Is Mayor Brandon Johnson abiding by City of Chicago ethics rules with his actions towards Chicago Public Schools and the teachers union? He has proposed the city take on a high-interest loan and raise property taxes to give CPS teachers 9% annual pay raises, and seems intent on getting rid of anyone at CPS who stands in his way. Johnson worked as an organizer for the Chicago Teachers Union before becoming mayor, and was elected thanks to their political power. His actions may therefore violate the city’s Governmental Ethics Ordinance, which “covers the conduct of all City employees and officials,” and prohibits city personnel from providing recent employers with benefits.
Specifically, the “reverse revolving door” rule in the city’s Governmental Ethics Ordinance states, “for two years after starting your city service, you may not participate in a decision-making capacity in any matter that benefits your immediate pre-City employer or client whom you represented.” In addition, a “conflict of interest” rule prohibits employees from using their city position to influence city governmental decision on any matter from which they have derived income in the previous year. I do not know exactly when Mayor Brandon Johnson stopped working for CTU and started negotiating with them as mayor, but his conduct certainly raises ethics questions. The city’s Governmental Ethics Ordinance is meant to be a “floor, not a ceiling” for employees’ behavior.
I believe that CPS teachers do essential work and that education is one of society’s greatest public goods. However, I do not understand how it can be fair for Mayor Brandon Johnson to negotiate with CTU when he was so recently employed by them. The city faces difficult budget choices and Chicago residents already pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. If the city’s ethics rules do not limit the mayor’s actions, then the only solution will be for voters to hold him accountable.
— Joshua Singer, Chicago
500 homicides
Johnson announced, during a speech in which he proclaimed himself a “righteous man in office” but explicitly stopped short of comparing himself to “Jesus the Christ,” that he had a goal of fewer than 500 homicides for Chicago in 2025.
In 2023, New York City, which has a population more than three times that of Chicago, recorded 386 homicides for the entire year.
I hope Johnson achieves his goal, but setting the bar so egregiously low does little for the city of Chicago. But then again making the city safe for all its residents has never seemed a huge priority for the mayor, who has proposed slashing funding for police and made a point of ending ShotSpotter.
— Mac Brachman, Chicago
Cringeworthy statements
The Tribune’s summary of Johnson’s appearance at the City of Chicago Club luncheon was a good example of objective journalism (“Johnson sets goal of less than 500 homicides,” Dec. 4.) This, despite the fact the mayor swiped at the press with his repeated lament that the press is racist because it dares to take him to task for his miserable job in running the city. The racist reference was veiled in a statement, “they certainly know I’m Black in the press” but it was there. It is quite common (and frankly tiring) for the mayor to throw the word racist around, but it is a terrible thing to say about someone, particularly if it isn’t true. In fact, saying members of the press are racist, without proof, could be considered defamation per se, meaning damages are presumed.
Some of Johnson’s other statements, as reported in the article were equally cringe worthy. For example, one starting out with “I’m not saying that I’m Jesus the Christ.” Really, you’re not? Who would even start a sentence out that way when talking about themselves and their alleged accomplishments? I don’t think the pope has that much hubris. And he also said he hopes his daughter will be voting for him in 2031. Does his outsized opinion of himself make him blind to the fact that his 14% approval rating means he has lost the confidence of the city of Chicago (not to mention the City Council)? If Johnson is running in 2031 it would be for a third term, and, I’m sorry, but he probably won’t be elected to a second! Maybe he’ll try a come back like Donald Trump, being voted out in 2027 but then running again in 2031. I am not sure what he is thinking, but he clearly has some kind of God complex, which is never a good look for a politician.
— Anne Connor Foley, Chicago
Media blame game
Wasn’t it brilliant of Trump to announce his cabinet picks so early in the process? Then the terrible left-wing media — which the Tribune’s editorials often refer to with disdain — like the New Yorker, CNN and the New York Times, could do the vetting that Trump’s team should have done. And even the Wall Street Journal chimes in about the lack of quality among Trump’s first set of picks. What a multi-dimensional chess grandmaster Trump proves to be again!
And, of course, these picks, including that of Matt Gaetz, the first of Trump’s nominees to fall in disgrace this time, are just fine with Fox News (the single media institution with the largest audience) and other right-wing media outlets. I don’t recall the Tribune Editorial Board criticizing such “news operations” in recent years.
How about at least trying to play the media blame game somewhat fairly in your editorials?
— Kevin Coughlin, Evanston
Good governance
The definition of good governance can be distilled into “the process of using resources wisely and producing results that meet the needs of society.” It can also be defined “as a system that ensures the realization of human rights, and that public institutions manage public resources and conduct public affairs.” What we are witnessing is a prelude which is not good governance.
President-elect Trump is nominating people to be in charge of the highest levels of governmental agencies, many of whom are totally unqualified to perform the duties to which they will swear to uphold. On Day One it is imperative that a program director is up to speed and therefore the organization will perform efficiently. A department head should not have on-the-job training. Not only do some of his picks lack managerial experience, some also harbor animus towards the organizations they may lead. What is the president-elect’s game plan? Is it to ensure that all of Americans will thrive or is it that only a select few will prosper?
— Sam Solomon, Deerfield
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.