Cook County Board Meeting on June 19, 2012

Board Approves New HHS Board Members and Redistricting Map

New HHS Board Members

By voting to accept the report of the Legislation and Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting held earlier that morning, the Board approved Rev. Calvin S. Morris, Carmen Velasquez, and Dorene P. Wiese to new 3-year terms through June 30, 2015 to the Health & Hospitals Board.  Also approved was Edward L. Michael to complete the one-year remaining on term of a Board Member who resigned.  These appointments add to the diversity of the Board as the new members are an African American man, an Hispanic woman, a Native American woman, and a Caucasian man.

Separately, as part of the Revenue Report presented by the Comptroller to the Finance Committee, the CEO of the HHS, Dr. Raju, said that the current projection is for the HHS to be down $60 million from budgeted revenues for the fiscal year, though revenues, as compared to last year at this time, are up by 11%.  But he expects further strains on the system with people no longer being eligible for Medicaid under new Illinois legislation.

New Commissioner Districts for the 2014 Election

By accepting the report of the 2010 Redistricting Committee (see the Cook County Observer Blog report from the June 15 meeting), the Board adopted an ordinance creating new districts for the 17 Commissioners effective with the 2014 election. 

Proposed Amendment regarding Source of Income (SOI)

Item 10 on the New Items agenda is a proposed amendment to the County’s Fair Housing ordinance which would eliminate wording that allows a landlord to refuse to rent to people who want to use Federal Section 8 assistance as their source of income (SOI).  Commissioner Garcia, one of the sponsors, moved that the proposed amendment be sent to the Human Relations Committee, which was approved.  The League of Women Voters of Cook County is supporting this amendment.

Proposal for County Cemetery for Burying Unclaimed Deceased

Probably the most time during the Finance Committee portion of the meeting was spent on a resolution sponsored by Commissioner Fritchey to study creating a County cemetery to bury those in the County morgue who have not been claimed for burial elsewhere.  Commissioner Fritchey obviously felt that he had been given misleading or incorrect information by members of the Administration, and he took quite a bit of time to question Robin Kelly, the Chief Administrator of the County.  Commissioner Fritchey favored situating the proposed cemetery on part of the Oak Forest Hospital campus that is up for sale by the County, and which portion of the land is adjacent to an old cemetery.  However, it was clear from the statements of the other Commissioners that Commissioner Fritchey had no support for this resolution, and he withdrew it.

New Items

Several new items, not available to review prior to the meeting on the County’s web sites, were referred to Committees, including (New Item 15) a proposed change in the Procurement Ordinance to provide flexibility with the goal of having more Minority, Women-owned, and small businesses obtain contracts from the County; (New Item 16) a proposal to establish a Land  Bank Advisory Committee to advise on creation of a Cook County Land  Bank to help redevelop vacant and tax-delinquent properties; and (New Item 20) proposed appointments to the Medical Examiner’s Advisory Committee.

To watch the video of this meeting and/or to view the agenda items for this meeting and the committee meetings held before and during this Board Meeting, go to http://blog.cookcountyil.gov/secretarytotheboard.

-- submitted by Priscilla Mims

2010 Redistricting Committee Meeting on June 15, 2012

Redistricting Committee Approves New Map

The 2010 Redistricting Committee, composed of all 17 Commissioners, approved the proposed map submitted by the appointed Staff, as amended by technical amendments also proposed by the Staff, at the June 15 meeting.  The vote was 14 yea – 1 no (Commissioner Collins) – 2 absent (Commissioners Beavers and Schneider).  The next step is for the Board to approve the recommended map at the next Board Meeting on June 19. 

While the proposed ordinance containing the map by reference will be effective immediately, Commissioners will continue to serve their currently drawn districts.  Further, should there be any Board vacancies before the 2014 election, the person appointed will come from the current districts.  For those running in the 2014 primary and November election for a Board position, they will be running to serve the new districts as drawn by this new map. This new map will only be used for the 2014 and 2018 elections.  A new map will be needed for the 2022 election, and will be based on the 2020 census.

The map approved by the Committee has 5 districts with African-American majorities, 3 districts with Hispanic majorities, and 9 districts with Non-Hispanic White majorities.  This represents 1 additional Hispanic majority district and one less Non-Hispanic White majority district, while retaining 5 districts with African-American majorities.  There is up to almost a 10% disparity in the size of the districts, meaning that there are differences in population among the districts of up to about 30,000 people.  This is within the tolerances that Courts have approved according to the consultants to the Committee.  Essentially, the new map started with the existing districts and added and subtracted territory as necessary to comport with the 2010 census, keeping in mind the Voting Rights Act.  Maintaining people in their current district to the extent possible was one of the goals stated by the Committee’s consultant.  But as a result, most of the newly-drawn districts can hardly be said to be “compact.”

