There was some spirited debate last month about the effectiveness and relevance of Local 2 participating in the political process through campaign contributions. Clear lines were drawn between the membership that think it is effective and those that do not. It was good to see members participate in the discussion, as I think healthy debate is sorely lacking in our Union and at firehouse kitchen tables. When the average union meeting draws 50 members, it is difficult to get information out or conversations started.
When I first started on the job, we used to get a Sounder every other month, now it is down to once a year. As a candidate I loved when the Sounder came out; I did not always know what was written in it, but I appreciated the old-timers getting in heated debates, arguing about the Sounder’s content. In the old house at E102 we used to sit around this big old heavy dark green kitchen table and debate anything and everything associated with the job. I remember as a candidate how much controversy surrounded the Brass Bill. I did not know anything about it, but the men that were looking out for me and my fire career were passionate about the topic, so naturally I wanted to learn more. The senior members on the job were inspiring and their passionate arguments made you feel that this department and Union were special and important. I felt lucky to sit at that kitchen table listening to those men, it was a real privilege to eventually participate in the conversation. It appears a candidate today does not have to listen because nothing is being said, and that is sad because I think there is a lot going on that affects them and this department.
At the November Union meeting President Tracy gave an update on the lobbying effort in Springfield to secure changes to the Tier II pension code language and modifications to the Casino Bill. The pension fund consolidation bill that recently passed in the Legislature fixes Tier II members’ benefits for downstate firefighters; Chicago Tier II firefighters and paramedics were not included in that legislation. President Tracy also provided some commentary on Mayor Lightfoot’s lobbying efforts down in Springfield, adding that, “we are knocking on doors with her down in Springfield to get the casino up and running.” I have been very skeptical of this casino in the past, believing that our pension fund could have easily been fully funded at this point, if Local 2’s lobbying efforts were focused on getting involved in the City’s budgeting process in the past. But that strategy is behind us and we need to accept the situation for what it is and make the best of potential casino revenues. The pension code states: “Any proceeds received by the city in relation to the operation of a casino or casinos within the city shall be expended by the city for payment to the Firemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago to satisfy the city contribution obligation in any years.” The Chicago police pension code has the same language, so I’m not quite sure how the proceeds will be split up if the casino revenue comes up short. Nevertheless, members of Local 2, should want this casino to succeed. Since we were unable to leverage property tax revenue to fund our pensions, it is in our best interests to make this casino work because the more traditional municipal revenue sources are either already spoken for or have very limited growth prospects.
Returning to the discussion of Local 2 making political contributions – I think this topic should be talked about at the kitchen table and the membership should be more involved in the Union’s process and transparency. One argument against making political contributions is that firefighters and paramedics, as a Union, should not be required to pay for access to the political process to make our case for being relevant public servants. Our mission, protecting property and saving lives, is good public policy and good public relations. We shouldn’t need to contribute to campaigns to get our mandates written into law or funded. The opposing argument is that the Union, when fighting for our salaries, pensions and working conditions, needs to contribute to political campaigns in order to successfully negotiate on our behalf. This argument believes that this is just the nature of the political process in Springfield and if you want something done you have to play by the ‘Establishment’ rules or you do not get anything done. I would like to see the membership discuss both sides of the debate after reviewing the above graph depicting our political contributions in relation to our pension funding ratio. Also, taking into consideration our success in the recent legislative veto session and the current federal probes into questionable lobbying practices in Springfield and City Hall.
It is my personal belief, that when a Local 2 representative goes into a meeting with a politician, there should be no need to pull up a spreadsheet that indicates how often or how much Local 2 contributed to their campaign. Local 2 should be able to walk into a meeting or negotiations with the goodwill this department generates through the day-to-day difficult work performed by our members; members that are required to live within the City, required to pay the taxes, volunteer to coach in the park district programs and participate in local schools. A firefighter or paramedic is valuable to the fabric of Chicago’s neighborhoods; they should not be required to carry a political contribution tucked in their shirt pocket to get the recognition and compensation they are entitled.
I am not suggesting that our Union should not participate in the political process. That would be foolish given that our salaries and pensions are secured by the various governmental revenue sources allocated in the City’s budget. But what is not clear is the strategy being utilized by Local 2; what is the end game and how are we going to get there? I find it odd that we endorsed and supported a legislator that seems to be openly hostile to the Mayoral candidate who we strongly supported and now are negotiating with. Are we working against ourselves? Local 2 does need to be involved, but what happens to the money we contribute and is it really effective? It is bad enough the membership is not provided easily accessible information about where our union dues go to when political contributions are made. Even worse is that the monetary contributions can end up in the hands of candidates we do not support.
