Last month the Chicago Tribune announced another round of newsroom layoffs, and a day later the Better Government Association posted a story about an unusual, contentious and possibly illegal shutdown of the public library in south suburban Riverdale.

More in a bit about how those two seemingly disparate events overlap. But first a word about why a dustup in a tiny, down-on-its-luck community many of you couldn’t find on a map should concern every Illinois taxpayer who cares about good, efficient government.

Like many south suburbs, Riverdale suffered a serious erosion of its tax base in recent decades as jobs and businesses fled. That translated into sky-high property taxes to pay for everyday services more affluent communities take for granted.

Riverdale’s cash-strapped parks, schools and the village itself imposed cuts and other efficiencies, but the library was slow to adjust to diminished revenues, so last year Mayor Lawrence Jackson dangled a financial carrot: Fold the library into village government.

The money-saving merger offer was rebuffed because, Jackson says, library officials were unwilling to let him peruse their books. Not the ones in the stacks, but the ones on how library tax revenues were being spent. Candidates for the “Cooked Books” aisle?

Anyway, running out of cash, the library reduced hours, closed weekends and then shut down completely from December to March. The library board’s shutdown vote was in private, an apparent violation of Illinois’ Open Meetings Act.

Residents with questions about the shutdown hit a brick wall. Library officials posted a notice indicating open records requests wouldn’t be processed during the closure, another apparent violation of state law, and retirees who tried to enter a closed-door meeting in search of answers were turned away by police.

Adding insult to injury, property owners found the usual levy for operating a library they were locked out of on their new tax bills.

Put it together and whaddaya got? Not bibbidi-bobbidi-boo, but government at its worst: No transparency, efficiency, service or accountability.

So how does this relate to the Tribune layoffs I mentioned at the top of this column? Read on:

Riverdale may be extreme, but the abuses it highlights aren’t unique. Officials in myriad communities try to keep residents in the dark about how and why decisions are made and actions taken with their tax dollars.

Illinois has more separate units of government than any other state, and too many, like Riverdale’s library, have overseers who would rather hunker down in their bunkers than embrace tax-saving mergers.

The job of journalists and watchdogs is to hold government officials and politicians accountable. But with fewer and fewer professional reporters on the case, as print and broadcast media keep shedding staff to cut costs—i.e. Tribune cutbacks—public officials face less and less scrutiny, emboldening them to misbehave with impunity, laws and taxpayers be damned.

Riverdale’s in a “news desert,” an out-of-the-way place that gets little or no attention from mainstream media unless a murder or riot attracts TV trucks. Wonky issues like a library controversy? Fuggedaboutit!

The BGA’s not insulated from these forces. We have limited resources and tend to deploy them on investigations with broad scope and impact. It took Riverdale activists three tries over several months to get us to realize they, too, suffered from government abuse with implications far beyond their town.

It’s good they persisted, and the Riverdale library’s transgressions should be investigated by the Illinois attorney general. But sadly, there aren’t enough watchdogs left to shine a light on every Riverdale and hold all their officials accountable, and that should alarm every taxpayer in Illinois.

One of the ugliest primary election seasons in recent memory is finally history, thankfully. Candidates spent enough money to feed a starving nation and ran TV ads more distorted than mirrors in a carnival fun house. The outcome of an important local contest was tainted by a candidate eligibility fight that remained unresolved at ballot printing time. And our inhospitable election system left a majority of lower-visibility races uncontested.

But, like sloppy, error-filled sporting events, there were still winners, and they’re on to November’s general election, while losers cry foul, or just cry, and civic watchdogs like the Better Government Association think about the game, not the players.

We’re lamenting the system’s failure to give candidates and voters the election they deserve in a healthy democracy, and promoting reforms to consider in the run-up to November. Our wish list includes:

