Another Episode of the
Extensive Community Review Process
We all came expecting one thing and of course we were given something else without notice as we arrived. Hugh, Michael, Anne and Don were among the noteables standing in the waiting room as Agent 99 and I strolled in. Michael Land informed the group that ZALUC would go straight to the secret deliberation and vote procedure without the public review we all showed up expecting. He would announce the vote once the committee had finalized their deliberations. Interesting tactic.
So we were all displaced once again from the "extensive community review process" that the Alderman tried to convince us existed, in his letter to Mike Luckenback. Another interesting tactic.
I really don't understand the practice of trying to pull the wool over our eyes. All of us in Rogers Park have grey matter between our ears that is in perfectly good working order. And it just seems like wasted energy, in my view, that could be refocused for a better purpose.
As a political strategy, of course it just reinforces the US vs.THEM animosity that pervades our status quo relationship with current leadership. There is so much wasted energy on both sides of the aisle, involved in perpetuating and anticipating this atmosphere that really should be more wisely spent. I wish it could stop. But I'm afraid there is too much emotional and financial investment in the staus quo for anything to change anytime soon.
White Smoke
So there we stood, sat and slouched, locked out of the process and anxious in our anticipation in this strange little waiting room. As they deliberated and we waited for the historic outcome to be announced, I started wondering about this surreal scene we were a part of.
It reminded me of the age old and secret somber method used to inform the faithful camped out in St. Peters Square. I half expected the door to open a crack and for white smoke to appear as a sign that the historic decision had finally been reached. I happen to love that ceremony and the history attached to it from a purely human, socialogical perspective.
But here in the 49th Ward and in calendar year 2006, this just seems like an odd way of doing business.
So the door opened and there was no smoke. There was only Michael Land leaning against the door jamb reciting the 7- 0 vote count with one abstention against the Abels proposal. And instead of the tumultous cheer that signals the decision in St. Peter's Square, there was once again the emotionally, anti climactic shoulder shrug sigh that so often accompanies hot button decisions in the 49th Ward.
OK. Well, they are in there and we are out here and now what do we do?
Some of us decided wisely and walked across the street to share beverages. I was starting to zip up my coat until Agent 99, as she always seems to do with wayward Max, reminded me of the original mission. So we stayed for the next part of the presentation and that will be titled:
I'll just Add Some More Doo Dads.
32 Comments:
It's time to celebrate success! One thing that makes the political realm hard to deal with is that there are very few successes that are clearly defined. Everything is subject to being raised again no matter how firmly it may have been rejected. Case in point: Loyola Marina.
But it's hard for me to imagine that this would have been a 0-7-1 vote without all the public outcry. It also seems obvious to me that the vote took place first because the outcome was already clear in their minds, and they didn't want to "debate" a foregone conclusion.
This is a win for the local activists!
just the fact, maam-
welcome back and please don't leave on my account. i enjoy our discussions.
i guess we just have very different ideas of what community invlovement mean.
huddled in a small waiting room and waiting for a decision from a secret deliberation committee after three reviews have already been presented to that committee without our involvement is not my idea of community participation. i am grateful for the community meeting that was organized at loyola but as we found out, the audience was stacked with a more than a few participants who had more than an objective vested interest.
those people were than counted as part of the "fictitious 50%-50% split vote the alderman claims was the outcome.
again, not quite my idea of a fair, community involvment process. everyone who was there knows the ratio was not 50%-50%. why put that information out if it really isn't true?
we would rather be persuaded with the facts, maam.
thomas-
thank you for your voice of reason.
but as you say yourself, there are no assurances that this will be the last time we visit this issue. so we never do get the sense or satisfaction that we have made a difference with our objections or opinions.
that leaves us all in a perpetual state of limbo.
you are correct. the big elephant in the room question has not been answered.
why was this proposal voted down and will we revisit it again. the alderman has the final say, so no one really knows right now.
just the fact maam, i don't believe i am complaining for the sake of complaining. i am more goal oriented than that and i do not wish to get into an argument with you. i just think we should try and understand each others position, no matter how wide that gulf is.
JTF -
Speaking for only for myself here, I will tell you that my desire for a better process is not simply a hollow obstructionist gesture intended to stop all development. Not by a long shot.
