WILL SANTIAGO LEAVE?

Mayor's political workers ponder future

Most of the 956 likely to lose jobs as Daley leaves

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com

For 21 years, they've been the most stable jobs in town -- assuming you can stand the taskmaster boss and stomach the unpaid furlough days he imposed recently.
But now the 956 city policymakers who can be hired and fired at will by Chicago's mayor face the prospect of dusting off their resumes at the worst possible time.

Mayor Daley's decision to choose political retirement over the quest for a seventh term has left so-called "Shakman-exempt" employees -- who lack protection from the federal ban on political hiring and firing -- in the lurch.
Now they have to decide whether to stick around until the end -- and hope they can defy the odds and be retained by whomever succeeds Daley as mayor -- or start the exodus now.
It's not an easy decision in the midst of a jobless recovery that could soon see an influx of state workers in the same boat. ...

Two other veteran firefighters, who had been elevated to top jobs in other city departments, could be returned to the Fire Department before Daley departs, courtesy of the mayor's chief of staff, Ray Orozco, a former fire commissioner, sources said. They are O'Hare Airport security chief Richard Edgeworth and Jose Santiago, executive director of the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications.
  read more...

It looks like we're in for big changes no matter who wins. I'm not sorry to see some of these ass kissers scrambling for jobs. They were never sorry about the people they laid off or let go. As long as the new regime doesn't mess with the front line workers, I'll be glad to watch city management replaced. As long as you're non-exempt, you should be safe. The rest are SOL.



Chicago 3-11 1326 S Michigan

PENSION PROBLEMS

How to Cheat a Retirement Fund

By ORIN S. KRAMER

A FEW weeks ago, at the insistence of the Securities and Exchange Commission, New Jersey agreed never again to fraudulently hide its underfunding of the state’s public pension system. Meanwhile, in Albany, Harry Wilson, the Republican candidate for state comptroller, has asserted that — if you do the math the way any ordinary financial analyst or economist would — New York’s pension system is underfunded by tens of billions of dollars and that, as a result, the state is essentially insolvent.
These little tempests are likely to soon recur in many other states and cities nationwide, because so many governments have invested far too little money in their public pension funds. Retirement promises made to public employees represent a huge hidden liability for future taxpayers — helping ensure recurrent deficit crises for state and local governments.
The S.E.C. is now making inquiries about the underfunding of other public pensions, and its assertiveness is welcome. But this effort cannot ultimately fix the problem, because all the S.E.C. can do is force states to follow the budgeting rules that are set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. These rules offer, at best, only the illusion of transparency, because they allow governments to base their budgets on economic fictions.
Consider, for the sake of comparison, how private corporations, in measuring the value of the assets in their pension systems, are required to use real portfolio market prices. Government accounting standards, in contrast, allow public pension systems to measure their assets based on average values looking back over a period of years. In most instances those average values add up to a figure that is much higher than the amount of money the pension plan actually has.
Public pension funds are also allowed to make assumptions about future investment returns that many of us would regard as overly optimistic. And since those assumed returns are incorporated into measurements of the fund’s status, as if they had already been realized, states that come up with the most rosy market forecasts look, on paper, to be better financed.
This government accounting mirage adds up to an enormous national problem. If you use the most recent data from government accounting standards, the collective shortfall for state and local governments nationwide appears to be about $1 trillion. If you use corporate accounting standards to estimate the value of those public pensions, however, you come up with a shortfall two and a half times as large — about $2.5 trillion. Employing a third approach that assumes, as economists generally do, that even corporate accounting standards in this area are too lenient, public pension underfunding is about $3.5 trillion, or one-quarter of gross domestic product.
To make matters worse for state budgets, hidden underfunding of public employees’ health retirement costs is even greater than that of their pensions.
Ideally, managers of public pension funds would not only work with realistic budgets but also recognize that they have intergenerational obligations — to optimize returns over decades so that the fund can responsibly pay retiree pensions long into the future. There’s a rising understanding among thoughtful pension fund leaders, for example, that sustainable investment performance must permit consideration of the environmental, human rights and other public-interest effects of investments. In practice, however, pension fund managers tend to focus on narrow economic criteria and short-term performance.
Ultimately, to respond to their fiscal imbalances, many state and local policymakers will need to make painful cuts in financing for state universities, hospitals, local schools and municipalities. Increasingly, they will make controversial decisions to privatize roads, parking meters and other public services.
When a government allows its fiscal problems to become too great — as New York City’s did in the 1970s — it reaches a point where it can no longer borrow money. Municipal bondholders may comfort themselves that the federal government would never allow a state to default. But the federal government should not be expected to provide special aid to states that do not address structural budget deficits. New York’s crisis allowed it to conduct some unprecedented budget-cutting — but the price of austerity is greatest if you wait for crisis to strike.
Accounting is inevitably an artificial language that can distort some economic truths. But at the least, government accounting should aim for greater transparency and consistency, allowing outsiders to compare one jurisdiction against another. At the same time, the social contracts that exist today in many places among taxpayers, beneficiaries of public services and public employees need to be renegotiated before a crisis arrives.