• Establishing an independent, non-partisan process for crafting legislative district boundaries that encourages competition, and extinguishing the political mapmaking charade that concocts gerrymandered enclaves rigged to keep incumbents in power. Our colleagues at CHANGE Illinois are quarterbacking a campaign that includes an excellent redistricting reform proposal Illinois lawmakers should put on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment. They should let voters ultimately decide the future of mapmaking.
• Moving up deadlines for resolving legal challenges to candidate nominating petitions so they’re settled before ballots are printed and we don’t have another “you’re in-you’re out-you’re in” fiasco like the one that muddled the Democratic primary for Cook County assessor. It’s also time to eliminate a blatant conflict of interest: suburban officials controlling their local election boards and tossing challengers off the ballot on a whim. Let’s de-politicize the process.
• Holding elections on one or both weekend days, when most of us aren’t working, instead of a Tuesday, and moving primaries to a warmer month. And how about blanket primaries where you can vote for candidates in different parties in different races, instead of being forced to take a ballot with only one party’s contests on it? Those changes would make voting more convenient and more attractive.
• Requiring more donor transparency on independent fundraising committees, banning political ads in the final days of a campaign, requiring TV and radio stations to provide free air time to cash-strapped candidates, and offering modest public financing through small donor matching programs. We can’t take money out of politics but we can try to level the playing field.
• Implementing on-line and perhaps even mobile phone voting when we have software and protocols in place to ensure ballot integrity and minimize the risk of hacking.
• Getting the kinks out of the Automatic Voter Registration program state lawmakers approved last year so thousands of new voters can participate in the November election, and memorializing procedures for eligible inmates to vote when they’re incarcerated.

Whew! That’s a long list of possible election reforms, and some are more aspirational than realistic, at least for now.

But when we can’t get enough regular folks to run for office, support candidates, register to vote or cast ballots, especially in primaries, we have a problem. And yes—we can certainly blame some of it on apathetic, disengaged citizens—but that, in part, is a bi-product of an election system designed to keep them out and insiders in, and every reform we adopt will facilitate more citizen involvement.

To paraphrase an iconic line from “Field of Dreams,” the nostalgic 1989 baseball movie, “If you build it they will come.”

Not “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, but a flock of new participants—voters, candidates and supporters— strengthening our democracy.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District has been busy, over the past decade, protecting Lake Michigan, cleaning up Cook County rivers and streams, treating sewage and alleviating flooding. Unfortunately, some of its employees were also busy dirtying up the district’s image, and that kept our Better Government Association watchdog team busy.

We reported on a former MWRD police officer who bragged about a cop culture of sleeping and drinking on the job, district officials who leased land to polluters and blew millions of dollars settling a ridiculous property lawsuit, and a former board president who co-owned a company that was hit with numerous pollution fines.

In addition, our legal team had to sue the district to obtain records we were entitled to, and our investigative team revealed the MWRD pays its employees the highest average salaries of any public agency in Illinois.

Recently the Daily Herald reported that, according to the Green Party, which is fielding candidates in the March 20 primary, companies that were awarded $722 million in MWRD contracts over the past five years contributed more than $400,000 in campaign cash to board members who approve the contracts, raising pay-to-play concerns.

Board president Mariyana Spryopoulos, who got $60,000 in contractor donations, mostly from her annual golf outings, says “I don’t believe there is pay-to-play at the district. What I do believe is that even though MWRD is the best run branch of government in the State of Illinois, there is nothing wrong with an extra set of eyes so taxpayers understand our commitment to being a fiscally responsible steward of their money. That’s why I fully support an Inspector General at the MWRD.”

Amen. The BGA has been saying for years that an agency with more than 2,000 employees and a $1.2 billion budget—more than many cities and towns in Illinois—needs an internal watchdog.

Spryopoulos agrees, and last April she ordered the law department to draft an IG proposal. That led to an August study session where a veteran inspector general and BGA policy manager Rachel Leven explained that an effective IG needs guaranteed resources, insulation from political pressure, and enough tools to conduct vigorous audits and investigations that are made public.

The board followed up by adding a $600,000 IG line to its 2018 budget, which is a good start, and all four Democrats running for three open board seats in the upcoming primary support an inspector general, according to their Chicago Tribune questionnaire responses.

Incumbent Kari Steele says an independent IG can “make taxpayers comfortable that their money is supporting open and honest government.” Her board colleague, Debra Shore, says the benefits of an IG “will be numerous,” and a third incumbent, Martin Durkan, “would seriously consider the merits of the post and would likely support its addition.”

Another IG supporter is Commissioner Josina Morita, who’s not up for re-election, so barring unforeseen pushback, President Spryopoulos should have a solid majority of board members committed to turning the concept into reality this year. One option is an inter-governmental agreement with a current IG to add the MWRD to his or her jurisdiction for a couple years while the district finalizes plans for an internal watchdog office.

