New York city is trying to accomplish a reform that might be of interest to us midwestern folks domiciled in Illinois. It seems that New York’s city council gets about $200 million annually in something called special “initiative” money or “member items” —a direct counterpart to Illinois state government’s “member initiative” program. Like the member initiative money received by Illinois state legislators, New York’s council members are able to take their allotment of member item revenue and spend it in district as they see fit. Apparently, unlike us sophisticated political types in the midwest, New Yorkers are getting a little worked-up over the lack of transparency and accountability in the program. According to a recent New York Times editorial, one of the main problems with the program is, now get this:
Council members actually have the audacity to dole out member item money to family members and political contributors. Who’d-a-thunk it?
Here in Illinois, the land of Lincoln, Levine and public officials “A” through “Z”, it seems somehow naïve and quaint of those provincial New Yorkers to fret about such things. Still, it just very well may be that the speaker of the New York city council, Christine Quinn, who introduced a proposal to tighten up the process, may actually be on to something that Illinois should at least consider for its member initiative program. In substance, Ms. Quinn’s proposal initially focused on both transparency and accountability.
To begin with, Quinn suggested that all member items go through the budget process. This would require them each to be identified on a line-item basis, by both grantee and amount. Imagine that. The public would actually know how elected officials would be spending the tax revenue raised from, well, the public. A radical concept to be sure, but one that just might be legitimate to pursue.
Transparency wasn’t the only item on Quinn’s agenda, accountability was too. Her initial proposal would interfere with a council member’s ability to funnel member item money to groups associated with political contributors or family. That was a bit too much for her fellow council members to swallow. Things got so rancorous that some suggested Quinn be removed as speaker of the New York city council. This got Quinn’s attention, and she quickly modified her proposal to allow the funding of projects for friends and family, as long as these seeming conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Those political neophytes populating the New York Times editorial board took great umbrage at this attempted compromise by Ms. Quinn. Denouncing the mere disclosure of conflicts as inadequate, the Times editorial board opined, “giving public money to organizations that employ political associates or family should be taboo. Period.” The Times went on to castigate Quinn’s proposal as a “small fix”, ultimately concluding the only real solution would be to eliminate the member item program entirely.
Makes you wonder what the Times would think about how things get done here in Illinois. You know, like last year, when the governor line-item vetoed only the member initiative programs of those legislators who didn’t back his agenda, while allowing member the initiatives for those who played ball with the governor to sail through. As for granting member initiative money to organizations that have political or familial ties to elected officials, well, Illinois wrote the book on that. In retrospect, Ms. Quinn’s proposal, which is being derided as inadequate by those living on the banks of the Hudson river, looks pretty darn good to those of us residing by the mighty Des Plaines. Heck, to quote a famous Elvis impersonator, it might even rock our world.

Chicago Daily Observer regular columnist Ralph Martire is executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a bipartisan fiscal policy think tank. rmartire@ctbaonline.org