They say cities and states will have to start selling assets like tollways and parking meters to balance their pension funds. Ha. We're really screwed. Better load up on your 457b and whatever else you got. You may not have much else at retirement time. What a mess!

A SHOCKER

Daley says he will not run for re-election: 'It's time'

Mayor Richard Daley says he will not run for re-election in 2011, saying it's "time for me, it's time for Chicago to move on."

"The truth is I have been thinking about this for the past several months," Daley said at a City Hall news conference. "In the end this is a personal decision, no more, no less."
His wife Maggie stood by his side with the help of a crutch, smiling broadly as the mayor continued: "I have always known that people want you to work hard for them. Clearly, they won't always agree with you. Obviously, they don't like it when you make a mistake. But at all times, they expect you to lead, to make difficult decisions, rooted in what's right for them.
"For 21 years, that's what I've tried to do," he said. "But today, I am announcing that I will not seek a 7th term as mayor of the city of Chicago.
"Simply put, it's time," said Daley, 68. "Time for me, it's time for Chicago to move on."
The mayor said that "improving Chicago has been the ongoing work of my life and I have loved every minute of it. There has been no greater privilege or honor than serving as your mayor.

"Working alongside seasoned professionals, incredibly committed business and community leaders, and some of the most dedicated public employees you will ever expect, I have had the opportunity to expand, to build, to create, unite and compromise for the betterment of Chicago."
Daley spoke for less than five minutes and took no questions.
His announcement comes as he faces a record $655 million budget shortfall. Last month, the mayor said he's looking at hiring private firms to take over more city functions, including potentially running the Taste of Chicago, as a way to cut costs.
Daley limited his options this time around after raising property taxes in 2007, selling off parking meters and raising fees in 2008 and spending reserves last year. The mayor reiterated late last month that he won't be increasing taxes or fees or auctioning off more city assets.
The mayor joins at least a half-dozen aldermen already have said they won't seek re-election next year.
His decision also comes as Maggie continues to battle cancer. In March, she underwent surgery to strengthen a leg damaged by cancer and the resulting treatment.
The city's first lady has been battling metastatic breast cancer since 2002. In December, the mayor announced his wife would use a wheelchair to get around while undergoing radiation treatment for a cancerous bone tumor on her right leg.
Daley's decision sets off a major power scramble following more than 20 years of stifled political ambitions in city politics.
Daley was first elected mayor in 1989 following a failed bid in 1983. The mayor won re-election every four years since then, always with little to no opposition.
But Daley's public approval rating had dipped recently, with a Tribune poll earlier this summer showing that more than half of Chicago voters said they don't want to see him re-elected.
The poll found only 37 percent of city voters approve of the job Daley is doing as mayor, compared with 47 percent who disapprove. Moreover, a record-low 31 percent said they want to see Daley re-elected, compared with 53 percent who don't want him to win another term.
The mayor's administration has been buffeted by a spate of summer violence, a weak economy and a high-profile failure to land the 2016 Olympics. Dissatisfaction abounds, the survey found, over Daley's handling of the crime problem, his efforts to rein in government corruption and his backing of a controversial long-term parking meter system lease.
A few aldermen are shopping themselves around as potential candidates, and some politicians with broader political bases have been glad to see their names tossed into the ring -- but none had shown a willingness to challenge Daley.
Among aldermen discussed as potential mayoral candidates are Robert Fioretti, 2nd; Sandi Jackson, 7th; Thomas Allen, 38th; Scott Waguespack, 32nd; Brendan Reilly, 42nd; and Thomas Tunney, 44th.
Earlier this year, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel voiced his mayoral ambitions. But the former North Side congressman quickly added that he wouldn't take on Daley, for whom he served as a strategist and fundraiser in the mayor's first winning bid. Likewise, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he won't run for mayor unless the office is open.
Outgoing Cook County Assessor James Houlihan, by contrast, was considered a potential candidate whether or not Daley runs again. Former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman also has been mentioned, but he just lost a grueling Democratic U.S. Senate primary
-- John Byrne