Prior to voting on the new map, the Commissioners considered and rejected a proposed amendment submitted by Commissioner Earlean Collins that would have substituted a different map.  The “Collins Protected Class Map 6/12/12” would have increased the majorities in the African-American and Hispanic majority districts, as compared to the approved map.  Further, the districts under this map would have been almost equal in population (less than a 1% deviation).  This proposed map on its face appeared to have more compact districts.  The information provided was not sufficient, however, to determine whether towns and wards or other communities of interest would have been divided more often than under the approved map.    The proposed amendment was defeated with only Commissioner Suffredin joining Commissioner Collins in voting to approve it, and with Commissioner Fritchey voting “present.”

-- submitted by Priscilla Mims

Cook County Board Meeting, May 1, 2012

The meeting began with an hour of various procedural and ceremonial matters including the recognition of Silver Star families, the 10th Anniversary of Growing Home and the recognition of a couple who had gone out of their way to help a crime victim.

Then the board meeting was recessed by President Preckwinkle and The Finance Committee met, chaired by Commissioner Daley. Routine court orders, subrogations and bond issue changes were approved.

Then the commissioners turned their attention to the matter of Contingency Funds which seem to be routinely used both by department heads and other high ranking officials and elected Commissioners to cover spending on travel and other expenses with much less oversight than these expenditures would receive if they were accounted for under individual budget line items. President Preckwinkle had asked Commissioner Tobolski to try to identify a solution that would be acceptable to a majority of Commissioners.

Commissioner Collins made a long statement saying that it was her opinion that any changes made should apply to everyone - the President, Department heads, Chief of Staff and Commissioners. Collins said she suggested an amendment to cover everyone but said Tobolski deferred it.  Daley said that Collins had not used the correct process to have her amendment considered.

Silvestri asked why the overall reimbursement process could not be clarified so the same process was used for everything and everybody.  He said he, Quigley and Daley introduced new controls some years ago and these changes are a good thing and a continuation of what they had started.  Further, he said the Collins amendment is worthy of consideration as the spending of contingency funds by Commissioners is only a fraction of the whole.  Daley responded by saying he did not really understand why people think this is a problem at all.

Murphy said the current process works and the new rules suggested by Tobolski and the Collins amendment are both unnecessary.  They will simply create extra work.  In her opinion the process that exists now is open and transparent.

Tobolski responded by saying that the Ethics department report shows that there are problems. “Office Supplies” has been used to cover all kinds of things from travel to entertainment.  The suggested changes mirror normal business practices - you can’t get money in advance and provide details later, sometimes months later.  The changes will not fix all the problems but the best that can be done at this point.  Many Commissioners have cooperated in developing them.

Fritchey said he agrees with the Tobolski effort but disagrees with how it is being done. He agrees with Collins that the rules should apply to those not elected as well particularly as they do not have to answer to the voters. There should also be rules in place to reimburse the County for personal use of county cars.  He had filed an ordinance to do away with contingency funds altogether as they are so subject to misuse but there are not enough votes to pass this.  The Tobolski-suggested changes still leave significant loopholes.  They add a layer of bureaucracy and allow people to say something is being done but they don’t fix the problem.  The Ethics department is busy with other things.  He will vote yes but just for “optics” reasons as he doesn’t want it to be said he did not support stronger controls over spending.  Each Commissioner has different dollar amounts in Contingency funds and they use them for different things.  This makes no sense.  The analogy is that the State Board of Elections shouldn’t have to pre-approve each campaign expense as there is already a list of pre-approved types of expenses.  So why does the Ethics department have to look at each item?  Also there are no mechanisms for dealing with non-compliance in place and no penalties for non-compliance.  He questioned Director of Ethics Mary Foster about the personal use of County cars.  She said they have no authority over this.  They are just being given oversight over spending contingency funds.  She said daily review would be better than quarterly review but she supports the amendment.  Fritchey said daily review would be unworkable.

Commissioner Garcia expressed support for the Tobolski proposals.

Commissioner Simms said she was offended by the idea that the old ways were bad and the old guard was corrupt.  The current discussion about Good Government was just to generate Good Press for the newcomers.  When lobbyists joined the board lobbying became alright.  People are double dipping on pensions but the reformers won’t touch that because they want to double dip too.  The board has to stop just acquiescing to what the press says.  If you don’t like contingency money then don’t take them and don’t use them.

