Illinois' Version Of So-Called Home Rule Is A Flawed Law: We Must Fix It Or Nix It
(Edited excerpt from an article by John Gile published in the Voice,
a publication of the Rockford Chamber of Commerce)

The stormy history of so-called home rule in Illinois makes one point very clear: the law is flawed.

Flaws in the Illinois version of so-called home rule have been evident in citizens' responses since its inception in 1970. Rockford is not unique in rejecting it.

—Eighty-three cities have rejected home rule when they had a chance to do so.
—Eleven counties have rejected it.
—Repeal movements have sprung up in 32 cities where home rule was imposed without the consent or approval of the citizens when the city population exceeded 25,000.
—Only 12 percent of Illinois municipalities live under home rule, mostly Chicago collar county cities.

In March, 2006, home rule was rejected by voters in four communities:

—Rockton voters rejected it by a margin of 89% to 11%.
—Broadview voters rejected it by a margin of 77% to 23%.
—Lakeview voters rejected it by a margin of 77% to 23%.
—Harvard voters rejected it by a margin of 73% to 27%.

Citizen rejection of so-called home rule would not be so common and so-called home rule would not be so controversial if it were not seriously flawed.

Its major flaw is that the Illinois version of so-called home rule denies citizens the right to control local government with a city charter or constitution. Other states allow or even mandate that citizens establish a local charter or constitution to control local government before home rule powers are granted. Citizens of Illinois deserve to have the same rights as the citizens of other states.

Illinois bypasses the people of the community and puts all the power of local government into the hands of politicians. That's why students of government and political science have described the Illinois version of so-called home rule as the most uncontrolled form of government anywhere in the United States of America. It is government by personality instead of government by principle.

It even takes away citizens' right to vote on vital city issues and limits citizens' voice in government to mayoral and council elections.

Without the controls of a local charter or constitution and with citizens stripped of their right to vote on city issues, so-called home rule empowers politicians to:
1. Raise taxes without citizen permission.
2. Impose new taxes in the form of fees, licenses, and regulations.
3. Expedite seizures of private property.
4. Give city property to private interests without competitive bidding.
5. Take greater control over citizens' lives, livelihoods, property, and liberty.
6. And on and on . . . "...Powers and functions of home rule units shall be construed liberally." (Illinois Constitution)

Constitutions are designed to safeguard citizens from government excesses. Our nation's founders gave birth to the United States of America by calling a Constitutional Convention at which the powers of the federal government were defined and restricted, with other powers reserved to the states and the citizens.

When territories became states, their first actions were to hold constitutional conventions to do the same.

In states other than Illinois, the same constitutional process is followed to pass power from the state to local government. Because Illinois left that crucial provision out, home rule government in Illinois is like a car with no brakes and a steering wheel that works only once every four years.

Article 7, Section 6 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution stipulates that "a Home Rule unit may exercise ANY POWER and perform ANY FUNCTION pertaining to its government and affairs" -- all without asking for the permission or approval of the citizens whose lives are affected and the taxpayers who must pay the bills.

Citizens seeking to limit their local government's power to tax, to regulate, and to incur debt, have no choice but to reject the Illinois version of so-called home rule.

Illinois Citizens Deserve To Have The Same Rights As Citizens Of States

And we need to fix home rule so Illinois citizens can have the same rights as citizens of other states. Other states allow or even mandate that citizens establish a local charter or constitution to control local government before home rule powers are granted.

Home rule can be fixed with a simple constitutional amendment to give us the best of both worlds. It reads: "Nothing in this Constitution or its home rule provisions shall be construed so as to constrain or prohibit citizens of home rule communities or communities eligible to become home rule communities from creating by referendum a community charter or constitution in which the citizens of the community define and restrict the powers and procedures of their home rule governing body. Those powers and procedures include defining and restricting the power to tax, to regulate, and to incur debt, specifying what decisions and actions their elected representatives may exercise by virtue of holding office and which decisions and actions must be presented to the community for approval and ratification in a referendum open to all eligible voters in the community. Such local charter or constitution shall govern in any conflict with home rule provisions or other sections of the Illinois Constitution."

