Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, says he’s entitled to keep his taxpayer-funded security detail because a judge said so…in 1986.
Yes, 1986 — four mayors and 25 years ago. Then-Mayor Harold Washington’s administration wanted to reduce Burke’s entourage from four bodyguards to two. Circuit Judge Joseph Wosik blocked that plan, saying Burke, who was Washington’s nemesis on the City Council, would be stifled if he didn’t have adequate police protection.
The city’s lawyers had argued that the cops were needed elsewhere — sound familiar? — and the threats against Burke that peaked during the Council Wars had receded from 29 in 1984 to two in 1986.
Mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel took aim at Burke’s detail during a candidate debate. “The City Council has to share in the sacrifice because the residents will be sharing in the sacrifice, which means if Ed Burke has six police officers, that just can’t continue,” Emanuel said in February.
The remark resounded with many voters, and we don’t think they’re going to swallow the argument that their new mayor can’t follow through because of a 25-year-old court ruling. Between the shootings on the South Side and the recreational muggings on the Near North, Ed Burke isn’t the only person feeling vulnerable these days. Why are those cops protecting him and not us?
Emanuel won’t be able to square that expense as he goes about the business of balancing the budget. Union workers will be asked to take pay cuts or make other concessions, and residents will have to live with reduced services. Shared sacrifice, remember?
Emanuel has ordered a review of all city officials’ security details to determine if they’re really necessary. This much we know already: Of 50 aldermen, Burke is the only one with a security detail, and the rest of them seem to get through their days unscathed.
But police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, who’s been reassigning desk officers to put more cops on the street, says he can’t take away Burke’s bodyguards because of that 1986 ruling. And Burke won’t give up without a fight.
“A court order is a court order, and in order to change it, there would have to be a hearing,” Burke said Thursday.
Bad form, Alderman. Yes, we know chairmen of the Finance Committee had protection before you got the job. Yes, we know about the legal order. But you’re clinging to tradition and an ancient order.
Your constituents need those cops more than you do.
If Burke won’t relent, then let’s have a hearing. For nearly three decades, he has been chauffeured and guarded by city police officers, and it’s past time someone questioned whether those tax dollars are well spent. Let the alderman make the case that he needs a security detail now — not that he needed one 25 years ago.
