Reid gets the occasional thing right, but his lack of pragmatism on tonnes of issues (like, say, his advocacy for a ban on cashless businesses) plus his frequent temper-tantrums shows to me that he is not a serious character.
He seems to scour the news for whatever new thing is being tried in Berkeley, Brooklyn, or San Fran and tries to push it in Evanston without the slightest regard for whether the conditions in Evanston may be different.
He was an unmitigated disaster as Clerk--posting sexual assault victims' names and unredacted minors' arrest records on the internet. He royally screwed up the basic elements of the clerk's job such as taking minutes for council meetings and fulfilling FOIAs.
Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was amazed that he was elected to clerk given his lack of experience in the workplace and his campaign focused on stuff not even related to being clerk, like affordable housing.
The only reason he got elected clerk was because he was successfully able to leverage a problematic encounter with EPD to exploit the liberal guilt of the average Evanston resident.
I don't disagree with all of these things but we *also* have to be pragmatists and work with the alderman you have not the alderman you want. In this case, he was spot on and did the right thing. Give the guy a W today.
I have corresponded with Biss about this problem. I suggested he should rule the hateful comments out of order, not because they are offensive (which opens the 1st Amendment can of worms), but because they are irrelevant. (Nothing on the agenda to consider whether rabbis crawl up from sewers, etc.)
He replied that unfortunately, an OMA counselor had said that any restriction of content would be a violation.
I found only one sentence in the OMA about rights of non-members attending an open meeting, at 5 ILCS 5, sec 2.06 (g): “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.” So if you flout those rules, you forfeit your right to speak, There’s nothing in the OMA that says all subject matter must be permitted.
Robert’s Rules is quite emphatic: in Section 61.19 it says “An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers.” The chair “has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal . . . and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer.”
So Biss reserves the right to shut us up, but has no plan to silence the Nazis?
Thanks for this; I hadn’t seen this article. I have two thoughts:
1) AUSL appears to have been a dirty business, even too much for CPS. D65 admin is populated with a lot of AUSL alumni, but fewer since Dr Horton took some down to GA. My understanding is that for Principals in AUSL, it was a freewheeling operation. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt but it sure doesn’t look good, does it?
2) Hard to judge what happened with the lunch thing, also doesn’t look good but I sense there is more to the story here.
A broken clock is right twice a day, and this was one of those times for Devon Reid. His career with the CoE has been pretty disappointing, and I agree he only got into this because of the EPD encounter during a time particularly when folks were not too fond of police nationwide.
But this city lease thing does not sit well with me. Plenty of people smarter than I, who also work in the RE industry have insisted this is a bad deal, yet the City plunges forward. How can they expect us to believe anything other than there are shenanigans in the background? And we have a LOT of shenanigans going on in this city.
I think there should be some public polling when the City embarks on expensive ventures that tie us up for decades to come. Not public comment, because that looks like it is on the chopping block. But maybe something as simple as a survey monkey. Because if they really listened to the citizenry, they would hear that this is not a good deal for us and they should simply issue a mea culpa and go back to the drawing board. We all know how reticent public servants in Evanston are to issue apologies, however.
In making contracts behind our backs that commit millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, you have forgotten another contract—the social contract, which is measured not in dollars but in trust. That contract says that to be legitimate, a government requires consent of the governed. Three recent maneuvers by our city’s government persuade me that it is time to withhold that consent.
FIRST came the attempt, in June 2023, to keep HRG’s oversized Chicago Ave. building proposal afloat, despite negative votes in the Land Use Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. A Council member moved approval and received no second. When the same council member’s motion to table approval for a later vote was defeated, the mayor urged him to withdraw it to avoid sinking the proposal. The former city attorney claimed that Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO) justifies this intervention. it does not. RRO explicitly states that withdrawal must happen BEFORE voting on the motion begins (RRO, 12th ed., 33:11-33:16, pp. 278-279).
SECOND, the complaint filed by the Most Livable City group in the Circuit Court of Cook County credibly alleges that negotiations for the NU stadium agreement involved numerous closed meetings of the mayor and pro-stadium council members with representatives of Northwestern. Neither the public nor skeptical members of Council were informed that these meetings took place, or what agreements were reached in them.
THIRD came the illegal, closed-session authorization of an exclusive contract with JLL to broker any future sale of the current city hall, for a commission of 5-6%--estimated at $500,000-600,000 or more. AND a 15-year, 37 million dollar lease negotiated by this same broker. But this time you were caught. The Attorney General’s review concluded that you violated the Open Meetings Act.
To begin restoring our trust, please stay the mandated re-vote on the JLL contract until a later open meeting, so that, for once, we all have time to look before Council leaps.
