Write Your Alderman - No to G-8 Restrictions

I want to make one clarification to Kyle's post. The provision allowing for no-bid contracts will sunset after the NATO and G 8 summits. It is a limited grant of authority that can be exercised under only very limited circumstances, i.e., where an unforeseen need arises for a certain product or service and no contract exists that allows for that product or service and there is no time to go through the normal contracting procedures.

It is a so-called "safety valve" ordinance and it is not anticipated it will have to be used. The City Council gave Mayor Daley similar limited authority during the 1996 Democratic Convention. This time around, any contracts entered into under this grant of authority must be posted on the web with the identity of the contractors clearly delineated.

Thank you for the clarification Joe, I can see how my post infers that both issues I have with the bill would not sunset.

My concern with no bid contracts still exist in that it seems the mayor could just as easily bid the added security needs out now as a contingent RFP. (If the city needed the added services - this is the company and the rate they we will be using).

Has the mayor explained why this process couldn't be handled ahead of time?

FYI: Alderman Moore put up the proposed legislation on his website http://www.ward49.com/ if anyone would like to see it.

So the bill passed 45-4 and 41-5.

From the Suntimes: Ald. Joe Moore (49th) argued that the watered-down plan was “far from the wholesale trampling of First Amendment freedoms” that critics contend. The debate has been filled with “overheated rhetoric, over-the-top hyperbole, blatant misrepresentations and character assassinations,” Moore said.

“I congratulate Mayor Emanuel ... and other members of the mayor’s team for their open-mindedness and lack of defensiveness about their proposals. It is truly a refreshing change in City Hall,” Moore said.

-----------------

I don't even know what to say...

Alderman Moore put up his entire statement on his website http://www.ward49.com/ if anyone would like to see it.

This whole thing could backfire on the streets in May.....BIG TIME!

Rep. Moore no doubt feels he has little to lose with this measure, since he is probably not seeking reelection. It is more useful for him to be a Democratic party sycophant at this point in his career. Everyone who voted for this dispicable measure needs to be held accountable. Democrats in this city (and state) are getting away with blatantly anti-democratic measures which would attract heated opposition in any of the Republican-ruled states.

Nothing wrong with Law and Order. The Mayor has it right.

I should clarify my concerns:

1. The noise requirements during night hours (10 pm to 8 am) can very easily be used to shut down protests at night, since ALL audible sound from a recording/broadcast device (not just really loud stuff, ANY sound at all) from 75 feet of an approved assembly space will be illegal. (This also means that if a protest/area originally designated for 100 protesters spontaneously expands to 1,000 people, the noise ordinance will apply to the space occupied by the original 100.) Even if protesters are gathered in a location where noise will not disturb residents (and why else would a noise restriction be called for?), protesters will not be allowed to communicate among themselves effectively under these noise restrictions, which can very easily be used as a pretext for a forceful shut down.

2. The requirement that assembly permit applications report the size and heft of sound systems (more reasonable) and banners (less reasonable) is nothing short of a way for the commissioner to be alerted to the free speech intentions of demonstrators. Large banners (which means anything that needs more than one person to carry) could literally "flag" a protest and hinder its approval.
continued in next post....

...continued from previous:

3. The commissioner can deny a permit if s/he deems that there is "direct interference with a previously planned permitted activity or public assembly, or that there is a significant public safety issue." The commissioner has full discretion to determine this broad and vague judgment. And what is "interference with [another] public assembly" but a potential prohibition on protests of other assemblies, such as meetings of diplomats and corporate leaders? True, the commissioner is required provide an "appropriate" alternative date and location for the event if it is not approved, but since this is couched with the phrase "to the extent practicable," this measure could seriously hamper efforts to conduct a timely protest. Furthermore, if a "spontaneous or urgent" assembly is denied by the commissioner and there is no time to appeal that decision, the commissioner's decision explicitly cannot be appealed and can only subsequently be reviewed by the courts (see section 2). Protests that are filed five days before the planned event have recourse to appeal, but "spontaneous or urgent" assemblies have absolutely no recourse of appeal whatsoever.

