The deal between Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, and city officials signed nearly a quarter of a century ago is curiously open-ended. The "Chicago Police Department, its officers and agents, shall, during such time as plaintiff Edward M. Burke continues to serve as chairman of the Finance Committee of the City Council of the city of Chicago, maintain and preserve the bodyguard protection previously afforded to Burke," it says. To underscore the point, the agreement goes on, "the Chicago Police Department shall not during such time as Burke continues to serve as chairman of the Finance Committee take steps to reduce, alter, impair or otherwise eliminate any of the bodyguard protection presently enjoyed by plaintiff." Burke cited this Nov. 14, 1986 document (read the full text below) earlier this week after the controversy over the size of his bodyguard detail reignited: "A court order is a court order," he told reporters, echoing the helpless response of new police Superintendent Garry McCarthy who said "I don't have the authority to change a court decision" when asked if he would act on Mayor Rahm Emanuel's campaign declaration that Burke's security arrangement "just can't continue." Actually, the document in question is neither a court order nor a decision. It's a stipulation — a formal agreement signed by then-Assistant Corporation Counsel Richard K. Means and Burke's attorney Joseph Tighe that settled a lawsuit brought by Burke when then-Mayor Harold Washington tried to cut Burke's bodyguard contingent to two police officers from four. For most elected officials, particularly in lesser offices, bodyguards are status symbols who double as drivers and gofers. But Burke argued that the reduction effort was petty, retaliatory and dangerous given the many threats he was receiving as a prominent member of the anti-Washington faction on the Council. And he may have had a point. Twenty-five years ago. But times change. The City Council has been a relatively — even dismayingly — harmonious body since Washington's death in 1987, and Burke has gone from the lightning rod to the totem pole. Meanwhile, the city has plunged into a budget hole in which deploying scarce police resources to feed the egos of politicians is less defensible than it's ever been. Why was there no provision in this agreement for re-evaluation at a later date? "I have no recollection of this at all," said Means, now an election attorney based in Oak Park. "My guess is that someone else did the negotiating and I was just told to go in and sign the papers." Means' boss at the time, Washington's corporation counsel, Judson Miner, was equally hazy on the details. "It's funny that I or someone at a higher level didn't sign the agreement," he said Thursday. "Things were very contentious with Burke." Nevertheless, Miner said, it would probably not be hard for the Emanuel administration to ask a judge to vacate the agreement, given how circumstances have changed. "The burden would then be on Burke to justify his continued need for all those bodyguards," Miner said.

I left email and voice messages with Burke's office asking for such a justification — he has publicly denied reports that he now has six officers assigned to him — but did not get a reply.Police officials are currently conducting a thorough review of all such security arrangements, said corporation counsel spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle. She said city lawyers are also studying a curious passage in the agreement that says it is "subject to further directive of the mayor of the city of Chicago, which may be inconsistent with this stipulation."Once these reviews are complete, Hoyle said, city lawyers may take steps to revoke the ancient agreement with Burke.I see no need to wait. Not for the city: It's unconscionable that a 1986 peace treaty should govern police deployment decisions in 2011, no matter how justified those decisions may be.And not for Burke: It's unconscionable that he continues to avail himself of this costly perk at a time when he's asking city employees to take furloughs and go without raises, and when citizens are desperate to see more officers on the street.Will reassigning a handful of cops make a measurable difference in the budget or public safety? Doubtful. But this is a powerfully symbolic issue, and it demands a new agreement between Burke and the mayor: From now on, we will use our precious resources wisely and for the good of the people.----

John Williams and I discussed the Burke bodyguard agreement on WGN AM 720 Thursday afternoon:

EZ and JW on BURKE



MP3 link

Here's the document upon which Ald. Ed Burke (14th) relies when asserting his ongoing right to a full contingent of bodyguards:

Nov. 14, 1986

In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department Chancery Division



Edward R. Vrdolyak, Alderman of the 10th Ward of the City of Chicago and Edward M. Burke, Alderman of the 14th Ward of the City of Chicago and Chicago City Council Finance Committee Chairman, Plaintiffs, and Robert J. McSweeney, Plaintiff-intervenor



vs.



Fred Rice Jr., Acting superintendent of the Chicago Police Department; Harold M. Washington, Mayor of the City of Chicago; and The City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Defendants



No. 83 CH 08158



STIPULATION



Plaintiff Edward M. Burke, by his attorney Joseph E. Tighe, and defendants City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department, by their attorney Richard K. Means, stipulate and agree that, subject to further directive of the mayor of the City of Chicago, which may be inconsistent with this stipulation, defendant Chicago Police Department, its officers and agents, shall, during such time as plaintiff Edward M. Burke continues to serve as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the City Council of the City of Chicago, maintain and preserve the bodyguard protection previously afforded to Burke and stipulate further that the Chicago Police Department shall not during such time as Burke continues to serve as Chairman of the Finance Committee take steps to reduce, alter, impair or otherwise eliminate any of the bodyguard protection presently enjoyed by plaintiff. Burke, including, but not limited to, limiting or impairing the full extent of the right enjoyed by Burke pursuant to interim injunction orders heretofore entered in this cause in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

The parties further stipulate and agree that the pending case 83 CH 8158 shall be dismissed without prejudice by agreement and that all injunction orders previously entered in that case shall cease to have force and effect, except inasmuch as said orders may serve to define the rights to bodyguard protection previously enjoyed by Burke.

The signatories to this stipulation represent that they have the authority to bind their clients by this agreement. This stipulation shall not be filed with the clerk of the court except upon and in connection with a claim of breach of the stipulation, and the signatories hereto and their respective clients will maintain duplicate originals of this stipulation.

How airtight is this? WTTW-Ch. 11 reporter Elizabeth Brackett put the question Wednesdy to Judson Miner, who was corporation counsel at the time (and Richard Means' boss):

Brackett: If this court order is still in effect, could the corporation counsel today ask that it be dismissed?



Miner: Oh, of course. Simple. Go in and point out to the court that--- I assume that the starting point would be it doesn’t apply, but, should a court conclude that it might apply absent some action by the city, we’re here to take the appropriate action to limit the security detail to what’s appropriate.

Our editorial Friday makes the same point:

Bad form, Alderman. ... 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.

Tribune photo 2011 by Jose M. Osorio