Today, I’m going to tell you what I saw from a civics classroom point of view.

From the beginning District 3 county board member Barb Wheeler has been ready to vote to ban video gambling in the unincorporated part of McHenry County.

She made that very clear in the License and Liquor Committee.

British Member of Parliament Edmund Burke took a position similar to Wheeler’s and several of her colleagues. He epitomizes the “trustee model” of representation. Some might refer to the role as a “statesman.”

Burke’s most famous quote of justification was to the electors of Bristol in 1774:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

My quick research indicates he lost the Bristol seat six years later.

Here’s how Wikipedia explains the different concepts of representation:

“The trustee model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. Constituents elect their representatives as ‘trustees’ (or ‘entrust’ them) for their constituency. These ‘trustees’ have sufficient autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and national interest, even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies. The model provides a solution to the problem uninformed constituents who lack the necessary knowledge on issues to take an educated position.“This model parallels the delegate model of representation, which is a model in which the representative is a tribune of the people.”

I have to admit on issues that I did not campaign on I tended toward the delegate model in my representation in the Illinois House of Representatives.

If the people of McHenry County wanted something, I would more likely than not be presenting that viewpoint in the General Assembly during my sixteen years there. I conducted mailed polls to gain a sense of the electorate in addition to putting out my listening post in public places.

On financial issues, I tended toward the trustee model, especially for those from the educational community hell bent on having me vote for a high income tax, most of the proceeds of which would end up in Chicago and Downstate. I cut my teeth doing cost-benefit analysis at the United States Budget Bureau right after grad school in public administration (probably called “policy analysis” now).

The debate on whether there should be an advisory referendum on gambling brought the various concepts of representation into focus like I have not seen them previously on the county board.

Part 3 tomorrow.

He has had Franks on his show numerous times, probably to the dismay of McHenry County Republicans.

He has now published Franks’ House floor speech, as I did here, describing it as “the most elegant case against the governor” and comparing the speech to Edmund Burke’s 1765 writings “against free-wheeling and unrestrained royal power.”

You can read the original at his blog in a June 15th piece. The introductory comments follow:

State Representative Jack Franks (D-McHenry), chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, Tuesday issued a statement that constitutes probably the most eloquent case against this governor.

It cannot be improved upon by leaders of either party. It has all the singularity of Edmund Burke’s positions wherein in 1765 he argued eloquently against free-wheeling and unrestrained royal power and his support of principled opposition to prevent abuses by the monarch.

The fact that Franks is a young Democratic member and has often taken issue with the governor of his own party underscores his independence and courage.

The speech is my estimation is the most eloquent and comprehensive critique of this governor that has been issued by either party. It should be recognized among the great documents of Illinois history, delivered as it is by a leader of the governor’s own party.

Yes, I prefer more and have added more paragraphs. Roeser had all of the above in one.

He has had Franks on his show numerous times, probably to the dismay of McHenry County Republicans.

He has now published Franks’ House floor speech, as I did here, describing it as “the most elegant case against the governor” and comparing the speech to Edmund Burke’s 1765 writings “against free-wheeling and unrestrained royal power.”

You can read the original at his blog in a June 15th piece. The introductory comments follow:

State Representative Jack Franks (D-McHenry), chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, Tuesday issued a statement that constitutes probably the most eloquent case against this governor.

It cannot be improved upon by leaders of either party. It has all the singularity of Edmund Burke’s positions wherein in 1765 he argued eloquently against free-wheeling and unrestrained royal power and his support of principled opposition to prevent abuses by the monarch.

The fact that Franks is a young Democratic member and has often taken issue with the governor of his own party underscores his independence and courage.

The speech is my estimation is the most eloquent and comprehensive critique of this governor that has been issued by either party. It should be recognized among the great documents of Illinois history, delivered as it is by a leader of the governor’s own party.

Yes, I prefer more and have added more paragraphs. Roeser had all of the above in one.

It was a parking tax.

I think it was 15 cents, but it was large enough at the time to deter shoppers. At least that’s what enough Downtown business owners though, because they lobbied successfully for its repeal.

Now comes a politician who was round in 1973—Alderman Ed Burke—proposing to levy a tax on the privilege of driving in the Loop.

“It would reduce the number of automobiles coming into the Central Business District. And No. 2, it would provide a revenue stream for public transit,” Burke told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Burke said he was inspired by the fees London had imposed and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed $8 fee on cars and $21 on trucks.

This is not the first time the social engineer’s approach to “solving” the mass transit funding shortfall has attacked motor vehicles.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Tribune floated one of the original RTA proponents’ ideas—an RTA gas tax. It was abolished about the same time the parking tax disappeared.

Another long-time politician, Mayor Richard Daley reacted negatively, again, according to the Sun-Times:

Let’s not rush to that and scare everybody off. We’re trying to keep businesses here…”

“Are you gonna put I on all the alderman [who] drive down every day? Do you start with them?”

“A congestion fee would have a devastating impact on tourism,” Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper added.

The Sun-Times slso dded an income tax twist:

What about those who consider a congestion fee here a back-door city income tax on suburbanites who work in Chicago?

“One could argue that, since they’re using our streets and not paying the wheel tax that Chicago residents pay, that it would be a fair way of spreading around the responsibility for funding some of our expenses,” Burke said.

Of course, if the Chicago-dominated state government had the courage, they could enact a real Chicago income tax.

Another Ed Burke said, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_don-t_know_history_are_destined_to/346796.html
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

It was a parking tax.

I think it was 15 cents, but it was large enough at the time to deter shoppers. At least that’s what enough Downtown business owners though, because they lobbied successfully for its repeal.

Now comes a politician who was round in 1973—Alderman Ed Burke—proposing to levy a tax on the privilege of driving in the Loop.

“It would reduce the number of automobiles coming into the Central Business District. And No. 2, it would provide a revenue stream for public transit,” Burke told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Burke said he was inspired by the fees London had imposed and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed $8 fee on cars and $21 on trucks.

This is not the first time the social engineer’s approach to “solving” the mass transit funding shortfall has attacked motor vehicles.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Tribune floated one of the original RTA proponents’ ideas—an RTA gas tax. It was abolished about the same time the parking tax disappeared.

Another long-time politician, Mayor Richard Daley reacted negatively, again, according to the Sun-Times:

Let’s not rush to that and scare everybody off. We’re trying to keep businesses here…”

“Are you gonna put I on all the alderman [who] drive down every day? Do you start with them?”

“A congestion fee would have a devastating impact on tourism,” Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President Jerry Roper added.

The Sun-Times slso dded an income tax twist:

What about those who consider a congestion fee here a back-door city income tax on suburbanites who work in Chicago?

“One could argue that, since they’re using our streets and not paying the wheel tax that Chicago residents pay, that it would be a fair way of spreading around the responsibility for funding some of our expenses,” Burke said.

Of course, if the Chicago-dominated state government had the courage, they could enact a real Chicago income tax.

Another Ed Burke said, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/those_who_don-t_know_history_are_destined_to/346796.html
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”