4. Increasing the minimum fine from $50 to $200 is hugely significant as a deterrent to protesters, however our ward representative wishes to assure us that this piece of the measure merely plays catch-up with inflation from the time the last assembly regulations were established. I really don't care that Moore and others persuaded the mayor to not raise the maximum from $1,000 to $2,000; a four hundred percent increase in the minimum fine is much more significant. ($200 also sounds suspiciously like the amount so many of our traffic fines seem to have risen to, i.e., a magic city revenue-raising number.)

The document is deliberately long and complex, to ensure that politicians like Moore can glibly "explain" them to us in palatable and inaccurate ways.

From the reader: "In fact, many aldermen didn't get a look at the latest round of rules changes until copies were handed out during the meeting called to approve them yesterday.

Hairston also noted that the new rules technically require march organizers to let the city know in advance if anyone plans to show up with a pet dog. Violators could face as much as ten days in jail and $2,000 fines. "I still think it inhibits spontaneous public assembly," she said.

Hairston was joined in opposing the parade and protest rules by Robert Fioretti (2nd), Will Burns (4th), and Nicholas Sposato (36th). The same four cast nays on the contracting and deputizing ordinance, along with Sandi Jackson (7th)."

Carl, I am not familiar with the new ordinance and have some catching up to do. Was curious if any of the 4 areas of concern you have sunset after the G8 summit? I'd lean towards supporting them if they did, because well.... have you ever seen G8 protests? But if they don't sunset there could be some issues.

Carl G., Thanks for your comments, but I would appreciate it if you would simply address the substance of my arguments rather than engage in idle speculation of my motives. I particularly find amusing your claim that the "document is deliberately long and complex" so that politicians can explain them in palatable and inaccurate ways. Actually, all federal, state and local statutes are simply covert jobs programs for lawyers, who spend their careers arguing over their intent and meaning, and judges, who adjudicate the disputes.

It's ironic you say this because the main purpose of the new ordinance was to make clearer the old parade and public assembly ordinance, which was confusing and disorganized. In fact, very little of substance was added to the new parade and public assembly ordinance (note to Kyle--the requirement that parade organizers inform the City of any animals in their parade was part of the old ordinance and I suspect extends back to the days of circus parades.)

What? So you mean I can't protest downtown riding atop an African Bush Elephant? OUTRAGEOUS!

(I still would have preferred you had join your progressive colleagues Fioretti and Burns in voting no.)

Mr. Moore, I made a few comments that were directed at you (justified, in my view), but my post consisted almost entirely of a reading of the ordinance itself that had nothing to do with you. Please focus on the substance here; you should be used to criticism at this point. Or perhaps appearing to take offense at an ornery resident is your strategy to avoid the issues?

And it is simply wrong to say (to another poster on here) that "very little of substance was added to the new parade and public assembly ordinance." My four points were a description/commentary of the extensive new language that was added (two entire new sections that do not exist in the old documents, several pages long, just on assemblies alone). Now, I admit I haven't read the old legislation, but the two sections I commented on are explicitly presented in the ordinance as new language and not repetitions of the old. This is not a case of some language being put under erasure and a few words being added, as in other parts of the new ordinance. Indeed, I wonder if anyone but Rahm Emmanuel's staff has read the whole thing...

And finally, I stand by my sense that the document is written in such a way that is designed to confuse. At the very least, the complexity allows you and other politicians to give us a highly inaccurate and simplifed condensation.

In the end, you are happy to see the subject changed here to circus animals, because that makes it all seem so light and humorous, doesn't it? "A touch of humor is all my constituents need to distract them from the fact that I just helped pass an ordinance that gives the city drastic new tools to fight democratic expression." Or perhaps you are more innocent than I am assuming: did you perhaps not read the document through in its entirety, and take account of the substantial new language before voting?

Kyle, Actually you can protest downtown riding atop your elephant, but you have to apply for a permit first. Just make sure to pay your $50 fee and inform the city if anyone in your parade will have any signs, banners or sound amplification devices that are too large for one person to carry. If you can't afford the fee, no problem. The city will waive it.

