May 20, 2010

Comment In The Spotlight!

Thanks to our faithful PRU readers for your patience today -- what follows is a bit long and dry but we feel it's worth your time.



A commenter asked on our post from yesterday, what the Illinois Statutes and Park Ridge Municiple codes say in relation to the Mayor's job and the City budget. We thought we would highlight the question and offer answers in a post for today.

The Illinois statute which addresses the forms of municipal governments and the roles of the corporate authorities and governing body is
65 ILCS and is titled "Municipalities." By the by, for those who may not know, ILCS stands for Illinois Compiled Statutes.

65 ILCS discusses the structure and form of City government. In the statute, you will find --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑30. Mayor presides. The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the city council. Except as provided in Articles 4 and 5 of this Code, the mayor shall not vote on any ordinance, resolution, or motion except the following: (i) where the vote of the aldermen has resulted in a tie; (ii) where one‑half of the aldermen elected have voted in favor of an ordinance, resolution, or motion even though there is no tie vote; or (iii) where a vote greater than a majority of the corporate authorities is required by this Code or an ordinance to adopt an ordinance, resolution, or motion. Nothing in this Section shall deprive an acting mayor or mayor pro tem from voting in the capacity as alderman, but he or she shall not be entitled to another vote in the capacity as acting mayor or mayor pro tem."

The above is likely one of the sources the Park Ridge City Attorney was referencing when he said Illinois law defines "corporate authorities" as including the Mayor, when the Park Ridge City Council was discussing the issue of supermajority voting to override denials by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

65 ILCS also says --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑40. Vote required. The passage of all ordinances for whatever purpose, and of any resolution or motion (i) to create any liability against a city or (ii) for the expenditure or appropriation of its money shall require the concurrence of a majority of all members then holding office on the city council, including the mayor, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Code or any other Act governing the passage of any ordinance, resolution, or motion."

and --

"Sec. 3.1‑40‑45. Ordinances; approval; veto. All resolutions and motions (i) that create any liability against a city, (ii) that provide for the expenditure or appropriation of its money, or (iii) to sell any city or school property, and all ordinances, passed by the city council shall be deposited with the city clerk. Except as provided in Articles 4 and 5 of this Code, if the mayor approves an ordinance or resolution, the mayor shall sign it. Those ordinances, resolutions, and motions which the mayor disapproves shall be returned to the city council, with the mayor's written objections, at the next regular meeting of the city council occurring not less than 5 days after their passage. The mayor may disapprove of any one or more sums appropriated in any ordinance, resolution, or motion making an appropriation, and, if so, the remainder shall be effective. However, the mayor may disapprove entirely of an ordinance, resolution, or motion making an appropriation. If the mayor fails to return any ordinance or any specified resolution or motion with his written objections within the designated time, it shall become effective despite the absence of the mayor's signature."

Succinctly -- in terms of Mayor Schmidtzkrieg's role on the issue of the City budget, the Mayor followed the minimum of what the Illinois statute demands -- opting to veto the budget in total.

Another Illinois Compiled Statute,
50 ILCS which is titled "Illinois Municipal Budget Law," also addresses elected officials as --

"(2) "Governing body" means the corporate authorities, body, or other officer of the municipality authorized by law to raise revenue, appropriate funds, or levy taxes for the operation and maintenance thereof."

Again the governing body is defined in the Illinois Statute as being the corporate authorities, and the rest of the statute discusses the form and timing of passage of municipal budgets.

In the Park Ridge Municipal Code, Article 2, Chapter 9 is titled "Budget Policy." The municipal code also sets out the roles of city staff and elected officials -- sections 2-9-2 and 2-9-3 establish the powers and duties of the city manager regarding the budget. Section 2-9-4 is titled "Passage of Annual Budget, Effect" and says --

"Passage of the annual budget by the corporate authorities shall be in lieu of passage of an appropriation ordinance. The annual budget need not be published except in a manner provided in Section 2-8-8 herein. The annual budget shall be adopted by the corporate authorities before the beginning of the fiscal year to which it applies. Subsequent to the passage of the budget, an ordinance shall establish the property tax assessment provided for in the approved budget."

The Park Ridge City Council Policy Manual -- which does not appear to have been included on the City's new $19,500 website*** -- discusses the Mayor's veto authority and reiterates the Illinois statutes.


