By Jordan Mann
The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Business Journal recently published articles about a proposed city ordinance banning the use of self driving cars in Chicago.
The proposed ordinance offers no benefits to Chicago city dwellers. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has stated his desire to turn the city into a high tech hub, blocking the use of one of the newest high-tech innovations flies in the face of his plan. Aldermen Beale and Burke, who proposed the ban, claim it is in the interest of safety. A study by the Rand Corporation stated it is impossible to determine how safe self-driving cars will be due to the amount of hours tests would require. However, the study also points out there were 35,000 deaths caused by vehicles in the US last year. Of these 53.5% were caused by distracted, drunk or tired drivers, autonomous drivers never suffer any of these conditions. Most experts agree that while self-driving cars will not eliminate all accidents they will dramatically improve safety on our nation’s streets and roads. So, why did the aldermen propose the ordinance?
Burke and Beale each received $10,000 in campaign contributions from the Illinois Transportation Trade Association Political Action Committee. The PAC’s purpose is to “garner support for the Illinois taxicab industry.” The chief companies experimenting with self-driving cars are Lyft and Uber, the enemies of the taxi industry. Once these companies perfect autonomous cars for the livery industry, they will put the slow to adapt cab companies out of business.
All campaign contributions in excess of $5,000 must be disclosed according to the Illinois Campaign Disclosure Act. Also the fact that Alderman Burke did not sue any of the publications makes it pretty clear the campaign contributions are genuine. The reasons behind the contributions are however, only speculation. In order to ascertain if the motive was “pay for play”, a common practice in Chicago politics, we filed FOI requests to both aldermen asking for all correspondence between them and the Illinois Transportation Trade Association from January 2015 to the present.
Shortly after filing the FOI requests we spoke with Michelle Murphy, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer at City of Chicago. Murphy stated the requested communications were not FOI-able, citing the court ruling Quinn v. Stone. The case involved Alderman Bernie Stone who refused to provide information requested under FOIA regarding travel expenditures. The ruling states:
Plaintiff here failed to pursue her request for these records to the right person. Instead of suing defendant individually, she must pursue her remedy against the head of the public body, pursuant to the Act. The Act defines “head of the public body” as the “president, mayor, chairman, presiding officer, director, superintendent, manager, supervisor or individual otherwise holding primary executive and administrative authority for the public body.” (Par. 202(e).) Plaintiff, therefore, must pursue her remedy in the circuit court by filing for injunctive or declaratory relief against the mayor and against the City Council, of which defendant is a member.
Basically this means the wrong party received the FOI request. But, the remedy still must be pursued through the circuit court.
Further research revealed City of Champaign v. Madigan. This case involved FOI requests for communications involving city alderman in Champaign IL and cites the Quinn v. Stone case. This case went back and forth from ruling to appeal to ruling and another appeal. The final ruling stated, communications, even on personal devices, during council meetings were FOI-able. The same communications made outside of public body meetings were not covered. Under this precedent, alderman need simply step into the hallway or say they stepped into the hallway and their communications become private.
FOIA is meant to open up government to the people being governed. Yet politicians keep on ducking and dodging. They use the court system knowing most independent and small publications like The Spectator cannot afford the costs associated with law suits. Until our government truly becomes transparent we can expect the same old corruption and pay for play that has given Illinois and Chicago the reputation it has earned and deserves.