Carl G., Trust me, I've been called far worse things than a "sycophant." I can take it. Still, in the spirit of productive discussion and debate, it's helpful to leave personal attacks and speculation about motive out of the discussion. Nothing wrong with robust debate, but this neighborhood has seen blogs and other websites that have degenerated into name calling, and worse. Though it's entertaining to read for a while, people quickly get bored with it and eventually the blogs just fade away. I don't want to see that happen to EveryBlock.

Now on to the substance of your posts. I find it more than a little odd that you claim "extensive new language" was added to the parade ordinance, yet you admit you haven't read the old legislation. How do you know which provisions are new and which are old? I think you'll find that the new ordinance has added very little to the Commissioner's authority to grant permits. In fact, the only new language added is a provision to make clear that enough on duty officers or other city employees must be available to ensure public safety for the parade. Other than that, the substance of the provision is exactly the same, but organized much better.

I invite you to read the old legislation and you can see for yourself. Google "Chicago Municipal Code" and go to section 10-8-330 to find the old parade and assembly ordinance. If you want to see something really confusing, try to navigate through the old provision. In fact, the main purpose underlying the new parade ordinance was to reorganize it and make it more understandable and readable to city administrators, as well as the general public. That's why I find it so ironic you allege the new ordinance is made intentionally confusing, when in fact the intention was precisely the opposite.

To be continued. . . .

(continuing from the previous post)

With respect to the noise provision, you claim it could easily be used to shut down protests late at night. That is not entirely correct. It was enacted to shut down "loud" protests after 10 at night. If you want to maintain a late night vigil or make speeches using an amplification device turned down to a low level, you can continue to do so. You simply can't blast the sound and disturb the neighbors from their peace and quiet.

This is a great example of the type of "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" that are upheld by the courts all the time. First amendment speech is accorded a great amount of protection, but the right to engage in such speech is not absolute. Try blasting a sound truck through the streets of Rogers Park at 3 in the morning and let's see what portion of the 99% agrees with your right to do so. Just don't tell the neighbors I suggested the idea.

The requirement that you describe any large sound system, sign or banner in your parade application is just to give the city and the police a "heads up" as to how many police officers might be needed and how many lanes of traffic need to be closed or whether the parade can go on the sidewalk rather than the street. The size of the material carried in a parade cannot legally be used as a criteria for denying a permit, and there is no language in the ordinance that makes it a criteria.

Finally the increase in the minimum fine from $50 to $200 for violation of the parade ordinance is simply to serve as a deterrent for illegal activity, not to squelch free speech. And perhaps you don't think keeping the maximum fine at $1,000, rather than $2,000 is significant, but a thousand dollars is a lot of money to most folks. Quite frankly, if it were left entirely up to me, I'd leave the fine as is, but it's not a deal killer for me and I'm not going to vote against the entire package simply because it is not absolutely perfect in my eyes.

Mr. Moore:
1. You say, "You simply can't blast the sound and disturb the neighbors from their peace and quiet." What the document actually says is: the sound can't be "audible from 75 feet away [from the space approved for the assembly]." I maintain that this imposes a significant limitation on post 10 PM assembly. And you know as well as I do that your example of "blasting neighbors in Rogers Park" is a very poor example of the law's application: we're really talking about groups in places like Millenium Park, where neighborhood noise is not the same issue. That's where the restrictions will be primarily enforced, and the restriction is on expression, not noise.

2. You say: "The size of the material carried in a parade cannot legally be used as a criteria for denying a permit." But in fact, the commissioner has virtually sole discretion to deny a permit, and there's no reason to think that he or she will not use this as a criteria (without indicating that the size of banners was the reason for denial, other rationales can be cited or invented).

All of your justifications of the measure lean on your good faith in city commissioners and other city officials who will carry out this law. You are not interpreting the actual language of the document but the assumption that there will be a benign interpretation when it comes to enforcement. Recent history shows that this is all too seldom what actually happens when it comes to responses to authentic and effective political dissent. It is not the assumed intentions of city officials that matters here. It is the language of the document itself, which is the tool used to justify "broad" interpretations in the future. The document gives considerable leeway to law enforcement, and plenty of room for less-than-generous interpretation (for example, the fact that the commissioner can flat out deny an application for assembly that is made several days prior, and then only deal with the legal dimensions long after the fact).

