A couple of Freeport officials, Mayor Jodi Miller and First Ward Alderman Tom Klemm, recently took it upon themselves to draft letters cementing their support for a one-percent home rule sales tax increase within the City of Freeport. The Mayor's letter is posted on the City's Facebook page and Alderman Klemm's is available. I will provide copies if requested.
What I found odd was that niether official used the term "home rule" even once.
Let's be clear, this tax, without home rule power, would have to go to referendum. For both Mayor Miller and Alderman Klemm to avoid using the term "home rule" had to be a conscious decision. Why would either avoid this straight up fact?
Alderman Klemm wrote about his 17-years as First Ward Alderman, but he didn't talk about all the times he voted to use home rule to issue general obligation debt or create a tax without the consent of his constituency. I am pretty sure Alderman Klemm can name numerous city council members that have voted to use home rule to borrow money or create a tax on the rest of us and then moved out of town, if he needs help with names, I can assist.
Mayor Miller wrote about "our shared responsibility to make Freeport a better place to live work and play". I don't know, I think if the Mayor wants to "share" the responsibility then she needs to share the decision making process as well. As it works now, nine-people, not necessarily committed to Freeport for the long haul, make all of our tax and spend decisions without any binding consent from the governed. It's been like that for more than 30-years. Not one dollar of debt or taxes has been decided by referendum, it's all been home rule decisions by the Freeport City Council, often made by people that have simply left Freeport. Now these decisions have had consequences, the Mayor wants us to "share" the responsibility for their decisons.
I am of the opinion we've dug a hole with home rule that we can not escape unless we keep digging. But that's another post or two.
If I was in charge I would follow the template Rockord has been using. Rockford is not home rule, losing that power by referendum in 1983. Rockford last had a referendum for a 1% road sales tax in 2021. The ordinance is written with a sunset clause, meaning it ceases after five-years unless reauthorized by voters. In this, a non-home rule way, Rockford officials can be held accountable for how the money is utilized. The referendum passed in Rockford in 2021 with almost 80% or the vote (Rockford Register Star, Feb. 24, 2021).
One part of Mayor Miller's letter must be addressed and clarified once and for all. Here is that segment:
quote
Clearly Mayor Miller, Alderman Klemm and other City officials are oblivious to the fact that minus a sunset clause there is no way for the city council to lock down the uses of the revenue genereated regardless of what the ordinance says.
Perhaps acting City attorney Aaron Szeto of the Rockford law firm, Sosnowski/Szeto is just as oblivious when it comes to home rule units and their ordinances. A brand new city council could be just a little more than a year away and a new council could do whatever they want to with this revenue stream. What's a more, a citizen can not go to court to enforce a home rule ordinance and be successful.
According to the book, "Home Rule and Intergovermental Cooperation and Conflict" that's used by the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education, "A home rule municipality can decline to follow its own ordinances." The Courts have held that they "cannot handle matters which in effect are attempts to overrule decisions of a legislative body based upon alleged failure to follow requirements imposed by that body on itself." Below is the pertinent page of that book.
So I would like to hear from any city council member that thinks that this ordinance somehow has the ability to control the actions of any future city council, or even this city council a couple months from now.
Practically every Freeport ordinance ends with these two clauses:
a) All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are repealed insofar as they conflict.
b) If any section, clause or provision of this Ordiance is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such invlaidity shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, and this City Council hereby expressly declares it would have enacted this Ordinance even with the invalid portion deleted.
So I expect that acting City Attorney Aaron Szeto is full well aware that City officials are misrepresenting the ordinance in question when they claim that it will forever tie this home rule sales tax to specific purposes. They lack the ability to legally handcuff themselves or their predecessors with home rule. The present ordinance is only as good as the next ordinance in home rule units of government, that's the law.
So please Attorney Szeto, ask Freeport officials to stop misrepresenting that they somehow have future authority over the revenue produced by a proposed home rule sales tax ordinance.
Once again, if I was in charge the public would have accountability. We would have a referendum, We would share in the decision making as well as the responsibility if approved. We would have a sunset clause so you could hold the Freeport City Council accountable for how the the home rule revenue was expended.
How else can we honestly hold Freeport City officials accountable? Suggestions, thoughts or complaints are welcome.
As always, yours in honesty,
John Samuel Cook
2024
tutty.baker@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment