January

13, 2012 Dear Alderman, We would like to express our deep concern regarding the proposed changes to ordinances O2011-9742 and O2011-9743 submitted to City Council last month by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and slated for consideration at the January 18 City Council meeting. As members of Chicago community, faith, advocacy and labor groups, we urge you to either reject, orat very leastdelay passage of these changes which, if passed next week, would diminish both the rights of citizens to peaceful public protest and the democratic tradition of our city. There are many aspects of these ordinances that are deeply disturbingnot the least of which is the apparent rush to usher them through City Council without time for meaningful community consideration and input. The ordinances were submitted in December, amidst the distractions of the holiday season, and are slated for Council consideration immediately following the MLK Jr. holiday when many of the groups and organizations that would be impacted by the proposed changes are closed. The Mayor asserts that these changes are necessary to ensure that the city is able to provide sufficient security measures for the upcoming G8 and NATO summits. Given that the summits do not take place until May, there is no compelling need to rush these proposed changes through at the expense of community input. While some of the proposed changes have been adjusted in recent days to somewhat lessen the restrictions on free speech, these adjustments do not go nearly far enough. The very fact that the newest changes were announced within the past 24 hoursgiving community members less than a full business day to evaluate themproves that more time is desperately needed to consider these proposals. The danger of rushing consideration and passage of ordinances has been made tragically apparent by the recent revelation that the parking meter contract approved by the City Council under Mayor Daley will require the City to pay out up to $65 million to the parking vendor as a result of street closures related to the coming summits in May. An unnecessary and preventable expense of this magnitude is devastating at a time when city employees are being laid off and budgets are being slashed for essential services ranging from public libraries to healthcare for the mentally ill. The major changes proposed for these ordinancesincluding the eightfold increase in the minimum fine and a doubling of the maximum fine for resisting arrest, restricting access hours for public spaces, and placing prohibitive requirements on parade and public assembly permit applicantsare wide ranging in scope and permanent in duration. The steep increases in fines will likely keep many of the people who have been most harmed by the economic downturn in our country from speaking out, and these are the voices that most need to be heard. Billionaires, millionaires, and wealthy banks and corporations can afford to pay lobbyists to speak out for them. We need to protect the right of struggling working families to get their voices heard.

Given the permanence of these measures, these ordinances will not only restrict the rights of citizens to protest the G8 and NATO summits, but will also have a long-term impact on protestors and organizations throughout the city, most of whom are not connected in any way to the protests associated with or planned for these events. In particular, the proposed ordinances will serve to limit the basic rights of workers to engage in concerted activity and collective action, and will hamper the ability of community organizations to engage in public protest. For example, the provisions contained in the Mayors proposals could diminish or curtail completely the ability of striking workers to form a picket line or exercise other protected rights of assembly or prevent homeowners from protesting illegal foreclosures. Considering these infringements, this legislation also threatens to undermine the reputation of Chicago as a city where spirited protest is tolerated and workers rights are respected. The danger of these proposed restrictions is especially apparent as the city comes together to celebrate the civil rights legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. Had these restrictions been in place during Rev. Kings lifetime, much of the civil rights movement could have been squelchedwith the result that we would be living in a much less free, much less diverse country today. In keeping with your commitment to protecting the rights of your constituents to engage in peaceful protest and your dedication to the democratic tradition of our city, we ask that you reject this troubling legislation. Sincerely,