on pending in that committee, uh, that would
of course change if this resolution passed, um, but that's
more of a change of scenery than a change of function.
Okay. Um, yeah, thank you. I mean and I'll I'll note too
that I I do use lrb in a lot of the ways that we're
discussing lrb being elevated to be used and maybe it's uh,
even if it's an advertising exercise that people know that
they should use lrb in this way. I think it's better to
have you know lawyers with slightly different fiduciaries
present as we push policy through it tends to lead to
healthier policy. Um, so that was really my main question
whether you thought there would need to be a staff
expansion.
Um, and I'll I'll leave it at that.
Ottoman canoeing is that complete your questions? Yes, it
does. Thank you. Ottoman Dow you still have a question?
Yes, thank you. I just want to ask the a couple of
questions 1 at the end of the day if uh, lrb says 1 thing
and the Law Department says another.
The Arbiter of that decision who makes the final decision
is the presiding officer of the mayor, correct?
All right, so we have that today. The second point is that
uh
We live in a democracy and the majority rules that's you
know, the vote you got 26 votes. That's what you need. You
want to overcome something get 26 votes.
I think this is really unnecessary. I'm not carrying
anybody's water, but I'm not willing to spend more time in
this body when I have things that I could do in my
community. So I just want to put that out there. I think
the parking meter example is not a good example. That was
just a bad vote. And uh
Had nothing to do with parliamentary rule to my
understanding. Um, so I
have uh, just want to say that I'm opposed to this. I think
it will create more gridlock.
Or gridlock in this body. Um, I've heard examples of this
in New York.
And uh, I'm not willing to spend half my life down here in
this body doing. Uh, uh,
Gymnastics word gymnastics and voting gymnastics. Thank
you.
Thank you. Autumn. Laspada.
Thank you so much chair. Uh
I appreciate the conversation it it is earned into so much
more in my opinion than what it feels like this ordinance
is about.
Which is about your the presence of lrb on Council floor.
To advise on the interpretation of rules and procedures. Is
that still correct?
I asked this to Michael. Sorry. Yeah, uh
That's correct. So like I I appreciate that like it is
turned into so much this.
This notion that it will pollitt politicize lrb.
As never been my experience. I I will say as someone who
had a I will say a different experience of government and
governance in the past 4 years.
I never experienced lrb as a
political entity no matter who the president prom was. I
experienced you all as a body that helped us craft
ordinances helped us prepare for meetings help us prepare
for contentious votes. Um, and I would say helped us
prepare so that when we did get to meetings with the law
department on ordinances that we were working on that we
were more prepared to present a quality ordinance to the
Law Department. Um, I think it took nothing away from the
council that we received.
From the law department. So I
I have only had that experience with you all as a body and
it's a little
sad to hear about this this perceived politicization of the
work that you all do and only on the piece of it will.
complicate and make meetings longer
I'm I'm here for a long meeting. I don't have a problem
with a long meeting. I don't expect democracy to flow like
olive oil like democracy is supposed to be a complicated.
Thorny matter it's supposed to be hard. Um.
I I think this is a city where Democratic process has
flowed like olive oil for maybe a little bit too long. And
so it is it is not problematic to me to have more
conversation on these matters. Particularly. I'll use just
1 example from last.
Term for me when I I would sometimes in a roll call vote.
Be a vote who was called.
And then a vote would be recessed and then it would start
over again.
as someone who found that really confusing representing
Ward 1 I would not have minded if there was someone I could
talk to to say is this who I perceived as a neutral body.
Um, who could advise me on what my rights were in an
interrupted roll call like that.
And that it has nothing to do with Mayor Johnson or
Alderman Beale or any other body? It's about
Clarity and transparency in our Democratic process. I don't
believe I don't believe I'm voting today based off of
personality. I hope I never get to a place where I'm voting
on an ordinance based off of the personality or the
individual's politics behind it, but the merits of the
piece of paper in front of me, and that's just my piece on
this. Thank you cheer.
ottoman Irvine followed by Autumn and talifero
Are you?
Autumn and talifero
Thank you madam, chair, um, and I I certainly appreciate uh
the debate um on both sides. Um, and I I didn't actually
have a question, uh with regard to the debate itself. Um, I
just wanted to know in my contemplation of of this
resolution if I could be provided with um through the chair
if I could be provided with, um, which other legislative
branch or which brother legislative bodies rather are um,
utilizing the method that the resolution calls for and
that's that's all Madam chair if I could just be provided
with those, um, legislative, um bodies that are uh,
currently have currently implemented the system that the
resolution is called causing for.
