Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Here’s How To Make The Tax Credit Scholarship Better
Next Post: Clean Air, Big Savings Central To Fleet Electrification Policy
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. Senate President Don Harmon just introduced a new proposal (click here) that he said addresses the House’s concerns…
Most notably, they raised a legitimate concern that the mechanics of election lead to the possibility of someone easily getting on the ballot and winning election to a four-year term on the school board with a small percentage of the vote without benefit of a runoff or a primary election.
So I am offering an amendment that’s just been filed that will address some of those issues incorporating ideas that came from the House bill. I want to just run through those for the benefit of everyone here.
First of all, all 20 districts would be up for election in 2024. But instead of initiating staggered terms, in the first election all 20 would stand for election to a two year term.
In 2026, the second election, we will have a [non-partisan] primary election in March, from which the top two vote-getters would advance to the November election. That way, we would ensure that the winner of a longer term has a majority of the vote, would begin implementing staggered terms. And 2026 with 10 of the seats being elected to four-year terms and the other 10 being elected two-year terms, and then flip and the subsequent elections leading up to the redistricting election and 2032.
There’s not enough time left on the clock to create non-partisan primaries next year, so this kicks that issue to 2026.
* Harmon also mentioned that the House has introduced a trailer “cleanup” bill for their elected Chicago school board measure. The language is on House Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 2324.
The amendment is said to be designed to address Senate President Don Harmon’s objections to the original bill’s “woefully inadequate ethical provisions”…
For example, there is no prohibition on executives and employees of school district contractors and vendors being able to serve on the board.
The House legislation opens the door for corruption by exempting board members from the requirements under the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act.
So, we still have two competing bills.
…Adding… Isabel asked Senate President Harmon whether there was an agreement yet between the two chambers. “We’re still working on it,” Harmon said. “Our amendment definitely incorporated some of the good ideas from the House bill, and I’m very pleased that they are incorporating the ethics provisions from our bill. These are all positive things.”
*** UPDATE 1 *** The House just passed its cleanup bill, SB2324, on a 99-1 roll call.
*** UPDATE 2 *** The House has adjourned. That means either the Senate takes up the House legislation, or nothing gets done during veto.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 12:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Here’s How To Make The Tax Credit Scholarship Better
Next Post: Clean Air, Big Savings Central To Fleet Electrification Policy
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well this should be interesting
Comment by Frida’s boss Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 12:40 pm
Seems like the debate is whether the legislature is largely aligned with CTU (senate) or totally in the tank with CTU (house).
Comment by Tina Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 1:28 pm
That CTU issued a statement opposing full elected school board now that their candidate is in power serves as a basic analysis in how they may have viewed the power to begin with.
CPS needs strong ethical requirements for its Board especially since there is tension between the Agency, OIG and the Board with one General Counsel managing all of their competing interests.
We saw this play out with the removal of Forrest Claypool and the later removal of Nick Schuler when OIG was investigating CPS legal.
Comment by Chicago voter Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 1:33 pm
Now do non partisan primaries for every other elected office.
Comment by Save Ferris Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 1:33 pm
So the ’solution’ here is to say “well, sucks for you if you have people win with 15% of the vote this time, but next time we’ll make it so there’ll be a nonpartisan primary in *MARCH* which kinda defeats the purpose of putting the election in November originally and oh right they’ll get to campaign the entire rest of the year oh and even if someone gets 50% of the vote in March they still have to run again in November” *bangs head against wall
Comment by just use rcv Thursday, Nov 9, 23 @ 2:49 pm