Unprecedented police conviction in Chicago opens door for reform

Marco Proano

On Monday a federal judge and prosecutor made history by charging a veteran Chicago police officer, Marco Proano, of using unreasonable force and wounding two teens, based on a December 2013 dash cam video. The 16 shots that he fired into a stolen car driven by black teenagers, turned the circle on a long, and painful episode of police abuse that had been the bane of those seeking lawful, and effective policing.

For Chicago history, it was doubly significant because in the past decades there were never convictions when the police used excessive force, mostly resulting in death, but also torture, as the infamous police Cmdr. John Burge, who did with black men, in the most vicious manner.

The 42 year-old police officer had also been charged earlier, and escaped prosecution, but remained on the force, in fact, for the August 2011 shooting of another teen, 19 year old, Niko Husband, at close range, but he was cleared of wrongdoing for the shooting, and also given a commendation for valor.

A judge later awarded his mother $3.5 million dollars, but it was overruled, and is currently on appeal.

The significance of this charge, and conviction, was a surprise to many, but in one manner helps to begin to close the circle on a long, and sad history, that had as its apex the, by now infamous police shooting, and videotaping, of 16 year- old, Laquan McDonald, being shot 16 times; which in turn, set a series of public protests, the defeat of States Attorney Anita Alvarez, and demands for the resignations of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. All of which garnered national headlines.

Coming on the heels of an 11th hour Obama era Department of Justice investigation, the attempt to right the wrongs of the past, especially racial justice, with not only the McDonald case, but others, was the revelation of inadequate police training, from a recent Department of Justice investigation.

U.,S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, made the announcement, this January, accompanied by U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon, and Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department head of civil rIghts. The three held a news conference at the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago's Loop, where Lynch said the report “found “reasonable cause” that the Chicago police department engaged in a pattern of using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She blamed that partially on “severely deficient training procedures” and “accountability systems.”

“Chicago police have shot at fleeing suspects who weren’t an immediate threat, failed to address racially discriminatory behavior within the department and put their own officers at risk”, the Chicago Sun-Times, reported at the time.

The 164 page report came after an initial rejection by Emanuel, calling it “misguided,” but facing a mountain of criticism, including increased calls for his resignation, he relented. And, in response, he said that he would, in breaking a long-held use of police overtime, ask for 970 new police officers, although not specifying how he would pay for them in a city with a previous legacy of financial mismanagement, mostly over delayed pension payments for city, and municipal workers.

The mixture of neglect, denial, economic problems, and partisan bickering has made an unenviable position for the city, as it deals with record crime, but also has to contend with President Trump who faces off his critics, and inflames his base by citing  Chicago as an example, of the horrors of reformed policing, by liberal advocates.

Added to the mix is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has adamantly said, that he would not agree to a consent decree to enforce the DOJ recommendations made by Lynch.

Monday’s unprecedented move carries a maximum of ten years, although legal experts say that since Proano, has no priors, this could be reduced, but also signals that there is a new dawning in police even being convicted.

“The vast majority of Chicago police officers do their job with vigilance and with respect for the constitutional rights of the citizens that they protect,” Acting U.S. Attorney Joel Levin said after the verdict was read. “In this situation, that’s not what Marco Proano did.”

As the Chicago Sun-Times reported, not all are pleased with the decision. Kevin Graham, president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, reacted with a statement that said, “the pressure on the police is making the job extremely difficult.”

“It seems that the criminal elements in our society are not accountable in our justice system, while the police face an intense scrutiny for every split second decision they make,” Graham said. “We will meet with our legal advisers to consider the next steps.”

Chicago city politics almost always reveal, more than is seent, and in this view Proano’s charge also gives rise to continue the DOJ recommendations, and while Emanuel has said that he wants to partner with State Attorney General Lisa Madigan in tackling the myriad of CPD related issues, there is much more to be probed.

Lisa Madigan

Veteran Sun-Times City Hall reporter Fran Spielman asked the question, “If Emanuel was really embracing federal court oversight over the Chicago Police Department, why did City Hall ask a judge just the other day to dismiss a similar lawsuit on grounds that CPDs “extensive, ongoing reform efforts” made the legal claims a moot point?”

Taking it even further, “And if Emanuel and Madigan were truly partners, why did the attorney general feel the need to file a federal lawsuit that holds a legal hammer over the mayor’s head?”

