Walkout at Plan Commission

By Joe Linstroth

It seems the decision by the Planning and Development Committee earlier this month to table the vote on the Fountain Square tower until after the approval of the draft downtown plan left a 38-story elephant looming over the May 14 Plan Commission meeting - one that was impossible for the commissioners to ignore.

The meeting, which focused on specifics of the draft downtown plan, ended abruptly when three commissioners walked out, negating the five-member quorum necessary to continue the meeting.

The contention among the commissioners, who appear to be split evenly between those who support the 42-story height limit in the draft downtown plan and those who favor a significant reduction in the maximum height, reached its peak when commissioner Johanna Nyden motioned to reduce the maximum height in the draft to approximately 25 stories.

The height reduction, Ms. Nyden told the RoundTable, will keep the downtown core, which the plan has identified as the Fountain Square block, on scale with the bank building across the street, Sherman Plaza and other downtown buildings. "If the plan is to have any credibility with the public, it needs to seem in line with the rest of downtown," she said.

With the absence of James Woods, the commission's chair, who has favored the higher maximum height allowance in past meetings, commissioners Nyden, Coleen Burrus, Seth Freeman and Robin Schuldenfrei had a majority to pass the height reduction. If approved by City Council, the change would have effectively killed the Fountain Square tower proposal.

"That was the whole point of the move," Commissioner Charles Staley told the RoundTable. Mr. Staley, along with commissioners David Galloway and Stuart Opdycke, left the meeting to prevent a vote on the matter.

"[It was] set up to take advantage of James Woods being out of town and ram [the height changes] through, and we blocked it," said Mr. Staley.

"It's unfortunate Mr. Woods wasn't there," Ms. Nyden told the RoundTable. "[But] I would have proposed the motion either way."

Mr. Staley said the tension heightened when a motion passed earlier in the meeting, by a 4-3 vote, limited each commissioner's time to speak to five minutes. It was one of a number of "clever parliamentary moves, " he said, to take advantage of their majority and "create a situation where they could down-zone the downtown core." By the time Ms. Nyden motioned to vote on the height reduction, he said his only option "was to leave the room."

Recent Plan Commission meetings have been marked by heated exchanges, and Ms. Nyden said the motion for time restrictions was intended to limit the "personal attacks," and also to prevent any filibustering. "We've been reviewing the downtown plan since last fall," she said. "It's time to make a decision."

Mr. Staley acknowledged the strained atmosphere in recent meetings but questioned whether limiting the time to speak would improve the setting. "People could just be vicious quicker," he said.

The nine-member committee, which has one seat vacant, appears deadlocked at 4-4 going into their next meeting on June 11. The commissioners said if they cannot reach a compromise, the draft downtown plan could go to the Council without a recommendation or with two memoranda, one arguing each side.

Despite the tension, Mr. Staley said he was optimistic the commission could find a middle ground. "There is a basis for compromise," he said. "I don't know that we're so far apart."

"We want to have a strong plan - a plan where we get unanimous support," said Ms. Nyden. "We will not get that unanimous support with this huge tower in the middle of it."

Mr. Staley also said the animosity among the commissioners over the tower seems unnecessary. "Why are we bloodying each other over this if it seems the Council will defeat it anyway?

"The City Council, sooner or later, will have to deal with this," he said. "Sending it back to us, they've delayed it for awhile."

Council Chastises Plan Commissioners' Actions

By Joe Linstroth

The City Council convened on May 19 to discuss the rift among members of the Plan Commission that led to a walkout by three commissioners at their May 14 meeting.

"This is not the behavior I would expect from a board or commission," said Third Ward Alderman Melissa Wynne.

"I think we have a very serious situation," said Alderman Ann Rainey, 8th Ward. If a developer came to her about building in Evanston, she added, "she would caution them."

The nine-member commission, which currently has one seat vacant, has split over issues of height and density in its discussions of both the draft downtown plan and the 708 Church St. tower proposal.

Recent Plan Commission meetings have been marked by tense exchanges between members, including a request sent to City officials by one commissioner asking that another be removed for alleged inappropriate comments - an act, said Alderman Edmund Moran Jr., 6th Ward, that was "unprecedented" in his years on the Council.

