An independent council and a new city charter for Chicago
Chicago needs more checks and balances, and less rubber stamps
In previous posts I’ve outlined a few key reforms aimed at improving Chicago’s elections. But these reforms are only so helpful if we don’t also think about what aldermen can do once they get elected.
Late last month - after Chicago’s initial municipal election, but before the runoffs - City Council took a swing at that, voting to give itself more independent power from the Mayor. This included a variety of rule changes, including:
Increasing the number of committees from 19 to 28
Allowing the council (instead of the mayor) to select committee chairs and set legislative agendas
New limits on how quickly matters can get pushed through the council
While the initial vote wasn’t along ideological lines, it was at least a little controversial - with good government groups like the Better Government Association criticizing the process for taking place before any newly elected members had a chance for input. After Brandon Johnson’s runoff victory, some progressives are now further questioning the process, pushing for more Johnson allies to take positions of power in these committees.
This all provides a lovely backdrop to talk about City Council independence and why a new city charter is important.
Why city charters matter
In the simplest terms, a city charter is a written constitution for a city. Most large cities have them; only two of the 25 largest cities in the U.S. - Chicago and Indianapolis - do not. A charter outlines the rules by which the city’s government can function. In doing so, it provides a more definitive constraint than a municipal code (which a city's legislators can change at will).
Without a charter, Chicago’s governance has frequently been left up to discretion and traditions, instead of codified rules about how things to work. In practice, this has often led to a rubber stamp council, with mayors empowered to do whatever they want. This has often led to very bad outcomes. Mayor Daley’s infamous parking meter deal comes immediately to mind (15 years later, investors have already recouped their entire investment). The city’s new NASCAR deal is another recent example, with aldermen left in the dark until after Mayor Lightfoot announced the agreement.
That’s not the way things should work, and it’s not how it works in other cities. New York City’s charter requires any deals like those above to go through a public notice period and get approval from a review committee. It seems pretty obvious that requiring a similar process in Chicago - and enshrining that process in a way that our mayor and aldermen can’t wave away - is important.
Who’s pushing for this
The coalition of those supporting a charter is reasonably diverse. The (re)Chicago project led by former city Inspector General Joe Ferguson is one leader at the forefront of the movement. The New Chicago Way authors Ed Bachrach and Austin Berg (I’ve highlighted their work before) have written repeatedly about the importance of a new charter as well. Others include a few of the candidates who just ran for mayor; notably, two in particular repeatedly referenced the importance of a new city charter in their answers to Reform for Illinois’s candidate questionnaire:
Paul Vallas:
[referring to public campaign financing reform] Vallas said such a program should be enacted in ordinance but also enshrined in a citizen-approved city charter to protect it from the “vicissitudes of politics.”
RCV should be adopted through ordinance and “enshrined at a constitutional level in a voter-approved municipal charter.”
[referring to efforts to reduce the size of city council] But feels the size issue has “diverted attention from the more important question of the powers and structural integrity and efficacy of the council” and the size, among other things, should be determined in a citizen-approved city charter.
[referring to past experience with good governance efforts] … I have always supported a strong inspector general system, have long believed our budgeting systems are too opaque and compressed for true citizen input and participation, have advocated for a NYC-type model of budgeting set forth in that city’s exemplary municipal charter that is a two-stage legislative review process supported by an Independent Budget Office akin to the Congressional Budget Office, with the executive branch obligated by charter and law to provide all information sought by the City Council and the IBO.”
Kam Buckner:
… “My administration will also lead the charge to create a true city charter for Chicago. We are the only large city without one. Instituting a charter can make it easier for citizen-led ordinances to become law and will establish real rules of order in City Council. It would also protect the city from unilateral decision making from the Mayor.”
“I will make sure that people – community members, organizers, and community leaders – are involved in the decision-making process for our city and especially their neighborhoods. It’s imperative that the Mayor and other city leadership do not have unilateral control over decisions that impact the people that live in our city. Establishing a city charter will help with this, and ensuring that our communities have a seat at the table when their interests and their community is being impacted is crucial.”
Buckner has written more recently about the next mayor having a reform mandate, and seems like the kind of leader in Springfield that any city charter-movement will need. He deserves your - and the city’s - support in any efforts to do so.
Other independent measures can help, too
While I think a city charter needs to be at the top of the list for any reform efforts, it will take time - and action in Springfield - to happen. But there are other ideas we can push for more quickly as well. City council can empower the city’s Inspector General to actually release reports on their own authority, instead of letting the mayor’s office decide what’s allowed to be made public. They should also end the practice of the mayor presiding over council meetings and elect their own council president. And, finally, they should resist any efforts from the mayor-elect’s office to undo the reforms they passed last month to select their own committee leaders.
An independent council is good
The BGA raises some valid criticisms about the reforms pushed through at the end of last month. That said, an empowered, independent city council is still a good thing. If it takes an imperfect process to get us there, I think that’s okay. The end result is a step in the right direction, and I hope it provides a foundation the council can build on going forward towards more long-term change.
The Bottom Line
A truly independent city council is important. Reforms that help get us there are good.
A new city charter is important to strengthen Chicago’s governance.