What does an alderman make?
Let's update the answer in the light of current events: Wednesday, November 19 is 2008's High Holiday of the Holy Order of the Rubber Stamps - the day our esteemed Village Elders roll over and give their blessing to Daley's latest RICO scheme, otherwise known as the Chicago City budget.
Buried in the fine print on page 56 of the 617-page budget (also at page 379 here) is a 6.2% pay raise for aldermen.
Aldermanic Salary for 2009: $110,556.00
Although Illinois state law entitles taxpayers to an up-down vote by aldermen to dip into the cash drawer, the closest we are going to get is the budget vote, because, please recall, in a cowardly display of avoidance of accountability, astonishing even by Chicago alderman standards, on July, 26, 2006, our brave City Elders awarded themselves automatic, no-additional-vote-required, cost-of-living increases, from 2006 until the end of time!
The automatic, no-additional-vote-required, cost-of-living increase trick was spear-headed by Alderman Bernard L. Stone, Chicago's oldest living alderman and self-appointed leader of the City Council regressives. Stone, of course, voted in favor of it. And, in a rare display of East-West glasnost, so did seat-mate Alderman Joe Moore, self-appointed leader of the City Council "progressives" (just ask him).
Let's take a look at the big picture of aldermanic salaries.
(click to enlarge)Let's take a closer look at more recent trends.
(click to enlarge)Today is a landmark in Joe Moore's career: he's finally managed to DOUBLE his salary since taking office in 1991!
- Raise your hand if you think Joe Moore is adding twice as much value to our community as he did in 1991!
- Raise your hand if you got a 6% raise this year!
- Raise your hand if you can award yourself automatic, annual cost-of-living raises, unrelated to your job performance!
18 comments:
Wednesday the 19th.
If anyone that voted "NO" on the constitutional convention ballot question two weeks ago complains, guess what?
You have no right to do so!
A "YES" on con-con might have given us the ability to have citizen initiatives & recall, which would have brought this scum under control.
Until we have those abilities, they will run roughshod over our money!
Is this the work of the DEMOCRATIC Party?
Hee Hee Haa Haa!
Sorry, Sock Puppeteer, because the DEMOCRATIC Party tampered with the voting process for that Constitutional Convention, you'll have to wait another 20 years for the chance!
See you then!
Hee Hee Haa Haa!
Amen, Sock Puppeteer!
Let's save some money for aldermanic raises and jumping jacks. Here's a brilliant plan. Slow police hiring to 200 in 2009, saving $10 million.
OMG - that is truly amazing - you really should send that story to the Chicago Tribune - all the people should know what the alderman have done! Truly an amazing position where you get an automatic pay raise every year for a part time job. And Joe worried about the WalMart people?? I guess he didn't stand up and say this raise was wrong and NO he has definitely not earned his current salary - let along an increase. I can never get a response from the man - "looking into it".
What others are saying on the newspaper websites.....
"It's obvious these fat cats made this mess and now want the taxpayers to pay again and again, etc. What we don't need anymore tax increases (of course), alderman are a waste of taxpayer dollars, city officals who keep giving themselves raises and especially lazy city worker who don't do one darn thing. There are plenty of them at city hall."
Here's hoping the Green Party runs some candidates for local offices so I can quit voting for myself for alderman (believe me, you don't want me to win). Can't vote for an incumbent nor for a Republican. Go Green!
Alderman Moore's City Council Report
Dear Neighbor,
Yesterday, the City Council adopted the Mayor Daley's proposed 2009 budget by a 49-1 vote.
The vote was much more lopsided than the vote on last year's budget, which included large property tax and fee increases, and came on the heels of numerous reports of fraud, waste and corruption. The vote last year was 37-13. I was one of the 13 who voted against it.
This year, we're facing a much different world, and we were presented with a much different budget proposal.
The U.S. and the entire world are caught in an economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in nearly 70 years. Chicago has experienced a significant drop in local revenue, from real estate transaction taxes to sales taxes. Yet City costs for payroll expenses, health care, etc. continue to grow. These increases are significant, as personnel costs represent over 80% of the entire city budget.
As we began the budget process, the City faced an estimated $469 million deficit for 2009, with an additional $200 million shortfall anticipated each year for the next few years. The Daley Administration and the City Council were required to find a way to agree on strategies to plug the budget hole, while continuing to keep up the City's bond rating and provide needed services to businesses and residents.
Unlike last year's budget, the Mayor this year proposed a budget that was balanced almost entirely by new revenue sources and budget cuts, rather than an increase in taxes. The new revenues will primarily come from the proceeds from the recently approved long-term lease of Midway Airport and the planned leasing of parking meters. And the budget cuts come in the form of departmental reorganizations, hiring freezes, the elimination of vacancies, mandated furlough days for City employees, and layoffs.
I am happy to report that, unlike last year's budget, there were NO proposed increases in property, sales or gas taxes.