Them. All right. Is that your question? Um, yes it is for
if it could be provided through the chair. It could it will
be provided through the chair.
Thank you so much chairwoman. Thank you ottoman waggenspack.
Thank you chairwoman. Um.
the you know reading through some of what uh,
Corporation Council talked about here a little bit. Um, the
fact that do is the has the sole Authority. Um, I
understand that I think we've heard that in many different
instances throughout the years that I've been in uh, with
several different administrations and I think when it comes
to things like deciding, uh Corporation Council deciding
who gets to assist with certain tort cases and
transactions, um deciding which outside lawyers they hire
um, I I do appreciate that. I think the final um,
you know, obviously the final votes are with each 1 of the
alderman, uh as they are today. Um, but I don't think this
does create a conflict of interest. Um,
I think having experienced this over many years and
different situations. Um, and as Mr. Howard said, um, I do
recall that 1 successful appeal. Um, but there were many
times when a different opinion.
And information on that different opinion would have been
very helpful. Um
When we look at conflicts of interest that have happened
over the the time that I've been in, um, there have been um
those conflicts there have been legislative disagreements.
and many times I wanted to have somebody um
with the ability to not only read through the rules with me
or to discuss what those options might be. But also what
the impact of that particular uh law might be in many cases
substitutes that came at the last minute.
Um, and there's there's been many examples of that. Um, and
if you want to talk about the meters, uh, we don't have to
go back to the first meter deal. We can go back to 2013. I
believe it was with the meter Redux.
and um
and this by the way, this thing is going to come back and
haunt us again pretty soon. But uh, I recall the
Corporation Council telling me on the council floor that if
you wanted a different opinion or
information, um about the meter Redux at the time go get
your own attorney.
And it was at that time that I realized that yes, we needed
to do more to get our own legislative attorney.
Or independent counsel, that would help me as a legislator.
Determine a how to get that information when it was refused
to me. Um and B. How could I do it in a timely fashion? So
if I was arguing with mayor Emanuel or mayor Daly or mayor
Lightfoot or Mayor Johnson?
how would I be able to get that information in a timely
manner to allow me to make the appropriate legislative
actions that I that I need to take to make sure that I
represent not only my constituents but everybody in this
body had I known some of those things 1015 years ago, um
that I am now provided with um in part by lb. Um,
and I do have access to them as everyone does but I would
want that access in a much more timely fashion immediately
while I'm on the council floor having a discussion about
whether we're going to um, make a separate motion or uh,
perhaps a defer and publish which we've seen very often so
I don't think it creates any conflict of interest. Um, I
don't think it uh undermines the deliberative process that
the mayor and Corporation Council have when they're making
a decision about what they want to do. Um, I think this is
a a good way to move forward and frankly. Um, I've been
looking at it for well over a decade since that time I was
told
Go get your own attorney.
Um, so I would be in favor of this today, and I hope that
we can move forward on a vote Madam chairman. Thank you.
Um that ottoman Riley. Oh, can you let Alderman see your
Lopez?
ottoman seat your Lopez
Thank you. Um, thank you madam chair and I I appreciate the
the opportunity to have this important conversation. Just
want to um
Just want to clear up some of the questions around the the
purpose of these independent Council. I hear on 1 end some
colleagues talking about having on legal council. This
seems to be specifically pertaining to the Rules of Order
during the city council. So I I just I just want to make
sure that we are very clear on what we are actually voting
on today. Um quite frankly. I I think that um,
Independent, uh independent Council or attorneys. Um
Kind of always be used. My concern is always um
The day of the city council. I don't know if we can um hear
many members of the council, um say that we could have a
conversation as we have a um, a difference and opinion on
the Rules of Order, um that we could appreciate to have an
extra uh opinion but that is different to say another thing
that take an issue when we continue to use, uh,
this case on using corporate or another attorney or other
legal opinion regarding city council matters. I I do think
that there are so 2 different issues. I want to make sure
that we are clear. Um, this pertains specifically on the
rules of the chair when it comes to the day of city
council. This is not going to be used or this is not as I
understand. Uh,
have another
option for for City Council Members to have attorneys to
give us advice on the case of for instance, uh, the
privatization of of the parking meters something I think
that we as legislators have to do or due diligence
reviewing legislation before we take a vote. So again just
for the just for the sake of clarity clarification. This is
about the rulings of the chairs of the
Rules of the of of the executive during city council
matters. Is that is that correct? This is more or less what
we're talking about today. That's right Alderman. I I would
say
generally speaking our office falls into 2 buckets, right 1
is legislative. So that's drafting reviewing summarizing
legal research, uh to determine, uh, what the best way to
draft something is things of that nature and then
parliamentary advice. So, uh, the resolution is very much
about the Parliamentary portion of it. Um,
uh, you know, I I would say if someone said hey, I'm about
to vote on this. What does this sentence mean?
