Not-so-good government, and outright bad government, comes in many forms. 

The policy-oriented “good government” Homeowners Party created by Marty Butler that controlled City government in the 1970s and 1980s degenerated into a policy-challenged social clique of “bad government” under successor Ron Wietecha and his sycophants.  The major accomplishment of those post-Butler  Homeowners was electing (mostly in uncontested races) go-along-to-get-along toadies like themselves who could be counted on to rubber-stamp the few initiatives Wietecha proposed.   

By 2003, the Homeowners brand was so tarnished its candidates were defeated in four of six contested races by the highly-political-but-inept “Anderson Four” (2003-2007), which morphed into the less-political-but-equally-inept “Gang of Nine” (2005-2007) before surrendering to a cut-down City Council and the let’s-make-a-deal special-interested “Frimark Alderpuppets” (2007-2011).

Meanwhile, Park Ridge slid into almost two decades of gradual economic decline.

The current Council is better than any of its recent predecessors, if for no other reason than it seems to lack the social cliques, overt political partisanship, or overt special-interests of its predecessors.  But the current Council, with the fiscally-conservative leadership of Mayor Dave Schmidt, also has shown that City government actually can govern within the taxpayers’ means, as evidenced by how the customary annual deficits that occasionally exceeded a million dollars have been turned into modest-but-growing surpluses these past few years.

But a better Council still doesn’t guarantee good government at every turn, as last Monday night’s Council meeting demonstrated when Ald. Marc Mazzuca (6th) inexplicably moved for reconsideration of the Council’s September 17 vote that sustained Mayor Dave Schmidt’s veto of the new 3-year ICOPS contract.

That September 17 vote, although providing an outcome we favored, was itself an example of bad government, thanks to the hi-jinks of Ald. Joe Sweeney (1st), which we described in greater detail in our 09.20.12 post “Say It Ain’t So, Joe!”  Sweeney provided the object lesson that even the correct result can be bad government when it’s the product of shameless political boneheadedness – in that case by someone who cast the decisive third vote to sustain Schmidt’s veto despite insisting he favored the ICOPS contract, and warning that the veto he was voting for would lead to an unfair labor practices claim by ICOPS, a possible sympathy work stoppage by all other unionized City employees, and a lot of unnecessary legal fees for the city.

From his half-baked comments, it seemed clear to us that Sweeney was playing petty politics in an attempt to embarrass Schmidt and pressure Mazzuca and Ald. Dan Knight (5th), both of whom also voted to sustain Schmidt’s veto.  But if Sweeney were doing anything other than playing political games, his conduct suggests that if this were a high school student council instead of the Park Ridge City Council, he couldn’t even come up with a theme for the homecoming dance.   

Although we oppose the ICOPS contract primarily because of its 3-year term and its performance-unrelated raises, and although we don’t believe it’s in the public’s best interest to give the Council a second opportunity to over-ride Schmidt’s veto, that’s not why we think Mazzuca’s do-over motion is bad government.  It’s bad government because Mazzuca, who not only provided one of the three votes needed to sustain Schmidt’s veto and, several weeks earlier (at the August 20 meeting), had voted against the Council’s ratification of that contract, didn’t seem to care enough about the transparency of this process to articulate his reason(s) for seeking the do-over. 

Did he have a policy-related epiphany about the merits of the issue since his vote to sustain Schmidt’s veto?  Was he moved by City Finance Director Allison Stutts’ after-the-fact diatribe about how sustaining that veto would adversely impact the operation of her department?  Does he just want to give Sweeney another chance to make a fool of himself? 

Who knows, because Mazzuca didn’t say. 

Unfortunately, Mazzuca’s reticence is not unique to this Council, especially on certain controversial issues.  Alds. Sal Raspanti (4th) and Marty Maloney (7th) regularly become almost Sphinx-like when anything related to contracts and raises for City personnel come up, even though they are hardly shy about speaking their minds on other issues.  It makes us wonder what particular cat’s got their tongues on these labor issues, and why. 

18th Century British statesman and political theorist Edmund Burke, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol (England) on November 3, 1774, addressed the duties of an elected representative to his constituents:

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. [Emphasis added.]

That concept was echoed by James Madison 13 years later in Federlist No. 10, in which he argued that our representatives aren’t supposed to be mere windsocks for public opinion but, instead, should apply their own knowledge, experience, wisdom and reasoning to refine that public opinion into sound public policy and law. 

But when aldermen, without explanation, cast their votes on controversial issues, or make do-over motions after twice voting in a way inconsistent with that do-over, we have no idea whether or how they are exercising “judgment.” And by not articulating their reason(s) for their votes or motions, those aldermen deprive the taxpayers  and voters of the ability to determine for themselves if each of those aldermen’s judgments is sound or lacking – or if they’re not exercising judgment at all but just playing petty politics.

At the taxpayers’ expense, of course.

SIDEBAR:  The editor of this blog was a member – along with fellow 6th Ward residents Rick Biagi, Gail Haller and Alison Harrington – of the mayor’s ad hoc committee that interviewed the four applicants for appointment to fill the aldermanic seat vacated by the resignation of Tom Bernick and made the recommendations that resulted in Mazzuca’s appointment to that seat.

To read or post comments, click on title.