Community activist Andy Thayer is taking the city of Chicago to court challenging the City Council’s public comment policy. (Photo from Any Thayer Facebook page)
Andy Thayer believes if Chicago aldermen actually heard from angry residents about increased taxes and fees they wouldn’t be so quick to approve them.
Thayer, a community activist, has taken the city to court claiming that the City Council’s lack of public comment during meetings is a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act.
He also contends that the city’s practice of handpicking what members of the public get into council meetings also needs to be squelched.
“They have clear violations of the Open Meetings Act,” Thayer said after a court hearing on the issue last week. “If you are a preferred individual, you get preferential treatment from the council. We just saw that in action at the budget hearings. A representative from the Civic Federation spoke for over an hour. Residents were given three minutes.”
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Diane Joan Larsen is expected to issue a written opinion on Thayer’s public comment complaint by Dec. 19.
Public comment is allowed during City Council committee meetings, but when the full council meets there is not a time set aside for public comment.
Since July, Thayer has sought an injunction against the city, claiming that its actions of picking and choosing who gets into council meetings, and not allowing public comment are violations of the Open Meetings Act.
Thayer and fellow activist Rick Garcia filed suit in July after the council approved a $15.8 million tax-increment financing subsidy for a luxury high-rise development in the Upton neighborhood, just yards away from homeless encampments underneath Lake Shore Drive viaducts. The activists contend that the homeless need the housing far more than politically connected developers.
Tax-increment financing freezes all taxing bodies’ levies for a certain geographic area and for a set period of time. The difference between the frozen amount and actual amount paid in taxes goes into a special fund to pay for improvements in the area or provide tax incentives to developers
Thayer and Garcia point out that the rushed TIF vote was no accident as it was passed just before the city’s new Affordable Requirements Ordinance went into effect and raised the number of required affordable units in developments from 5 percent to 20 percent.
After the activists’ suit claimed no members of the general public were allowed in at the start of the May and June council meetings, the city adopted a policy to allow 30 seats in the gallery to be for the general public and the other 282 remaining seats for chosen attendees.
“They have set aside 30 seats,” Thayer said. “That is a start, but it is not enough.”
Thayer noted that there are regularly lines of people 50-plus deep to get into council meetings and at times those line grow to as large as 200.
City attorneys declined to comment on the issue when leaving Larsen’s courtroom.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pledged “the most open, accountable and transparent government that the city of Chicago has ever seen.”
Activists contend that under Emanuel council meetings have been even less accessible than under Emanuel’s predecessor, Richard M. Daley.
The Open Meetings Act states “Citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.”
“From mass school closures to TIF subsidies for the wealthy to a long series of regressive taxes, the City Council and Mayor Emanuel are able to get away with these wildly unpopular measures, in part, because they bar the public from attending, let alone testifying at City Council meetings,” Thayer said. “With a hand-picked audience in the Council Gallery, they manufacture the illusion of popular support for their unpopular measures.”
Lawyers for the city argued in court last week that the Open Meetings Act does not say that public comment is mandatory at meetings.
The seating issue continues to be examined by both sides and will be handled separately from the public comment decision.
The city attorneys noted that along with the 30 public seats, residents can reserve a seat for City Council meetings by calling ahead of time.
Thayer said he is concerned with such a set-up.
“You’ve got the fox guarding the hen house,” Thayer said. “I am not sure who is making those decision, but I sure don’t think it’s a good idea.”
— Activist: City’s silencing of residents has to stop —
Activist: City’s silencing of residents has to stop
By Kevin Beese For Chronicle Media — November 28, 2016Community activist Andy Thayer is taking the city of Chicago to court challenging the City Council’s public comment policy. (Photo from Any Thayer Facebook page)
Andy Thayer believes if Chicago aldermen actually heard from angry residents about increased taxes and fees they wouldn’t be so quick to approve them.
Thayer, a community activist, has taken the city to court claiming that the City Council’s lack of public comment during meetings is a violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act.
He also contends that the city’s practice of handpicking what members of the public get into council meetings also needs to be squelched.
“They have clear violations of the Open Meetings Act,” Thayer said after a court hearing on the issue last week. “If you are a preferred individual, you get preferential treatment from the council. We just saw that in action at the budget hearings. A representative from the Civic Federation spoke for over an hour. Residents were given three minutes.”
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Diane Joan Larsen is expected to issue a written opinion on Thayer’s public comment complaint by Dec. 19.
Public comment is allowed during City Council committee meetings, but when the full council meets there is not a time set aside for public comment.
Since July, Thayer has sought an injunction against the city, claiming that its actions of picking and choosing who gets into council meetings, and not allowing public comment are violations of the Open Meetings Act.
Thayer and fellow activist Rick Garcia filed suit in July after the council approved a $15.8 million tax-increment financing subsidy for a luxury high-rise development in the Upton neighborhood, just yards away from homeless encampments underneath Lake Shore Drive viaducts. The activists contend that the homeless need the housing far more than politically connected developers.
Tax-increment financing freezes all taxing bodies’ levies for a certain geographic area and for a set period of time. The difference between the frozen amount and actual amount paid in taxes goes into a special fund to pay for improvements in the area or provide tax incentives to developers
Thayer and Garcia point out that the rushed TIF vote was no accident as it was passed just before the city’s new Affordable Requirements Ordinance went into effect and raised the number of required affordable units in developments from 5 percent to 20 percent.
After the activists’ suit claimed no members of the general public were allowed in at the start of the May and June council meetings, the city adopted a policy to allow 30 seats in the gallery to be for the general public and the other 282 remaining seats for chosen attendees.
“They have set aside 30 seats,” Thayer said. “That is a start, but it is not enough.”
Thayer noted that there are regularly lines of people 50-plus deep to get into council meetings and at times those line grow to as large as 200.
City attorneys declined to comment on the issue when leaving Larsen’s courtroom.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has pledged “the most open, accountable and transparent government that the city of Chicago has ever seen.”
Activists contend that under Emanuel council meetings have been even less accessible than under Emanuel’s predecessor, Richard M. Daley.
The Open Meetings Act states “Citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.”
“From mass school closures to TIF subsidies for the wealthy to a long series of regressive taxes, the City Council and Mayor Emanuel are able to get away with these wildly unpopular measures, in part, because they bar the public from attending, let alone testifying at City Council meetings,” Thayer said. “With a hand-picked audience in the Council Gallery, they manufacture the illusion of popular support for their unpopular measures.”
Lawyers for the city argued in court last week that the Open Meetings Act does not say that public comment is mandatory at meetings.
The seating issue continues to be examined by both sides and will be handled separately from the public comment decision.
The city attorneys noted that along with the 30 public seats, residents can reserve a seat for City Council meetings by calling ahead of time.
Thayer said he is concerned with such a set-up.
“You’ve got the fox guarding the hen house,” Thayer said. “I am not sure who is making those decision, but I sure don’t think it’s a good idea.”
— Activist: City’s silencing of residents has to stop —