Some aldermen diverted their gaze, seeming to understand that it was their embarrassment, too. Others just laughed at {Joe} Moore. Daley smirked.....Related: Joe Moore is a sore loser.
.....Moore's fellow aldermen aren't particularly fond of him. As one of the last of the lakefront do-gooders, he often plays the role of the scold, chastising them on this issue or that....
....And of course, he was the one who got them into this mess in the first place. Source.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
* Joe Moore Not Liked By Council Mates
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
He isn't like by his council mates for any number of reasons:
- He isn't very bright
- He clearly places no emphasis on doing good work for his own ward
- Rather than use any sort of political savvy to get what he wants, he openly picks a fight with Mayor Daley
- He loves the limelight, but is clumsy in his efforts to attract it
- He isn't very bright.
Sent to me via email:
chris robling wrote...> "There is no reporter I respect more than Mark Brown. But I think a very important part of the story did not make it into his column today. Please decide for yourself.
Joe Moore sponsored the ban a bit more than two-and-a-half years ago, in the fall of 2005. He had been working with animal rights extremists for months before the introduction.
The proposed ban was referred to the health committee, on which Joe sits. Hearings were held, in October 2005, and nothing was done. First days went by, then weeks, then months, and -- no word from the health committee.
Constant inquiries were made of the health committee by individual restaurants, the Illinois Restaurant Association, foie gras producers, avian scientists and others who were troubled by the proposed ban. All were told that an announcement would be made by the committee about when the measure would go to the floor of the City Council.
The announcement never happened.
Instead, at a meeting two years ago, I believe in June 2006, after a business session that covered a wide range of issues, the Mayor recognized an Alderman for the purpose of passing an "omnibus" measure -- that is, a lengthy list of non-controversial items on which there was complete agreement.
The foie gras ban was included in that omnibus.
There had been no announcement. The ban was not identified. No one said, "Oh, and by the way, contrary to 170 years of practice, this week we have a controversial item tucked into the omnibus on which you are about to vote..."
95 percent of the alderpeople had no idea they were voting on it. It came as a surprise.
Unlike yesterday, the vote had not been in the news that morning.
Unlike yesterday, opponents had not been informed that the vote was coming.
Unlike yesterday, no alderman was out among his colleagues asking for votes, as Tom Tunney did.
In the discussion after the vote several aldermen said they had never seen a controversial item slipped into an omnibus for a final vote by the council in their entire careers. I am not a historian of the City Council so I don't know if that is true.
But we all know that when Joe Moore was winning with a process that ignored public notice and normal practice he was happy as a clam. In fact, I appeared with him on Chicago Tonight, and he could not have cared less about deceiving his opponents. He was right proud of his little ploy.
But now that his colleagues have repudiated both him and the issue which pre-occupied him for more than a year, while 49th Ward kids were struggled below state averages in achievement, he cloaks himself in due process, claiming offense at tyranny and bully tactics.
That's how Joe saw fit to pass his ban. So I am not surprised that the Mayor and his colleagues decided Joe needed an object lesson to learn that as one treats others, one may expect to be treated by them."
Thanks,
Chris Robling
chris,
you and Tunney ar trying to get the press to pick up the idea that Moore used a tricky maneuver in the 1st place to pass the foie gras ban
well, sorry, you are uninformed
if you knew anything about how the City Council works you would know that almost EVERYTHING they do EVERY MONTH is in omnibus - that is, all their work for the month is voted on ONCE as one large measure
I wasn't aware that the fois gras ban was passed in an omnibus bill. I thought there had been debate, or at least an airing of pros and cons.
I am very troubled by the way the mayor handled the repeal. I dislike Joe Moore as much as anyone, but it bodes ill for future challenges to what hizzoner wants. Remember --
Daley wants to complete the Burnham Plan (at least what HE thinks the Burnham Plan is) and destroy our precious street end beaches. And if he rolled over our esteemed alderman (afterall, he IS our representative), imagine what will happen when there is an issue that really affects the residents in Rogers Park (my apologies to the ducks of RP).