Uh, if we had our summary and we showed it to them. I I
wouldn't see a problem with that. Uh, it definitely
wouldn't be a legal opinion. Uh, in fact any time any
writing we have we make very clear to the ultimate that
it's not a legal opinion. It's a it's a memo. It's there's
no binding nature of it. Um, and I'm sure several of you
have had the experience with us where you asked us to draft
something and we have to say no because it involves a
contract or a real estate transaction or things of that
nature. Well, we'll you know, we'll summarize it and
include it in our summary and answer questions about it,
but will not draft anything will not uh do anything and the
same goes for anything that's involves litigation as well.
Thank you. This is an important consideration. I I do think
it's important to be factual on kind of what we voting on
today. Um, I agree on the need to have definitely more
deliberation and and review and legislative matters, but it
comes to the Rules of Order. Um my concern and I think is
as is this is review or this is written that
you know, uh The Rules of Order could be review and
especially on the section 2, um that said the members May
seek, um that there's an exemption for maybe is to May seek
counsel on the Rules of Order and procedure from the law
department or the legislative reference Bureau provided
that such discussions are kept as quiet as brief as
possible out of respect of the member who calls the floor.
I think like again this is this is entirely on
parliamentarian procedures. And if I mean for my short, uh,
stay here in this Council in 5 years.
Um, my concern is that we are using
such interpretation of parliamentarian procedures and
Brutus order, um to push, you know, for whatever, um,
whatever view my concern and I follow all the other um
other person dowel.
It's been difficult as it stands. I think it is important to
to find better ways to make sure that the rules are the
rules of order I follow but to my
my my biggest concern is that this becomes another way of
pushing for different sides different agendas. The
implementation piece is what I'm concerned about Madame
chair how we implement this without creating more chaos
more animosity and that this becomes once again, um a way
to derail. Um, right now we see a very tragic weekend in
the city of Chicago literally kids that being killed and I
tell you that it is upon ourselves the legislators
Uh to do our job allegedly to read legislation to take
votes as speaks to or constituents. I take an issue or
using this, uh, as a way to take on the issue of the
parking meter deal a shameful deal absolutely, but it's
certainly not something that the parliamentarian procedures
could stop. So I just want to make sure that we are not
falling for that. It is a come to parliamentarian
procedures. The simple answer is making sure that the rules
of the chair is stick to the Rules of Order plain and
simple that simple, but I'm concerned that this becomes
once again a way to derail agendas and complicate even
their job of the city council that I tell you many people
in the city are asking us to deliver Solutions and this is
again my concern that this becomes a
Bigger, uh, a bigger issue than something that helped us to
move expeditiously on the issues and solutions that the
city needs. So those are my concerns. Um again, I don't
have an issue getting independent Council. I think this is
a good idea, but the way it's written again. I'm concerned
I had this can have this can become another issue during
City Council meetings, unless we are very deliberate about
our implementation policy.
Thank you madam chair. Thank you. Automate mayor's brosa.
Uh, thank you so much Madam chair.
Um, you know, I think I've um, consistently supported the
council getting more resources, uh, in order for um us to
be able to be a functioning legislative body.
when these conversations first started in Earnest last term
I thought we were talking about increasing the size of the
legislative reference Bureau. And I said absolutely why not
that's a no-brainer to me. Um, you know, the the team at
the legislative reference Bureau do a great job very
thankful for all of the assistance. They provided me in my
office over many years.
um, and I wish that we had more people on that team, um, but
the substitute that has been brought forward today is not
that um, and I think that it has further complicated this
this issue. Um, and this conversation has now given me a
lot of pause about um, you know what this would actually
mean
1 question that I have is around implementation. Um, so
I've heard a couple things and and 1 I've
heard that the lrb, you know treats each Alderman as if
they have like an attorney client privilege with them,
which I think is a good thing. Right? So if you're working
with 1 Alderman on 1 thing then the other attorney in the
lrb will work with another Alderman, especially if those
things are in contention or if those 2 Alderman disagree
Um, and they won't share information. Um, so my question is
what happens if there's a parliamentary question before the
city council.