"There is clearly something wrong, relationally, between various members of the Plan Commission," he said.

The tension snapped on May 14, when commissioners David Galloway, Charles Staley and vice chair Stuart Opdycke walked out, dissolving the quorum necessary to continue the meeting. The walk-out, Mr. Staley told the RoundTable, was the commissioners' only option to prevent a vote on reducing the height limits in the draft downtown plan from 42 stories to 25 - a move, he said, that was pushed through by the commissioners who favored the height reduction in order to take advantage of their 4-3 majority caused by the absence of Mr. Woods, who has leaned toward higher height restrictions in past meetings.

Commissioner Johanna Nyden, who proposed the motion that led to the walkout, told the RoundTable it was an effort to move the commission forward in its discussions of the draft downtown plan, which they have been working on since last fall. She said she would have made the motion even if Mr. Woods had been present.

Some Council members on Monday thanked the commissioners for what Second Ward Alderman Lionel Jean-Baptiste said was "apparently a thankless job." Most aldermen, however, expressed little sympathy for either side.

"You win some and lose some, but you don't walk out before a vote's been taken," Ald. Wynne said.

"To get up and take your ball and go home, it's ridiculous," said Alderman Steven Bernstein, 4th Ward.

"From my perspective, I would not be looking for the Plan Commission to take a vote without one member being there, particularly with an issue that is so important to the City," said Ald. Moran.

"When you have a contentious issue, and when the chair is not there and you force a vote, it's disrespectful," said Ninth Ward Alderman Anjana Hansen.

Some aldermen downplayed the impact the final Plan Commission vote would have on the Council's view of the recommendations put forth by the Commission. "Four-four, four-three, is fine and we'll take it from there," said Ald. Wynne.

"You do us a disservice if you believe the vote is what counts," said Ald. Bernstein. "What we're concerned about is your advocacy, your feelings....You follow the standards, you follow the law, leave the politics to us."

It seems political considerations grew more difficult for the commissioners to ignore, however, with the decision earlier this month by the Planning and Development Committee, which consists of all nine aldermen, to table a vote on the Fountain Square tower project until the finalization of the downtown plan. The contentious height limitations in the draft downtown plan called for at last week's Plan Commission meeting, if passed by the City Council, would have effectively killed the proposed 38-story tower.

"We have a real unique and controversial project in front of us," said Ald. Jean-Baptiste.

"Emotions have run so high, and those emotions have impeded the good judgment [the Plan Commission] showed in the past.

"This particular issue, 708 [Church St.], has created some animosity, some mistrust," he said.

While the aldermen flirted with the idea of disbanding the entire commission, the meeting ended with the Council's opting to let the commissioners work out their differences.

"If you think you can play nice, then continue to play," said Ald. Bernstein.

"We have too much talent that's sitting there to let this go," said Ald. Wynne.

The decision to retain the commissioners was also due, in part, to what Mayor Lorraine Morton said was a "heck of a problem" convincing qualified volunteers to serve on City boards and commissions - an obstacle, she said, that will grow now that this dispute among plan commissioners has become public.

"I wished I could have discussed it and worked it out before it came to this," said Mayor Morton, who added she was never informed of the tension between the Plan Commissioners. "I'm very sorry it came to the members of the Council this way."

Aldermen said that members of the commission should resign if they feel the trust within the group is unsalvageable.

"If you don't think you can get along," said Ald. Hansen, "you are a doing a disservice to our community, because no work will get done."

Commissioner Coleen Burrus and associate commissioner Lawrence Widmayer both told the panel they believe the Plan Commission can resolve their differences.

"I think this is a wake-up call," Mr. Widmayer told the Council members.

"We have to start pulling together as a City," said Ald. Bernstein. "This is the most important commission in the City, and it has to do better."

In what was perhaps a first step toward reconciliation, the Rules Committee of the Plan Commission held a meeting on May 22 to hear citizen input on how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Plan Commission meetings. Four commissioners discussed with representatives of Evanston citizen groups, as well as concerned individuals, how to improve time management, especially for public comments; how to ensure that meeting agendas are accurate and followed; and to clarify, for all citizens, how the development process works in Evanston. The meeting concluded without incident.

