BY MIKE CETERA
The latest campaign fundraising report for Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner raises a lot of questions, none of which will be silenced by protests from his supporters.
It doesn't matter if there's no relationship between campaign contributors and the city business they receive (I have no knowledge either way), it looks like there is. But there's a way -- painful as it may be -- to fix this perception: change city government.
To be fair, Weisner's method of raising campaign funds is nothing new, not even to Aurora. A number of those who gave to Weisner, also gave to former Mayor David Stover (although the previous mayor raised signifcantly less money).
Alderman Rick Lawrence wants to put a yearly cap of $250 on contributions to city candidates or elected officials by businesses working with Aurora. Caps are not a bad idea (Would there be a legal challenge?). This blog made such a suggestion last June, which Lawrence later echoed. If Lawrence is serious, he should try to build consensus among his colleagues and move forward.
I like blog poster Clark Kent's idea better. He suggested we "call to switch to a city manager form of government to get rid of campaign managers coming on the city payroll and to purge the need for tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from city contractors, consultants and employees."
None of the candidates who ran for mayor last time around supported such a concept, including Weisner. The last time Aurora gave any consideration to changing to a city manager form of government was 1998.
Any change would have to be approved through a referendum. And a referendum could only be put on a ballot if a petition drive generates signatures equal to 10 percent of the voters in the last mayoral election....The city adopted its aldermanic form of government in 1976, when voters selected it over the existing commission form and the city manager form.
The commission form consisted of a mayor and four commissioners who each headed up various departments. The aldermanic form, when adopted in 1976, had a mayor and eight aldermen.
Anyone else think this is worth a look?
Mike: Do any of these big-moneyed contributors to the Mayor's campaign employ any relatives of City Hall management? Would the Beacon follow up on this question?
Mike,
If you do the research, the Beacon News came out against the manager form of government. It wasn't an issue of choosing the strong mayor form of government. I worked for the group VOICE who was campaigning for the manager form of government. The question on the referendum at that time was "Should Aurora adopt a manager form of government Yes or No" There were about 10 more No votes than Yes votes so under State Statue due to the failure of this referendum we were forced to adopt the mayor form of government.
I think maybe the Beacon back in those days should have done their homework and not pushed so strongly for the mess we are in now.
Cetera responds:
5th Ward,
I saw the editorial we wrote back then. My only defense is I wasn't involved. Do you think there would be any support today for switching from the strong mayor form?
Mike,
Thank you for your response. I think there is an incredible amount of people who are looking for a change. Everywhere you look; presidential, congress and state legislators are preaching the need for change. The question is whether people will step up to the plate and gather the signatures like I had to; present them to the judge and put the referendum on the presidential ballot. It will surely fail if it is left to any other election. I have yet to see the momentum; only the talk.
The city manager idea is interesting, however seeing some of the issues that Naperville has had with at least one trustee and the city manager you would have to wonder in Aurora has gotten to big and too complex to pull that off now.
"It doesn't matter if there's no relationship between campaign contributors and the city business they receive (I have no knowledge either way), it looks like there is..."
It's obvious there is a connection between contributions and city business, but it does matter. It's called corruption and it's unlawful.
The donors and the mayor should be prosecuted for these connections, but we voters must change city government by changing the mayor, not necessarily the form of government.
No form of government is perfect and all forms of government are only as good as the people that populate that government. The form of government that we now have would work just fine if the agenda of those in office was less for their own gain and more for the best interests of the residents of this town. Truly, best interests, is a subjective matter and I suspect that everyone in town would have a different opinion of just what is the best interests of the residents.
So the question presented is whether or not a city manager would eliminate some of this mess that we now see in this city?
Be sure that a Manager form of government is not created by the mere hiring of a manager. The Manager form of government, with all of its attendant statutory powers, arises only from referendum. If anyone says that hiring a city manager is the same as a Manager form of government, run do not walk away from their advice. So do not let anyone in this government tell you differently.