The Corporation Council, obviously who by state law is our
uh, you know, um,
Is our legal counsel, uh, and the mayor you know, who is
our presiding officer per state law and you know interprets
our our parliamentary process. So what happens if they make
a decision or they have a certain interpretation and then
at the same time multiple aldermen are asking for uh the
lrb to assist them.
Um, how would that play out? Um, you know, how do we
determine which Alderman gets to uh, get the attention of
the lrb first? Um, you know, would you have 1 lawyer go to
1 older person. Would you have another lawyer go to another
older person? Um, and could we have a situation then where
we have 3 different uh interpretations, right? So 1 lawyer
from the lrb is telling 1 Alderman. Hey, this is actually
how you should be thinking about this parliamentary
question. The other lawyer from the lrb is telling another
Alderman. Hey, this is how you should be thinking about
this and then the Corporation Council, uh is giving us
another interpretation. So could we set end up with a
situation where during a council meeting? We have 3
different legal, um, you know, um interpretations, uh
coming from lawyers, uh that are there to advise the
council.
Thanks, uh, excuse me. Uh, thanks man Ramirez Rosa, this is
Mike Howard, uh director of the lrb, um, in terms of
implementation and the uh, the hypothetical that you
outlined, uh, just a couple of things I would note, uh,
much like the not changing the time limits this resolution
would not change the rules of surrounding uh decorum. So
the presiding officer would still be maintaining uh
decorum. So if in in maybe the unlikely scenario that I
were advising someone if this passes passed and whereas
running through the hall screaming, uh, they could of
course kick me out for violating.
The rules of decorum. So so I think that may address 1 of
the questions. Um, and then in terms of having 3 different,
uh interpretations at the end of the day the interpretation
that matters is the presiding officer, uh, nothing that
I say nothing that Jeff would say nothing that any
parliamentary said is binding on anyone they are there to
advise the presiding officer who makes the ruling. Uh, so
that would be the first interpretation that matters and
then the second 1 would be if there was an appeal, uh of a
ruling of a chair then 26 opinions would uh, potentially
overrule that
And what about um, like determining which Alderman like
would get that advice first, you know.
Um, how do you you know figure out you know how in real
time we'd be able to actually access this assistance.
Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a kind of orderly way to
answer that question from where I'm sitting today. I think
you know, it'd be a first come first serve. We'd be uh,
either in the annex of the box as appropriate. We'd have
all of our we're all typically down here during city
council anyway, so that's uh at least 2 most of the time 4
different people. Um,
and uh as with other kind of requests if there are several
aldermen that are kind of all in alignment in 1 Direction,
uh, we generally defer to the uh, first requester and say
that other others have uh inquired about the same thing
without mentioning who they are until we get approval to go
talk to someone else. Yeah. Well, I I am worried about
that. I think that that could get very chaotic.
My question, um now is for law, um, you know in the
presentation, uh, that was made that I thought was um, very
helpful in helping me understand sort of the legal
considerations around this potential change, uh, it was
talked about, uh, you know, when the city council and when
the city is sued for Action that we take
If there's a situation where you know, 1 lawyer from lrbs
advising 1 older person and giving them an interpretation
of uh, parliamentary question before us and the alderman
then shares that on the record right and says, hey, I just
spoke to this lawyer and you know, they're giving me this
advice and then there's another Alderman who's getting
advice from another lrb lawyer, uh at the same time on the
same question and they then, you know put that advice into
the council record by you know, sharing publicly to
everyone. Hey, I just spoke with this attorney and they're
telling me this and then there's also a uh, you know
opinion from The Corporation Council if all 3 of those
things are read into the council record at the same time.
Is that something that
Potentially someone who wanted to sue the city could include
in their lawsuit right to say even in the city council
during this meeting there were 3 different, you know legal
rulings that were made or not rulings but 3 different, you
know pieces of uh of legal advice and opinion that were
opinion that were given, uh that were in contention. Is
that something that potentially could be used in a court
case against us to try and strike down an action that we
ultimately took
Yeah, yes, that's correct. And um since those opinions were
earned in an open meeting they are not privileged and um
Uh counterparty or an opposing party could uh make use of
them to attack the city's position.