In the meantime, citizens can cut through the home rule hoopla by asking themselves these questions:

1. Are you qualified to tell your local government how much of your money you want them to take from you and how you want them to spend it?
2. Are you qualified to tell your local government how much control over your property you want them to have?
3. Are you qualified to tell your local government how much control over your liberty and livelihood you want them to have?

If you answered yes to those questions, you are qualified to rule your own home free of any encroachment under the guise of Illinois' so-called home rule.

Home rule? We must fix it -- or nix it. Those are our only options. Other states allow or even mandate that citizens establish a local charter or constitution to control local government before home rule powers are granted. Citizens of Illinois deserve to have the same rights as the citizens of other states.

(Copyright 2006 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

In April, 2006, I asked the editorial board of the Rockford Register Star to endorse fixing the Illinois version of so-called home rule so citizens of Illinois can have the same rights as the citizens of other states. Editorial board members asked me to provide examples of other states' home rule provisions. Examples follow.

Recently I was asked to address a group of business leaders about Illinois' flawed version of so-called home rule. Included in the group were brilliant young business leaders whose ignorance of basic government was alarming. Many did not know the difference between an article of the constitution and a state statute or city ordinance. For that reason, "General Background For The Principle Of Constitutional Government" and "Additional General Background From The National League Of Cities" are included here, also.

In brief, a constitution is a set of enduring principles and rules citizens of a community formulate to control the actions of politicians and protect citizens' rights from government encroachment. Statutes and ordinances are laws politicians pass to apply a constitution's principles and rules to specific situations.

Examples of various states' home rule conditions
vis-a-vis local charters or constitutions

Alaska:

It is important to note that incorporation of a home rule city requires petitioners to prepare a charter, which is the equivalent of a local government constitution.

California:

Article XI, section 3(a) of the California Constitution authorizes the adoption of a city charter and provides such a charter has the force and effect of state law. Article XI, section 5(a), the "home rule" provision, affirmatively grants to charter cities supremacy over "municipal affairs." ...The home rule provision of the California Constitution authorizes a charter city to exercise plenary authority over municipal affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. See Cal. Const. art. XI § 5(a); Ex Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209, 74 P. 780 (1902); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61, 81 Cal. Rptr. 465 (1969), Committee of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45 Cal.3d 491 (1988).

Colorado:

The Charter is not a grant of power to the city; it is a limit on powers granted to the city by the Colorado Constitution as determined by the citizens.

Maine:

In May, 1970, Maine joined the ranks of over 40 other states which provide municipal home rule. Maine has non self-executing, constitutional home rule. That is, municipal home rule has been granted in general terms by the Maine Constitution, but the specific meaning of the home rule grant has been spelled out in an implementing statute. Hence, the philosophy of home rule is contained in the Constitution, and its meaning has been defined by the Maine Legislature.

The grant of home rule to municipalities has two components. First, all towns and cities are authorized to alter or amend their charters "on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or law, which are local and municipal in character." Second, any town or city may, through ordinance or by-law, "exercise any power or function which the legislature has power to confer upon it, which is not denied either expressly or by clear implication, and exercise any power or function granted to the municipality by the Constitution, general law or charter."

Michigan:

The constitution of the State of Michigan gives local governments the right to design a form of government in the same way the federal constitution gives authority to operate to the states. Mt. Pleasant has been an incorporated municipality (first a village, then a city) for over 100 years. It is governed by a charter that was last amended by a vote of the citizens in 1976. A city's charter is like a local constitution, which spells out the basic form of government and lists the authority and responsibilities of all the players.

Minnesota:

Minnesota's two basic types of cities are home rule charter cities (operating under a local charter) and statutory cities (operating under the statutory city code). I Distinction between home rule cities and statutory cities The major difference between home rule cities and statutory cities in Minnesota is the kind of enabling legislation from which they gain their authority. Statutory cities derive their powers from Chapter 412 of Minnesota Statutes. Home rule cities obtain their powers from a home rule charter. The distinction between home rule cities and statutory cities is one of organization and powers, and is not based on differences in population, size, location or any other physical feature.

