Chicago's current form of government, municipal code, is unsustainable
In the annals of history, the year 1215 has resonated down through the ages as a landmark in England's past. After a decade of depleting his treasury fighting to recover territory lost to France in 1204, John, King of England, faced the fury of powerful barons who were dissatisfied with his despotic rule.
Compelled to the edge, John capitulated to the barons’ demands and, after days of negotiations, sealed an agreement at Runnymede, Surrey, which became known the world over as Magna Carta – Latin for “Great Charter.” A turning point in British history, Magna Carta enshrined the rights, privileges and liberties of the clergy and the nobles, dealt with the administration of justice, and the detail of feudal rights and customs. While much of the emphasis in Magna Carta was placed on the safeguarding of basic freedoms, above all, Magna Carta asserted a fundamental principle: The English monarch was subject to the law. As a result, arbitrary rule became more difficult and resistance to it legitimized.
Though in 1215, Magna Carta was primarily a practical solution to a political crisis which primarily served the interests of the highest ranks of feudal society, the document furthered the spread of common law and gave the gentry concessions they could employ to make the operation of local government more satisfactory. Despite the fact it is considered a triumph of the rule of law over arbitrary power, Magna Carta has a more lasting legacy: The charter also set out a framework for political and societal reform and has since become something of a template for written constitutions across the world.
Though the political and social conditions in Surrey in 1215 are far different than in present-day Chicago, the notion political ideas about rulers who should be subject to law and govern for the benefit of their society not simply themselves is still relevant. A city which operates in the absence of a compact which defines the organization, functions, and essential procedures and policies of city government, for the benefit of residents, the City of Chicago should convene a panel to develop and adopt a charter for itself.
Under Home Rule granted to Chicago in the Illinois Constitution in 1970, Chicago enjoys a degree of independence to carry out official business. However, unlike Home Rule, a charter would form the legal basis for the operation of Chicago. Under a charter, Chicago would have a comprehensive framework which establishes the form of government, the legislative and executive branches of city government, and would outline specific powers or responsibilities delegated to each branch.
A constitution of sorts, with a charter, Chicago would finally achieve a strong system of checks and balances between the mayor’s office and the City Council as the primary means of preventing the actualization of centralized power. Under the current system, Chicago operates under a municipal governing arrangement, which permits an imbalance of power tilted toward the mayor’s office. A political framework which has impelled budget gamesmanship, allowed corruption and cronyism to flourish, and led to unwise or disastrous decisions, the consequences have left Chicago submerged in debt. Nepotism and corruption have been left unchecked and allow mayors the liberty to do much of what they please.
Though a charter will not be a remedy for all the problems Chicago faces, under a charter, the City Council would possess specific procedures for mayoral appointees to be nominated and approved to lead a city department across government. Furthermore, a charter would legally ordain referendums on a municipal ballot for voters to decide a variety of laws, reforms or changes to policy or bonding issues. Similar to ballot initiatives and mayoral appointees, a charter would serve as a check on mayoral power by compelling the mayor to submit to the City Council for approval contracts or financial agreements negotiated by City Hall.
While a charter would provide the executive and legislative branches with individual powers, where a charter would best serve the interest of good governance in Chicago is through the creation of an independent Budget Office. An office staffed by employees chosen without regard to political affiliation, under the direction of a City of Chicago Budget Office, the agency would provide economic information and revenue projections for both the mayor and the City Council. The reports the Budget Office would produce would be objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the city budget. By law, the Budget Office would be required to create a cost estimate for ordinances which pass out of Council committees and would be legally obligated to publish an annual report with a budget outlook.
To enrich the budget office, the City Council could secure passage of an ordinance, a “Truth and Integrity in Budgeting” law. Such an ordinance would make mandatory the disclosure of data and associated supplemental material to accompany the office’s key reports. The ordinance would also call for the office to disclose a legislative budget process and schedule.
In addition to a Budget Office, a charter should reorganize city government beginning with the elimination of the Office of the City Clerk and doing away with elections to determine the City Treasurer. Under a charter, the responsibilities of the City Clerk would fall under the purview of the Chicago Department of Revenue and the City Treasurer should be a position appointed by the mayor, subject to approval by the City Council.
In place of an appointed Comptroller, a charter should authorize the Comptroller an elected office. A position vested with the authority to serve as the chief financial officer of Chicago, the comptroller would exercise general supervision over the accounts of all officers and departments across city government independent of the mayor's office. Under the charter, all city payments are approved and disbursed by the Comptroller and the office would also be responsible for official financial reports and financial and performance audits of all City Departments and programs.
Although the Chicago has managed to function passably without a charter, its methods and procedures are arcane and tend to place most authority in the hands of the mayor. Chicago residents deserve more. Residents deserve something greater: Good governance.
While adopting a charter would require action in the Illinois General Assembly, there could exist adequate support in Springfield to realize a charter for Chicago. To many lawmakers in Springfield, in particular legislators from downstate, Chicago is a nuisance, and a charter may be appealing by virtue it would impose some discipline on Chicago and force both the mayor and aldermen to rely less on the state for funding.
All of this does, of course, require political will among aldermen and the mayor. Chicago has reached a juncture at which it can continue to totter along guided by municipal code, or it can catch up to other major metropolitan areas which operate under a charter. The trouble with municipal code is it lacks enforcement mechanisms, is subject to continued change —often to suit the needs of aldermen and to preserve their power — or achieve short-term transactional objectives.
Chicago will never successfully overcome any of its most pressing problems — crime, declining population, urban decay, affordability, fiscal imbalance, and hopelessly failing schools — under its current system of government. A movement among lawmakers in the City Council and civic-minded individuals must emerge and work in consultation with Governor J.B. Pritzker and the IGA to secure passage of a law permitting Chicago to ratify a charter for Chicago. Under a charter, a co-equal system of government would be achieved, and Chicago would operate under constitutional standards and processes, the outcome of which would produce good policy, sound decision making, and good governance.