So with the present people in control of this city would we be better off with a manger form of government?
I have discussed, suggested and advocated a manager form of government on that other blog, you know openlineblog.com.
If a manager form of government became affective today what might we see? The statute says that the Aldermen as a council hire and fire the manager. In that hiring process we might see the mayor’s office go out and find candidates that it wants to have in that position. That alone is not necessarily a bad thing. The council, I hope would be proactive and take that responsibility and advertise for the position, find candidates, interview and hire someone all on its own.
In looking at the methods of this council I have to wonder just what it would do and just how active it would be in finding a candidate for the position that would actually work out how everyone hopes. This would take a council that is proactive. So I ask you, is the present council as a whole proactive? Would the present council let the mayor bring forward all the candidates for the manager position?
Would this council hire the candidate that the mayor wants? After all the mayor is going to claim and say that he needs a person in that position that he can work with very closely.
So just how close do you want the mayor and manager to be? How many of the mayors close associates would you want to see as manager working very closely with the mayor?
I restate that good government is a function of the people not the form. Yes sometimes the form needs to change and maybe this is that time. But I caution everyone.
Be careful what you wish for.
I would like to see the Beacon speak out against corruption and what this mayor is obviously doing with contributions for contracts.
Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution. Which is it?
First off, thanks for posting this question separately.
5th ward, don't lose hope. I think you're right about the timing but November 4 is still a long way away. I think there are plenty of people who would do this if they don't get too attached to some insurgent candidate or intimidated by the current administration.
Leonard, I think I understand your objection but you're missing one important factor.
The majority of alderman today play along with the mayor because he can stop any project that they want with a single word. The minute a manager referendum passes, that dynamic will change. I bet you would see a large majority of alderman begin to exhibit a great deal of independent thought.
I would recommend adopting the statutory manager form by referendum and set the change to begin at the start of the next mayoral term. (Maybe even one candidate or more will take it upon themselves to push for the change.)
The roadmap is there. Here's a memo from the Illinois City/County Management Association on this form of government. I'll give the link and two short excerpts.
http://www.ilcma.org/pdf-files/Statutory_Manager_Memorandum-FINAL3(2-14-07).pdf
"Seventy-nine municipalities in Illinois operate under the statutory manager form of local government. Large and small, these municipalities have adopted this form by referendum
because it promises a different, often more effective, way to administer the operations of government. A statutory manager form of government typically utilizes a trained, professional
class of administrators that can deal with the increasing demands for technical, legal, operational, and administrative skill that part-time or even full-time elected officials may not possess...."
"The full council has the appointment power. Atypically, the mayor does not appoint with confirmation by the council. Rather, the whole council votes on the appointment, which is approved by a simple majority."
Finally, I'll cherrypick one of your many questions, Leonard.
"How many of the mayors close associates would you want to see as manager working very closely with the mayor?" I can guarantee you that the Council wouldn't have hired Mr. Galloway.
Galloway was not the city manager, he was an assistant to Mayor Weisner, who is the "City Manager" of Aurora. Bill Wiet is in essence the Assistant City Manager.
Weisner has done more to change the city and move it forward than the previous 2 mayors of Aurora.
A strong mayor is accountable directly to the voters, and that is the most democratic system.
So what - He raises LOTS of money. He is a popular guy. That means he can probably be assured of getting reelected, because having lots of money is what wins elections these days.
Some people cling to the days when Aurora was a sleepy little town of 20,000, but today it is approaching 200,000, and cities this large have a strong mayor form of government.
Naperville's City Manager for many years who resigned last month is being sued right now by one of the Naperville Aldermen. The City is spending 1 million defending the city manager against this mad alderman . Wonderful system. He resigned because of this and now they have a former Naperville cop acting as acting City Manager.
Clark Kent
As I stated in my comment I have argued the benefits and supported the idea of a Managerial form of Government for the City of Aurora. The present administration is a very clear illustration as to why managerial government is probably a good thing for this City.
