Sunshine/TIF Transparency Ordinance passes 48-0. Now let's see how it makes a difference.Update: Or does it? From the comments: I am actually a little confused. The president reported 48 ayes and 0 nays. The he asked something I didnt catch, there wasnt much talking and then they said "Motion fails". The transcript on the side said failed too. Does someone have an all mighty veto or something? Was it a different motion failing? I am confused :(
Update 2: It passed. Now it gets interesting.
Excellent! Probably a few more hurdles to clear before significant change, but this is progress.
ReplyDeleteI am actually a little confused. The president reported 48 ayes and 0 nays. The he asked something I didnt catch, there wasnt much talking and then they said "Motion fails". The transcript on the side said failed too. Does someone have an all mighty veto or something? Was it a different motion failing? I am confused :(
ReplyDeleteKudos for your speedy reporting, UU! The ordinance only passed about 13 minutes ago! :)
ReplyDeleteLet...the sunshine...let the sunshine...the sun shine in...
I read the "motion fails" right after the vote too but assumed that it was for something else. Maybe there was a proposed amendment or a motion to refer it back to committee. ?
ReplyDeleteHere is what the transcript from the video feed reads. This is obviously unofficial since it is done on the fly by their software:
ReplyDeleteYour voice has changed, the Alderman Laurino.
Alderman Allen, Alderman laurino, Alderman O'Conner, Alderman Doherty, Alderman Riley, Alderman Baily will, if Alderman Scheiller, Alderman Shhulter, Alderman Mary Ann Smith, With Alderman Brookings is aye, Alderman Jackson is aye.
There are will 48 ayes and zero nays.
All those in favor say aye.
[ Indiscernible ]
Motion fails, Alderman Burke?Thank you, now moving on to the regular agenda, on the Finance items one and to include appointments to the numbers of the southwest home equity Commission and they were recommended by the members of the committee and unless there is an objection I would move to confirm the recommendation by the same roll-call applied last.
So I am guess it is some sort of parlimentary procedure that they rejected and not the ordinence. Any lawyers that can help out?
It passed unanimously. One after another they followed their shadow Mayor.
ReplyDeleteIt is a routine motion to reconsider the vote, it meant nothing. The motion is routinely voted down unless there is an actual issue.
ReplyDeleteI believe Burke called for a routine motion to disapprove, which obviously was dismissed.
ReplyDeleteDitto what Jason said - a formality.
Yay on the vote!!
Thanks guys. If I was anywhere other than Chicago I would have just assumed that. Since I do live in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised if something failed 48Y-0N.
ReplyDelete"The he asked something I didnt catch, there wasnt much talking and then they said "Motion fails"."Council rules allow for reconsideration of a previous vote, but just once. To nail things down, every vote is immediately followed by a motion to reconsider (this seems to be Alderman Carothers' function in our home town's august legislature), a quick voice vote defeats the motion, and just like that the citizens of Chicago have a new law.
ReplyDelete