It appears that this may be a necessary first step, Spielman noted, “Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel said there’s a simple explanation for the seemingly adversarial lawsuit. It’s the necessary legal step before a federal judge will order the parties to negotiate a consent decree.”

Certainly, there is pressure for Emanuel to honor his commitment for a consent decree and that this first step, also supported by University of Chicago law professor, Craig Futterman, may be it.

“The Trump administration wasn’t even willing to pursue the concept they proposed themselves,” the mayor said. “I am proud that the Illinois attorney general is standing up for our city, for its residents and for our police officers where the Trump administration fell flat.”

Madigan added, “We are essentially stepping into the shoes of the Department of Justice — shoes that the DOJ has abandoned.”

Whether forced, or not, the Madigan effort merits some praise by many, but not by Graham who calls it a “potential catastrophe,” and would further “handicap the police force.”

While that argument has been promulgated before, the sense of justice, by police reform advocates has merit as does, Emanuel’s reservations that in previous cities’ efforts have “come at the expense of public safety.”

Futterman does make a valid point when he says, “If this just turns into another deal between politicians that excludes the community from a formal role in negotiating what’s in the deal and enforcing the deal, it lacks any credibility and it won’t be trusted,” he said.

The old adage, of one step forward, two steps back seems to apply, but maybe it should be two steps forward and one back, the first being the Proano conviction, and the second Madigan’s lawsuit.

In a philosophic vein, can the city afford to go forward without the consent decree, and despite Graham’s negative assertions, can the city afford more cases like McDonald, and the ensuing negative publicity, especially as Emanuel seeks reelection?

Illinois School funding bill is full of pitfalls

Cardinal Cupich lobbied hard for vouchers

Updated 29 August at 3:45 p.m.

In what was tantamount to a mirage, last Friday, Illinois state leadership announced that a tentative agreement had been reached to fund public schools using the language of a bill that was sponsored by state Senator, Andy Manar, whose bill, SB 1, called for an evidence based distribution of funds, the first, for what many believe was the worst in the nation for funding for poor students.

In their joint statement Thursday, House Republican Leader Jim Durkin and Senate Republican Leader Bill Brady said they, along with Democratic leaders, Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, State Senate President John Cullerton, and Gov. Bruce Rauner, reached an “agreement in principle on historic school funding reform.”

On Monday evening, after a series of "show" votes meant to demonstrate dissatisfaction with opposition to one key part of the agreement, and then another to position the Democratic opposition to the previous gubernatorial override, the House in a 73-34 vote, passed the so-called compromise bill, that among other districts gives $5.7 million to Chicago Public Schools.

Days earlier, the announcement of agreement was labelled as tentative, but many, including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel praised it as a done deal, and said that Chicago parents, could “breathe a little easier," and also late Monday evening continued his praise, by thanking lawmakers, "for putting politics aside to address decades of inequity."

With Illinois politics being anything but simple, including back room deals, last minute additions, and lobbying efforts, this bill, SB1, is no exception. Leading the charge is Chicago Roman Catholic Cardinal Blaise Cupich, who has lobbied hard, and may have won the day with a school voucher that would benefit parochial schools, with money being taken from the Chicago Public Schools, to the tune of $75 million.

As of this date, there is a planned cap at $75 million of tax deferred dollars that can be donated into a scholarship program to help low-income children, at least that is what its defenders say; and no doubt Cupich, whose parochial schools are part of the nation’s largest private school system, run by the Catholic church.

While cooler heads did not prevail on this "scholarship" that supporters are calling it, while in reality, it still is easily a voucher, by another name say critics.

Well known was the opposition to Manar’s bill by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who vowed to veto it, and he did, with an amendatory veto; less well known is that it is unusual for a bill, with an AV, to include an item, not in the original language, like this proposed voucher.

It seems somewhat disingenuous on the part of the Cardinal with the Roman church’s historic preferential treatment for the poor to support some students, and not others; especially in a city where the public school demographics tips to racial minorities: 47 percent Hispanic and 38 percent African American.

Certainly on the federal level, vouchers have been a mainstay of Education Secretary Betsy Devos, despite her own failed experiment in Detroit where her sponsored charter schools test scores fell beneath the national average.

Reaction has been consistent for both defenders and critics:  “I hope that is part of the outcome,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter of a voucher program. “These are our tax dollars and we should be able to decide where they are spent and if we believe the best place for our kids to get an education is a private school rather than a public school,” reported the Effingham Daily News.