I have read the statutes on Managerial Government and the Memo which you referenced. The memo is good and Ancil, Glink are recognized experts in the municipal law field. Based upon the letter of the law how can one deny the benefits and their potential effects especially in a City like Aurora that is so obviously diseased with political favors.
Keep in mind that this memo recites the language of statute and some case law. It does not address reality and the people involved. Even the Mayor-Council form of government looks good on paper.
In my opinion, the Managerial form of government works best when you have a council that is or at least can be pro-active. This council, by its own lethargy, has made itself irrelevant and has demonstrated all too often that it is not capable of pro-activity.
You wrote, “The majority of alderman today play along with the mayor because he can stop any project that they want with a single word.” Please tell me what programs or projects this council has proposed for this city? The aldermen seem to operate on the premise that the city is the mayor’s and they will not get in his way. How ridiculous is that? The most aggregious example of that might be the Shodeen project, wherein this council without second thought, in five days, has obligated the taxpayers of the city to an open ended checkbook and I believe some obligations that we may not otherwise have all for the sake of an extremely high density residential project.
If past inaction is any indication of the future action of this council then I suggest that a belief that this Council will become proactive the day after a Managerial referendum passes is misplaced. It is that very thought that makes me wonder if this Council is capable having enough independent thought to actually be proactive enough to engage in the process to hire a manager and oppose a manager candidate that this mayor would propose. I am sorry but I do not see it.
The point is that yes a manager form of government may be a good thing and probably most especially for Aurora as the government at the executive level of this City is sick and needs a shot of anti-bi(p)o(li)tics. However, can the present crop of aldermen be trusted to do the right thing and inject itself and this City with the needed efforts to change this town?
Further, before you write it I will write it for you. My writing appears to support the need for managerial government in this city. The difference between what is on paper and reality can be a very wide gulf. I have doubts about the people presently in power to actually carry it out to the point that the result is as good as it looks on paper.
It is the people that populate government that makes any particular government bad. I have said this before, so long as the people of this city continue to elect bureaucrats into the office of mayor nothing will change.
The sadness is that this City like most has everything and possibly more than it needs to operate well, efficiently and in the best interests of the residents of this city. Unfortunately, this city, this state and this country has governments populated with people that are more concerned about themselves than those they serve. More concerned about staying office long enough to collect a pension, or be eligible for lost cost health insurance or just plan keeping their job rather than be concerned about good public policy.
We always hear about the powerful people that get others elected. You know the people in the smoke filled rooms, that group of movers and shakers that everyone believes to be all powerful. Yes those types of people exist. But the fallacy of that is that the movers and shakers and powerful people alone cannot elect the dog catcher. They need the electorate to exercise that power. They have no power unless the residents or this or any city allow it.
I have gone a little off topic but it is all food for thought. People in this town have to put their head out of the window and say, “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more.”
Leonard,
Let's name a few pet projects that have been mysteriously funded by Weisner in return for support of the aldermen. One most recently was the use of Motor Fuel Tax funds to help Leroy Keith create "quiet zones" in his ward. The paper gave huge acclaim to Leroy for having to work so hard on this for his residents; another is the money flowing into McCarty Park (over $600,000) for this accomplishment for Juany Garza (both of these aldermen will be up for Re-election in 2009). Of course Chris Beykirch got the largest accomplishment of the Weisner adiministration, a huge planned parenthood compound in his ward.
There are a few examples I can think of. I'm sure there are more if you dig down deep. Of course, the biggest reward for supporting Weisner is the hopes that these Aldermen who are up for re-election will get a piece of that $150K pie that he's holding for their own races. Little do they know that Weisner ain't interested in anyone but himself.
If that is all it takes to get the support of these aldermen then they work cheap. Please list more. these types of projects should not be used by the mayor as bargaining chips and by doing so illustrates the problem.
Several people have been convicted of federal corruption charges on conduct less obvious than what we see going on in Aurora.
If I were the contributors to Mr. Weisner, I would shut down any relationship with him immediately.