Minn. Const. art. XII, § 4.
Minn. Stat. §§ 410.04-410.33.
The Minnesota Constitution permits the Legislature to establish home rule charter cities, counties, and other units of local government. State law enacted under this constitutional authority authorizes cities to adopt home rule charters. Home rule charter cities can exercise any powers in their locally adopted charters as long as they do not conflict with state laws. Conversely, charter provisions can specifically restrict the powers of a city. Consequently, voters in home rule cities have more control over their city's powers.

State law provides that if a charter is silent on a matter that is addressed for statutory cities by Chapter 412 or other general law, and general law does not prohibit the city charter from addressing the matter or expressly provide that a city charter prevails over general law on the matter, then the home rule charter city can apply the general law on the matter. Charters, therefore, are of interest to statutory cities when they encounter special problems that cannot be solved under general city laws. If a statutory city finds itself in such a situation, it can either request the Legislature to change the city code or adopt a special law applying to that specific city, or it can become a home rule city with a home rule charter that specifies its powers. The voters must approve the charter in a local election.

II. The home rule charter
Home rule charters are, in effect, local constitutions. State laws give cities a wide range of discretion in the contents of a charter when one is adopted. The charter may provide for any form of municipal government, as long as it is consistent with state laws that apply uniformly to all cities in Minnesota.

Missouri:

Any city having more than five thousand inhabitants or any other incorporated city as may be provided by law may frame and adopt a charter for its own government.

Ohio:

All local governments in Ohio can be classified as either home rule or non-home rule, according to the authority given them by the Constitution and legislation in the Ohio Revised Code. All municipalities, and counties that have adopted a charter, are home rule. All other local governments are non-home rule. Non-home rule governments can only provide those services and perform those acts as specifically authorized by law. Home rule governments can perform all functions not specifically prohibited by law...

Optional plan statutory forms of government are not commonly used, probably because the charter form is made available by the Ohio Constitution. With the charter, the municipality may develop any form of government that its voters approve. The charter allows the municipality to "fine-tune" its form of government, instead of adopting one of the prescribed plans. The charter has been used extensively in Ohio to enhance the home rule authority of municipalities.

Adoption of a charter is a two-step process. First, the issue of whether or not a charter commission should be elected is voted on by the people. Included with this issue is provision to elect 15 charter commissioners, who are elected if the issue passes. This issue may be placed on the ballot if petitioned for by 10% of the voters. If the charter commission is elected and formed, they have one year to prepare a proposed charter and submit it to a vote of the people. If it is adopted it becomes the basic framework for that municipality's government.

Pennsylvania:

Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters. Adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter shall be by referendum. The General Assembly shall provide the procedure by which a home rule charter may be framed and its adoption, amendment or repeal presented to these electors. If the General Assembly does not so provide, a home rule charter or a procedure for framing and presenting a home rule charter may be presented to the electors by initiative or by the governing body of the municipality. A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.

South Dakota:

Interest in home rule has grown during the twentieth century, particularly during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. By 1990, 48 states authorized home rule for municipalities, by constitutional or statutory provisions or both, and 36 states authorized home rule for counties, again by constitutional or statutory provisions or a combination of both. Constitutional or statutory authorization for home rule does not mean that all counties and municipalities in a state will operate under home rule. Generally, the county or municipal government and its voters must propose and approve the adoption of a home rule charter before the provisions of home rule take effect for the individual local government unit. The 1962 amendment authorized home rule for municipalities (but not counties) and specified the methods to be used in adopting a municipal home rule charter.

Texas:

The City Charter is considered the fundamental law of a Home Rule municipality and is sometimes referred to as the local constitution. The City Charter describes city boundaries, provides for the form of government establishes the number of representatives on the City Council and defines the terms of office and how the City Council will be elected. The City Charter also describes the powers of the City Council and officers appointed by the City Council. (Arlington, Texas, based on Texas Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution on January 17, 1920)

General Background For The Principle Of Constitutional Government, Also Known As Government Of The People, By The People, And For The People (From an Ohio document):

Sources Of State Authority
The People

On this continent in the 1700s there was conceived the new concept that all governmental authority is derived from the people. Throughout the prior history of humankind, the people were granted those rights that the governmental rulers wished to give them. Following are some examples of early writings that portray this new concept.