That’s a logical approach, and it suggests that, as we turn calendar pages from winter to spring, there could be a sweet scent of reform in the air, not just the stomach-turning stench of sewage.

And if the MWRD board actually approves an IG ordinance, we’ll happily report that the district is finally cleaning up its act, along with the waterways.

Another legislative session is under way in Springfield, and with it another “Battle of the Budget.” Governor Bruce Rauner fired the first shot with his latest tax and spending blueprint, and critics in and out of government blasted back with their objections.

This is also an election year, so the politics of the fight may be as toxic as the stalemate that marked most of Rauner’s first term. Many of the disputes will be about priorities—Rauner’s and his challengers in both parties—but candidates will also be launching salvos over numbers: Whose revenue and spending estimates are accurate and whose are bogus?

News outlets and watchdogs will try to separate fact from fiction—at the Better Government Association we use the PolitiFact Illinois tool—but it’s hard to reach consensus, partly because data is viewed through the tinted lens of partisan politics, and also because the budget process, in the eyes of multiple fiscal experts, is objectively flawed: A case study in worst practices.

Danish Murtaza, a talented young member of our BGA policy team, recently took a deep dive into Illinois’ approach to budgeting, and his blog on potential reforms is must reading for denizens under the Dome in Springfield.

Step One, according to Murtaza’s analysis, is to implement “consensus revenue forecasting,” or working from one set of numbers. According to the Volcker Alliance, a national group that studied state budgeting, “the point of a consensus forecast is to make it easier for policy makers to concentrate on expenditures during budgeting instead of arguing about whether the revenue estimate was politically driven.”

Here’s how it works: Bipartisan teams from the administration and legislature get together and agree on revenue numbers, putting everyone on the same page before they start to craft a budget, and even though they’ll inevitably fight over priorities, forecasting with the same set of figures should enable them to begin making smarter fiscal decisions.

Step Two, which builds on the first reform, is to switch from cash-based to accrual accounting, or—in layman’s terms— calculating the cost of government on a day-to-day basis, even if certain invoices won’t be paid that year. Illinois currently uses a cash-based accounting system during budget preparation, which hides the real cost of programs and projects because so many bills are pushed off to future years.

The Fiscal Futures Project at the U. of I. says “cash-based accounting is like only looking at the credit card payment due this month instead of considering the total balance.” Truth in Accounting, a local public finance transparency organization, argues that accrual-based accounting would arm lawmakers with accurate information on the long-term effects of current decisions, motivating them to stop hiding costs and start embracing transparency.

Step Three is establishing a sufficient “rainy day” or “budget stabilization” fund to cover emergencies. The Fiscal Futures Project recommends at least 5 percent of annual revenue—that would be $1.6 billion in Illinois, which now has only $83,000 in its budget stabilization fund, the government equivalent of pocket change.

Variations on these budget reforms have been floated and summarily sunk in Springfield in recent years, which is unfortunate, but Rauner and lawmakers have a golden opportunity to make amends this year by enacting these measures for future budgeting, and claiming a fiscal victory, at the same time they’re waging a real-time, election-fueled budget battle.

So even if they can’t quickly eliminate $8 billion in unpaid bills or $129 billion in pension liabilities, they should be able to give us, our children and our grandchildren a path to responsible budgeting in the future.

The tsunami of TV ads, news stories, press releases and social media that floods an election season is washing over us now, and Round One—the primaries—is just over a month away, so this is a good time to dry off and revisit some basic obligations in a healthy democratic society.

Ours, as Better Government Association watchdogs, is to post and discuss the questionnaires we asked candidates to fill out on key issues; separate fact from fiction with our PolitiFact Illinois analyses of their claims and allegations; roll out our new “Ready Set Gov” podcasts of conversations with experts on topics like law enforcement, taxes, pensions and school funding; and participate in candidate debates and forums.

We’re on it.

Your obligation, as citizens, is to be registered voters who seek out reliable sources of campaign information, assess candidates and cast your ballots.

But sadly, too many of you have failed to perform those basic tasks, and that rends the fabric of our democracy. More than 2 million Illinois residents, or a quarter of the voting-age population, aren’t registered, turnout in midterm primaries is abysmal—a record low 19 percent in 2014—and half the races are uncontested.