But for Altamont Superintendent Jeff Fritchtnitch, a school voucher program is concerning, he said, “So you use public dollars for a voucher program — a private school setting — so did we just open up Pandora’s box with regard to separation of church and state?” asked Fritchtnitch. “Am I against taxpayer money going to educate kids? No. But we also have certain requirements as public educators in education that we have to follow that those parochial schools do not.”

“Vouchers are a reverse Robin Hood scheme that siphons money from poor school districts and lets the wealthy avoid paying their fair share in taxes. A total of $100 million in school vouchers is the equivalent of adding 1,000 teachers, paraprofessionals and clinician for kindergarten through fifth grade classes and programs, which would lower class sizes across the city and provide support for the trauma and violence so many of our students face,” the Chicago Teachers Union said in an earlier statement.

CTU President Karen Lewis

The reduction of the original amount may be seen to mollify the CTU, along with the cap, but that might be a pipe dream. “Vouchers are a double whammy aimed at the heart of public education, and to be frank, amount to stealing from the same Black and Brown children to whom he claims to be providing sanctuary and equity, said CTU President Karen Lewis.

Opposing its inclusion were State Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, who voted “no” twice because she said the private school program warranted public meetings that didn’t take place. “To me, this issue is too important,” she said.

Rep. Will Guzzardi, (D-Chicago), also voted against the measure — saying it was “unconscionable” to vote in support of the private school program, reported the Chicago Sun-Times.

“As far as I’m concerned the nose is under the camel’s tent now, and I’m very concerned about the prospect of this money only growing, and more and more over the years of our public dollars being diverted away,” Guzzardi said, adding he’s worried there will be an expansion instead of a sunset in five years.

Guzzardi's predictions may come true, as once this is in place, the chances of it growing,and becoming permanent are as sure as winter coming to Chicago each year.

Another part of the deal was to allow a share of Chicago’s tax increment financing districts which Rauner used as a comeback tactic, that some critics have said, was not only planned, but reinforced, after the recent state budget was signed into law, on an override. Sour grapes?

Poking at the soft underbelly of Chicago politics may been a new tactic after a drastic change in his staff, including many from the right leaning Illinois Policy Institute, whose new domination, has filled the vacancies. Rauner practically shrieked that the TIF’s, as they are known, were simply a slush fund for the mayor, and that there was money that was not being used for the schools.

It’s far beyond our scope to examine the byzantine, even arcane, TIF structure, but it has long been a bugaboo among Emanuel’s critics, and that of his predecessor Richard M. Daley, and The Chicago Reader, an alternative press, has railed against its use for over a decade.

The monies, frozen from specific tax areas are supposed to be used to help development in poor, and blighted areas, yet this has not always been the case, as when tax dollars were used by developers to build the posh French Market in the city’s Loop district.

Rauner’s assertions were countered by a Chicago Tribune examination which show that Emanuel’s comments to the contrary, were  “right when he says that the city has used the controversial taxing districts to spend more on schools and that state law prevents it from tapping most of the money in those districts for CPS costs.”

Their detail showed that surplus dollars have increased, and that under Emanuel there has been more that $400 million spent on schools, quoting city officials, since 2011. And, also that there were tens of millions from Daley, and these amounts were more than the state cap allowed.

The Property Tax Extension Limitation Law was applicable to Chicago schools in 1994, and “limited overall increases to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lowest,” noted the Tribune.

Now, comes the rub, this cap may be lifted so that the city can get the $269 million sought by CEO Forrest Claypool, two weeks ago; and that can only mean, another property tax increase to Chicago residents who are already burdened by high sales tax, a fee for bags, for purchases, and now the controversial penny for ounce sweetened beverage tax.

If you are a property owner, then you are probably screaming for uncle, as you read this, since the $250 million increase, that was given to CPS, just last year, is still smarting.

The result may be that many Chicago families will flee for the burbs to make ends meet, a fact that hit home Saturday night, at dinner, for three couples that did just that. And, for middle-class black families, the exodus, to Northern Indiana will continue, as the they flee the high costs, and the equally high crime, that has blighted the city.

Of course, the pension liability for Chicago has been enormous and the fact that the state pays teacher pensions for all, but Chicago, makes the need for reform even greater, and this bill has that as another goal. In that vein, Madigan added $200 million in additional state funds for the faltering system, that lay prey to skipped payments, and pension holidays.

The current school budget has pension obligations pegged at $773 million.

Now, in a significant change, the state will make a much larger contribution to Chicago teacher pensions, to the tune of $221 million, compared to $12.2 million last year, but included in the state's retirement system, which Rauner wanted, and not the change that Madigan wanted, as part of the bill.

On Friday, after giving his initial support for the agreement, the governor turned back and said, there are “some bad things in there.” and also "It's not fair but it's going to end up being a compromise," he said, adding that he may push for a different bill than SB1. "I'm going to try to fix the problems with it in subsequent legislation."

It's unclear what pushed Rauner to backtrack again, and give support, but it might have been the advice of his wife, Diana, who local news reports have said, has heavily influenced her husband's public stances, especially after staff shake-ups.

While there is major support for the bill among many lawmakers, and parents, and school officials, there is still the spectre of higher taxes on an already burdened base, and the very real entrenchment of a voucher, that will chip away on a public school system that is one of the largest in the nation.

CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey crossed swords with the Chicago Board of Education, as they fell behind the bill and the "scholarship" aspect. "Frankly, we need to speak out that vouchers, which are part of this latest school funding deal, are fundamentally devastating to a public school system," Sharkey told the board.The Tribune also quoted his saying: "This is not just vouchers, it's vouchers plus tax credits. Which would mean that if I have a $1,000 tax bill, I can give $1,000 to a parochial school or private school and then get a $750 credit off my taxes ... I don't have to pay my taxes? That's a crazy idea."

Now, it's onto the state Senate to see what, if any changes, are made. The governor has said that he will sign it, but as these last few weeks have shown, there can be changes, and modifications to what is easily a flawed bill, especially to taxpayers, who are on the line for more taxes, and the CTU, who will see even more monies stripped from their needy coffers.

Will Chicago schools stay open longer than a semester?

As the summer heat intensifies, and then fades, the school yard bell begins to toll, and the back to school signs appear in nearly every retail outlet from the big box stores to the drugstore, it’s almost that time for the school buses to start to roll down city streets. But, for Illinois, especially Chicago, there is a wariness that there may not be enough money to sustain classes beyond a semester.

In the ensuing days, the political strains between Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, and the Democratic majority have led to a much needed reformulated school funding bill, to move away fromt the strict revenue stream from real estate taxes that give the per pupil dollar, to one that is more equitable and evidence based. That bill SB1 proposed by State Sen. Andy Manar, was recently given an amendatory veto by the governor.

With cuts that would take nearly $463 million from Chicago schools and giving it to statewide school districts, Rauner called these cuts necessary to avoid a “bailout” for Chicago schools, much to the ire of Chicago Public School officials.

But others are opposed, “because it would receive a $500 million adjustment to its local contribution for legacy pensions on top of credits for both its existing pension payments and state block grants.”  

Statewide accepting the Rauner plan affects its 923 school districts, with 31 gaining funds, and the loss of a state grant, to Chicago, of $250 million, that has been received for the last twenty years.

One sticking point is that any money awarded to a student, under the governor’s plan, would be lost if the student transfers, with the money travelling with him.

Part of this donnybrook, as some observers have noted, is a payback, from Rauner, for having his budget veto overridden, last month, which gave the state a budget after an absence of nearly two years.

The Chicago public school system is the fourth largest in the nation, with an overwhelmingly dominance by racial minorities: 47 percent Hispanic and 38 percent, African American, that some of the governor’s critics, are suggesting is his way of neglecting these students.

Philosophically, the lack of political will for these children makes it more galling for social progressives, but also shows that race and economic class are holding sway, making the effects even more debilitating as the erosion of social capital continues; especially for a state that wants to be business friendly, and for a city, whose mayor touts it as a first class city.

Long in need of a school funding formula that was equitable, Manar’s bill seemed to fit the bill, more than in previous attempts.  “It's a sizable change that everyone in state knows needs to happen,” he said, and ,“It will over time fix inequity, drive resources to districts that are furthest away from where they ought to be, and treat all districts the same.”

The skinny: “It begins by taking into account a district’s local funding capacity and the amount of funding it already receives from the state as a baseline and adds from there over time,” reported local PBS station WTTW.

“Those targets are calculated by taking into account a given district’s “essential elements” – such as the costs for professional development, class size ratios, technology and about two dozen other items – and their cost of implementation based on demographic differences, along with staff salaries based on regional variation.”