Declaration of Independence, July 6, 1776

"... Governments ... derive(ing) their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...."

Articles of Confederation, 1777

"...the free inhabitants of each of these states, ... , shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ..."

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

This ordinance guaranteed freedom of mode of worship or religious sentiment, benefits of writs of habeas corpus and trial by jury, bail, proportionate representation, judicial proceedings according to the course of common law, and the right to not be deprived of property without just compensation.

Constitution of the United States, 1789

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The U.S. Constitution defines the power delegated to the U.S. Government. All other power is reserved to the states or retained by the people.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution, effective in 1791 and known as the Bill of Rights, outline some of the limits of law. The ninth amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In addition, the tenth amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

First Ohio Constitution, 1802

Preamble : "We, the people ...."

Article VIII, Section 28, says that "To guard against the transgression of high powers, which we have delegated, we declare, that all powers not hereby delegated remain with the people." The present Ohio Constitution, 1851, contains similar language in Article I, Section 20.

Thomas Jefferson,1820

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."

Constitutions

Constitutions and other related documents are used in this country to define which powers are delegated to the national government, which are reserved by the states and which are retained by the people. The most important of these documents are listed below, along with some of their effects upon local government.

Articles of Confederation, 1777

This provided the authority for the issuance of an ordinance for the governance of the "western lands" ceded by New York, Virginia, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787

This document superseded the previous ordinance and provided the first organizational structure for what eventually became five states in the district northwest of the Ohio River. The ordinance established a Governor, Secretary, Court and Magistrates.

It provided that counties and townships could be established in those areas where Indian rights had expired.

It provided that, when the population of the district reached 5,000, representatives to a general assembly could be elected from counties and townships, one for every 500 free male inhabitants until the number of representatives reached 25. A representative must own 200 acres of land and a voter 50 acres.

The first General Assembly of the district met in Cincinnati in 1799. The second met in Chillicothe in 1801 and 1802.

The ordinance provided for the establishment of five original states, which could be implemented when the population of the state reached 60,000. In 1802, Congress authorized the formation of a state government for Ohio.

The Northwest Ordinance was probably the most important document in shaping territorial boundaries and governmental structures in the Northwest Territory.

Constitution of the United States, 1789

The Constitution provided for the admittance by Congress of new states.

Additional General Background From The National League Of Cities:

The Constitution of the United States of America does not mention local governments. Local governments are created by and regulated by the states. This means that to speak about cities or other forms of local government in the United States is to speak about fifty different legal and political situations.

The states outline the powers of municipal governments in charters. There may be: special or specific charters; general or classified charters (in which the rules may apply to a class of cities, often grouped by population size); or home rule charters. The state municipal leagues can provide information about the form of charter provided in state constitutions.

A city charter is the basic document that defines the organization, powers, functions and essential procedures of the city government. It is comparable to the State Constitution and to the Constitution of the United States. The charter is, therefore, the most important single legal document of any city.

All that is necessary to fix Illinois' flawed law is a constitutional amendment specifying that "Nothing in this Constitution or its home rule provisions shall be construed so as to constrain or prohibit citizens of home rule communities or communities eligible to become home rule communities from creating by referendum a community charter or constitution in which the citizens of the community define and restrict the powers and procedures of their home rule governing body."

Links For Additional Information On City Charters:

National League of Cities
http://www.nlc.org/home
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550 ­ Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202-626-3000; Fax: 202-626-3043; e-mail: info@nlc.org

National Civic League
http://www.ncl.org
Model City Charter info -- http://www1.icma.org/pm/8503/gates.htm
1445 Market St. Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-571-4343; Fax: 303-571-4404; e-mail: ncl@ncl.org

A sample city charter (San Jose, CA): http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp

(Copyright 2006 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

Directory Page • Fix Home Rule • fixhomerule.com •The following pages were created during our successful campaign to keep so-called home rule out of Rockford despite proponents' efforts to circumvent the normal petition process and bulldoze a home rule referendum through the city council. The council voted 9 to 5 against the referendum January 9, 2006.

