Transparency

By  "transparency" we mean access to information and permission to voice our opinion clearly and comprehensively at City meetings, as well as the right to receive answers to our questions by the officials presiding at Evanston public meetings.  We are  tax-paying residents of Evanston, and we have a right to clarity in the City's proceedings, a right to current correct and complete information, and a right to hold officials accountable for their actions. No ward should be sacrificed to reckless spending by the City, and no resident or neighborhood should suffer at the hands of any corporation. 

see also

• Outrage

Instead of meetings being recorded by court reporters, and the transcriptions later recorded on micro-film we have, since 1997, electronic data. Parts of digitally recorded  meetings have disappeared due to technical glitches, and  the videos are never transcribed in a printed form. Except for the actual final vote, minutes are available only as summaries, thus they are redacted, summarized and often biased.  Some microfilms have disappeared, and there is no microfilm machine available at City Hall to read the few films that are left.  Some of the old microfilms have been transferred to micro-fiches, but the  modern microfiche  machine and its printer at the Evanston Civic Center are cumbersome and inadequate to use, both in the effort it takes to view each slide (one page of a document per slide) and in the even longer time necessary to set each image for printing. The ensuing printed pages, so far have been out of focus! 

FOIAs are redacted, every single line at times, and arrive later than announced, or are missing relevant data altogether. Many excuses are used by the appointed City officials to justify the omissions, including the claim that there are too many FOIAs. 

Citizens at City  public meetings are allowed a bare minimum to voice their concerns. 45 minutes are divided by the number of speakers, thus there is an inverse proportion of citizen input. If few people show up to comment they get 3 minutes, and then the Council claims not many people were interested in the issue; if 45 people sign up to talk, they absolutely  cannot present their data since they have only one minute to speak.

In the past council members would ask and answer questions of the speakers. It was also possible for a resident to ask questions when the members presented their point of view on a subject or introduced a new item. On May 13 , 1996 the Council meeting public comment lasted 4 hours! 

In  1985 ZBA Commisioner Gardner  told NU:

"I think that first thing I learned and the second meeting I was here which went until 5:00 o'clock in the morning is that we are a body that listens to the people of Evanston ".

August 2, 1996: The editor of the Evanston Clarion, Tony Kelly issued an editorial about the importance of residents' concerns being voiced, and he called that voicing "citizenship".

"Whatever the merits of the individual cases may be this is called citizenship...and concern for the community... and we applaud it!!!"

A contemporary 2019 comment about "Public Comment" in the online edition of the Evanston Round  Table: 

Posted: Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Guestbook entry by: Steve Cohen

I cannot let the news that the Evanston City Council is considering an ordinance to limit public comment at council meetings pass without comment.

In my view public comment is already limited far too much. The public comment segment of a council meeting allows only for members of the public to make comments or ask questions that alderpersons are not obligated in any way to answer, and is usually met by stony silence, and often not discussion. That may be acceptable in many cases, but if one combines this with the recent practice of redacting entire memos in response to legitimate FOIA requests, the commitment of the City Council to democratic practices already comes under serious question.

Some citizens would like to see an explanation of how a projected $18 million improvement to the Crown Center ballooned to $70 million, funding for which will inevitably come out increased taxes on their property. How is keeping this information from them compatible with democratic governance? Why not submit it to referendum?

And if that's wrong, why not provide the correct explanation instead of hiding behind a wall of redactions? Many citizens fear the higher taxes will push them out of Evanston.

The new push for "civility" only makes this worse. How is this not a weakening of the democratic nature of city government? Why wouldn't citizens hoping to change the direction of city policy view it as a weakening of their already limited power? It is said that many people don't want to attend because of the contentious nature of these meetings. I don't believe it. Those citizens who approve of the general direction of current Council policy have no reason to attend. They can get all the information they want from watching. It's hard to believe they'd get any less respect than the citizens opposing council action. Those who oppose policy have little option other than attending meetings to make their feelings even known, if not approved.

The main problem is not lack of civility from citizens, it is lack of responsiveness to citizen input from the Council. 

The following article was about a resolution that the City manager had "introduced" at Council., to reduce the number of aldermen required to pass any ordinance.  The Council voted against this resolution

Posted: Friday, August 2, 2019

Guestbook entry by: Yvi Russell

To the Council re. resolution 84-R-19. Esteemed Council members and alder-persons:

I ask you to vote against resolution 84-R-19 amending City Council Rule 20, “Ordinances,” to state that an ordinance is approved if passed by a majority of alderman [sic] present.