Those anemic figures reflect an ugly, polarized political system rife with unregulated campaign cash, and an election system rigged to protect incumbents by discouraging competition and, until recently, making it unnecessarily difficult to register and vote.

Thankfully, registering and voting are getting easier because state lawmakers recently started fulfilling their obligation to repair those pieces of the election machinery. But it still needs much more reform, and one potential game-changer is being promoted by two former Blagojevich administration deputies who left state government before his corruption scandal exploded.

Bradley Tusk, who now runs a business and consulting firm based in New York City, and Sheila Nix, who works in his Chicago office, are spearheading a “Mobile Voting” campaign that would enable us to cast ballots on our cell phones.

Tusk’s impetus was last year’s mayoral primary in New York, where only 14 percent of the registered Democrats voted.

“Politicians respond to the people who vote,” says Tusk, “and when 14 percent vote, pols represent those 14 percent at the expense of everyone else. That’s not real democracy. If we acknowledge the digital world we live in today, a lot more people will vote and the politicians will start representing all of them.”

Nix is monitoring the development of secure mobile voting software, and pitching pilot initiatives for military voters stationed abroad.

“Our service men and women deserve to vote in a timely manner and this would allow them to do that easily and securely,” she explains.

Mobile voting will require enabling legislation, and that’s likely to prompt fierce resistance from elected officials who have legitimate concerns about hackers corrupting the process, or fear that an expanded electorate could threaten their job security.

Building support for sea changes like this one take time, but 21 states already allow some form of online voting, and most people have cell phones, so if casting a ballot can really be as easy as downloading and using a secure app, it could be a key to vastly increasing voter participation.

The BGA isn’t endorsing the concept, but mobile voting is worth the serious discussion Tusk and Nix are initiating, so let’s start with pilot programs, see how they work and go from there.

In the meantime, let’s make this election season moderately successful by fulfilling our basic obligations with the tools we have available today.

Time flies when you’re doing important work and having fun.

The BGA is celebrating its 95th anniversary this year and beginning the countdown to our Centennial gala in 2023. That’s right—this venerable watchdog organization goes back to the Capone era in Chicago, when a small group of courageous business, civic and religious leaders decided to fight the mob’s influence on City Hall.

That’s quite a legacy, and we’re still fighting for better government today!

Our Investigative Team has uncovered disturbing accounts of suburban police shootings of civilians, shoddy special education programs that contributed to a tragedy in Chicago’s public schools, worrisome leaks and safety concerns at local nuclear power plants, dubious graduation claims at the City Colleges of Chicago, and poor maintenance of the city’s public housing units. In every case, we found an unacceptable lack of oversight and accountability. Our investigators are also fact-checking the statements and claims of elected officials and candidates.

Our Policy Team is getting bills passed in Springfield to downsize government and make it more transparent and efficient, reform our election system, and hold public officials more accountable.

Our Legal Team is winning fights for access to public records, our Civic Engagement Team is arming regular citizens across Illinois with important information and watchdog tools, and our Digital Team is expanding our on-line and social media footprint every day.

We’re on top of our game.

2018 marks my 9th year at the BGA—it feels more like nine minutes—and I believe our watchdog work is better than ever, thanks to a strong staff of 30 full and part-time employees, freelancers and contract workers, and hundreds of generous donors who’ve enabled us to grow our annual budget to more than $3.5 million.

As proud as I am of the good government reform work we’ve done up to now, I’m even more excited about our potential going forward as we do more high-impact investigations and public policy advocacy work, continue our fight for the public records we’re entitled to, engage more citizens through our education programs and multi-media communications, sharpen our digital tools, and develop additional local, statewide and national partnerships.

Our goal is to shine an even brighter light on state and local government in Illinois, and on Illinois officials in Washington, and to hold an increasing number of public officials in both places accountable to us, the taxpayers they work for. Doing that will require an elevated round of strategic thinking, organizational fine-tuning, and increased outreach to regular citizens and potential donors.

It’s a challenge for our entire organization, and given the size of the BGA and the importance of our mission, the challenge also means that 2018 is the right time for me, as I approach my 70th birthday in June, to hand off my responsibility for running the organization.

The time is right for someone else to take over day-to-day management of the BGA while I continue to help the organization in a variety of other ways leading up to our Centennial celebration in 2023.