Home Rule Bulldozers At City Hall

Pages added after Rockford City Council voted against home rule referendum on January 9, 2006.
• The Central Issue: What's Wrong With The Illinois Version Of So-Called Home Rule •
• Illinois Citizens Deserve To Have The Same Rights As Citizens Of Other States •
• What July 4th Means: "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." •
• "General Background For The Principle Of Constitutional Government" •
• "Additional General Background From The National League Of Cities" •

Back to top of page

"Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." — Abe Lincoln

ROCKFORD -- Local politicians and special interest groups agitating for so-called "home rule" powers at city hall call to mind a story about Abe Lincoln talking politics with old friends from Illinois who visited him at the White House.

Lincoln wanted to make a point about words and asked his friends, "How many legs would a dog have if you called a tail a leg?"

"Five," they answered.

"No," Lincoln said, “the dog would still have only four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Lincoln might make the same point to those who call stripping citizens of control over their local government "home rule." Their so-called home rule would give Rockford politicians free reign to tax and spend and impose regulations – without asking the citizens for permission.

The Illinois version of so-called home rule is a carry over of the machine style politics practiced by Chicago's first Mayor Daley. The 1970 Constitution that created home rule powers was written under his influence and reflects his lust for power. That's why the Illinois version of so-called home rule gives politicians virtually unlimited power to tax, to regulate, and to incur debt.

Rockford citizens voted to take back control over their local government by repealing home rule in a 1983 referendum, forcing the city council to ask for permission to levy taxes and imposing controls on city government activities.

Because Illinois home rule prohibits creation of city charters or local constitutions in which citizens could specify what home rule powers they want local politicians to have and what powers they do not want them to have, no compromise providing us with the best of both worlds is available today.

Allowing that compromise would require a constitutional amendment such as:

"Nothing in this Constitution or its home rule provisions shall be construed as to constrain or prohibit citizens of home rule communities or communities eligible to become home rule communities from creating by referendum a community charter or constitution in which the citizens of the community define and restrict the powers and procedures of their home rule governing body. Those powers and procedures include defining and restricting the power to tax, to regulate, and to incur debt, specifying what decisions and actions their elected representatives may exercise by virtue of holding office and which decisions and actions must be presented to the community for approval and ratification in a referendum open to all eligible voters in the community. Such local charter or constitution shall govern in any conflict with home rule provisions or other sections of the Illinois Constitution."

Until such an amendment is passed, so-called home rule in Illinois leaves citizens at the mercy of local government and encourages abuse by concentrating power in the hands of a small group of politicians. It is much easier for community exploiters and profiteers to fool or manipulate a small group of politicians than it is to fool or manipulate the whole community.

Rockford citizens have generously supported tax referendums since repealing home rule, including the recent jail tax which provides ample resources for law enforcement to clean up gang graffiti problems and crack down on crack houses.

Other community problems preoccupying public-spirited citizens are symptoms of poor leadership so-called home rule cannot cure. Boarded up houses and blighted areas stem largely from unrestricted urban sprawl fostered by local politicians who allow developers to pour concrete and blacktop on acre after acre of precious farmland. Little regard is given to the environment, to the needs of future generations, or to the costly strain on city and school district resources caused by urban sprawl. So-called home rule cannot cure avarice or bad judgment, but the unrestricted power it gives local politicians can make the consequences even more devastating.

"Home rule" is a misnomer because it takes away citizen's power to control local government. The Winnebago Country Taxpayers' Association is fighting any return to so-called home rule in Rockford. So is a new group called Citizens for Government of the People, by the People, and for the People who want to fix home rule in Illinois. Lincoln would like that. (Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." Thomas Jefferson

"There are those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the 'higher classes,' and there are those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them the safest and most honest, if not always the wisest repository of the public interest... Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." Thomas Jefferson

Our nation is founded on the principle that human rights come from the hand of God, not from the state, and that legitimate government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. We establish constitutions to control government and safeguard our rights and liberty.