Tobolski asked people not to get personal and said the Collins amendment should be looked at once his proposed changes had been put in place.  He had confined his review to the Commissioners spending only because that is what President Preckwinkle had asked him to do.

Vote was as follows:  16 yes (Reyes, Tobolski, Garcia, Collins, Fritchey, Suffredin, Butler, Beavers, Murphy, Simms, Daley, Schneider, Goslin, Silvestri, Gorman, Steele) and 1 absent (Gainer).

After the Finance Committee adjourned, the Workers Compensation Committee failed to meet because of a lack of quorum.

Then the Zoning and Building Committee met to handle some routine matters.

President Preckwinkle returned to restart the Board meeting itself and various routine matters were handled including an intergovernmental agreement between the City and County covering Juvenile Justice.

Another intergovernmental agreement generated some discussion and questions but no dissent.  This covers the County taking over the provision of services to tuberculosis patients who are currently handled by the City.  By combining the responsibility under one body it is believed that patients can receive better services at lower cost.  The City will close outpatient TB clinics.

After this various spending contracts were approved.  Most interesting of these were one for GIS software to track wetlands information and one with the Gartner Consulting group to look into streamlining County operations.

Various building fee waivers were approved for organizations such as the Chicago Botanic Gardens (County entity) and the Loyola Medical Center in Maywood.  It was not clear to me if all not for profits have fees reduced or waived or if this was a special case.

Various items on the consent agenda were referred to the Finance Committee and the Roads and Bridges Committee before the rest of the Consent agenda was approved.

A $9.8 million project with US Equities Realty was approved for them to spend two years developing recommendations for rationalizing all the real estate owned by the County.  Suffredin voted “present” on this item.

There was extensive discussion on what initially appeared to be a routine matter to urge the Illinois House to pass Bill 4148 clamping down on the fraudulent use of homestead exemptions.  Representatives from the Cook County Assessors Office explained that the bill contemplated a sliding scale of penalties ranging from $0 for claiming one exemption someone is not entitled to to 40% penalty for claiming three incorrect exemptions.  Suffredin said it was a very fair bill with lots of safeguards to protect the elderly or those who simply made an innocent mistake.  Collins and Simms feel many of their constituents would not be able to cope and would be subject to penalties through simple error on their part.  Schneider and Silvestri also felt there were major issues to be clarified.

Butler and Collins voted No on this item, Schneider, Gorman and Goslin voted Present and the rest of the Commissioners voted Yes.

Another item that generated a lot of discussion was an agreement with the Heartland Alliance for them to provide various services that would result in further reducing the numbers of youth in the Juvenile Detention Center. Currently youth who do not have parents to whom they can be released have to be kept in detention while awaiting court action.  Heartland will serve in the role of guardians and provide services to the youth.  All the Commissioners supported the actions President Preckwinkle and the Chief Judge had initiated in this area.  Substance abuse and other treatment and social services will cost less than detention and result in better outcomes.

The board approved a contract to house detainees for a two year period in other counties who charge $50 per day plus medical costs.  This is significantly less than the cost to provide these same services within Cook County.

Commissioner Simms reported on redistricting.  An additional hearing would be held in the Loop and the deadline to turn in maps would be extended to May 8th.  Nothing had happened behind closed doors and every Commissioner has been invited to come to the map room and draw a map although most had not taken her up on the offer. She encouraged Commissioners to talk to the those who represent neighboring districts.  Simms pointed out this time a Committee of the Whole is working on the issue instead of having 9 people as was done last time.  Daley said he supports the process. Silvestri said the process has been open and they have to figure out the protected districts and have the rest fit around them.

The meeting adjourned at 2:10 pm.

--Submitted by Lali Watt

April 3, 2012 Meeting of the 2010 Redistricting Committee

Public Hearings Set on Redistricting, Public Invited to Submit Maps

Public Hearings

The Committee approved holding 4 hearings at which members of the public may provide comments on the redistricting process:

• Tuesday, April 17 at 6 pm at the Markham Court House, 16501 S. Kedzie, Room 098, Markham, IL
• Tuesday, April 24 at 6 pm at Oakton Community College, 1600 E. Golf Road, Room 1610, Des Plaines, IL.
• Thursday, April 26 at 6 pm at the Maybrook Court House, 1500 S. Maybrook Drive, Room 106, Maywood, IL, and
• Tuesday, May 1 at a time and location to be determined later.