I enjoyed 37 wonderful years as a print and television reporter in Chicago, and it’s been an honor and a privilege to spend the past eight-plus years participating in the revitalization of this legendary and critically important watchdog organization.

I look forward to working with the leadership team on our Board of Directors and my day-to-day successor to ensure the best possible future for the BGA and the 12 million Illinois residents who depend on us to be their eyes, ears and voices—their watchdogs, unafraid to bark loudly and bite when necessary.

It’s our mission, our challenge and our pleasure.

After watching and reporting on local, state and national government and politics for nearly half a century, it takes a lot to shock or surprise me.

But a recent series by the Better Government Association and WBEZ—“Taking Cover: How Cops Escape Discipline for Shootings in Suburban Chicago”—did both.

The yearlong investigation reviewed 113 police shootings of civilians in suburban Cook County since 2005—more than 40 percent were fatal— and the key findings defy belief:

• Not a single police officer has been charged with a crime, fired or disciplined for a shooting, and many have been promoted, even though 25 percent of the victims were unarmed, 15 percent mentally ill or developmentally disabled, and 42 of the cases raise legitimate questions about why cops shot at moving vehicles, through the windows of stopped cars and suburban homes, and at suspects who had children with them.
• Nearly two-thirds of the shooting victims were black, and settlements of 25 lawsuits that followed shootings cost local taxpayers more than $12 million.
• Suburban police departments rarely conducted comprehensive internal investigations of the shootings after the Illinois State Police completed their legally mandated review of a single question—whether a cop who shoots a civilian committed a crime— and no officers were ordered to undergo retraining.

“If they’re only looking at whether there is a basis for a criminal indictment they’re not doing a complete investigation,” said former University of Nebraska professor Samuel Walker, an expert on police accountability.

WBEZ reporter Patrick Smith’s compelling audio stories on the station’s website made me gasp. If you haven’t heard them, please listen. And if you haven’t read the compelling, data-rich print stories by BGA reporters Casey Toner and Jared Rutecki, please check them out on our website.

Related Story: Taking Cover: How Cops Escape Discipline for Shootings in Suburban Chicago

Frank Murphy, a former cop and frequent witness in police shooting cases, had a similar reaction to mine after examining our findings: “I’m shocked.”

So how, I wondered, could such reprehensible policing continue unabated and undisclosed for so long? One factor: Reporters and watchdogs who closely monitor nearby Chicago don’t shine a bright enough light on suburban police departments or hold the cops and supervisors there accountable.

In addition, the one-dimensional state police investigations leave it up to local departments to determine whether cop shootings involve misconduct or policy violations, and those departments don’t have civilian oversight agencies or internal watchdogs demanding accountability. Many also lack sufficient resources for disciplining, training and replacing their wayward officers, so the infamous “code of silence” prevails.

It’s clear the Illinois General Assembly hasn’t enacted sufficient oversight laws, state police aren’t holding trigger-happy suburban cops accountable, and other agencies that could consider intervening—the Cook County Sheriff and State’s Attorney, and the Illinois Attorney General—haven’t stepped up or stepped in up to now.

It’s been a massive failure of government at multiple levels and a shameful human tragedy.

But this is an election year, with hundreds of incumbents and challengers vying for important county and statewide offices, and suburban police reform in Cook and other counties should be on their agendas.

The BGA and WBEZ have provided candidates with disturbing facts and figures, and told them gripping stories. Now it’s time for those incumbents and challengers to propose reforms that can eliminate the kind of brazen, Wild West behavior that shocked and surprised even the most hardened observers, and should have been relegated to the trash heap of history decades ago.

One of my favorite “Peanuts” comic strip panels features Lucy, for the umpteenth time, yanking a football she’s holding for a placekick out of the path of Charlie’s accelerating foot before he can boot it.

Down he goes in an angst-filled heap, sadly realizing, once again, that Lucy’s not trustworthy.

Arrghhh!

I have a similar reaction when public officials contemplate a good government reform, only to pull a “Lucy” by yanking out key elements before a final vote.

The Chicago City Council is infamous for those craven contortions when it comes to transparency and accountability.

Case in point: two years ago, after the council parted ways with its first legislative inspective general—a toothless internal watchdog—a coalition of progressive aldermen proposed an expansion of administrative IG Joe Ferguson’s authority to include the Council along with city departments and agencies.