The Illinois version of so-called home rule violates that fundamental principle. It bypasses the people of the community and puts all of the power of local government into the hands of politicians.

Our nation's founders gave birth to the United States of America by calling a Constitutional Convention at which the powers of the federal government were defined and restricted, with other powers reserved to the states and the citizens. When each territory became a state, its first act was to hold a constitutional convention at which the powers of the state government were defined and restricted.

Many states assign powers of local government to the citizens by allowing or mandating local citizens to create a home rule constitution or charter in which the citizens define what home rule powers they want local politicians to have and what powers they do not want them to have. The 1970 Illinois Constitution denies citizens that right. We can fix that flaw and have the best of both worlds by amending the Illinois version of so-called home rule to allow citizens to create a home rule constitution or charter.

History has taught us and Americans have always recognized that unrestrained government is a disaster waiting to happen. We realize that we need government to accomplish things we cannot do alone, but we also realize that living with government is like living with a pit bull that has never been fully domesticated. It can be a wonderful pet, but then suddenly turn and bite off the owner's hand or attack an innocent neighbor or child. We need to keep it on a leash and use a muzzle.

In Illinois, so-called home rule puts the leash and muzzle on the people instead of on the dogs of government. Amending the Illinois version of so-called home rule by allowing citizens to create home rule constitutions or charters will fix that. (Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

"They may call Illinois' so-called home rule 'government of the people.'
And they may call it 'government for the people'
whom they deem incapable of governing themselves.
But they can never call it 'government by the people.'"

Students of government and political science have described the Illinois version of so-called home rule as the most uncontrolled form of government anywhere in the United States of America. Article 7, Section 6 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution explains why.

It stipulates that "a Home Rule unit may exercise ANY POWER and perform ANY FUNCTION pertaining to its government and affairs" -- all without asking for the permission or approval of the citizens whose lives are affected and the taxpayers who must pay the bills.

So-called home rule strips citizens of the right to vote on community issues. Everything is decided by the politicians in power -- who can tax, regulate, and incur debt with no checks and balances to control them. Even if voters throw them out of office at the next election, the citizens remain liable for all damages done.

Like the citizens in wide-open frontier towns who cowered under the control of paid gunslingers, citizens of so-called home role communities in Illinois cower under the control of politicians. No man, woman, child, or anyone's property is safe from politicians' whims in Illinois' so-called home rule communities.

For Example, So-Called Home Rule Cities Can . . .

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- raise property taxes and incur debt beyond statutory limits.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- broaden the use of eminent domain powers, license (tax) installation and maintenance of burglar or fire alarms, revise zoning regulations, expedite seizure of private property, regulate property maintenance, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- buy and sell land, make taxpayers liable for non-referendum general obligation bonds for private loans, issue revenue bonds to finance projects not specified in state statutes and at higher interest rates, use ordinary bank loans which may not be allowed under statutory law without so-called home rule, secure Industrial Revenue Bonds not subject to outside competition, adopt investment policies not restricted by state statutes, provide subsidies or credits to private businesses, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- issue and make taxpayers liable for bonds used to develop private shopping centers or to build or expand a civic center, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- issue sales tax rebates to favored businesses, circumvent state mandates regarding budget and appropriation ordinances, and on and on.

And On And On . . .

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- license (tax) and regulate cable, liquor, utilities, land use, public transit, mobile homes, vendors, nursing homes, tow trucks, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- impose fines greater than statutory limits, license (tax) and regulate cats, license (tax) vending machines, impose fees on trucks, set juvenile curfews, abridge citizens' rights to bear arms, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- impose beyond any state restrictions real estate transfer and exit taxes, hotel/motel taxes, utility taxes, property taxes, amusement taxes, new motor vehicle taxes, gasoline taxes, food and beverage taxes, liquor taxes, mobile home taxes, cigarette taxes, storage of flammable liquids taxes, retail sales taxes, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- reorganize the police department, reorganize the fire department, change Police and Fire Commission powers, hire a personnel director and personnel board instead of having a Police and Fire Commission, give Police and Fire Commissioners more authority over personnel including demotions, and on and on.