And please, Mr. Moore, you really want me to "leave personal attacks and speculation about motive out of the discussion"? Are you serious? You don't want a citizen to question or speculate the motives of politicians? You are seeking to live (or continue to live) in a political fantasy land where effective response to political folly is ruled impolite. I hope you seriously reconsider making these shrill, uncomfortable protests when one of your constituents casts doubt on your motives. Particularly in a city where the aldermen routinely rubber stamp their mayor's will.

In short: deal with it, sir. Or bite me. Whichever you prefer.

There truly isnt a need for a "bite me" comment. I neither support or detest Alderman Moore's actions on this at present (because I dont have full knowledge of the issue), but the "bite me" comment isnt necessary.

It was an ironic comment in the face of my alderman asking me not to question his motives. And I gave him a choice of two actions.

I've noticed that this city is in a kind of political daze. Most people here are democrats, and they elect democrats, so everything is fine and dandy. But politics is about much more than electing the right party, especially in a city where we are ruled by a political machine rather than by ourselves and our interests. In my view, more citizens should be using strong language with their aldermen, particularly when that's the only thing that seems to rile them up. Everyblock will probaby censor me, which is a pity.

Carl G, don't worry, you're not hurting my feelings. It's just my opinion that a little civil dialogue goes a long way regardless of who is engaged in that dialogue. But if you want to tell your alderman to bite you, that's your right. Keep in mind, other people are reading our exchange and it might not necessarily reflect well on you, but, hey, that's not my problem.

Carl, with respect to the substance of your remarks, my support of the restrictions on loud amplification devices after 10 p.m. remains the same. If you want to test out my 3 a.m. sound truck challenge in Millennium Park, instead of Rogers Park, be my guest. I'm guessing the hundreds of condo owners who overlook Millennium Park may not share your love of unbridled and unfettered first amendment freedom.

Your concerns about the breadth of the Commissioner's authority to deny a permit application leads me to believe you did not take me up on my invitation to read the old ordinance. If you did, you would find the old ordinance and the new ordinance to be nearly identical in terms of the Commissioner's authority over permit applications. In other words, the ordinance that was voted on yesterday did not grant the Commissioner any additional discretion that he/she didn't already have.

Mr. Moore, you did not provide any links to the original ordinances, but with a bit of research I looked them up. You have consistently downplayed the significance of the new and revised ordinance, but with respect to at least two major points (which is all the time I had for research), it is clear that the your claim that "the old and new ordinances are nearly identical" is completely and egregiously false. The revised language in fact represents a drastic departure from the old.

1. First, the noise ordinance for public assemblies is entirely new. Here is the original section 9-76-145 which was recently revised. Note the last part of the paragraph, which I have put in caps:

“(a) No person shall play, use, operate, or permit to be played, used or operated, a device for receiving broadcast sound or reproducing recorded sound in any motor vehicle on the public way in a manner or at a volume such that the sound generated by the device is clearly audible to a person with normal hearing at a distance greater than 75 feet. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A PERSON PARTICIPATING IN A PARADE, ATHLETIC EVENT, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, OR OUTDOOR SPECIAL EVENT, as defined in Section 10-8-330 or 10-8-335 of this Code, for which a permit has been issued, if applicable.”

As you can see, the legislation you just voted for is a 180 degree change with respect to the old ordinance on noise regulations for public assemblies: it used to be that public assemblies with permits were exempted from the sound restrictions. Now they are not. That is highly significant, and clearly reflects a post-Occupy Wall Street effort to prohibit long-term protests.

2. Second, regarding the commissioner’s ability to turn down applications for “urgent and spontaneous” assemblies with no chance for appeal, that entire section of the new ordinance is new. Nothing in that regard appears in the old ordinance.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...

...CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
And you have insisted that “very little of substance was added to the new parade and public assembly ordinance”? Really? It has become extremely clear to me you’ve never read the original ordinances (which you say were “confusing and disorganized”). What Kyle Hillman reported a few days ago is no doubt true: "[M]any aldermen didn't get a look at the latest round of rules changes until copies were handed out during the meeting called to approve them yesterday.” In your case, you didn’t even get a look at the original ordinances, either.

Shame on you, Mr. Moore. The whole issue of my questioning your motives and you getting offended is the least of my concerns. I am far more concerned that you, our representative, believe you can pull the wool over our eyes and think of us as simpletons who can be tricked and admonished. Unless the one who has been fooled is you: does the mayor admonish you when you question his motives?

It has become increasingly clear to me that your modus operandi is to defend the status quo, crow when you win superficial concessions from a mayor you otherwise relate to like a reliable Yes Man, and pretend to be a progressive while happily undermining civil liberties in this city. You have been arrogant and patronizing throughout this exchange. I did not know much about you when I moved to Rogers Park, but I feel I know a great deal about you at this point, and I am far less than impressed.

One small correction, Mr. Moore: you did, in fact, tell me how to find the original ordinance in an earlier post. I thought you meant you had put it on your web site. I invite you to do that, so that more of your constituents can compare the two documents.

Carl, are you the same Carl G. I was corresponding with yesterday? Didn't we spend quite a bit of time discussing the changes to the "noise ordinance?" Didn't I readily acknowledged that the noise ordinance was amended to prohibit the operation of amplified sound at a parade of public assembly between the hours of 10 p.m. at 8 a.m. at a level that could be heard by a person 75 feet away? Why do you suddenly claim that somehow I failed to acknowledge that change in the law? By the way, the noise ordinance is it's own separate ordinance and not part of the parade and public assembly ordinance, so the change to that provision was not a change to the parade and assembly ordinance (although it obviously effects parades and assemblies). I guess I don't understand your point.

To be continued. . . .

(continuing from previous post)

As to your point 2, regarding the right to appeal a denial of a permit for a spontaneous assemblies, unfortunately you misread the provision. I'll concede this is a new provision, but it doesn't deny the right to appeal. To the contrary, it accelerates the appeals process when time is of the essence by allowing the permit applicant to appeal a denial of a permit directly to the circuit court rather than first going through an administrative appeals process.

This provision was put into place to address situations where a group wants to stage a demonstration in response to a current news event, such as a U.S. military adventure or a controversial Supreme Court decision, and their request for a permit is denied. Requiring an applicant to first go through a cumbersome administrative appeals process before they could appeal the denial in circuit court means that by the time they got their matter before a circuit court judge, the reason for the demonstration would have gone stale. Short circuiting the appeals process mitigates the danger of the event going stale before the protest could be held.

In sum, this provision ENHANCES first amendment protections and is one of the reasons I voted to support the ordinance.

If you still have doubts about whether I've actually read the ordinances, take a look at the statement I delivered on the floor of the City Council before the vote on Wednesday. I delineate all the new provisions to the parade and public assembly ordinance:

http://www.ward49.com/site/epage/129304_322.htm

Mr. Moore, I support the G-8 restrictions. Thank you for seeing them thru.

Very refreshing to see such a passionate defense from an elected official in a public forum like this!

Mr. Moore,
Yes, of course we discussed the noise ordinance and its impact on post-10 pm assembles yesterday. But you were arguing that it was not new; I said that it WAS new (now applies to assemblies, didn’t before). Now you claim you don’t understand what my point is in providing you with documented evidence that it IS new? You repeatedly express confusion and incredulity when responding to my arguments. That is a tactic of avoidance.

You also now claim that the review process for spontaneous/urgent events is in fact enhanced, rather than restricted. But according to the new section 10-8-334, part 2, “If there is not sufficient time to file the appeal in accordance with the procedure set forth in this subsection [i.e., application 15 days in advance; appeals must be filed within 5 days of the event], the decision by the commissioner shall be deemed a final decision subject to judicial review in accordance with applicable law.” That sounds to me like one less chance for city review/appeal before the matter goes to the courts. The commissioner alone decides for the city when it comes to approving spontaneous and timely assemblies. This language allowing the commissioner’s decision to be final under the aforesaid circumstances was added to the new document; it was not there before. You can explain it to me in all kinds of ways, but it amounts to a useful tool on the part of the city to restrict permits. Sure, if the commissioner behaves in a judicious and generous way, there won’t be a problem. But who’s going to guarantee the good faith of city officials?
Continued...