To quote Rev. Martin Niemoller (hey, I googled it):
First they came for the Communists,and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
Someone creative could update this for Chicago under Mayor Daley.
here is a link to the original foie gras vote:
AMENDMENT OF TITLE 7, CHAPTER 39 OF MUNICIPAL CODE OF CHICAGO BY ADDITION OF NEW SECTIONS 001 AND 005 PROHIBITING SALE OF FOIE GRAS BY FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS.
it was April, 2006, not June
the record clearly shows the ordinance being reported out of the Health committee by Ald. Ed Smith, the chairman of the Health committee, during the normal course of business, as part of the Health Committee's normal report to the full City Council
the record clearly shows that the original foie gras ordinance was NOT part of the omnibus
a separate, "divided roll call vote" was taken
the vote was 48-1 in favor, with Levar voting against
(the omnibus that day was passed unanimously, as usual)
"I am not a historian of the City Council ... "
that's for sure
the record clearly shows that the original foie gras ban was considered by committee, in sharp contrast with the repeal
He isn't like by his council mates...
Could that be because he doesn't look people in the eye when he speaks to them? He always appears to be looking above a persons head into the distance. It's quite uncomfortable to watch.
save street end beaches says, "afterall, he IS our representative." I must disagree with you, he is not my representative. I have never supported or voted for the man, and I never will. He does not do anything with my interest in mind. He is only interested in his personal agenda. Keeping his pockets lined with money from slumlords and psuedo religious groups that contribute to his campaign fund. He is not interested in cleaning up the neighborhood and making it safe for all to live in and enjoy. Keep the neighborhood filled with poverty and they will continue to re-elect you because you scare them into believing without you they will end up homeless.
Bosworth, I agree with your sentiment. What I meant by saying he is our representative, is whether we like it or not (and I don't), he represents us (49th Ward residents) in city council and is our voice. If the mayor disrespects him (and someday it may be on an issue of grave importance to us what is our recourse?
How much is Joe's being at odds of the Mayor hurting this Ward? As the Mayor is ALL powerful in this City, do you think perhaps, that there might be consequences in City Services, or development assistance, or other subtle non-help from the City towards this Ward BECAUSE of Joe?
I do!
I ask why;
The most affordable North Side Lakefront Ward, with excellent transportation, great housing stock, sandwiched between two university's, adjacent to a dynamic Evanston-(with 2-3 times higher property taxes), an amazingly diverse population, has so woefully not-developed to anything NEAR it's potential?
I think it has a great deal to do with our, ahem, "leadership" of the past 17 years, or whatever the number is. How many of those years was Joe an "independent outsider"? 17 years of pissing off the most powerful big city mayor in the country. 17 years of the largest sustained real estate development cycle in history and we have what? A bunch of nearly sub-standard concrete block, zoning-plus crap condos. Where's the community development of commercial businesses? Gateway is now almost nearly full, after 10 years, only because of a fishy Devcorp sale of the lower level. Andersonville is not even 2 miles away, drive down that section of Clark Street versus our section of Clark Street. One section is "El Norte bario", the other is a DYNAMIC, diverse, successful commercial corridor. Something stinks in this Ward, and I think, like a fish, the rot starts at the Ward office.
Joe has to be among the most two-faced politicians in this city, and that's saying something!
Remember the last election when that slime ball pulled every dirty trick available to make sure he didn't lose his job?
It's always the crook who yells the loudest when the tables are turned!
Good point about Joe's dirty tricks. He claimed he was the victim of "Swift boating" and had his union goons out spreading lies (hmmm...who did send out that pink postcard?).
Where are his union buddies now? Out feeding the ducks?
Alderman Moore's Report on Wednesday's City Council Meeting
Dear Neighbor,
Recent City Council meetings have been rather unremarkable, and so I generally wait a few days, or even a few weeks, before I issue you a report on the goings-on at Council. Last Wednesday's meeting was an exception, however, and the events that unfolded should be of profound concern to those who believe in good and open government.
Perhaps you saw the TV coverage or read in the newspaper that Mayor Daley and one of his City Council allies rushed through a repeal of the ban on the sale of foie gras in Chicago's restaurants with no public input and no City Council debate. You may have supported the ban as an important statement against egregious animal cruelty, or foie gras may be one of your favorite foods--but in either case, I hope you are as troubled as I am about the sad state of democracy in Chicago's City Council.
How should the legislative process work? Laws to be passed (or repealed) move through committee hearings first before progressing to the Council floor for a vote. The committee hearings are where the voices of average citizens can be heard. Anyone can testify on any piece of legislation.