So-called home rule cities can -- without asking citizens for permission -- do just about anything politicians and their coterie decide they want to do because Article 7, Section 6 mandates that the "powers and functions of home rule units shall be construed liberally."

Politicians may call Illinois' so-called home rule "government of the people." And they may call it "government for the people" whom they deem incapable of governing themselves. But they can never call it "government by the people."

"The challenge to our liberties," Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas reminded us, "comes frequently not from those who consciously seek to destroy our system of government, but from men and women of goodwill, good men and women who allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to accomplish involves an impairment of liberty . . . Their motives are often commendable. What we must remember, however, is that preservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppressor be a reformer or an outlaw. Each surrender of liberty to the demands of the moment makes easier another, larger surrender."

(Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

The Illinois version of so-called home rule: A veteran's reflection on Veteran's Day, 2005.

ROCKFORD -- I am awestruck at the prospect of "home rule" gatherings where gullible followers of the "home rule" proponents actually celebrate giving up their right to vote. Brave men and women have died to give us that right. I have seen people in other parts of the world who envy our right to vote. This very hour, brave American men and women are putting their lives on the line to secure that right for others.

But in Rockford, our so-called leaders are hosting celebrations for citizens who happily surrender their right to vote on city issues in exchange for a glass of wine and a piece of cheese.

(Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

Bulldozers at City Hall

Now there's a movement afoot to bulldoze a resolution through the city council putting a home rule referendum on the ballot in March. I have no problem with presenting the issue to the electorate. Giving private citizens more say in city government was the essence of the repeal in 1983 and is the essence of my message at fixhomerule.com today.

Putting home rule on the March ballot with a simple city council resolution is a different matter, though. When private citizens called for a vote on home rule in 1983, we had to spend thousands of dollars and thousands of volunteer worker hours getting signatures on petitions to put the issue on the ballot. It would seem only fair that home rule proponents be held to the same standard.

Running it through the city council would only deepen the division proponents have created in the community and would give citizens the impression that city council members are mere puppets on the strings of behind the scenes power brokers.

In a Rockford Register Star report, Chris Green cited an analogy from a speech I delivered on problems with the Illinois version of so-called home rule:

"When pondering whether to restore home rule in Rockford, John Gile wants you to remember an incident that happened in Chicago in March, 2003, when city construction crews, under the cover of darkness, tore up the runway at Meigs Field, effectively closing the lakefront airport.

"Who gave the crews the right to do so? Not the voting public. Not the Federal Aviation Administration. Certainly not the hundreds of pilots who flew in and out of the airport. The airport was closed for good on orders from Mayor Richard Daley. That's the kind of power, Gile said, a select few politicians will have if the public votes to restore home rule in Rockford."

The bulldozer makes a good symbol for the Illinois version of so-called home rule, but I'm not sure it's the symbol proponents want for the start of their campaign.

If you want to let your mayor and city council know what you think of efforts to bulldoze a home rule petition through the city council, here's the contact information you need:

