What does it take to get a permit in this town?

February 26, 2:22 PMChicago Progressive ExaminerSergio Barreto

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Chicago Progressive Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The record shows that the city was tenacious and occasionally mendacious in its efforts to suppress anti-war protest in the past six years (yes, it's been that long), and history is repeating itself in 2009.

The first time Senior Counsel Tom Doran argued for the city's effort to overturn a ruling (pdf) requiring that it grant a permit for the March 14 anti-war and immigrant rights march, he was practically humiliated; both the judge and the attorney for the activists poked fun at his "creative argument," and the city's motion was denied.

But someone — either at the Corporate Counsel department on the  fifth floor of Daley Plaza, or across the street in City Hall, or a couple of miles south at Chicago Police Department headquarters — really, seriously doesn't want this march to happen, at least not on the same date as the hallowed St. Patrick's Day Parade. So yesterday Doran had to trot back into court for an appeal hearing, and the best he could do was to elaborate on the argument he presented two weeks ago.

The discussion centered on Section 10-8-330(j) of the Chicago Municipal Code, which states that the city official in charge or reviewing permits "shall take action upon the application for a parade permit, and provide notice thereof, within five business days after the filing thereof," and that if the official fails to do so, "said application for a permit shall be deemed approved and the permit deemed granted in conformance with the application."      

Doran argued that all the city has to do to satisfy the statute is to "take action" on the application; providing notice is not required, which renders irrelevant the question of whether a Department of Transportation official failed to issue the permit denial “by facsimile transmission or telephonically and by mail” as required by the statute — although Doran also covered his bases by claiming that the official did provide proper notice.   

Arguing for the activists, attorney Jeff Frank said the standard put forth by Doran would give the city the power to ignore applications for events it didn't like. City officials could simply read an application (that's an action), file it in a cabinet (that's also an action), and not bother communicating their decision to the applicant.

Associate Judge Joseph M. Sconza didn't mock the city's argument this time, but he still didn't buy it. He found that the statute is clear; "take action" and "provide notice" are mentioned in the same sentence, and the city must take both steps. "This is to protect both sides — the city of Chicago and the applicant," he said. He also said he couldn't dispute the original ruling's finding that the city failed to provide adequate notice.

Sconza proceeded to uphold the ruling that called for a permit to be issued, but when Frank asked him to order that the city put the permit in writing, Doran argued that this was beyond the judge's power; the judge agreed. So the battle may not be over. City attorneys can still appeal in state court — or they can simply get real low-down and instruct police commanders not to let anyone march without a permit in hand. The mainstream media isn't paying a lick of attention, so unless you're involved in organizing the march or you're reading this, you won't know that the city has refused to cough up a permit despite being told that its own statutes require it to do so.

The most striking aspect of all of this is that the city didn't hesitate to throw someone who's on its payroll under the bus in order to protect whatever interest it may have in preventing the march. Doran stated that the original ruling by Administrative Law Officer Raymond J. Prosser was based on a "clearly erroneous standard." Sconza came to Prosser's defense, saying that his ruling was not erroneous and was "very nicely written."

Administrative law officers — outside attorneys who adjudicate on municipal ordinance violations — are not elected officials; they serve at the pleasure of the city. It will be interesting to see whether Prosser will pay a price for sticking to the letter of the law rather than giving the city the decision it wanted.