The editorial “Mayor Brandon Johnson’s sneak attack on city contractors for budget savings” (March 18) highlights the main problem with this current administration. The city won’t consider staff cuts, it looks for gimmicks in balancing budgets, it borrows recklessly and it squeezes Chicago Public Schools to fund pensions. And now it puts the pinch on vendors.
It’s shameful. Have you ever competed for a government contract? These processes are already geared to be competitive, and, in order to win, you need to slim down your margin. And now this.
Our mayor needs to lead here, and he can start by breaking ties with the Chicago Teachers Union and other unions and seek a more balanced approach to address our massive deficits. He needs to be the mayor for all of Chicago.
— Dean Gerber, Chicago
Potential city savings
While reading the March 18 editorial that notes that vendors are being asked to reduce the prices they are charging the city — while city union employees are not being asked to sacrifice anything — I was reminded of a 2011 report from the Office of the Inspector General for Chicago that recommended the elimination of approximately 200 truck driver positions. The report found that approximately 200 truck drivers provided no other service other than shuttling other workers from place to place, then remained in their vehicles while other employees did some actual work. In this regard, it was telling that there were two classes of truck drivers. The bulk, approximately 200, were titled “truck drivers.” A few, who worked for the Chicago Public Library, who actually moved carts of books between library locations, were titled, “working truck drivers.” In itself, that says a lot.
The report found that elimination of the truck driver positions would save the city approximately $18 million a year. Had this recommendation been followed, the city would have saved approximately $252 million over the past 14 years. Perhaps, because of existing contracts, the positions could not have been eliminated immediately, but surely, over the past 14 years, some action could have been taken in this regard to save the city a substantial amount of money.
The city should move to eliminate these positions as soon as possible, so we are not faced with having not secured a substantial amount of savings another 14 years down the road.
— David Grossman, former director of investigations, Office of Inspector General, Chicago
Mayor Daley’s doing
What writers omit can be as important as what they include.
Forrest Claypool’s critique of Chicago’s current mayor and his immediate predecessor (“The strength of Chicago mayor’s office is shrinking,” March 14), whom Claypool describes as “amateurs … with no management experience,” leaves out one key fact. How could such a thing happen? How could rank amateurs take the reins of such a powerful office?
It happened because Richard M. Daley got the process for electing Chicago mayors changed, to benefit him and other party insiders. Instead of Republican and Democratic primaries, with a contested general election, we have had a nonpartisan primary since 1999. If no one gets 50% plus one vote, it’s on to a runoff to pick the city’s chief executive. This system guaranteed Daley’s reelections in 1999, 2003 and 2007, since voters in primaries are very often motivated by their connection to the current mayor.
Daley’s hand-picked successor, Rahm Emanuel, was elected in 2011 and then survived the first runoff required, in 2015. In the next two primaries, large fields of candidates led to no one getting close to 50% of the vote, so Chicago voters got to choose between Lori Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle, and then between Paul Vallas and Brandon Johnson. None of these candidates had anything close to overwhelming support, but the election process Daley created led to the “amateurs” Claypool decries.
Interesting that Claypool omits this fact.
— Bill Savage, Chicago
Resources for schools
As a parent of a Chicago Public Schools student, I was troubled by the recent Tribune article detailing the debate over CPS’ budget and the $175 million pension payment the city is pressuring the district to make (“School board members push for outside look at budget,” March 14). Like so many CPS families, I worry about what this means for the future of our schools.
I have a child who performs significantly above grade level. I’ve been encouraged — by teachers and even my own family — to consider transferring them to a gifted school. But I don’t want to do that. My family has deep roots in our community, and I believe that neighborhood schools should have the resources to support all students, whether they need extra help or more advanced learning opportunities.
Right now, CPS doesn’t have the funding to truly provide for students at all academic levels. They could be offering more educational field trips and inviting guest speakers to enrich students’ learning. Instead, our schools are scraping by with the bare minimum. CPS is already underfunded by $1.2 billion. Paying an additional $175 million to reimburse the city — money that should be going into classrooms — will make things only worse.
If the Chicago Board of Education agrees to this payment, it will face two choices: Cut school budgets this year or take on more debt. Either way, our students lose. Cuts will mean fewer resources in classrooms, while more debt will drain future school funding through interest payments — siphoning money away from students for years to come.
CPS should not have to choose between keeping its schools afloat today and keeping them solvent in the future. Instead of forcing the district to cover a pension payment it does not owe, the city should focus on securing sustainable revenue for its obligations — so CPS can focus on educating students.
The Board of Education must stand up for our schools and vote against this payment. Chicago’s children deserve fully resourced classrooms, not another budget crisis.
— Carrie Glaspie, member, Local School Council, John Hay Community Academy, Chicago
Homeschool measure
The Tribune Editorial Board’s decision to oppose the Homeschool Act, HB2827, is an unfortunate attack on the safety of all students (“Springfield bid to regulate homeschooling and private schools overreaches,” March 11).
When people make decisions that affect vulnerable homeschooled children, they rarely ask homeschool alumni for input. As homeschool alumni with a combined 30 years of home education, please listen when we state that the Homeschool Act will protect our children.
The editorial board opens with a scare tactic from the Home School Legal Defense Association, a Christian organization dedicated to removing homeschool regulations. “Homeschooling parents who fail to comply with H.B. 2827’s new mandates could face truancy charges, potentially resulting in jail time or having their children forcibly removed from home,” the HSLDA says. Passing a law without any enforcement measures is pointless. Truancy charges are a useful incentive for parents to file the required declaration form, but jail time? Hyperbole is unhelpful here.
We agree with the editorial board that Illinois’ public schools need support and reform, but using public schools to divert attention from a vulnerable group of students is a logical fallacy. We do not need to choose which students deserve protection; we can emphasize safety for all students.
Too often, homeschooling families assume that regulations aren’t needed because abuse is infrequent or nonexistent. Hundreds of homeschool alumni offer a cautionary tale: Abuse and educational neglect in homeschooling families are far too common. We have experienced this firsthand; one of us was homeschooled in Illinois from third to eighth grades and emerged with a third grade education in math and science. The Homeschool Act could have helped prevent that educational neglect.
Many homeschooling parents are wonderful educators, but we do a disservice to children when we ignore the fact that parents are the leading actors in child abuse. According to statistics from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, perpetrators of child abuse are most likely to be parents of the child. In 2023, 18,827 out of 23,081 perpetrators in the state of Illinois were a child’s parents. That number is likely a serious undercounting of abuse cases.
The Homeschool Act offers a minimum threshold for responsible home education regulations. Every child deserves a safe schooling environment. Passing this bill isn’t overreach; it’s common sense.
— Whitney Evans Harrison, Carol Stream; Melody Schwarting, Bolingbrook; and Abigail Nye, Milwaukee
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.