•Mayor: Lawrence J. Morrissey, 425 E. State St. 61104; 987-5590; fax 967-6952.
•First Ward Alderman: Joe Sosnowski, 8628 Blue River Road 61107; Joe.Sosnowski@ci.rockford.il.us; 332-5872, 739-0772; fax 756-3084.
•Second Ward Alderman: Patrick Curran, 641 Paris Ave. 61107; Pat.Curran@ci.rockford.il.us;398-7504; fax 398-7504.
•Third Ward Alderman: Douglas Mark, 1526 Harlem Blvd. 61103; Douglas.Mark@ci.rockford.il.us; 962-2058, 874-0409, fax 966-0189.
•Fourth Ward Alderman: Carl R. Wasco, 5230 Spring Brook Road 61114; Carl.Wasco@ci.rockford.il.us; 282-1635, 494-1739, 391-9225; fax 282-1683.
•Fifth Ward Alderman: Victory Bell, 2597 Meadow View Lane 61102; Victory.Bell@ci.rockford.il.us; 963-1075; fax 963-1732.
•Sixth Ward Alderman: Leonard J. Jacobson, 3724 Lookout Drive 61109; Leonard.Jacobson@ci.rockford.il.us; 874-9299.
•Seventh Ward Alderman: Ann Thompson, 804 Hoban Ave. 61101; Ann.Thompson@ci.rockford.il.us; 968-8389; fax 968-4007.
•Eighth Ward Alderman: Nancy L. Johnson, 2008 Colorado Ave. 61108; Nancy.Johnson@ci.rockford.il.us; 226-0673.
•Ninth Ward Alderman: Bill Timm, 1711 Carney Ave. 61103; Bill.Timm@ci.rockford.il.us; 962-7592.
•Tenth Ward Alderman: Franklin C. Beach, 2916 Greenwood Ave. 61107; Franklin.Beach@ci.rockford.il.us; 399-3737, 874-7212; fax 874-1616.
•Eleventh Ward Alderman: Jeff Holt, 1805 S. 5th St. 61104; Jeff.Holt@ci.rockford.il.us; 967-0542.
•Twelfth Ward Alderman: John C. Beck, 2004 Cumberland 61103; John.Beck@ci.rockford.il.us; 961-1954, 968-7467; fax 968-7612.
•Thirteenth Ward Alderman: Linda McNeely, 2419 W. State St. 61102; Linda.McNeely@ci.rockford.il.us; 987-9978, 987-0303.
•Fourteenth Ward Alderman: Daniel P. Conness, 5605 Newburg Road 61108; Daniel.Conness@ci.rockford.il.us; 397-2236, 873-0437; fax 873-9705.

(Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page

A radio interview about so-called home rule with WNTA's Ken DeCoster.

ROCKFORD --A fan of WNTA radio journalist Ken DeCoster has posted a recent DeCoster interview with the creator of www.fixhomerule.com. To listen, click on http://winnco.exactpages.com/winnco.htm and select "Fix Home Rule before using it again."

Back to top of page • Directory Page

Government 101

There's a fundamental principle that explains why so many otherwise intelligent people fail to think in depth on complex problems. They settle for the first answer that comes to mind, an answer which is obvious, easy, and wrong — because they ask the wrong question. The principle is, "An intelligent person knows when the wrong answer has been given to a question. A creative person knows when the wrong question is being asked."

Answering Bogus Questions

Advocates of the Illinois version of so-called home rule muddy the issue for themselves and others when they try to put challengers on the defensive with bogus questions. Here are some examples:

"Don't you believe in representative government?"

Of course we believe in representative government. We also believe in free speech, but that doesn't mean we think it's okay for someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In other words, there are limits. And the problem with the Illinois version of so-called home rule is that it prohibits creation of city charters or local constitutions in which citizens could specify and limit the powers of local government. The real question citizens must ask themselves is, "How much power do we want our representatives to have?"

"Don't you trust your local elected officials?"

Of course we trust our local elected officials or we wouldn't have elected them in the first place — except in those cases when we have to choose between an undesirable Tweedledum and an undesirable Tweedledee. Again, the real question citizens must ask themselves is, "How much power do we want to entrust to our local elected officials?"

Legitimate Questions For Creative Thinkers

There is a basic, common sense approach that can help citizens cut through all the home rule hoopla and balderdash. Citizens should be asking themselves these fundamental questions:

1. "Are you qualified to tell the city council how much of your money you want them to spend and how you want them to spend it?"
2. "Are you qualified to tell the city council how much control over your property you want them to have?"
3. "Are you qualified to tell the city council how much control over your liberty and livelihood you want them to have?"

If you answered yes to those questions, you are qualified to rule your own home free of any encroachment under the guise of Illinois' so-called home rule. (Copyright 2005 by John Gile, Citizen-Journalist, Rockford, Illinois. All rights reserved. Permission Requests: 815/968-6601.)

Back to top of page • Directory Page