What I do have a problem with are "community input meetings" that, forgive me, appear to be no more than a political thermometer taking the temperature of the room on a given occasion. I would not be surpised if the developers see them in the same way. I also have a real problem with the way last night's meeting was structured. I will write more thoughts about that later when I have more time to devote to it.
I also think that there are many other models already out there for community participation of the kind we desire - I hope you are not going to defend what we currently have as any kind of "best practice". Again, more about that when I have some time to gather it and get it into a form that is appropriate for this site.
Thanks for your questions. I think they open up a very interesting avenue for dialog on RPR.
Tom -
I agree with your comment:
"It also seems obvious to me that the vote took place first because the outcome was already clear in their minds, and they didn't want to "debate" a foregone conclusion."
I think we can all be big enough to acknowledge the committee on that point.
For me, the problem continues to be one of overall process. More about that later...the day job is calling...
just the fact maam-
for the record, i have never written that my neighbors should have gone to the loyola meeting and opposed her plan. please read my past posts and you will find that i was actually quite torn after that meeting.
i have always suggested that people keep an open mind until ALL the facts are presented. and to date, they have not.
thanx for creating some common ground on the abels plan. again. i am opposed to some of the plans features and i am supportive of others.
the inclusive planning process i have been looking at is the one that is implemented in mary ann smith's ward. in my view, the three step process that is in place allows for a thorough review by all interested parties DURING the planning stage, right through to the construction process.
in my mind, that system allows proactive neighborhood, business and political input. our current system does not. we are out of the loop until most of the substantial decisions have all been decided.we are asked to REACT, and sometimes, despite our objections, projects get approved.
plase understand, i am in no way an obstructionist or a "hate all developer and development" advocate. rogers park needs responsible quality development. mary ann smiths' process works for developers as well as the community.
i believe we should explore this option here in the 49th ward. we have seen some of the conclusions and consequences of the current "hit or miss" development process. i don't think we can afford to make too many more mistakes. that is an observation, not a criticism.
The secret advisory panel, closed to purportedly encourage the free exchange of ideas, is a play from the Cheney play book:
Cheney Energy Task Force
Just one more of Moore's many Republican, pro-business and anti-democratic tendencies.
just the fact maam-
one single meeting does not a consensus make. nor is it a rational way to create an urban planning process. so the side with the most warm bodies in the room wins the game?
community needs and interests are too complex to leave decisions up to a process as shaky as the one you describe.
would you buy a house without a full inspection and understanding of current market conditions that might affect the asking price? i doubt it.
we are being asked, specifically on the 7015 project, to make just that sort of incomplete decision.
we were presented with an architectural concept and an incomplete business plan. abels wasn't even able to remember how many heads the restaurant could seat.
that's a heck of a leap of faith, for us, to make a decision based on those sketchy details.
Hey, Gary, believe me, they all knew you were standing outside the door. It appears that your presence made them change their procedures. I know it seems anticlimactic, but that's activism!
Next time there's a proposal, this case will be one that developers and architects will look at to determine what projects can fly. It will tell them that they can't simply run roughshod over community opinions. To some degree, it's hard to think this case will guide people much, since who else would propose a parking garage/rooftop restaurant/condo?
In order to deflect the NIMBY and CAVE accusations, we need to get together and make sure it's clear what "rules" this project violated. You and I know we're not opposed to any project no matter what, but the opposition will try to paint all of us that way. (Even now, jeff o is painting us this way.) So I think it's incumbent on us to lay out some rules/guidelines to show that there's a way to propose projects that can work. Basically, it's back to that neighborhood plan we've talked about.
We'll talk soon. In the meantime, congratulations on your successful efforts on this project.
Kevin posted...
> please tell me then just what your idea of a "community process" is?
> you keep complaining about lack of community process, but don't say how you would change it.
Toward an Open Community Development Process
Simple, specific, inexpensive, big-benefit things Alderman Moore COULD do if he had a real commitment to an open process instead of a sham commitment:
1. Document and post on the Alderman's web site the "extensive community review process." Alderman Smith does this.
48th Ward Zoning & Planning Committee Community Approval Process
2. Develop and post written by-laws for the "community" zoning committee, including definitions of quorum. Alderman Tunney does this.
Bylaws of the 44th Ward Community Directed Development Council
3. Develop and post development guidelines so that the public will have confidence in the range of the issues that the committee considers in its evaluation of projects. Alderman Daley does this.
Guidelines for Development in the 43rd Ward
4. Make available as a hard-copy document and post the list of the members of his "community" zoning committee. For each member, include a brief statement of organizational affiliation, occupation, the block where they live, and whether they rent or own, so that the community may evaluate for itself Moore's claim the committee "represents the community." Keep the list current. Aldermen Tunney and Smith are ahead of Moore on this.
44th Ward Community Directed Development Council
48th Ward Zoning & Planning Committee Delegate Organizations
5. The Alderman's taxpayer-salaried staff assistant for zoning issues already compiles an agenda for each meeting, and distributes it with hand-outs to the committee members and to the press. Compile and maintain a e-mail and regular mail mailing lists for these documents. Post them on the Alderman's web site. Post the agenda with sufficient lead time that a neighbor could evaluate whether they are interested in attending and learning more about proposed projects in our neighborhood.
6. Post, mail, and e-mail the minutes of each meeting, including a record of attendance and votes. Alderman Tunney and Smith do this.
Summaries from the 44th Ward Community Directed Development Council meetings
48th Ward Zoning and Planning Committee
Moore LOVES to brag on his process as superior to most wards in that it exists. The FACT is his process is seriously deficient when compared to best practices among his peers.
Tom -
You said: "In order to deflect the NIMBY and CAVE accusations, we need to get together and make sure it's clear what "rules" this project violated."
Couldn't agree with you more. I'm looking forward it.
jtfm-
hey, thank YOU. this space was created for exactly the type of exchange you and i just had.
we came from opposite sides of an issue and with some patience and a desire to discuss issues in as rational a manner possible, we are talking.
please drop by often.
Hugh, I think I storge you!
Two questions for anyone that was there:
Did they vote in an open session to conduct a closed door session? What was the reasoning? They are several rules which dictate closed sessions during public meetings.
Did they come out of closed session to come back into open session before voting?
Only under rare circumstances can boards vote in closed session. The purpose of that rule is so that the public is aware of how the individual board representitives voted.
I'm not sure if this group is covered under public meeting laws, since they are essentially toothless -- meaning that the decision the reach holds no legal weight -- but these two elements are important in determining if Sunshine guidelines were followed.
thomas-
there were a lot of people waiting in that room. i think all of us had an accumulative effect, the blogs, the letter writers, the neighbors at the loyola meeting etc.,if that's what happened.
we will be talking. we know organization and follow through are the key ingredients we need to keep in mind. ring or e me anytime.
hugh-
thanx for the links, neighbor.
> I'm not sure if this group is covered under public meeting laws,
Dan,
Moore claims his "community" zoning committee is exempt from our state's sunshine laws.
Illinois Open Meetings Act Resources
"The Illinois Open Meetings Act is designed to prohibit secret deliberations and action on matters which, due to their potential impact on the public, properly should be discussed in a public forum."
I'm not sure if the zoning board is covered under the Open Meetings laws, but if they do, GF and others at the meeting may require certain information to be disclosed about the meeting, including minutes of the closed session, and how people voted.
If they voted in closed session and told you about the vote, that was against the law:
(5 ILCS 120/2) (from Ch. 102, par. 42); (Text of Section from P.A. 93‑57); Sec. 2. Open meetings.
" (e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted."
First, the board must vote in an open session to go into a closed session under one of the reasons outlined -- Deliberation of a public matter is not one of them. Did they give a reason?
Then, before making a final determination on the matter at hand, they must vote to come out of closed session"
(5 ILCS 120/2a) (from Ch. 102, par. 42a)
" Sec. 2a. A public body may hold a meeting closed to the public, or close a portion of a meeting to the public, upon a majority vote of a quorum present, taken at a meeting open to the public for which notice has been given as required by this Act."
Finally, they should have minutes that were kept explaining what was discussed during the closed session. These must be kept on file and they can be made available to the public under certain circumstances.
We really need to make sure that open meetings laws are followed to ensure that the public is aware of how these issues are deliberated by these bodies -- especially on issues that are highly emotional to the public at large.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but if the law was violated, I definately think that a stern reminder in the form of a letter to the Zoning Board would be in order.
Dan Kuemmel
Dan, you asked:
Did they vote in an open session to conduct a closed door session? What was the reasoning? They are several rules which dictate closed sessions during public meetings.
They voted in closed session. We are not privy to their reasoning, but I think we have notions of our own. I would prefer to hear their reasoning though.