Groups like the Better Government Association, cognizant of Ferguson’s eye-opening audits of profligate spending and shoddy performance, were hoping to see him shine an equally bright light on the Council’s Byzantine committee system.

But audit power was yanked out of the final draft of the ordinance by powerful committee chairmen who didn’t want Ferguson scrutinizing their fiefdoms.

Arghhh!

A similar bait-and-switch occurred a couple years earlier when aldermen were considering the creation of a new, independent legislative office to help them analyze the administration’s complex tax and spending proposals so they’d have more than sugar-coated assurances from mayoral allies allergic to pushback.

But once again the final version of the measure was missing key oversight elements, and the new Council Office of Financial Analysis, aka COFA, was only authorized to review the administration’s annual audit, financial analysis and tentative budget.

No assessment of the myriad financial proposals that come up at every council meeting, and no opportunity for aldermen to obtain independent reviews of pending legislation without the approval of Budget Committee chairman Carrie Austin, a mayoral ally who supervises COFA’s director.

Arghhh? Yes, but maybe not as incurable as Charlie Brown’s angst. An amended COFA ordinance drafted by Ald. Brendan Reilly and co-sponsored by 31 of his colleagues—more than enough to pass it—would prompt an “aah” instead of an “Arghhh.”

Reilly envisions an empowered COFA providing aldermen with detailed analyses before final votes on every major revenue or appropriation proposal, including plans to sell or lease city assets worth more than $5 million. Abominable deals like the parking meter privatization make asset oversight essential.

Cities like New York, San Francisco and San Diego already have strong, independent financial offices that arm their legislators with enough information to confidently approve good ideas and boldly reject bad ones. In addition, all three offices make the reports public, which is important, according to Doug Turetsky of New York City’s independent budget office: “It helps level the playing field between the mayor and the rest of the city’s elected officials.”

Andrea Tevlin of San Diego’s independent budget office adds that “everyone should know what information council members are getting or else you’re working in a vacuum—an environment that’s no better than you had before.”

Ald. Reilly’s proposal doesn’t call for public dissemination of the reports, but that provision can be added later and its omission shouldn’t delay passage of an ordinance that will still make COFA more effective now.

The bottom line, now or later, is an independent and informative voice for the Council and the public.

When that happens the legislative football will be secure, and we can save the next “Arghhh” for another day as the reform ball sails squarely through the uprights.

There comes a time—a day of reckoning actually—when important issues that generally make our eyes glaze over because of their discomfiting terminology start making us mad.

Lamentations on our “crumbling infrastructure” moving from public policy forums to close encounters with jarring potholes, Congressional “debt ceiling” debates ending in debilitating government shutdowns, alarmist commentaries on “unfunded pension liabilities” foreshadowing costly credit downgrades and tax hikes.

Crossing those thresholds from nerdy “government-speak” to visceral reality can create the political equivalent of “critical mass”—enough pressure to prompt long overdue reforms.

I relish those transcendent opportunities, and I’m hoping we’re on the verge of another one propelled by an arcane phrase in our watchdog lexicon: “units of government”—public bodies that offer services and levy taxes.

Illinois has more than any other state—about 7,000—or 2,000 more than runner-ups Texas and California.

Several years ago the Better Government Association launched a “smart streamlining” campaign to illuminate the perils of this bureaucratic bloat: the waste, inefficiency and high cost—fiscal and human—of maintaining too many overlapping, duplicative and unnecessary tax-eaters.

Our colleagues at the Metropolitan Planning Council followed up by assembling a “Transform Illinois” coalition of good government groups that lobbied successfully in Springfield this year for passage of a bill that empowers every Illinois county to start consolidating or eliminating valueless government offices.

That can be a game-changer, but it’s a daunting, multi-year challenge that depends on a commitment from enlightened state and local leaders and engaged citizens, and MPC is arming them with eye-opening data that provides a downsizing rationale based on the severity of the problem.

Last year, MPC took a deep dive into the staggering cost of administration in Illinois’ 800-plus school district offices, which collectively spend more than $2 billion a year on salaries, benefits, buildings, vehicles and equipment—dollars that could be gradually shifted into classrooms, or returned to taxpayers, by consolidating the smallest districts into larger ones and cutting excessive administrative overhead.

The savings could eventually cover much of the added cost of the state’s new K-12 funding plan.