There is little to stop a candidate Local 2 supports with a monetary contribution from giving that cash to a candidate we oppose. The practice of transferring money between candidates is not uncommon. Our union dues could eventually go to a politician we do not support – to use for their personal gain, to be used for trips to the casino, vacations or dinners. Imagine a candidate you really can’t stand, maybe an extreme anti-police candidate that regularly provides commentary to news outlets, taking individual police incidents out of context to cast a broad pall over the entire policing community. You may never vote for this person, you may never send them a contribution and you may even write a personal check for their opponent in the next election. Nevertheless, your monthly union dues could end up in this candidate’s pocket. We will not know, because this money is fungible, moving from one candidate to the next without any knowledge on our part. If you read the 1st District Business Agent’s letter in the recent Sounder, an article from the Sun-Times touches on this very subject. To quote from the article: “Dozens of former elected officials have kept campaign cash for themselves. It’s all legal under a loophole in the state’s ethics reform.” When pressed about such practices one politician responded, “I followed the law”. When you hear about a corruption tax in Illinois leading to an exodus of people from the State, this behavior is what they are referring to. This Union needs to have an honest discussion about making monetary contributions to politicians and keeping the membership informed.
Nevertheless, I was impressed with the Union’s activity surrounding the last election – not the political donations – but the groundwork some members executed during the election. There are some very energetic young members of this department that give selflessly of their time and energy with no compensation; but that has always been our tradition, men and woman who selflessly serve. The PAC Committee members helped elect a Local 2 member to a first term as an alderman and re-elect two more members as aldermen. The next step, in my mind, is determining how to elevate these Local 2 members to positions of power that are beneficial to the Local 2 membership. We need representation on the Public Safety, Finance and Budget committees, so when decisions are made to underfund our pensions they can be addressed in the Council Chamber and hopefully in the news media. I was disappointed to see Alderman Sposato passed over as the Chairman of the Aviation committee after serving as the Vice-chair. That is a very powerful committee; nearly 20% of the revenue that is in the City budget is derived from the airports. It is a ripe opportunity for graft, contracts and political patronage. Local 2 has at least a hundred members employed at the airports, it is important to our membership’s interests that those operations are run ethically and transparently.
I doubt if the $25,000 contribution we gave Mayor Lightfoot matters much to her, but I hope our endorsement does; I think our Union made a smart decision endorsing her. Mayor Lightfoot, to me, represents a sorely needed change in the political dynamics in Chicago and Illinois. We most certainly are not going to agree with everything or everyone she supports; I am certain our opinions will differ on some matters that are of great importance to us. I think it is too premature to judge Mayor Lightfoot’s effectiveness or worthiness through the narrow lense of a timely contract or clear adequate pension funding. It is important to recognize she is not the Establishment’s candidate and she is a former federal prosecutor now sitting on the 5th floor of City Hall. Those two facts, should provide some hope to the majority of the membership that just want to do their job, raise their kids and have a secure retirement. The last time our Union endorsed a female candidate that won was Jane Byrne, a spitfire character that was part of the Establishment and then had the audacity to challenge them. However Mayor Byrne, upon taking office, forgot our endorsement and acquiesced to the Establishment, taking bad advice from Machine politicians that had their own political interests in mind. As the story goes, one such Establishment figure that undermined Mayor Byrne’s anti-Establishment agenda was Alderman Burke. It is refreshing to see the tact Mayor Lightfoot took when dealing with Alderman Burke; I do not think Mayor Lightfoot is going to be like Jane Byrne, but she does have some very difficult decisions in front of her. Time will tell.
I would like to address the letter I had posted during the last pension trustee election and my criticism of candidate Bill Murphy. People that have supported me in the past reached out and expressed their belief that my letter was misplaced and that my characterization of Bill did not reflect what they knew of Bill’s reputation. In my letter I did state that I did not know Bill very well and that fact was illustrated by my misdirected attack on his character. I apologize to Bill and the membership for my poor judgement, the insinuation was irresponsible. I attribute it to a misperception of who Bill aligned himself with; after speaking with Bill I realize those perceptions were hastily and poorly developed. I will concede my passionate defense of our retirement security got the best of my judgement in this case. Best of luck to those studying for promotional exams.
Timothy McPhillips
Pension Fund Trustee
This newsletter is my opinion only and clearly is not the opinion of the Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund.