The committee hearings also provide aldermen with a opportunity to learn more about proposed legislation, to debate among themselves, and to amend the legislation as result of the public input and debate. Then at the Council meeting itself, there is another chance for debate before the matter is brought to a vote.
The initial foie gras ban was passed only after a great deal of public input and discussion among the aldermen. But not so in this case. Instead, 44th Ward Alderman Tom Tunney last year introduced an ordinance repealing the foie gras ban. He did so at the behest of the Illinois Restaurant Association, an organization he once chaired. The measure was sent to the City Council Rules Committee, where it sat for over a year.
Alderman Tunney never asked for a hearing on his repeal ordinance, even though the committee chair indicated he was willing to hold such a hearing, and none was ever held. Then yesterday in a surprise manuever, Alderman Tunney invoked a seldom used state law that permits an Alderman to move to "discharge" a matter from committee without a public hearing.
I attempted first to argue that we should hold the matter in committee for a public hearing, but the Mayor, who chairs the City Council meeting, ruled me out of order, without citing any legal authority for that ruling. I then demanded to be recognized so that I could debate the issue of the repeal, and the Mayor, in complete violation of City Council rules, simply chose to ignore me and demanded that the clerk proceed immediately to a roll call vote.
The entire incident was reminiscent of City Council meetings 40 years ago, when the Mayor's father, Richard J. Daley, would turn off the microphones of dissenting aldermen. I was also disappointed in my fellow aldermen, who with a few notable exceptions, sat passively as the Mayor short-circuited the democratic process.
If this is the City Council of the future, we're all in trouble. From the Children's Museum to new property taxes to TIF's, is this how future legislative decisions are going to be determined with no public input and no debate? Let us commit ourseves to a more decent, democratic vision.
Aside from the personal attacks and the distraction of the repeal, some City Council business was actually accomplished. For example, the Council passed an ordinance requiring the recycling of plastic shopping bags, which will go into effect in six months. The ordinance copied parts of a New York City law, but the final version fell short of its model.
In New York City, all stores larger than 5,000 square fee or part of a chain must set our bins for recycling and report on the results. But in Chicago, the ordinance is limited to grocery and drug stores, no matter the size.
The result? Any little corner grocery will have to find a way to recycle bags, while some of Chicago's largest stores, from Office Depot to Best Buy to Macy's, will be of the hook. I'm not only concerned about the loss of plastic bag recycling from the larger stores, but the extra burden this legislation will place on all the little groceries and bakeries in the 49th Ward and elsewhere.
Will the City seriously address the important issues of educating the public and store owners about the plastic bag recycling and oversight? There's no qestion that disposable plastic bags waste natural resources (like petroleum) and create ugly litter, but Chicago's ordinance is not necessarily the most effective solution. And unfortunately, other approaches, such as plastic bag bans, were not even considered.
I reluctantly voted in favor, but will revist the ordinance and monitor its results as the law becomes operational.
The City Council will next meet on Wednesday, June 11th, when it is likely that the Council will consider the Mayor's proposal to move the Children's Museum to Grant Park. Just another boring meeting, I'm sure!
I will report on the results.
Sincerely,
Joe Moore
Joe said...> "If this is the City Council of the future, we're all in trouble. From the Children's Museum to new property taxes to TIF's, is this how future legislative decisions are going to be determined with no public input and no debate? "
Did Moore forget about the TIF money he abuses without debate in his OWN WARD?
Rxem
May 15th - 6:28 p.m.
Mayor Daley is a petty, corrupt, mean, bully-dictator. What Daley did is a disgrace. Joe Moore did himself no favors.
But Joe Moore is a lying, racist, stupid politician who has played soft on crime, played cozy with slumlords, and made enemies in the city council. Joe Moore played the race card in 2007 in the aldermanic campaign in tricks that Karl Rove would be jealous of.
Alderman Joe Moore and his Stroger employed committeman side kick who looks like the cookie monster Fagus did not endorse any Hispanics in the last election and specifically went againt Jose Berrios and Frank Avila. They went with the slated candidate for judge when Moldanado twisted their arm. Some liberals are anti-Hispanic and use Blacks as pawns and think they are the white liberal masters.
A lot of alderman would of gone against the Mayor but Joe Moore made no friends.
Post a Comment