Remarks for Wednesday's meeting (I'll read half and my wife, who coauthored it, will read the rest):
Mayor Biss and Members of Council:
In making contracts behind our backs that commit millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, you have forgotten another contract—the social contract, which is measured not in dollars but in trust. That contract says that to be legitimate, a government requires consent of the governed. Three recent maneuvers by our city’s government persuade me that it is time to withhold that consent.
FIRST came the attempt, in June 2023, to keep HRG’s oversized Chicago Ave. building proposal afloat, despite negative votes in the Land Use Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. A Council member moved approval and received no second. When the same council member’s motion to table approval for a later vote was defeated, the mayor urged him to withdraw it to avoid sinking the proposal. The former city attorney claimed that Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO) justifies this intervention. it does not. RRO explicitly states that withdrawal must happen BEFORE voting on the motion begins (RRO, 12th ed., 33:11-33:16, pp. 278-279).
SECOND, the complaint filed by the Most Livable City group in the Circuit Court of Cook County credibly alleges that negotiations for the NU stadium agreement involved numerous closed meetings of the mayor and pro-stadium council members with representatives of Northwestern. Neither the public nor skeptical members of Council were informed that these meetings took place, or what agreements were reached in them.
THIRD came the illegal, closed-session authorization of an exclusive contract with JLL to broker any future sale of the current city hall, for a commission of 5-6%--estimated at $500,000-600,000 or more. AND a 15-year, 37 million dollar lease negotiated by this same broker. But this time you were caught. The Attorney General’s review concluded that you violated the Open Meetings Act.
To begin restoring our trust, please stay the mandated re-vote on the JLL contract until a later open meeting, so that, for once, we all have time to look before Council leaps.
In fact, JLL is not "a commercial real estate agent in this town." It is based in Winnetka.
Reid gets the occasional thing right, but his lack of pragmatism on tonnes of issues (like, say, his advocacy for a ban on cashless businesses) plus his frequent temper-tantrums shows to me that he is not a serious character.
He seems to scour the news for whatever new thing is being tried in Berkeley, Brooklyn, or San Fran and tries to push it in Evanston without the slightest regard for whether the conditions in Evanston may be different.
He was an unmitigated disaster as Clerk--posting sexual assault victims' names and unredacted minors' arrest records on the internet. He royally screwed up the basic elements of the clerk's job such as taking minutes for council meetings and fulfilling FOIAs.
Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was amazed that he was elected to clerk given his lack of experience in the workplace and his campaign focused on stuff not even related to being clerk, like affordable housing.
The only reason he got elected clerk was because he was successfully able to leverage a problematic encounter with EPD to exploit the liberal guilt of the average Evanston resident.
I don't disagree with all of these things but we *also* have to be pragmatists and work with the alderman you have not the alderman you want. In this case, he was spot on and did the right thing. Give the guy a W today.
Yes, but then he floated a motion to restrict citizen comment to 30 minutes instead of 45. I can't figure the guy out.
I mean there were nazis zoom bombing the whole citizen comment thing!
I have corresponded with Biss about this problem. I suggested he should rule the hateful comments out of order, not because they are offensive (which opens the 1st Amendment can of worms), but because they are irrelevant. (Nothing on the agenda to consider whether rabbis crawl up from sewers, etc.)
He replied that unfortunately, an OMA counselor had said that any restriction of content would be a violation.
I found only one sentence in the OMA about rights of non-members attending an open meeting, at 5 ILCS 5, sec 2.06 (g): “Any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.” So if you flout those rules, you forfeit your right to speak, There’s nothing in the OMA that says all subject matter must be permitted.
Robert’s Rules is quite emphatic: in Section 61.19 it says “An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers.” The chair “has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal . . . and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer.”
So Biss reserves the right to shut us up, but has no plan to silence the Nazis?
I think it will be moot shortly since they seem to have moved on
I sure hope you’re right!
Hi Tom! What Ward are you in and would you consider running for Council in 2025? 😄Feel free to answer privately .
I'm in the 3rd ward and I have too many skeletons in my closet
With modern deep-fakery technology we should be able to liquidate those skeletons. And/or create some for any opponents.
Hey Tom, What are your thoughts on the Evanston Now story on Angel Turner being on the CPS "Do Not Hire List"?
https://evanstonnow.com/turner-on-cps-do-not-hire-list/
Thanks for this; I hadn’t seen this article. I have two thoughts:
1) AUSL appears to have been a dirty business, even too much for CPS. D65 admin is populated with a lot of AUSL alumni, but fewer since Dr Horton took some down to GA. My understanding is that for Principals in AUSL, it was a freewheeling operation. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt but it sure doesn’t look good, does it?
2) Hard to judge what happened with the lunch thing, also doesn’t look good but I sense there is more to the story here.