“What this does, is it literally generates the resources you need to educate the population you serve,” Center for Tax and Budget Accountability Executive Director Ralph Martire said. “No other funding formula does that.”

And, for new appropriations and grants, “Any new state contributions would go first to districts that are furthest from their adequacy targets and SB1 promises that no school district will see a decrease in funding. It ranks districts on a four-tier scale and uses current funding amounts as a baseline starting point before adding new state dollars to those levels going forward.”

A study by a local advocacy group says that 85 percent of monies would go to primarily low income districts, and “new dollars would be phased in over the next decade.”

After Rauner’s amendatory veto, it was overridden in the Senate within a comfortable three-fifths margin, and then it went to the House, where it is expected to have a much harder time, with 71 votes needed, but won’t pass without the help of Republicans.

On Wednesday, the House offered a trial-balloon of sorts with a procedural bill that incorporated Rauner’s changes, and which sunk like a stone at the bottom of the Chicago River.

Adding to the mix, or some might say desperation, is that school chief Forrest Claypool, recently announced that there was an additional need of $269 million to keep the schools open, and one that he wants the city to pay. Where the cash-strapped city will get the money is puzzling. Borrowing is one option, but the city has already borrowed tons before, and is on the hook for high interest payments.

With all eyes on a Friday meeting it is expected that the House will provide the expected override, after its earlier procedural votes; albeit with what Speaker of the House Michael Madigan termed, “reasonable Republicans.”

How Sweet it isn’t: Chicago sours on Preckwinkle tax

In a move to shore up Cook County’s revenue, that incorporates most of Chicago, its board president, Toni Preckwinkle, proposed and had passed a sweetened beverage tax to bring in $67.5 million to shore up health care, salaries, and all manner of needed services for the nation's second largest county.

After a stay by a local judge, the tax was implemented and left a sour taste in the mouth of many residents, for the penny an ounce tax, that some mischaracterized as a  tax, on soda, or as we say in the Midwest, “pop.”

That misnomer failed to capture that sweetened beverages were the target, and even that was split on such beverages a frappuccino that was made by a barista, untaxed, or bought in a bottle at a retail outlet, taxed.

Already burdened by a 10.25 percent sales tax, and the largest property tax increase in Chicago history, many of their residents have felt that the next thing to be taxed is the air that they breathe; especially in lieu of a 32 percent tax increase, that recently passed, over the veto of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, to give the state a budget that it has lacked for nearly two years, after a partisan battle.

To add even more change to the needy coffers, Chicago city residents, pay 7 cents for a shopping bag, unless they bring their own, for any retail purchase, even that sandwich from a chic charcuteries, in the pricey Loop district. And, if in that area, will also pay large parking meter fees; that can be as much as the cost of the aforementioned lunch.

As with most regressive taxes, people find a way around them, and the results are generally disappointing --- and this bag tax is no different.  Take a stroll near a supermarket and you see a veritable sea of people walking out without bags, merchandise in their hands, even in baby strollers, with, or without the baby, to tote gallon containers of milk, melons, diapers, or cereal boxes.

Add to that scene, legions of people - generally, but not always, professionals toting folded bags from the annual professional conferences; all to avoid paying the 7 cent bag fee.

Preckwinkle who has been popular, and was once considered as a mayoral challenger to incumbent Rahm Emanuel, is becoming imperious, said some observers, as her reaction, when she was sued by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, who when then when they lost on appeal, she attempted a countersuit to recoup lost revenue.

Greg Hinz, noted on Crain's Chicago Business that “Preckwinkle subsequently caught more heat when she asked a county judge to force IRMA to pay $17 million in damages, allegedly to make up for the money lost when the restraining order was in place. She ended up backing off, but not until a series of scathing attacks from newspaper editorials and fellow board member Richard Boykin, who says she so has mishandled things that he may run against her for re-election next year.”

Reaction to that was swift and immediate, and “At a news conference, West Side Democrat Richard Boykin, joined by suburban Republicans Tim Schneider and Sean Morrison, unveiled a measure that would require advance board approval of any civil suit filed by the president on behalf of the county that seeks more than $500,000. The board also would have to be notified of any suit seeking more than $100,000,” reported CCB.

