BY DAVE PARRO
The debate over the value of lobbyists for local governments isn't a new one. On one side, municipal officials often say they are needed so the interests of their city or county are heard. Opponents see wasteful spending that only contributes to a corrupt system.
Aurora hired a lobbyist to work at the state and federal levels after Mayor Tom Weisner took office three years ago, but aldermen aren't convinced of his worth because he hasn't been reporting on what he's doing for his $84,000 every year. Before the City Council renews Dan Shomon's contract, they're going to require quarterly reports.
So how does a lobbyist prove his value?
Kane County has been debating this issue for the past couple years. In early March 2007, the County Board voted to do away with its $150,000 federal lobbyist. But two weeks later, the board voted to renew the contracts for their state lobbyists, which total $78,000 annually.
"You can argue you don't like the system, but that is the system," said Bill Wyatt, R-Aurora, at the time. "Right now, we need the help."
State Sen. Chris Lauzen wrote a column for The Beacon News in April 2006 criticizing Kane County and Aurora for hiring lobbyists:
"There is never enough money for what really matters if a reckless few waste what's entrusted to them. Short-sighted and unconstitutional spending like this is why people refuse to have their taxes raised. It's bad enough when private special interests unleash their brigades of lobbyists to prey upon the system of representative democracy, but when local governments that we pay for with crippling property taxes jump in with both feet, it is preposterous and simply wrong."
In a story in 2007, Shomon said, "We need to be at the table because, at the end of that session, when they pass a budget, Aurora will be in or out. The question isn't whether Aurora will be in; it's how much, and we have to fight for that piece of the pie."
Alderman Leroy Keith, however, said Shomon's reporting has been "a little lax." Alderman Bob O'Connor said, "I'm not perceiving enough information about what's being done."
At the very least, a high-priced lobbyist should have something to show for his work. But the question remains: What do we expect in return?
With democrats controlling Springfield a Democratic state rep and a Democratic state senator why do we need a lobbyist. It seems to me we should expect the Linda's to be looking out for Aurora's interests.
Generally agree, but would add the caveat that regardless of party affiliations, isn't that one of the primary responsibilities we elect our representatives for in the first place. Would also include our other local Senator, Chris Lauzen on the roster.
Should each Ward or Precinct, as an example, now hire a 'lobbyist' to ensure the City Council, Mayor and other governing bodies look out for its interests/needs? Perhaps residents of each township district should also follow suit to ensure they have a mouth piece and hired gun.
Have been outspoken opponent for a long while concerning these deals and spending tax dollars to buy 'access' to those we elect. Silly me, I had a notion that 'the people's business' was among the primary responsibilities of our elected officials. Seem to recall hearing about that 'once or twice' in social studies and civics classes.
Would also follow up on OneMan's observation above re: the former federal lobbyist the Kane County Board hired when Dennis Hastert was in office...after all the county board chair and majority of the board were of the same party. Kane was hardly alone in choosing to hire a federal lobbyist, our neighboring counties also had their 'paladins' on the payroll.
Why is the City of Aurora paying $84,000 and Kane County is only paying $36,000 a year.
Anon: Kane County Board has two lobbying firms, costing a total of $78,000.
Still it is worth noting Aurora is paying a rather significant amount for a questionable return on the dollars expended.
Request for Dave Parro: Could you provide a more detailed listing of the tax dollars spent by local (municipal, township, county) government bodies for their lobbyists and which firms are receiving these lucrative contracts?