A broken clock is right twice a day, and this was one of those times for Devon Reid. His career with the CoE has been pretty disappointing, and I agree he only got into this because of the EPD encounter during a time particularly when folks were not too fond of police nationwide.
But this city lease thing does not sit well with me. Plenty of people smarter than I, who also work in the RE industry have insisted this is a bad deal, yet the City plunges forward. How can they expect us to believe anything other than there are shenanigans in the background? And we have a LOT of shenanigans going on in this city.
I think there should be some public polling when the City embarks on expensive ventures that tie us up for decades to come. Not public comment, because that looks like it is on the chopping block. But maybe something as simple as a survey monkey. Because if they really listened to the citizenry, they would hear that this is not a good deal for us and they should simply issue a mea culpa and go back to the drawing board. We all know how reticent public servants in Evanston are to issue apologies, however.
Oh how disappointing. To hear you supporting Devon Reid. So very sad Mary Alice Off
Read his stuff, he's not who Evanston Now makes him out to be. I call things as I see them and he did the right thing here. Can you deny that?
Devon Reid may have done the right thing here, but I agree with Mary Alice Off.
I'm pretty new to city politics, so I'm just calling stuff as it comes at me. If he does stuff I think sucks, I'll call that out too.
And this is why I read your stuff. Hard to find unbiased journalism these days.
Melissa Wynn is almost certainly not running and if Devon Reid ( who I naively supported) can win with his skeletons, then….
Remarks for Monday's meeting:
Mayor Biss and Members of Council:
In making contracts behind our backs that commit millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, you have forgotten another contract—the social contract, which is measured not in dollars but in trust. That contract says that to be legitimate, a government requires consent of the governed. Three recent maneuvers by our city’s government persuade me that it is time to withhold that consent.
FIRST came the attempt, in June 2023, to keep HRG’s oversized Chicago Ave. building proposal afloat, despite negative votes in the Land Use Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. A Council member moved approval and received no second. When the same council member’s motion to table approval for a later vote was defeated, the mayor urged him to withdraw it to avoid sinking the proposal. The former city attorney claimed that Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO) justifies this intervention. it does not. RRO explicitly states that withdrawal must happen BEFORE voting on the motion begins (RRO, 12th ed., 33:11-33:16, pp. 278-279).
SECOND, the complaint filed by the Most Livable City group in the Circuit Court of Cook County credibly alleges that negotiations for the NU stadium agreement involved numerous closed meetings of the mayor and pro-stadium council members with representatives of Northwestern. Neither the public nor skeptical members of Council were informed that these meetings took place, or what agreements were reached in them.
THIRD came the illegal, closed-session authorization of an exclusive contract with JLL to broker any future sale of the current city hall, for a commission of 5-6%--estimated at $500,000-600,000 or more. AND a 15-year, 37 million dollar lease negotiated by this same broker. But this time you were caught. The Attorney General’s review concluded that you violated the Open Meetings Act.
To begin restoring our trust, please stay the mandated re-vote on the JLL contract until a later open meeting, so that, for once, we all have time to look before Council leaps.
Sorry for double post--I'm new to this site.
Remarks for Wednesday's meeting (I'll read half and my wife, who coauthored it, will read the rest):
Mayor Biss and Members of Council:
In making contracts behind our backs that commit millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, you have forgotten another contract—the social contract, which is measured not in dollars but in trust. That contract says that to be legitimate, a government requires consent of the governed. Three recent maneuvers by our city’s government persuade me that it is time to withhold that consent.
FIRST came the attempt, in June 2023, to keep HRG’s oversized Chicago Ave. building proposal afloat, despite negative votes in the Land Use Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. A Council member moved approval and received no second. When the same council member’s motion to table approval for a later vote was defeated, the mayor urged him to withdraw it to avoid sinking the proposal. The former city attorney claimed that Robert’s Rules of Order (RRO) justifies this intervention. it does not. RRO explicitly states that withdrawal must happen BEFORE voting on the motion begins (RRO, 12th ed., 33:11-33:16, pp. 278-279).
SECOND, the complaint filed by the Most Livable City group in the Circuit Court of Cook County credibly alleges that negotiations for the NU stadium agreement involved numerous closed meetings of the mayor and pro-stadium council members with representatives of Northwestern. Neither the public nor skeptical members of Council were informed that these meetings took place, or what agreements were reached in them.
THIRD came the illegal, closed-session authorization of an exclusive contract with JLL to broker any future sale of the current city hall, for a commission of 5-6%--estimated at $500,000-600,000 or more. AND a 15-year, 37 million dollar lease negotiated by this same broker. But this time you were caught. The Attorney General’s review concluded that you violated the Open Meetings Act.
To begin restoring our trust, please stay the mandated re-vote on the JLL contract until a later open meeting, so that, for once, we all have time to look before Council leaps.