Then add in local fast food giant McDonald’s who was being sued for taxing a drink twice. A local man “claims McDonald’s added the 23 cent tax to the pre-tax price of the beverage as a surcharge. The subtotal for the food, beverage and tax was then taxed again at the county’s sales tax rate when the final total for his purchase was calculated.” The suit was consequently thrown out.

This was mostly a local issue, until the Feds took notice and issued a letter about the way the tax was handled for food stamp holders, who, by nature, don’t pay sales tax.  Some retailers who could not program their registers to delete the tax for them, had a system to charge, then delete it, before payment. This was the direct result of a change in direction from including the price on the shelf sticker to that, of an added tax at checkout.

"We advised Cook County via phone call on June 28, 2017, that this option for managing the tax was unacceptable," Tim English, regional administration of the Department of Agriculture, wrote Department of Human Services Secretary James Dimas. "However, as of Aug. 3, this alternative still appears on the Cook County website."

The big fly in the ointment, or that sweetened latte, is “the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency is threatening to withhold nearly $87 million in state funding unless the county immediately alters the illegal manner in which the penny-an-ounce levy has been implemented.”

CCB noted that there was little response from Preckwinkle's office, except this: "We received the letter last night, and our attorneys are reviewing" it, a spokesman said. "We had been in touch with state and federal agencies on this issue. We'll have more to say on it later."
Adding to the furor is Gov. Bruce Rauner’s office who, in a letter to her, said, in part: “I am writing to inform you that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has determined that one method of implementing the Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax in relation to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) clients violates federal law. FNS states that it will take action to suspend administrative funds to the State of Illinois unless corrective action is taken ($86.8 million last fiscal year). Please be advised that FNS powers against the State in this regard are substantial.”

Answering the call, or rather the demand from the Feds, was a good idea, and, we hear that most cash registers have been re-programmed to comply with the no sales tax rule.

Taxes and Cook County presidents seem to go hand in hand and one reason, ironically, is that Preckwinkle was elected, in part, to ease the high tax burden, passed by her predecessor, Todd Stroger.
If all politics is local, then the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or maybe that should be the drinking? One teaspoon, or two?

The public, as of late, seems to have wised up regarding the sweetened beverage tax, and the latest movement is to have friends that work, or live, in Lake County take orders of soda pop, premixed lattes, with sugar,  drinks with less than 50 percent milk, and so on.

Preckwinkle trying hard to avoid a referendum on the tax has now brought out the big guns, this time, or should we say the big bucks, of billionaire, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a series of radio and TV ads with testimony that suggest even one can of soda, in a child’s daily diet will make them, so morbidly obese, that they won’t be able to walk.

Somehow all of this doom-and-gloom talk has failed to impress John and Jane Q. Public who are importing, as we have seen, Prohibition era style, from other counties, their cache of sweetened beverages, or bribing their food stamp holding friend's, chicken dinners on Sunday, to use their tax free cards for that most durable taste sensation - sugar!

Adding to the real push, the erstwhile County Board president has enlisted Bloomberg's deep pockets to do a $2.5 million study to be done at the University of Illinois at Chicago to do, as the Chicago Tribune reported, “whether the tax actually improves public health over an extended period of time.”

The old adage, of “he writeth the check calleth the tune,” seems not to be considered, or even acknowledged as the officials at Bloomberg Philanthropies assure us that they will be “rigorous in method.”

As any good psychology undergrad knows, there is value in a longitudinal study, that is one done over a lengthy period of time, and this one will be done over three years, and “Regardless of what they fund, it will be published either way,” says Dr. Kelly Henning who runs the public health program for the financier's charity.

While Preckwinkle may lose some of her luster (a strong and early advocate on reforming race based sentencing) Boykins and others are nipping at her electoral heels, (she is seeking a third term) and this issue could be her achilles heel in an otherwise A-rated reputation.

In July she got in trouble with the affable, and competent, Sheriff Tom Dart over his “bloated” budget, who as the Chicago Sun TImes reported, replied that he didn’t “create this crisis,” but inherited it.

Then Boykins charged her with acting like “a drunken sailor with the taxpayer's credit card, who is being dishonest, and everything she see she wants to tax and spend.”

Ouch!

Add to that Madame President's devotion to Cook County Assessor Joe Berrios, long accused of cronyism, and now, pandering to white property owners for tax assessments, and the ground beneath her feet seems to be shifting, for the once popular and grounded Preckwinkle.

Cook County’s commissioners are expected to vote on repeal Oct. 10, but as the Trib noted, “It's unclear at this point if there are enough votes to overturn the controversial measure.”