What all of the above seems to assume is cooperation and effort on the part of the corporate authorities. Nothing in any of the codes prevents the Mayor from participating in discussion and debate. Nor is the Mayor precluded from enumerating his preference for disapproving of "any one or more sums appropriated in any ordinance."

The PRU Crew still believes Mayor Schmidtzkrieg would have served himself and the community better if he'd chosen to exercise his right to line item vetoes. The Mayor will now have to veto individual spending ordinances as they come before the Council, and those spending ordinances aren't likely to be enough to get the budget to the balanced condition the Mayor insisted he preferred. And we expect the Council will be even less inclined to cooperate with the Mayor, moooving forward.

*** now available on the City website.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you!

I must say this answer is better then the mush I got from the other blog! I also agree the mayor and the council should be cooperating on the important problems. Given what you have said here, I don't feel the mayor did his job the way he should have. You say he followed the law, but he should have worked harder to give us a better picture of things. He talked about layoffs and furloughs but he didn't put out any numbers for those things.

It's all very frustrating.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@2:35 --

You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

Schmidt said he is going to veto spending as it comes up. Way to drag this out Mr. Mayor!

Bean said...

>>Way to drag this out Mr. Mayor!<<

Exactamundo...

Anonymous said...

It is all rather cynical. He is now in a position where he will be hoping that the state does not come through. Rooting for failure!!

Anonymous said...

I have said before none of them have gotten the job done.

The aldermen should have made more cuts evrn if the mayor didn't say the revenues are over projected.

When the aldermen didn't get the job done then the mayor should have made cuts.

NONE of them did the job!

Anonymous said...

People are so mad about everything. I just feel sad. Our community is not moving in the right direction. I voted for Mayor Schmidt and I voted for one of the Aldermen he doesn't get along with. I hoped when the campaign was over they would settle down.

I am sad they aren't able to put aside the politics and work together. I think some of the choices the Aldermen made are wrong but I also think some of the choices the Mayor has made are wrong too.

Anonymous said...

"And we expect the Council will be even less inclined to cooperate with the Mayor, moooving forward."

Who can blame them?!!!? Schmidt is trying to pin everything on them after they worked through the budget and made very unpopular decisions without much help from Schmidt. When Schmidt's turn came he turned around and blamed them again!!!

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@3:52 --

You could have simply said you agree with Anon@3:25, since you've essentially said the same things.

We agree, both limbs of the legislative branch of our local government have failed to put forth the effort needed to accomplish what either of them were seeking.

We believe the Council was very irresponsible in their approach to spending, and we have not been kind about our opinion of them on that issue.

While we took a more low-key approach in our suggestions for the Mayor's choice of response, we firmly believe he too has been irresponsible in his approach.

Unfortunately, the battle will continue, but without the full force and effect a mayoral line item veto may have provided.

And as a commenter here noted, the process will continue to drag out and the ill will between members of the Council and the Mayor will continue to pervade their actions.

It's real shame the Council didn't have a pair of their own or on loan with which to make the harder decisions, but it's equally a shame the Mayor appears to lack the same sort of assets as well.

Anonymous said...

PRU, you could have simply said you agree too!!!

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

Anon@4:10 --

:-) We could have, but that's no fun!

Anonymous said...

Guys, it's not about "getting along" -- it's about having a genuine, cohesive and coherent vision of the public good and being able to allocate resources to bring that vision to life. You won't always agree but at least you won't be whipsawed every time a buddy acts mean. This is not middle school. It's nice if elected officials get along and eventually there has to be a vote on each item that requires an expenditure, but civility is good enough. You don't have to be best buds to do right by the folks who elect you.

Anonymous said...

4:18:

I think the only person who mentioned "best buds" is you. I do not think they ahve to be best buds but right now all they are doing is trying to stick it to each other. I would appreciate them at least behaving like adults instead of spoiled kids in a sand box.

Anonymous said...