To Anonymous | January 27, 2008 01:34 PM
How absurd, you can name any project and state that is was only for political purposes, but that doesn't make it so. Who votes for and approves city projects? Is it the mayor? I don't think so. It's the city council.
Quote from the Beacon on 01-16-2008 "Alderman Leroy Keith has been working on establishing quiet zones along the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway for more than three years."
Quote from the Beacon on 01-08-2008 "Next week, aldermen likely will approve what could be the last preliminary step in Alderman Leroy Keith's years-long quest to bring quiet zones to some far East Side rail crossings.
The Committee of the Whole voted this week to recommend spending $164,213 in motor fuel tax funds to install constant warning devices at two crossings -- Keating Drive and Montgomery Road -- along the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway.
Gee Alderman Keith was working on this before Tom Weisner was even elected Mayor. And as you can see the City Council has to vote on this, not the Mayor. Why didn't you list all the other items that the motor fuel tax has been used for?
R07-511 - F07.313 – Resolution Awarding the Redevelopment of McCarty Park to Fuerte Systems, Inc., Plainfield, as the Lowest Qualified Bidder in the Amount not to Exceed $590,000.00 for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Do you see "for the Department of Parks and Recreation." Voted on by the whole City Council, not the Mayor.
And please tell us why Planned Parenthood is a plus for Alderman Beykirch. Provide facts please.
People in this town have to put their head out of the window and say, “Finally we have a Mayor and City Council who have the vision and courage to take this great city forward!”
To Anonymous | January 28, 2008 09:43 AM
Please tell us who these "Several people" are who have been convicted of federal corruption charges. Who are they? What were the charges? What was the outcome?
It is true that the Beacon News has historically opposed a city manager form of government-but maybe it is time to rethink that.
As the "Second to None" slogan indicates, Aurora isn't going to play second fiddle to the "Pay to Play" Chicago model.
Mayor Weisner has raised it to another level.
The City of Aurora is lucky former Ald. Jim Meisch pled to a simple count. He could have opened a whole can of worms.
Aurora is infested in leaches. That's why your taxes are so much higher than any similar town.
Had great hopes for Aurora at one time, but glad to be out- theses leaders, like Tom with his homes in Florida will be gone when the cash dry's up- And then new "minority; as a majority"; population (probably by 2010) will be left to pay the bills.
Again, just look at the taxes-WOW!
Aurora's politicians are banking on the ilegals and the ignorant.
I wish we could go back to the 50s and 60 when Aurora was booming and we had great Mayors Jack Hill was one of them he was always looking after the woking class in Aurora he had a great staff and only spent money where it was needed.I grew up in the 60s and downtown was alway busy with people shopping woking and times were good.I think there is a lesson to be learn in this .Jack did not waste money on flowers or beautifing the fox which is not real bright if the town has no people.We need a common sense Mayor who will use common sense on spending, Aurora is run just like Bush,let just keep spendig tax dollars on what ever.If spending in Aurora keeps up the way it has been our Taxes will go up. Aurora is a woking class town and The Mayor just will not give in and help the homeless ,hire more police and make Aurora a safe place to live like in the 60s,If any oldies out there remember how nice it was to go downtown I am one of the lucky ones who experience a great city and it was with out all the friils we did not need them it was just a safe great city.If city hall thinks they are on the right track maybe they should go down memory lane and see how Aurora Was a great place at one time and look at what went wrong and may use some pointers to fix the mess the city is in now In the 50s and 60s the town had plenty of enployment and the shops and streets were busy.Aurora will always be middle class people and hard workers. If the city thinks spending millions of our Tax dollars to try and bring downtown alive its not going to happen when the money is going to all the wrong places We need a common sense mayor that can just say no to throwing money to the wind the spending need to stop and we need new Blood with plain old common sense running our city maybe one from the 50s who remebers how its done.Some say this is progress well go down town and tell me where are all the people are,they are in oswego,yorkville.