Updated Sept. 30 at 6:49 CDST

Sessions bashes Chicago and its lawsuit against the Feds

In a move that seems more redemptive than anything else, considering the butt-kicking that he received from President Trump, who called him everything, but a child of God, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has found a way to maneuver back into the boss's, good graces, when he responded to the lawsuit that the City of Chicago issued saying that threatening to take away federal funds for crime fighting was self-defeating.

“To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system,” Sessions said in a prepared statement. “They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents.

Not content with merely saying that, the Chicago Sun Times also reported him stating, “This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined. The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.”

This represents another diversionary move, to play to the Trump base, and divert attention from the very serious charges that could be brought against the president, and his family: their finances, long rumored to have been ill-gotten, and which faced a barrage of criticism, when he refused to release his tax return, a tradition since the Nixon presidency.

Divide and conquer is not a new game, even in Washington, but with the Mueller investigation ratcheting up its focus on the Trump finances, there are shark-infested waters in the Potomac that threaten to engulf Donald Trump, and his children.

Fear often works hand in hand with this type of blowback, and linking it to an old fear of immigrants, and their foreign ways, with threats to those already here, read “real Americans,” then the die has been cast; helped along by candidate Trump who labelled many of the Mexican illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers.

Yet, in the overwhelming crime cases in Chicago, there has been no direct link established between immigrants and non-immigrants, yet the fear has already been cemented.

Historically this is not new, as the nativist portrayals of the Irish immigrants in cartoons of the day, as snapping alligators, with bishop's miters on their heads, (an anti-Catholic swipe) as a young girl, representing America, cowered on the shore, were prevalent in late 19th century America.

“I have been a police officer for more than 30 years, and the federal government’s plans will hamper community policing and public safety,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said in response to Sessions. “Undocumented immigrants are not driving violence in Chicago, and that’s why I want our officers focused on community policing and not trying to be the immigration police.”

“Other lawsuits to block the Justice Department from punishing cities shielding illegal immigrants from federal immigration agents have been filed in federal courts in Seattle, and in California: Santa Clara and San Francisco,” noted the Sun TImes.

Just after his 100th day anniversary in office, “a federal judge in California, blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda,” reported CNN.

“In his ruling, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara County, the city of San Francisco and other jurisdictions, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.”

“Chicago’s 46-page complaint asks U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber — assigned to the case Monday — to stop the Justice Department from enforcing new conditions it has attached to the grant funds,” reported the Sun TImes.

In its defense two Chicago lawyers “pointed out that, according to the city’s lawsuit, Congress did not give the Justice Department the power to create new conditions when it created the grant program.”

Or does it? The earlier reports noted that the Santa Clara move “does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions -- but the government will not be able to block federal funds from going to those cities as Trump ordered.”

DOJ did detail the new rule and conditions sanctuary jurisdictions must follow. The first condition would require the city to give the feds, when they ask for it, a 48-hour heads up of the scheduled release date and time “of an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody.”

“The second would require the city to give the feds access to “any correctional or detention facility in order to meet with an alien . . . and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United States.” However, the city points out in its lawsuit that Chicago does not have a jail — only 18 temporary police “lockup” facilities.”USA Today described the current law: “The city prohibits police from providing federal Immigration and customs officials access to people in police custody, unless they are wanted on a criminal warrant or have serious criminal convictions. Local police are also barred from allowing ICE agents to use their facilities for interviews or investigations and from responding to ICE inquiries or talking to ICE officials about a person’s custody status or release date.”

By definition, “Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that resist federal immigration regulations in order to protect otherwise law-abiding unauthorized residents in the U.S. These municipalities typically allow such individuals to utilize city services and often restrict local officers' ability to target people because of their immigration status or send that data to federal agents in the course of an arrest. Most sanctuary cities send this information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement if a person is affiliated with a gang or wanted for a violent crime.”

Chicago has received federal monies since 2005, and in 2016 there was $2.3 million given last year, mostly used for police vehicles, radios and S.W.A.T. equipment.While the amount is relatively small, city officials fear that this is only the beginning.

“The rhetoric and the threats from this administration embodied in these new conditions imposed on unrelated public safety grant funds are breeding a culture and a climate of fear within the communities in our city,” said Edward Siskel, the head of the city's legal office director, at the courthouse after the lawsuit was filed.