It was presented to us as requiring those who already have cameras to hold footage for a minimum number of days. It wasn’t presented as requiring every store front to get a camera, which is a step too far. I have removed my name from the ordinance as a result.
That’s good, but could you and your peers read what you vote on next time so you actually know what’s proposed vs. what you’re being sold? Thanks.
We didn’t vote on it.
Co-sponsoring is different than voting and if a colleague we have respect for makes the pitch as we are looking it, most often we will accept the colleague’s good faith.
Cosponsoring is more a "you should read it" situation than voting for an ordinance. A legislator requests another legislator cosponsor, the legislator receiving the request should say, sounds good, send it over to my staff to read it.
There's no rush on cosponsorship.
There can be at times.
Recommendation: if someone is trying to rush you on cosponsorship before your legislative team reads an ordinance, that should be a 🚩. You don't want to be linked to some shit sandwich like the parking meter deal.
Also, that’s why hearings and votes occur.
No one was trying to rush anyone.
Not how it occurs at city council, where legislation is often introduced day of council when colleagues seek co-sponsorships from each other.
A story from when I was dating [she who prefers I don't mention her name]: we went to a legislative forum in the north burbs and she asked Sen. Susan Garrett why she voted for a pro-nuclear power bill. Garrett's answer: the committee chair (also a Democrat) lied to her about what was in the bill.
It's hard to respect a process where people in the process invoke being lied to as a defense. Do I believe Ald. Vasquez was misinformed by his colleague? I do.
But, lying to colleagues to get an extra vote or cosponsorship makes the legislative process seem like the people "at the table" aren't taking the process seriously.
It also might make it seem like we have constituents and organizations, who will send emails the day after something is or isn’t signed on, as if there isn’t more time to deliberate. Also, co-sponsorship can mean, “I am generally in support” as it’s not a vote.
Dear Ald. Vasquez, I believe you are quite talented at multiple aspects of the job. And, you clearly know more than me on many aspects of legislating and politics. But...
1. If a legislator cosponsors an ordinance or bull, it implies (to me, and I suspect others) that the bill has been read and vetted by competent people aligned by the legislator's values.
I understand that this may have been misrepresented or that some other confusion may have occurred for it to acquire so many signatures, but I’m concerned that even a single official could read this and attach their name to it. It is naive at best, and downright fascistic at worst.