No one is expecting "best buds", but withholding effort and cooperation just to make the other look bad doesn't help anyone. Look we are all neighbors, and some of us are friends, in this relatively small town. There is no reason that we can't work together, even when we disagree. The funny thing is that I am pretty sure if you asked the aldermen and the mayor to write down their top 10 priorities for this city government, you would see mostly the same answers. Yet they act like there is no common ground due to ego and political and personal grudges.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is we are stuck with the Mayor and all the Merry men for how many more budgets. They will run P.R. into the ground so it won't be fit to live in.

Anonymous said...

10:47 - That's a bit dire. You've been reading Schmidt's realeases. In spite of the buffoonery at Butler Place, I am pretty sure I'll be happy to live here for many years to come.

It is just a shame that our politicians can't get past their differences and work together. We would be better off if they did.

ParkRidgeUnderground said...

For our faithful PRU readers who may be interested --

Somebody pulled their head out of their ass and added the City Council Policy Statements (Manual) to the City's new $19,500 website.

Now if only somebody could pull their head out of their ass and include a functional search on the City's new $19,500 website, that would be great!

Anonymous said...

The bottom line I see is that the mayor could have vetoed line items enough to get the budget to his view of being balanced.

Why the mayor chose not to do that looks like it could be a question of politics.

Some have said it was because he doesn't think the council would sustain his vetos.

If that is what the mayor thinks then making vetos now seems pointless unless this is about politics.

I went through the budget information on the city web site and found over $1 million in costs the mayor could have recommended to the council for cuts.

The council would have the final power to say no but the mayor could have put costs on the table to consider.

Anonymous said...

I put this on the other blog and I wanted to put it here too.

I did find over $1 million in cuts the mayor could have line item vetoed and could have recommended for consideration to the council.

I didn’t think to put the list here but you asked so here is the list from the budget document the mayor could have done the work to find and some are the things he already spoke about cutting.

Contributions for community groups, $190,080
Airport commission $165,000
Noise monitors $25,000
Citizen Patrol dinner $500
National Night Out materials $9000
Citizens’ Police Academy $1500
Youth Outreach $500
Flu shots for employees $20,000
Consumer confidence report on water $7500
Consultants for streets and sidewalks $8000
Citywide training $4000
Library furniture $7500
Library newsletter $29,600
Library printing $11,500
Library postage $19,200
Reforestation $102,200
Parkway tree trimming $615,000

Cuts this blog talked about that could of been recommended for cuts too are Fireworks $20,000 and the Taste of Park Ridge $23,000.

All of these add to $1,259,080.

The mayor could have done the work to find these cuts to be line item vetoed which would have been additional to the cuts of $283,768 for police or the mayor could have line item vetoed his own choices.

The police cuts and the cuts listed here would add to $1,542,848.

The mayor could have put out the list here or his own and said what the furlough amount should be but he didn’t do that.

The mayor made no choices. He is no different then the council.

Anonymous said...

9:35:

That is a good list. Mayor Dave answered you on the other blog, but then they turned off the comments. It looks like suggestions from the pews aren't appreciated over there.

Bean said...

BWAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAA...

Reforestation and tree trimming are "essential city services" which "involves an element of safety"...but cutting police personnel is okay...????

Now I really have "heard" everything!!!...it's a community "safety" issue to plant and trim trees vs. keeping a full complement of police officers...

Beautiful!

...as for the library budget...hey DipSchmidt, you *could have* lined the entire library expenditure and then offered your detailed opinion on specifically WHERE you believe the library board should make additional spending cuts and you *could have* made the clowncil work at it...you *could have* EXPLAINED the necessary procedural steps required by the budget process...

As Anonymous @ 9:35 noted...you "made no choices"...you put nothing on the table...you didn't do the job you should have done.

What a DipSchmidt.

Father McKenzie said...

The "other blog" is a joke.

Anonymous said...

Bean:

Very well stated!! what is it they say....open mouth insert foot!!! I wonder if he canceled his Meet the Press interview!!

Anonymous said...

The other blog asked for my list to be posted then makes more excuses for the mayor and puts everything back on the council.

I shouldn't have wasted my time there.

The Editor doesn't even know what a appropriation means.

The Editor thinks also I should have done my list to give to the mayor and the council.

I thought we elected the mayor and the council to do a job of being the mayor and the council.

The mayor's answer is more mush.

I didn't say the mayor could single handed cut the budget.

I said he did not make any choices and give anything to the council to consider.

I won't waste any more of my time on this.