The City Council was able to make some changes to the Mayor's proposed budget. Most importantly was the reduction of planned layoffs from 929 to 635. The City Council's "Progressive Caucus," of which I am co-chair, brokered a series of meetings with labor leaders and Daley Administration officials to devise ways to avoid as many lay-offs as possible. Credit goes to the unions, who came up with some innovative cost-cutting proposals and agreed to participate in government shutdown and furlough days. New voluntary severance incentives will be offered to their members as well. In addition, some contract work is being brought back as in-house work-sort of a "reverse privatization" to provide more efficient service and preserve jobs.
The members of the City Council also worked to preserve the popular ‘Jumping Jack" program. The Jumping Jack is a popular staple at block parties and neighborhood festivals, but had fallen victim to the budget axe. We were able to get the initiative restored by identifying a source of revenue.
The Mayor proposed only one major fee increase, and it was quite controversial-the "Commercial Refuse Container Permit fee." The so-called "Dumpster Tax," would place a fee on trash containers used by condominiums, apartment buildings, and commercial businesses that use private haulers. The proposed fee ranges from $80 to $780 a year, depending on the size of the dumpster.
If implemented, the fee would be collected from the waste haulers, but it's likely they would pass it on to the consumer at a cost of approximately one dollar per month for the average condominium owner. This would most severely impact Chicago's lakefront neighborhoods, which are home to thousands of condominium owners.
While we were unable to defeat the measure outright, several of my lakefront City Council colleagues and I negotiated an agreement with the Daley Administration to revisit the proposed fee before its scheduled implementation date on April 1st. Alderman Tom Tunney (44th Ward) will chair a City Council subcommittee charged with exploring alternatives to the dumpster tax or mitigating its impact.
In the meantime, however, I can't help but make a small green suggestion that could save you a lot of money. Under the proposed fee, containers for recycling would not be charged-only refuse containers-so this would be a perfect time to implement a recycling program in your condominium association or business. All the major waste haulers provide recycling; you just have to ask them. And don't hesitate to shop around to get the best price possible.
This budget is not perfect. And for those people being laid off, it certainly does not seem fair. But at the end of the debate, given the profoundly serious economic straits we are facing, I felt there was no alternative, which is why I voted with the vast majority of my colleagues to support the Mayor's budget proposal.
As always, please feel free to share with me your thoughts and ideas. I read them all.
Sincerely,
Joe Moore
I emailed Moore's office in October about the city council pay raises:
"I assume Alderman Moore voted against the 6% salary increase for the City Council, since the city is in such financial distress. Am I wrong?
A reply would be greatly appreciated."
This is the reply I received:
The aldermanic & mayoral raises were voted on before the last municipal election. The constituents in the 49th Ward knew about this when they re-elected Joe Moore. And while it was a noble gesture on the part of some aldermen to turn the raise down, many aldermen don't have families and have lucrative businesses or law practices on the side. Your alderman however, works full time for our ward.
I hope this anwers your concern.
Anne M. Sullivan
49th Ward Staff Assistant
773-338-5796
Thank you Ryan, for sharing Anne Sullivan's Reply.
Notice how her response only addresses Joey's needs, while ignoring your concern about the city's financial distress.
I have been inspired to write an email of my own to his office.
===I have been inspired to write an email of my own to his office.===
Please share her response with us.
So, Joe Moore couldn't live off of $104,000 per year? What is he, a spendthrift?
Has he given consideration to those who survive in this city on substantially less? Of course not.
Ms. Sullivan's reply is ridiculous. How about we ask Anne to step down because she is, obviously, worthless. If Joe works full time in the ward, then he doesn't need assistants!
I absolutely, positively cannot stand politicians. I bet there is a special place in hell for them.
I also find it amazing that he says he works full time - doing what??? Every time I send an email I get a form response that it will be shown to the alderman. So why is it some aldermen can work part time and have a "lucrative" business on the side and others can't? Tunney didn't take the pay raise and he seemed to do a lot more for Lakeview when I lived there than Moore does here.
As I have said many times before, we get exactly the politicians we deserve. Oh, and by the way, that is YOUR money that pays Joe.
Hi Craig!
Thanks for this excellent analysis.
I think one thing has been missed in all of this, and that is the alderpersons ability to reject the adjustment to their salary.
Now, one might think that the purpose of rejection would be to allow a reasonable alderperson to reduce/limit the expeditures of the city regarding aldermanic payroll expense, thereby gaining political favor in the community by being a good citizen for not taking a raise!
But no, no, no! The clause allowing the alderpersons to reject an adjustment to their pay is actually based on the fact that their raise is based on the year-to-year fluctuation in CPI (aka Consumer Price Index). The average Joe (no, not that Joe) would assume the change in CPI would always be an increase. But no, no, no, it certainly is not! The CPI actually goes up AND down!
Which would mean that in an improving economy, the CPI will actually go down, and so with it, (based on the exact language in the amendment) will go the alderpersons salary.
Thus, the vague language in the amendment regarding the "rejection of the adjustment" to salary.
Pretty slick, eh?
Hee Hee Haa Haa! Gotcha!
"I absolutely, positively cannot stand politicians. I bet there is a special place in hell for them."
There used to be but, they bankrupted it.
Post a Comment