Saturday, November 12, 2011

Moore Leaving?

Back on Nov 12 I received an email that originated with Evanston aldermen reporting our Alderman was selected as the Director of the Illinois EPA, subject to Senate confirmation.  In following up on that I heard back from our Alderman that the announcement was premature.  An interesting assertion since the email in question quoted Mr. Moore as stating he had been selected.  Now Crain's has confirmed that our Alderman is being considered although it doesn't state unequivocally that he is The One.

NBC is also reporting the story, but says that the Alderman states (again) it's "premature".  Somehow that just doesn't tally up with the Crain's article.  Hintz talked with the Alderman about a replacement since Ms. Moore's name was being floated as his replacement.  It may be not so idle gossip that is floating her name up, however the response from the Alderman; 

"There is no way I would try to impose anyone," he said. "There would be a full process, in which people who were part of my organization would come forward" and be reviewed before any recommended name was sent to Mr. Emanuel.

First of all, let's all remember that Mr. Moore has to be confirmed by the Illinois Senate and then resign his position.  Wonder if those confirmation hearings are as entertaining as the US Senate's?  In any case, he is in favor of the Clean Power Ordinance and that may not sit well with Downstaters who mine coal.  On the other hand, Crain's notes that Quinn annoyed Greens with the selection of a Downstater to a sensitive environmental position.  Politics includes horse trading.  I wonder if the horse trading has begun.

If Mr. Moore is a) nominated and b) survives the Senate vetting, then there will be an appointment to temporarily fill the position pending a special election.  If Ms. Moore is appointed she would still have to run on her own to keep the position.  I am personally opposed to nepotism, however she has acquired a positive reputation within the ward.  I have met Barbara Moore and she has certainly had a positive impact on the ward.  Some wags would prefer her as Alderman over her husband.  Whether or not she would in fact be an improvement is subject to speculation and this may turn out to be an academic exercise if Quinn fails to nominate Mr. Moore.


Michael J. Harrington said...

In response to the rumor that he is pushing for his wife as his replacement Mr. Moore promises "...a full process . . . people who were part of my organization would come forward" to be reviewed.

Well, isn't that special? NOT!

We 49th Ward voters want to know what happened to the values of openness, transparency, and heck, even fairness commonly understood by the term "a full process." It seems that Mr. Moore should have continued on with his thought and simply stated that political outsiders need not apply.

Well, we're sick of watching incumbent pols employ the Friends and Family Plan in Chicago politics. We deserve better than that. Choosing a truly responsive, accountable, and independent candidate who will move the 49th Ward forward will not happen as a result of string pulling by Mr. Moore's political organization.

Voters here, not the politically connected chosen few, will have lots to say about who will be our next appointed and elected officials.

Toto said...

Hmmm. Does this mean he will get a city pension and a state pension and his wife a city pension.

Tsk tsk. If Rahm appoints her.

Fargo said...

For years, it's seemed like Joe Moore was aiming to get attention beyond Chicago and move up to a broader political venue, so the possibility of a statewide position fits into that apparent plan.

I've heard good things about Barbara Moore, but I've never met her. Regardless of her intentions or qualifications, I'm NOT a fan of nepotism. I'm with Michael on this. The ward deserves a good independent candidate.

Kheris said...

The real question is how long does an elected official need to serve before they can expect to receive a pension once they reach a specified age. In the Federal sector once you accrue 5 years of service you can qualify. You just have to wait until you reach the appropriate age to receive it.

The North Coast said...

I have heard 20 years of service is the threshold for City of Chicago officeholders, but I'm not certain. Moore would qualify if it is indeed the case, having served four full terms already.

On another note, I'm appalled to learn that an elected officeholder at the federal level need serve only five years to get a pension. No wonder we can't get federal spending in hand. These people are supposed to have other careers in any case. How many congressmen and senators can we afford to support for 20, 30, even 40 years of retirement?

Kheris said...

Regarding the 5 year requirement for a pension. That is pretty much across the board for federal employees, whether careerists like myself, appointees, or elected officials.

Keep in mind that anyone collecting a pension on a mere 5 years of service is collecting very little. You have to reach 30 yrs of service and age 55 to retire under the old CSRS system and the top pension amount is ~ 56% of your high 3 average salary. In other words, you take your 3 highest years, add together, divide by 3 and you have your average. You have to serve 41 years in order to max out at 80% of your high 3. The formula takes into account the salary and years of service, so I repeat - anyone collecting a pension after only 5 years of service is collecting a pittance.

If you don't have at least 30 years of service at age 55 you keep on working until you reach that 30 years. If you have only 5 years of service you will be 62 at the earliest under CSRS to collect a pension.

All of the foregoing is according to the old CSRS system. Anyone under the new system, FERS (hired 1/1/84 or later), basically follows SS rules for retirement.