...Continued
Throughout our discussion, the point I've been making is that the changes to the ordinance are quite significant (with regard to noise, banners and the appeals process) and constitute the city's attempt to enshrine new, broad powers to legally block or significantly hinder--whenever it wishes to do so--both long-term Occupy-type protests and spontaneous/urgent protests. You have continually ignored this point, and you have repeatedly claimed—quite falsely--that the changes represent only very minor housekeeping of the existing language. I certainly understand that not everyone wants to see Occupy-type protests occur, but please be an adult and acknowledge the specificity of what the mayor, you and your fellow aldermen did in that regard and why you did it. Somehow, though, I doubt you will do that. Based on the praises being sung to you by some of my neighbours on here, you are clearly adept at confusing your constituents, and you’ll continue to do that until you move on to higher levels of political subterfuge. Since your main objective here is to have the last word, you will no doubt respond with one more post here. But enough is enough; I’ve made my argument, and I think it’s as convicing as it can be. I don’t plan to return to this particular discussion.

"But enough is enough; I’ve made my argument, and I think it’s as convicing as it can be. I don’t plan to return to this particular discussion."

Carl, it sounds like we're ending the discussion on something we can both agree on. See you in the neighborhood!

Carl, Joe is telling you that it's time for you to sit down and shut up.

I tried hard to read this entire thread, but gave up about 1/3 of the way through. Sorry, Carl, but your snarky "tone" was a turn-off for this admittedly middle-aged rabble-rouser.

Let me try to put this into a perspective I can wrap my brain around: Back in the old days (1991) I was part of the group of 5,000+ Gulf War protesters that spontaneously took over Lake Shore Drive (around Jackson, if I'm remembering correctly) and effectively shut it down for over an hour during early evening rush hour! It was an awesome Power to the People moment. I don't recall anyone getting their heads bashed in or hearing about arrests on the late news. I'm pretty sure we had a permit to walk on the sidewalk (as the numbers swelled, we took over the street). It was peaceful.

If something similar were to happen during the G8 summit how would these new rules affect protesters? We still have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble, don't we? Do you think these new rules would cause the cops to behave any less respectfully toward the protesters than they did in 1991? Why or why not?

Do G8 protesters plan to occupy the area around the host hotel(s) all night with megaphones blaring? Why or why not?

Personally, I support my alderman--most of the time. I've also marched with him for peace and justice. Again, I wasn't able to read all of your complaints about the new ordinances, so I may be missing something. Nevertheless, based on my experience volunteering with and interviewing Ald. Moore over the years, I don't think he would support a measure that would seriously abridge our First Amendment rights. At least I hope not.

Phoebe, actually one of the reasons the City undertook a re-writing of the parade ordinance (the work started in 2009 under the previous Mayor) was the U.S. Court of Appeals took the City to task for the way the police handled the March 2003 anti-war demonstration that shut down Lake Shore Drive. Unlike the 1991 demonstration, you may recall the police in 2003 illegally detained and arrested hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. The Court harshly criticized the City for the absence of any rules governing spontaneous demonstrations when it held that the civil rights of the demonstrators had been abridged.

Included in the new parade ordinance, is a procedure for when public assemblies spell out into the streets and/or morph into parades. It makes it very clear that a permit is not needed in those circumstances. This new added protection for first amendment freedoms is one of the reasons I supported the ordinance and unfortunately it has been overlooked by many of its critics.

RIGHT ON,PHOEBE!

Uncontroversial parade...this Saturday in Uptown! Easy Redline ride for Rogers Parkers....

BYOF (Bring Your Own Firecrackers).....just kidding don't do it.

Come one come all...it is the Year of the Dragon!

https://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/jan23-happy-year-dragon-4685172/