Just how many aldermen does Chicago need?
Mayor
Elect Rahm Emanuel raised the question. Emanuel has since backed off the
question, saying he wasn’t advocating changing council, just raising the
question.
But
perhaps, this time, someone might take a realistic look at city council size.
Chicago
has 50 aldermen. It is a city council that is the second largest of any major
city, and it takes a big bite out of the budget too keep all those offices and
satellite offices and aldermanic employees working, especially at a salary of
$110,000 for a part time job. Only New York City, with a population of 8.3
million, has more, with 51 members.
With
approximately $350,000 budgeted for each aldermanic office, according to
figures compiled by the Better Government Association, that’s $17.5 million
just for council operations. Certainly that money could be spent in other ways.
Could
Chicago get along with fewer aldermen?
Probably,
since some other big cities get along with a fraction of that number. Los
Angeles has 17. Houston, Texas has 14 seats on council. Phoenix has 8,
Philadelphia has 17 members of council, Dallas has 14 and San Diego has 8.
But it
isn’t the money. Since 1923, the city has been divided into 50 wards, each represented
by an alderman. The idea has been that each of those aldermen is more or less
the “mayor” of their ward, responsible for delivering city services and having
say-so over business taxes and permits are awarded. Adding that additional
layer of bureaucracy to city services only increases the level of inefficiency
and condemns citizens to slower and inferior service.
A smaller
city council would be a different city council, and would require changing the
job description for aldermen. No longer would they be a part of delivering city
services, but instead would assume much more of the legislative function of
government.
It would
also mean a massive and gut-wrenching redistricting fight, redrawing wards so
that representation would not be lost, or shifted or drawn out of existence.
How do you maintain the strength of council’s Black caucus, or recognize the growth of the
Hispanic electorate or acknowledge the influence of the Asian population with
fewer aldermen?
While the
conversation has been started, again, it doesn’t mean that Chicago is any
closer to shrinking its council. No one has come up with any numbers that seem
to make sense, as if the number of 50 makes any sense. Should there be only 25
members of council, or 15, or nine? Should a smaller council be elected solely
by ward, or would it be more equitable to elect some at-large?
And the
process of changing council size won’t be accomplished overnight. By the time
state law is changed, and referendums are put up for vote, and council doing
the unheard of and voting to shrink itself, whatever fervor to change the size
will probably have passed, and we’ll be looking at the same 50 wards.
But, in
these times of shrinking populations and shrinking revenues and growing
deficits, it makes sense to take a look at council and figure out if we can do
it better. That doesn’t mean that smaller is necessarily better, but a
legislative body with 50 members representing Chicago might be something that
has outlived its usefulness after 88 years. We at least ought to consider the
question.
Copyright
2011 Chicago Defender