The entire Plan Commission meets again on June 11.

The EHC Saga Continues, as 'General Dawes' Requests the Return of His Mansion

By Mary Helt Gavin

Leigh MacIsaac, left, and David Jennett with General Charles Gates Dawes (actor Robert Lindsey), call for the return of the Dawes mansion to the Evanston History Center and the community of Evanston. Photo by Jordan Graham

General Charles Gates Dawes returned to Evanston last week to urge his fellow Evanstonians to help him reclaim his mansion at 225 Greenwood St. Hired by the group Generaldawesreturns.org., historical actor Robert Lindsey addressed the "dear citizens of Evanston," telling them he thought he had "deeded my house to Northwestern University so the people would have a museum that would tell the story of [Evanston's] past" and be a "repository of history" for the Evanston community.

About 50 people gathered in front of the Dawes House, home to the Evanston History Center, to voice their protest against the University's role in recent events that led to the closing of the Center for safety reasons and a demand that EHC implement repairs that could cost $4 million.

That the History Center was closed abruptly in April, that it needs repairs for safety and ADA-compliance and that the old mansion could use repairs are not disputed by the University. What the future holds for the Evanston History Center (EHC) and the Dawes House and whether the University has a moral or legal obligation to allow the Center to remain in the mansion, where it has enjoyed a $1/year lease for about 20 years, are issues that have become clouded with emotion.

In an interview with the RoundTable last month, Eugene Sunshine, Northwestern University vice president for business, called the mansion a "sinkhole" for money and said he feared once repairs began, the need for other repairs would be uncovered.

Mimi Peterson, in her speech that followed Gen. Dawes's appeal, said, "You are looking at what Northwestern University calls a 'sinkhole' and what the rest of the world calls a landmark." She also quoted Mr. Sunshine as saying the Center "should put emotion and history aside," as the University has done with the mansion.

"This time the University has gone too far; they have crossed the line. Does [Northwestern] President [Henry] Bienen want to be remembered because he closed the History Center to children of Evanston?" she asked. She invited the crowd to join the organizers in a march to Mr. Bienen's office.

At the University, about a half mile north, Mr. Sunshine voiced a different view. Although he acknowledged the University did not wish to spend $4 million on the mansion and had closed the Center and asked for a fire safety inspection, he repudiated Ms. Peterson's group, their tactics and their goal. He said he felt there were "good conversations" going on between the University and some members of the EHC board. Still, he acknowledged the endgame was to have EHC vacate the premises. "We gave the EHC a draft about a week ago," he told the RoundTable, "including a plan to reopen the place for partial use and a termination date of December 2009."

Marge Wold, president of the EHC board of trustees, told the RoundTable that the General Dawes group is separate from EHC. "We [EHC representatives] feel we can be more effective trying to negotiate with Northwestern." She said their goal is to find a way to have control of the house, either by long-term lease or by ownership.

Blue Ribbon Committee's Review of Pension Shortfalls Taking Shape

By Larry Gavin

While the Blue Ribbon Committee formed to review the police and firefighters' pension funds is still gathering and reviewing information, there seems to be a consensus that the City's former actuary, Ted Windsor, used aggressive assumptions in estimating the City's annual required contributions to the pension funds and in estimating the amount of the City's unfunded liability to those funds. Committee member Jim Young said even with the aggressive assumptions, Mr. Windsor estimated the City's unfunded liability at about $96 million.

The City's new actuary, the firm of Gabriel Roeder Smith (GRS), using more conservative assumptions, pegged the unfunded liability at about $140 million.

A memorandum prepared by Mark Metz, chairman of the Committee, summarized various reasons proffered for the shortfall, including the use of improperly aggressive actuarial assumptions, the City's alleged failure to contribute the required amounts, the low rate of return earned on the amounts contributed to the pension funds, and the State's increasing the amount of pension benefits and reducing the required number of years to qualify for retirement.