MPC’s latest report finds that Illinois could save another $2 billion a year if per capita spending on our library, park and fire prevention districts—yes, we have more of those than any other state— matched the nationwide average for those services.

Conversely, Illinois spends much less per capita on key social services—support for low-income families, health clinics, public hospitals and indigent care at private hospitals—than other high-population states.

MPC concludes “the very structure of local government in Illinois may be robbing the state and its citizens of precious limited dollars to serve some of its basic needs, and in particular those of its most vulnerable citizens.”

That concern is playing out in real time, according to a recent BGA story in Crain’s on the Rauner administration’s decision to cut reimbursements to already-beleaguered social service agencies by $89 million this fiscal year.

The question now is whether the term “units of government” is still too wonky to prompt real reform, or close enough to “critical mass” to spawn a statewide downsizing movement.

Bureaucratic bloat may not jolt us like potholes, inconvenience us like government shutdowns, or whack us like big tax hikes—it’s not a gut punch—but if it’s troubling enough to embolden strong leaders and dedicated citizens, equipped with compelling data, to lead a campaign to save tax dollars, improve the lives of Illinois residents, and give us the better government we’re entitled to, the BGA and other reform groups will have their backs.

Harold Washington, Chicago’s first African American mayor, suffered a fatal heart attack in his City Hall office the day before Thanksgiving 30 years ago. I was in the building that morning covering a City Council committee meeting for ABC 7, and our cameraman shot the memorable video of paramedics rushing a lifeless Washington into an elevator for a trip that ended at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where news of his death was confirmed.

That set off a tumultuous week of mournful tributes, raucous demonstrations and intense backroom dealing, culminating in a wild, all-night City Council meeting where aldermen elected a new mayor: Eugene Sawyer, a kindly but politically weak alderman who ran the city for two years before losing to Richard M. Daley in 1989.

I thought about those consequential days after a recent visit to the Loop library that bears Washington’s name with two of our grandchildren, who reveled in the fun of arts, crafts, books, blocks, puppets and story-telling in the children’s area.

It’s one of the many free downtown amenities I’m thankful for this holiday season as I reflect on Chicago’s past, present and future.

I started covering local news in 1972, when the first Mayor Daley— Richard J.—ran the infamous “Chicago Machine” the “Chicago Way.” Political leaders hired and promoted city workers—many of them friends, neighbors, family members and cronies—who, in turn, worked the precincts, dispensed the favors and turned out the vote on Election Day. Those same officials lobbed inflated contracts to businesses that made generous campaign contributions. Quid pro quo on steroids.

And what about us—the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars paid for government? We got decent service from public employees some days and rude, dismissive treatment other days. Government was more of a cold, transactional business than an honest, citizen-friendly public service, and that contributed to failing schools, crumbling public housing, deteriorating parks and libraries, fiscal chicanery and endless corruption in city agencies and departments.

Harold Washington—a charismatic Democratic machine operative who slowly broke from the party orthodoxy—was swept into power by a grass roots reform movement that had finally found its messiah, and his four-plus years as mayor set a new course for Chicago. The black and Latino empowerment agenda—a fairer share of jobs, contracts and neighborhood improvements—was also an unspoken push for an open and more welcoming city in place of the insular political stronghold.

Slowly and often reluctantly, city officials cognizant of the close scrutiny they were under from tough federal prosecutors, vigilant government watchdogs and restive voters, began to support new housing and education programs, ethics and transparency measures, police reform and fiscal accountability

Mayors started turning to their well-heeled friends in the business, civic and philanthropic communities to help taxpayers fund new programs at Navy Pier, the Cultural Center and Harold Washington Library, and build the magnificent Millennium and Maggie Daley parks.

The downtown area, which already featured world-class cultural attractions, became a major destination for tourists and residents alike. It’s been a remarkable transformation.

Many Chicago neighborhoods are still beleaguered by decades-old ills, including poverty, joblessness and epic gun violence, and City Hall is still facing daunting fiscal challenges. But a new generation of leaders is tackling those prolems head-on in exciting new ways.

As head of the BGA, a civic watchdog organization, I often criticize government officials. But today I want to thank all the dedicated change agents for their commitment to a warmer, friendlier and more welcoming Chicago, a city that—fingers crossed—can, over time, feature more of the clean, safe, prosperous neighborhoods Harold Washington dreamed of.