Speakers are asked to pre-register with the Secretary to the Board and provide 30 copies of any written comments.  For more details, see the notice published on the Cook County web site.

Maps from Public and Help

The public is also invited to submit their own maps (either at the hearings or by the previously established May 1 deadline).  Computers and staff will be available in Room 1134 in the Cook County Building to assist the public and Commissioners in drawing such maps.  For information on what must be submitted in conjunction with the maps, see the official Committee Report of the March 13 meeting on the Secretary to the Board’s web site.

A web site is also supposed to be set up to provide the public with information and allow people to sign up for e-mail notices:  www.redistricting.cookcountyil.gov. 

Note:  At the time of this post, this web site is still not functioning, and the League has been told that Room 1134 will likely not be up and running until maybe the end of the week.  That means the public will have only about 2 weeks to prepare maps before the May 1 deadline.

Public Comment

League of Women Voters of Cook County President Cynthia Schilsky then spoke during the public comment period (1) stating that the May 1 deadline for the public to submit proposed redistricting maps did not provide a reasonable amount of time for the public; (2) asking what is the plan for informing the public of their right to submit maps; (3) asking how will the public know the parameters for drawing maps and the criteria the  Committee will use to assess the maps submitted; and (4) again urging that the Committee establish additional procedures for the public to have an opportunity to review and comment on any map(s) chosen by this  Committee for further consideration prior to the Committee taking a vote and then prior to the full Board voting to approve a map.

Chairman Deborah Sims responded that the Committee does plan to provide for further review and input by the public as Ms. Schilsky suggested, but said that she considers May 1 an appropriate deadline for the public to submit maps.

District 17 Map Source:  Cook County, accessed 4/10/12 

George Blakemore also spoke and similarly objected to the May 1 deadline as being too soon and wondered how the public would even hear about this.  He said that the purpose of redistricting was not to re-elect existing Commissioners, but to create compact districts of people who have things in common so they can be represented.  He pleaded with the Committee not to gerrymander the new districts, citing District 17 which  runs along the far west side of the county from very far south to close to the northern border of the county, as an example of a district that is definitely not compact.

Rest of Meeting

Chairman Sims then read from prepared remarks that included a statement that the Committee would produce a map and have public comment.  Nevertheless, Chairman Sims believes that an approved map can be submitted to the Board by June.

The Committee then heard from the people hired to provide advice and expertise.  Peter Creticos, who had been involved with prior County redistricting, said that public input was critical to the process.  In fact, he said, the current districts have their origin in a map submitted by the Urban League and a Mexican American group when the first districts were drawn in the early 1990’s. 

Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services which is to provide census data for the redistricting, said that based on the total county population (which is 182,000 people less than in 2000), there should be 305,569 people in each district, though a 10% deviation (5% above or 5% below) is legally permissible. However, his staff is looking at only a 5% deviation ideally, so the range would be between 293,000 and 313,000 persons per district.  Looking at the total population of Cook County, it might be expected that there would be 3 to 4 African-American majority districts and 3.5 to 4 Hispanic majority districts.  But that does not take into account how each of these minority groups are dispersed throughout the county, which will, of course, impact how many such districts can feasibly be drawn.

Judd Minor, the lead outside counsel, reiterated that the districts could have up to a 10% deviation in population, as long as there were reasons for the disparity.  The law was very strict that districts could not be drawn so as to dilute the voting strength of protected minorities.  And he said that intent was irrelevant; courts look to the effect.  Districts also must be contiguous.  Then, there are requirements, that are very loosely construed, that districts are to be compact, not divide communities of interest, consider other government boundaries, consider shared interests, and may consider protecting the relationship of the incumbents with their current districts.

The Committee stands in recess until the April 17 public hearing in Markham.

Submitted by Priscilla Mims

Cook County Board Redistricting Committee Meeting Tuesday, March 13, 2012

“OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE 17 PRESENT COMMISSIONERS HAPPY AND ABLE TO BE RE-ELECTED FROM THE NEW DISTRICTS”

The first meeting of the 2010 Redistricting Committee began on this sad note and with a violation of the Board’s own rules specifying that public comment is to be taken prior to any votes on agenda items. This statement from Vice Chair Peter Silvestri clearly also expressed the sentiments of Chairman Deborah Sims and many of the other Commissioners present at this first meeting of the 2010 Redistricting Committee which is composed of all 17 Commissioners. Commissioner Schneider later in the meeting did state that the goal was to draw 17 districts that represent the interests of the citizens of Cook County, not the members of this Board. Sadly, he appeared to be in the minority with this sentiment. 

