Meanwhile, in Chicago... The Protest Ordinance
Even as the ward remap was reaching its conclusion, Chicago was embroiled in another, equally contentious issue - one that touched a lot of nerves thanks to the city's history of corruption and abuse of police power.
This May, Chicago will be hosting a G8 and NATO summits, which, as you can imagine, will attract a lot of protestors. In effort to deal with said protestors, Mayor Emanuel introduced an new protest/parade ordinance that would:
Originally, Emanuel said that both ordinances were meant to be temporary measures that would lapse after the summits are over. But once everybody got a chance to read the actual text of the first ordinance, they quickly realized that it was actually meant to be permanent. Emanuel quickly apologized for a "misunderstanding," but didn't withdraw the ordinance.
A firestorm of controversy quickly ensued. Many aldermen, especially the ones who belonged to the Reform Caucus, protested, pointing out the many ways in which both ordinances could be abused. In effort to get them on board, Emanuel changed the ordinance several times. He dropped the parade marshals requirement and agreed to lower fines for ordinance violations (at least compared to what he originally proposed - it was still an increase compared to what the previous ordinance required). He scaled back the requirement that all signs and sound equipment would have to be listed on the parade application - now, the requirement only applied to signs/equipment that had to be carried by more than one person. And, after some political wrangling, Emanuel decided not to ask the City Council to increase fines for resisting arrest.
I was there were the City Council's Special Events Committee voted on whether or not to refer the modified measure to the full Council (I was in the City Council chambers on assignment). The meeting was scheduled to last half an hour.
It lasted three.
All too often, we see aldermen rubber-stamping whatever passes through the committees. That is not what happened here. In a spectacular display of backbone, Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) picked the ordinance apart. She complained that she could not, in good conscience, vote on something that was literally handed to her two minutes ago (it's true - I saw it happen). Then, she proceeded to question the head of the Department of Special Events on every single aspect of the ordinance. She refused to settle for platitudes and, at one point, all but said that the woman was full of crap. I could hear the head of the department go from impatient to annoyed to so distressed she was almost ready to cry. I honestly wish I had a presence of mind to write even half of it down.
It was glorious.
Ald. Hairston's aggressive line of questioning seemed to have inspired the rest of the Reform Caucus members to find their courage. Ald. Joe Moore (49th) and Ald. Pawar (47th) were less forceful but no less insistent on getting their answers. Even the more reserved Ald. Michelle Smith (43rd) got in a few questions of her own... polite questions, but questions nonetheless.
As I tweeted at the time, "[it was the] Reform Caucus Remembers That They Are Supposed to be Reformers day at the City Council."
But in the end, all of that was for naught. The majority of Committee For Special Events voted to refer the ordinance to full City Council. The ordinance passed the next day.
This time, I wasn't at the meeting, but I did get to hear the video broadcast. Hairston reiterated her objections. Moore gave a long speech about how a modified ordinance balances the needs of the protestors with the needs of the average citizens. While he acknowledged the city's troubled record with upholding protestors' civil rights, Moore insisted that Chicagoans "must not be held captive to that history."
Ald. Burke (14th), an Old Guard alderman who was a Chicago cop during the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention riots, reflected on the event and basically asked the aldermen (and, by extension, the audience), to be understanding of the kind of demands and pressures the cops face during the riots. He also emphasized the need to keep the city secure. And, in one of the odder moments in the entire meeting, Ald. Michael Chandler (24th) compared the anti-G8/NATO protests to last year's London riots and pretty much said that Chicago police needed extra power to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen in the Windy City.
You may real that Chandler cast a surprising "no" vote against the compromise remap proposal a day later.
Four aldermen voted against the new protest ordinance - Ald. Bob Fioretti (2nd), Ald. Will Burns (4th), Ald Leslie Hairston (5th) and Ald. Nicholas Sposato (36th). All of the were members of the Reform Caucus. And Sposato, at least, had absolutely nothing to lose - even though the compromise map wasn't voted on yet, he had no reason to be optimistic.
Oh, and that measure that gave Emanuel temporary authority over no-bid contracts and allowed Superintendent McCarthy to deputize cops from other cities? It also passed, though by a slightly smaller margin. Ald. Sandi Jackson, another Reform Caucus member, joined Fioretti, Burns, Hairston and Sposato in voting against it.
When the City Council passed Emanuel's first budget unanimously, I commented that they were so used to getting brown-beaten by Mayor Daley into seeing things his way that they were willing to roll over at any sign of compromise. That wasn't quite what happened here. But if Moore's speech is any indication, I'd still say there is some truth to that.