Passing such a resolution would disenfranchise the voices of residents in any specific ward, because as alderpeople are well aware, when there is an important issue that affects residents, the first thing residents try to do is to enlist a few alderpeople in their cause, in particular their own ward's alderperson.

Resolution 84-R-19 will require the support of a larger number of alderpeople to be on the side of an issue ahead of a council meeting, if two or three of those alderpeople should be absent at the council meeting determining the fate of that issue.

As it stands now, City Council Rule 20, “Ordinance” requires ” 5 votes (a majority of the 9 alderpeople) for an issue being decided on Council. Every ward thus has a voice in an issue. This would not be the case if Resolution 84-R-19 would pass.

If resolution 84-R-19 passes, consider the following: an important issue for a specific ward comes up at Council, but for some reason the alderperson of that ward is out of town and cannot vote, and another council member who holds the same views on the issue is also” missing in action”. Thus, the residents for whom that issue is vital would need to find one extra voice on council to defend their point of view. The "missing" alderpeople would have no voice in an issue which most likely they spent a considerable time working on, just because they are absent on one single council day.

In the “good old days” when residents were allowed to speak at council for a reasonable time, and were allowed to have an actual back and forth conversation with Council members, the residents’ point of view and significantly, the data to support their view was able to be presented at Council. In 2019, residents depend even more on their alderpeople’ support, ahead of Council meetings. That is because at Council a brief 45 seconds to 2.5 minutes open comment, interrupted moreover by the distracting ringing of warning bells, rarely can present a cogent factual argument. Residents resort to emotional outbursts about the issues, since they cannot have a reasonable and calm face to face discussion with their Council about important issues. If Council members are absent at Council, and if resolution 84-R-19 passes, the residents are going to be disenfranchised even more.

With a quorum of 6, if Resolution 84-R-19 passes, the chance of 4 alderpeople deciding the fate of important legislation in a city of circa 75,000 is disturbing.

The next step would be to just have one person making up all the rules and be done with democracy.

Residents in Evanston, including me, would appreciate you not passing resolution 84-R-19 

2023 A recent example of how the City "encourages transparency"

The Castle - Evanston style

How to find the official notice re. Land Use Commission hearing

The LUC Rule on Page 8 Section 3-Notice Requirements for Public Hearings says in part, “..Commission shall give due notice of the time, place, and subject of every application to consider proposed map and text amendments, planned developments, unique uses, or changes to the Comprehensive General Plan not … less than fifteen (15) days before the meeting by publishing notice thereof at lease once in one or more newspapers published in the City in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.”

The weekly City Manager's report for 8. 11. 2023 does NOT show the date of the LUC meeting. 

1501 Central St U2 Text Amendment Modification to U2 uses to allow additional concerts and community events 01/27/23 pending LUC 7 1501

Central Street U2 Planned Development Demolition of existing Ryan Field stadium and ancillary maintenance building, construct new 35,000 seat stadium with parking, plazas, and park (NU) 05/04/23 pending staff review, LUC .

The LUC webpage states:

Agendas and meeting packets will be posted at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting and may be accessed on the Commission's webpage. If you wish to provide comments on agenda items, please complete the comment form here.

Return to full list >>  leads you to the calendar, where just the date of the LUC meeting date is posted. 

The official notice for the 8/23/2023 LUC hearing is buried here: 

Scroll down to: Ryan Field Stadium

Scroll down to: Meetings [for  video recording of the 6/27/2023 Special Topic 7th Ward Meeting]

Scroll down to: Land Use Commission [for date & location of the hearing & the public notices]

NU's transparency issues in their athletic department reflect the lack of transparency in the NU zoning proposal process.

See below excerpts from the Chicago Sun Times article published on 8/29/2023:

Six days before the Wildcats’ opener at Rutgers, Braun explained — poorly — that he was taking the completely unusual step of barring players from interviews during a game week.

Ask Northwestern interim football coach David Braun what the best things are that he has instilled in the Wildcats, and he’ll tell you transparency and trust.

Transparency? Trust? Those are loaded words for a coach to be using these days in Evanston, where the football program and athletic department are trying to pick up the pieces after a hazing scandal that led to the dismissal of the king of all ’Cats, Pat Fitzgerald.

Braun’s boss, athletic director Derrick Gragg, and Gragg’s boss, president Michael Schill, have been anything but transparent, hiding from the media for weeks on end.