Did they come out of closed session to come back into open session before voting?
Yes. The meeting was toggling between open and closed in a way that I found rather problematic as a public observer. Essentially, presentations of new projects by developers were open to the pbulic as observers. All deliberative sessions were closed. Note, that there were more that one new business proposal presented last evening. Between each new presentation, the committee went into deliberation - which means that the public observers were required to move out of the hearing room between each proposal. I plan to request the Alderman to change, at a minimum, that format immediately. I see no reason why all new business proposals can't be presented back to back and then go into deliberative session on new business. Thank god the Potin Stil is across the street from Joe's office...
Only under rare circumstances can boards vote in closed session. The purpose of that rule is so that the public is aware of how the individual board representitives voted.
Good point.
I'm not sure if this group is covered under public meeting laws, since they are essentially toothless -- meaning that the decision the reach holds no legal weight -- but these two elements are important in determining if Sunshine guidelines were followed.
It is my understanding that these meetings are not covered under public meeting laws requirements. However, there is nothing to stop the Alderman from conducting them with the same standards he would have to if they were subject to those requirements.
Thanks for your questions Dan.
Thanks very much for posting that code Dan. I'm sure this is interesting reading for all of us.
The way I understand it, because the vote of the committee is non-binding, in other words, they are simply an advisory committee to inform Joe's decision, the meeting is not subject to the sunshine laws. They are using pubic property to conduct the meeting, but the meeting "belongs" to Joe.
Have I got that right readers?
Uh...I meant to say public, not pubic.
(...sorry about that)
Dan asked:
Did they come out of closed session to come back into open session before voting?
I misunderstood your question the first time. The answer is no, they did not.
The issue turns on whether or not Moore's "community" zoning committee is a "public body." Moore claims it is not,.
dan2
wow, that was helpful. nicely done.
this is worth exploring with the alderman.
Rebecca, regret to inform I am involved in a committed pragma.
oh...well...um, that's okay Hugh...
I guess I'll just have to get over it....
(EMBARRASING!!!!!! sniff!!)
(Just remember, all's fair in storge and war...)
What do you think is the proper definition of a "public body" in this context, Hugh?...in other words, what is the basis for Joe claiming that?
Here's the law:
Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120)
Sec. 1.02. For the purposes of this Act:
"Public body" includes all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.
So former lawyer Moore finessed that while his "community" zoning committee IS an advisory committee, it is not an advisory committee to a city (Chicago), it is not even subsidiary body an advisory committee to a city (Chicago City Council), it is an advisory committee to a MEMBER of a subsidiary body of a city (Alderman Moore), and expends no tax revenue. Therefore not a public body.
That having been said, Gary's excellent point bares repeating:
...there is nothing to stop the Alderman from conducting them with the same standards he would have to if they were subject to those requirements. ... this is worth exploring with the alderman.
By all means, don't listen to me, PLEASE have another run at openning up this process. My go-around with him on this issue was in May, 2003, just after the last election, bad timing. Maybe he is feeling a little more populist lately.
Since there appears to be some interest in this issue, I have scanned and posted the Cook County State's Attorney's office's response to an Illinois Open Meetings Act complaint against the ZALUAC.
Open Meeting Act Complaint Against Alderman Joe Moore
Please understand I post this not to discourage anyone from pursuing this important issue of an open process for development planning, but rather to share some of the history.
Notice that open government issues are categorized under Transaction (consumer fraud) and Health Law at the Cook County State's Attorney's office, a measure of the importance they attach to pursuing such issues.
Hugh, first, my feminine ego requires me to make a little correction:
...there is nothing to stop the Alderman from conducting them with the same standards he would have to if they were subject to those requirements
this was my excellent point. But I know it is a little easy to get Gary and I mixed up. (Oddly, this happens to me all the time. My closest colleague at my day job is called Rachel and everyone confuses us. We have come up with the names Rabecca and Rebchel to get around it. Garecca, Rary...?)
I agree this is worth exploring, which is why I sent a letter to Joe today asking him to consider it. We'll see what he says. Thanks for posting the "complaint" - I am going to read it now.
Okay, I've read the response to the complaint Hugh, and my follow up question is: Did Joe ever to you knowledge try to hold these as open meetings? Was there some event that caused him to change the format to closed deliberation or were they pre-emptively closed?
Any other long time residents feel free to chime in here....
Post a Comment
<< Home