This May, Chicago will be hosting a G8 and NATO summits, which, as you can imagine, will attract a lot of protestors. In effort to deal with said protestors, Mayor Emanuel introduced an new protest/parade ordinance that would:
- Increase fines for resisting arrest
- Close public parks and beaches between 11:00PM - 6:00 AM (as opposed to the 11:00 PM - 4:00 AM)
- Require the parades/protests to have a "marshal" for every hundred participants (so a parade of 3000 would need 30 marshals in addition to regular police)
- Require parade/protest applicants to describe their sound equipment and signs they would carry in their parade in their parade permit application - with the City reserving a right to reject the application if they see anything they don't like.
- Restrict the use of sound amplification equipment to between 8:00 AM - 10:00 PM
- Increase the fees for parade applications and the fines for violations of the ordinance.
Originally, Emanuel said that both ordinances were meant to be temporary measures that would lapse after the summits are over. But once everybody got a chance to read the actual text of the first ordinance, they quickly realized that it was actually meant to be permanent. Emanuel quickly apologized for a "misunderstanding," but didn't withdraw the ordinance.
A firestorm of controversy quickly ensued. Many aldermen, especially the ones who belonged to the Reform Caucus, protested, pointing out the many ways in which both ordinances could be abused. In effort to get them on board, Emanuel changed the ordinance several times. He dropped the parade marshals requirement and agreed to lower fines for ordinance violations (at least compared to what he originally proposed - it was still an increase compared to what the previous ordinance required). He scaled back the requirement that all signs and sound equipment would have to be listed on the parade application - now, the requirement only applied to signs/equipment that had to be carried by more than one person. And, after some political wrangling, Emanuel decided not to ask the City Council to increase fines for resisting arrest.
I was there were the City Council's Special Events Committee voted on whether or not to refer the modified measure to the full Council (I was in the City Council chambers on assignment). The meeting was scheduled to last half an hour.
It lasted three.
All too often, we see aldermen rubber-stamping whatever passes through the committees. That is not what happened here. In a spectacular display of backbone, Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) picked the ordinance apart. She complained that she could not, in good conscience, vote on something that was literally handed to her two minutes ago (it's true - I saw it happen). Then, she proceeded to question the head of the Department of Special Events on every single aspect of the ordinance. She refused to settle for platitudes and, at one point, all but said that the woman was full of crap. I could hear the head of the department go from impatient to annoyed to so distressed she was almost ready to cry. I honestly wish I had a presence of mind to write even half of it down.
It was glorious.
Ald. Hairston's aggressive line of questioning seemed to have inspired the rest of the Reform Caucus members to find their courage. Ald. Joe Moore (49th) and Ald. Pawar (47th) were less forceful but no less insistent on getting their answers. Even the more reserved Ald. Michelle Smith (43rd) got in a few questions of her own... polite questions, but questions nonetheless.
As I tweeted at the time, "[it was the] Reform Caucus Remembers That They Are Supposed to be Reformers day at the City Council."
But in the end, all of that was for naught. The majority of Committee For Special Events voted to refer the ordinance to full City Council. The ordinance passed the next day.
This time, I wasn't at the meeting, but I did get to hear the video broadcast. Hairston reiterated her objections. Moore gave a long speech about how a modified ordinance balances the needs of the protestors with the needs of the average citizens. While he acknowledged the city's troubled record with upholding protestors' civil rights, Moore insisted that Chicagoans "must not be held captive to that history."
Ald. Burke (14th), an Old Guard alderman who was a Chicago cop during the infamous 1968 Democratic Convention riots, reflected on the event and basically asked the aldermen (and, by extension, the audience), to be understanding of the kind of demands and pressures the cops face during the riots. He also emphasized the need to keep the city secure. And, in one of the odder moments in the entire meeting, Ald. Michael Chandler (24th) compared the anti-G8/NATO protests to last year's London riots and pretty much said that Chicago police needed extra power to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen in the Windy City.
You may real that Chandler cast a surprising "no" vote against the compromise remap proposal a day later.
Four aldermen voted against the new protest ordinance - Ald. Bob Fioretti (2nd), Ald. Will Burns (4th), Ald Leslie Hairston (5th) and Ald. Nicholas Sposato (36th). All of the were members of the Reform Caucus. And Sposato, at least, had absolutely nothing to lose - even though the compromise map wasn't voted on yet, he had no reason to be optimistic.
Oh, and that measure that gave Emanuel temporary authority over no-bid contracts and allowed Superintendent McCarthy to deputize cops from other cities? It also passed, though by a slightly smaller margin. Ald. Sandi Jackson, another Reform Caucus member, joined Fioretti, Burns, Hairston and Sposato in voting against it.
When the City Council passed Emanuel's first budget unanimously, I commented that they were so used to getting brown-beaten by Mayor Daley into seeing things his way that they were willing to roll over at any sign of compromise. That wasn't quite what happened here. But if Moore's speech is any indication, I'd still say there is some truth to that.