Mr. Metz said in his memo that the Committee should make a meaningful estimate of the percentage of the unfunded liability attributable to each of the proffered causes, so the citizens could understand how the City got into the current situation. "Once we reach consensus on the causes, we can focus on the solutions," he said. Committee member William Testa said it was important to find out how this happened in order to correct the process, so it does not happen again.

One assumption the Committee discussed was the rate of return the pension funds would earn on their investments. Mr. Windsor assumed the rate of return would be 7.5%; GRS assumed the rate of return would be 7.25%. Mr. Young said the actual rate of return for the last five years, after netting out fees, is closer to 6.6%. Based on this analysis, even an assumed rate of return of 7.25% may be aggressive.

Committee member Peter Morris said the pension funds may only invest 45% of the contributed funds in equities, and the balance must be invested in fixed investments, limited to those issued by the government or government agencies. Mr. Testa questioned whether a 7.25% assumed rate of return was reasonable in light of these restrictions.

Mr. Morris asked Steven Drazner, the City's acting finance director, to have GRS calculate the amount of the unfunded liability using three different assumed rates of return, 7.0%, 6.75% and 6.5%, to determine the impact if these lower rates of return were used. Committee members recognized that using these lower rates of return would increase the amount of the unfunded liability. Mr. Drazner said he could not provide any assurance that he would be authorized to retain GRS to make the calculation.

Mr. Testa said Committee members would probably not all agree on the assumptions, but said the Committee should concur on a set of reasonable assumptions. He suggested that the Committee could calculate the unfunded liability based on those assumptions and also calculate what the unfunded liability would be based on more aggressive and more conservative assumptions, so City Council could see the variances and the risks of using different assumptions.

Given the complexity of the issues, several Committee members said they thought aldermen would need to rely on the City's actuary and on the City's staff in deciding how much to contribute to the pension funds. In light of this, Mr. Testa said it was important that City Council use best practices in selecting and evaluating an actuary, in deciding what percentage of a pension liability would be permitted to remain unfunded and in other matters. He said he would review industry guidelines to determine what constitutes best practices in this area.

Under State law, the City must fully fund the pension liability by 2033. The Committee considered the possibility that the legislature may extend that date. Mr. Testa said, "Making up the unfunded liability in 20 years would be prudent for us, because we're a mature community." He added that he did not think the City should have an unfunded liability because it was important to know the "all-in cost" of putting a police officer or firefighter on the street and because "when you consume a service, you should pay for it."

The Committee has not yet made any findings or conclusions. The next meeting is scheduled for June 3. The Committee is still planning to issue its report by the end of July.

Memorial Day

Greg Lisinski, right, commander of American Legion Post 42, applauds former commander Allen "Bo" Price at Fountain Square on Memorial Day.

On Memorial Day, at a packed Fountain Square, Evanston honored the men and women who gave their lives for their country. Byron Wilson, a World War II veteran, said he went to school and played ball with many of the men whose names were listed as killed in action in World War II on the pillars at the north end of the square. "The reason the pillars are here is to remind us we can congregate as a free people because these people made the supreme sacrifice," he said. He opposes moving the pillars as part any development plan, he said, adding, "I pray that these pillars behind me will remain here forever."

Hal Shanafield, president of North Shore Viet Nam Veterans, said, "Each and every one of the names on the pillars represents a real live person who has his or her own life story. They made the supreme sacrifice. We have our freedom today as a result of the sacrifice these individuals have made. How many times do we stop and think about the sacrifice these individuals have made for us?"

Gregory Lisinski, Commander of the Evanston American Legion Post 42, said, "We owe them all the honor and all the gratitude for their sacrifice."

Cook County Board Commissioner Larry Suffredin said, "We are so thankful to the people whose names are listed on the wall behind me. But we also have to thank their families."

Alderman Edmund Moran, 6th Ward, said, "What is terribly important is to remember that we, as a people and a nation, need to ensure that our service personnel will always be recognized, as we seek to do today, for their great service, sacrifice and commitment to the American way of life. We must never forget them. And we as a nation owe it to them to care for them, and, yes, where possible, reward them for their great service.