So I I think for me I that's something that gives me a lot
of pause and a lot of concern. Um, you know, we get sued
all the time and what we say in these meetings matters and
can have implications for uh those suits and so, um, you
know, I'm forgiving the lrb more resources if we were in a
budget Committee hearing right now, we're voting on a 925
amendment to move more funds to the lrb in order for us to
uh, you know, have more people there helping us draft
legislation review legislation. I would be a yes and a
heartbeat. Um, but I think this substitute and the way that
this has been brought forward gives me a lot of pause. Um,
I think it has the potential of making things more chaotic.
Um, and um, I also know that you know this
Uh Corporation Council has been more accessible, uh than
ever before I've spoken with many of my colleagues that say
that they've had more access now to so many of the
resources that previously prior Administration safeguarded.
Um, so I think we are moving in the right direction, uh
currently in the status quo. Um, I also know that when I've
had questions on the floor Jeff LaVine who does an amazing
job has not hesitated to come, you know, I know none of us
hesitate to go up to the Des hommes. And so if we have
questions on the floor we can get Corporation counsel to
us, um to answer those questions at our seats. Uh, they've
also we are also able to go up to them and ask them those
questions because they are present there.
Um, and I also know that you know, if you text lrb, they
make themselves available. I've seen people have sidebars
where lrb goes right up to, uh, you know, the the uh,
barrier there between the public and the council there's
also the annex where people regularly, uh can seek advice
and discuss some of these matters. So I I think that you
know under the current status quo we have options available
to us. Um, and so, you know based upon the conversation
that I've heard, it seems like at best we're not changing
much. Um, but at worst we are further complicating things,
um, and potentially creating um legal issues for us. And so
for those reasons, uh, I'm a no on this, but if we want to
move on giving lrb more resources so they can hire more
lawyers. I'm a yes on
That 1 but this 1 I think raises a lot of legal concerns in
terms of state law, uh, and may make things worse than
better. So, thank you.
So
point of information automatic back, uh, radi do we um, do
we discuss the deliberative process on settlements and
cases on the council floor?
Yes, we do.
So the background deliberative process of the law
department is discussed on the city council floor.
Settlements are discussed. Uh, I mean just make it clear.
We do not discuss the deliberative process and the other
than the case facts and settlements. We do not discuss the
deliberative process on the city council floor, and that
has been a very clear message from Department of law
attorneys.
Yeah, I I I got you wrong on that 1. Um, yeah, I just
wanted to make sure actually I didn't want you to yeah, um,
I can give you an example. Um
what happens is that during the
yeah.
Yeah, what happens is that low present is its settlement
cases, uh at committee, um, and at the finance committee,
uh for consideration of the city council. Um, uh, sometimes
what happens is that um,
even at City Council meetings
Um opinions may be shared.
At that meeting regarding um a settlement matter.
And I can give you 1 example immediately after that meeting
the plaintiffs.
um immediately used that uh information
to include in their uh lawsuit this pertains to 1
particular lawsuit, which city council.
uh
did not uh, vote to um, um approve and uh during the
deliberations comments were made and those commenters were
effectively used by the plaintiff and u,
U um the example, um now, uh, given um, um that um, you
know, opinions aired, uh admitting this can be used to
attack the city is not far-fetched.
Thank you. Thank you chairwoman. Thank you.
Thank you. Ottoman Riley. Um, I'm assuming it's gonna be
your closing it is yes, unless anyone else wishes to speak.
You're good. Okay, great. Thank you madam. Chair. Um, I
think it's pretty clear what this resolution will will do.
Um, it's interesting to hear these last minute concerns on.
A draft that's been in discussion for not months but years.
Um, and again, um, we're not blazing new trails as a
legislative body other legislative bodies Avail themselves
of these services and you know, I think everyone here
during debate is acknowledged that the legislative
reference Bureau is truly an asset.
to the city council
and that each of us in different ways rely upon them for
not only help drafting legislation and preparing policy
summaries, but also from time to time on um, parliamentary
procedure during proceedings and really this is about how
accessible and available this tool is to us while we're in
the proceedings. This isn't whether or not we should have a
legislative reference Bureau. We have 1
Uh and like ottoman rumors Rosa, I would love to add more
resources to this because they do provide a great service.
But to say they're a great resource. However, we don't want
them available when we need the most defies logic.
And again, if you don't want to take advice from the
legislative reference Bureau during debate.
Or during a Committee hearing or a city council preceding
then don't ask.
That's fine. You don't have to use them.
Uh, and also we have some guard rails here. This is not
going to turn debates into many hours long contentious
chaotic proceedings. You guys want to clip some time off a
city council meeting enough with these inane resolutions to
start the meetings.
Waste an hour and a half a day on resolution. We're all
worried about efficiencies. Let's stop recognizing, you
know, the grandma down the street who has 3 cats who plowed
or driveway 1 day.
Um, let's focus on the substance of the debate.
Um, but no 1 nowhere during this debate has uh, the Law
Department explained to us why this would be a bad thing.
Um, we don't have legislative reference Bureau on the
record opining on legal matters. And this doesn't propose
to allow them to do that allows them to whisper in our ear
when we ask for advice. It allows them to be proximate it
the sergeant-at-arms from removing them from chambers as if
they're simply a member of the public.
Um, this is not a dramatic departure from what we're
already doing.
And as is been acknowledged throughout this debate, this
does not replace. The mayor's parliamentarian in any way.
It simply gives us some information to push back when we
think that decision is wrong.
And then ultimately it's up to this body 26 votes to decide
whether to uphold the ruling of the chair and his or her
parliamentarian or to overrule it.
That's always been the process.
This simply gives us more tools and ammunition frankly to
make a compelling argument to overrule the chair when we
think that person is wrong.
That's it.
Um So within out statute and concerns about
constitutionality Etc seems a bit desperate and and
frankly, it's a shame that this is being done to the derail
a government transparency ordinance that is aimed at making
each of us as elected officials better at our jobs.
And it's really disappointing to hear folks that were
strong proponents of this ordinance and these ideas under
the last Administration suddenly doing a complete and total
about face raising these last minute concerns.
The real guts of what we're talking about here will be in
chairman Irvin's committee.
In the budget committee. Those are substantive code
changes.
This is about the rules. So, um, we've had I think a robust
debate here. Um, I think that lrb and and the Law
Department have done a good job answering our questions.
Therefore Madame chairman. I move due pass with a roll call
vote. Thank you.
Automobile, would you like to close?
All right, we've been just like and Madam Madam chairman.
Um, I mean, I agree totally with uh Alderman Reilly. Um,
this is a a great good government ordinance. Um, and it's
about empowering the city council and uh, we've been
working on this for a lot of years, um, you know, this has
been tried to be derailed and held and you know, all kind
of things and you know, I just think it's time for for this
body to finally Step Up.
And if we talk about chaos, I mean, I mean, I don't think
it can get any more chaotic than what it is now.
and so I think this will bring some calmness and some peace
and some um
some substantive
Concrete advice and guidance from somebody who works for
us.
To advise us with that I ask for a roll call vote as well.
Okay, roll call vote.
ottoman laspata
Autumn Hopkins
Is absent ottoman down?
ottoman Robinson
ottoman Hall no ottoman Mitchell
No.
Chairman Harris is a no ottoman bill.
ottoman Chico
Alderman Lee
all them in Ramirez all the person Quinn all the person
Gutierrez is absent. Oh she's here.
Oh, congratulations on your baby doing well. Thank you.
Autumn Lopez
ottoman Coleman
Autumn and more
Autumn Curtis
Autumn OSHA is
absent
older woman tailor know
all the person Mosley
or the person Rodriguez
all the person to bars. I
order the person Scott.
All the person see your Lopez.
all the person who went test
all the person know
all the person brunette
all the person Irvin
No.
all the personal
no.
all the person Crews
all the person Cardona
all the person wagon pack
all the person Rodriguez Sanchez know
all the person Conway. Yes.
all the person Ramirez Rosa know
all the person vagus
all them person mitts
all the person's pisado is absent.
all the person Nugent
all the person Vasquez
Vice chair Napolitano
is absent.
older person Riley
older person can nuden
Yes.
all the person Lawson
all the person Gardner
hi.
order person clay know
older person Martin
older person. Um Manana hopping work
older person hadn't
and all the person Silverstein
Okay, so there are 18 years and 24 notes.
pass
Where fails I'm sorry. So this motion fails.
and will be in um
so all in favor of of of
approving this resolution based on the votes 18 years and
not approving it but 18 days. So this motion will stay in
committee.
And will be uh reported out as failed and committee.
There being no form of business before this committee. May
I have a motion to adjourn so move?
By ottoman down all those in favor of adjoining say I all
those opposed say no and opinion of the chair is the eyes