Wow. I'm stunned.
This is going to make for a great election season. Who will run? What kind of dirt will come out? What were the real reasons behind Daley's decision? Can't wait for the answers.

FOUR MORE YEARS

Despite Talk, Potential Rivals for Daley Stand Back

Chicago News Cooperative

By DAN MIHALOPOULOS and MICK DUMKE

Published: September 4, 2010

 

Many Chicago political axioms have come under assault from reformers and federal prosecutors in recent years, including “Where’s mine?” and “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.” But “You can’t beat somebody with nobody” remains as true as ever with the 2011 mayoral election less than six months away.
Despite polls showing that he is less popular now than at any other point in his 21-year tenure, Mayor Richard M. Daley seems poised to glide into his seventh term over what appears to be weak opposition.
In a city where one Richard Daley or the other has been mayor for 42 of the last 55 years, it is much easier to criticize the boss than to find a candidate who can raise the campaign money, build the citywide stature needed, and clearly articulate an alternative plan to lead Chicago. The few who might be most capable are unwilling to cross Mayor Daley and prefer to wait until the 67-year-old mayor steps down voluntarily.

Several potentially strong candidates did not deny that they would love to have the job — but only if Mr. Daley bows out, something he appears unlikely to do now, if ever. In that category are Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and former mayoral campaign aide, as well as Tom Dart, the Cook County sheriff.
A handful of local elected officials, including Alderman Scott Waguespack (32nd Ward), Alderman Robert Fioretti (2nd Ward) and State Representative John Fritchey have ramped up their criticisms of Mr. Daley. None have committed to challenging the mayor in the February election, but if they do, even some mayoral critics doubt that they could mount an effective insurgent campaign.
Pondering their options most loudly are Mr. Fioretti and Mr. Waguespack, two freshmen City Council members. At this point, though, both are circulating nominating petitions to run for re-election as aldermen, not for mayor. Each would begin a mayoral campaign with a fraction of the nearly $1.5 million that Mr. Daley has in his political war chest, state records show.
“It’s almost like Daley wins by default,” said Don Rose, a veteran Democratic consultant. “He is more vulnerable than four years ago. I just don’t see a formidable figure who is willing to challenge him.”
Mr. Rose played central roles in two of the biggest political surprises in the city’s history: Jane Byrne’s election as mayor in 1979, and the 1983 victory of Harold Washington, the first black mayor of Chicago. But this time, Mr. Rose said, he does not see the makings of a close race, much less an upset.
“It’s going to take something more than a Fioretti or a Waguespack,” he said.
As has been his custom, Mr. Daley has not yet announced whether he will run for re-election. But William Daley, the mayor’s brother and longtime political adviser, told the Chicago News Cooperative last week that he expected him to seek a seventh term. William Daley said he was skeptical that potential challengers who have recently emerged would end up on the ballot next year.
“We’ve seen this movie six times,” he said.
Other mayoral supporters echoed William Daley’s expectation that his brother was not ready to step down from the office he has held without serious challenge since 1989.
“He seems totally engaged in it — not that he enjoys every minute,” said John Schmidt, the mayor’s first chief of staff. “The economy has made his job much more difficult.”
The mayor’s notoriously prickly skin is pulled thinner than ever as the city’s budget deficit grows to record levels. The dire economic times have emboldened some elected officials to increasingly distance themselves from the mayor.   read more...

The politics in this city and this state are pathetic. No one will run because they like it the way it is. One of them is more crooked than the next. They're all in on it. You can't believe a word any of them say. This town is run by a few political and outfit families. They can't be touched. Period. No one will ever do anything about it. Not the feds. Not the IG. Not any of the cowardly Alderthieves. The Shankster will die in office. He can't let anyone see the books or he goes to jail. So he stays. We're stuck with him. And it will cost us.