The statements made by most of the Commissioners at this meeting were a far cry from the earlier ones made about how this Committee would have a much better process than that followed by the State Legislature and Chicago City Council in redrawing districts. [See the Feb. 3 observer report for the Feb. 1 Board meeting.]

The Committee’s agenda was to deal with

(1) a resolution establishing redistricting procedures,

(2) a proposed contract hiring Election Data Services to provide redistricting software and support services to redraw districts ($521,850),

(3) a proposed contract to hire Peter A. Creticos, LTD., to provide support and advice to the Committee in redrawing the districts ($100,000),

(4) a letter engaging the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland to provide legal services in connection with the redistricting, with Judson Miner acting as chief counsel ($35,000),

(5) a letter engaging Grasso Bass to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000),

(6) a letter engaging Schirott, Luetkenhans & Garner to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000), and

(7) a letter engaging Velazquezrodriguez LLC to provide legal services as co-counsel ($12,000).

Altogether, these contracts total almost $700,000. It was stated that this amount is within the amount for redistricting costs in the 2012 budget. Laura Lechowicz-Felicione, legal counsel to President Preckwinkle, who is obviously also providing services to this Committee, stated that this total is less than that spent 10 years ago when redistricting was last done.

However, Commissioner Suffredin began the meeting saying that he was going to vote against each of these matters because this Committee had failed to follow the County’s procurement procedures by not issuing a request for proposal (RFP) for the data and mapping services or having a request for qualifications (RFQ) for the law firms. Ms. Lechowicz-Felicione said that bypassing the normal procurement procedures was legal because the contracts were for sole source procurements of specialized services and the law firms were selected for their experience. Commissioner Suffredin did not dispute that the process was legal, but said that bypassing the procurement procedures was bad public policy for this redistricting process.

Commissioner Sims stated that her goal was to complete redistricting by the end of June 2012, saying that if

the city could complete its redistricting in 2 months, surely the County could. (Of course, the public wasn’t allowed to see, let alone comment, on the map that the City Council approved. Even many of the City Council members didn’t see the map until shortly before the vote was taken.)

Commissioners Beavers said he was unhappy with the selection of Judson Minor as the chief counsel for redistricting. Comm. Beavers said that Mr. Minor had been involved in a prior redistricting which resulted in a district from which Beavers could not get elected. Commissioner Fritchey objected to the fact that none of the 4 law firms would represent “his interests,” indicating that they had been chose to represent the Republican, African-American, and Latino interests.

Violation of the Board’s Own Procedures

The Committee then took a roll call vote on the first item, approving the resolution establishing procedures. This was in violation of the ordinance which states that public comment on agenda items is to be taken prior to taking any votes. Both Cynthia Schilsky, President of the League of Women Voters of Cook County, and George Blakemore, a concerned citizen, had signed up to speak with the Secretary to the Board prior to the start of the meeting. This observer was able to get Comm. Gainer’s attention after the vote, and she immediately raised the question about public comment. At that point, Ms. Schilsky and Mr. Blakemore were allowed to speak.

Ms. Schilsky’s prepared written comments all dealt with the resolution establishing procedures that had just been voted on. Most of these comments were directed to establishing additional procedures to allow the public to review and weigh in on proposed maps at different steps before the Committee and then the Board would vote on a final map. Ironically, this Committee did not even allow comments prior to approving the procedures which only provide for public hearings apparently prior to May 1, the deadline for the public to provide suggested maps. The written comments also took issue with such an early deadline for the public. If Chairman Sims’ desire for completion of the entire process by the end of June turns out to be the reality, then clearly the public will have little opportunity to review or comment on the map ultimately approved by the Board.

Ms. Schilsky told the Committee that after hearing what had been said thus far by the Commissioners, she was not going to summarize her written comments as she had planned. Instead, she told the Committee how distressed she was with the sentiment that the purpose of the redistricting process was to “make the Commissioners happy.” She said that the public was cynical about the political process, and those voting or otherwise following and taking part in the political process were becoming fewer and fewer. What had thus far gone on at this meeting only reinforced that cynicism and disengagement. She also questioned why the Committee was trying to hurry the process (thereby limiting the chance of the public to be involved). The elections for Commissioner will not take place until 2014.

Mr. Blakemore applauded Ms. Schilsky and the League for her comments and reiterated much of the same sentiments.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the remaining agenda items, approving all of them. In the presence of this observer, Commissioner Silvestri did come up to Ms. Schilsky afterwards and state that he would be happy to meet with her and discuss her comments and suggestions for additional procedures.

--Submitted by Priscilla Mims