2022 Cook County board president seeking re-election answers Tribune Editorial Board questionnaire – Chicago Tribune

To inform voters and to help the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board make endorsements, the board posed a series of questions to the candidates running for the Cook County Board of Commissioners. See their answers below. See how other candidates answered here.

[Editorial: Tribune announces endorsement in Democratic primary for Cook County board president]

[What’s an endorsement, and why does the Tribune Editorial Board do them?]

• Candidate name: Toni Preckwinkle
• Running for: Re-election as Cook County Board President
• Residence: Chicago
• Current occupation: Cook County Board President
• Previous political experience (elective and appointed positions): Cook County Board President since 2010; Alderman of Chicago’s 4th Ward for nineteen years. Chair of the Cook County Democratic Party since 2018 and 4th Ward Committeeperson since 1992.
• Education: Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees from the University of Chicago.
• Spouse’s occupation: N/A
• Sources of outside income: None

[A guide to the Illinois primary election, including the key dates, where to vote — and the highest-profile issues]

According to Cook County’s latest budget, the pension fund is now 64% funded. That’s good, but there’s still much room for improvement, especially when compared to national averages. What is your plan for getting the county on track toward 100% funding? Please be as specific as possible.

My administration has provided supplemental pension payments of almost $2 billion above the required contribution required by statute since 2016 and is on track to fully fund the Cook County Pension Fund by 2046. Cook County has established a practice of paying both the statutory requirement and an additional amount to meet the actuarial requirement to ensure we can pay retired employees the benefits they have earned. This year, we plan to make an additional $325 million pension payment, with $20 million to the pension fund’s reserves.

While 64% funded does not compare to national averages, I believe that we already have a plan in place, have made substantial progress during my tenure, and are in much better shape than other pension funds in the state of Illinois. We are aware that residents are not amenable to a tax increase at this time; without resorting to some type of tax increase to generate revenue towards the unfunded pension liability, we will continue to make these supplemental payments and resolve structural deficits through other means.

There’s growing support in many cities for taking a different approach toward law enforcement that entails spending more money on violence prevention efforts like street outreach, and on mental health services, as opposed to simply putting more cops on the streets. Cook County’s latest budget reflects this approach. Do you believe that’s the right approach? Please explain why or why not.

From the beginning of my administration in 2010, I committed to working with the other actors in the criminal justice system to create a more fair and equitable system and administration of justice. That commitment also included investing our corporate funds into community based violence prevention programs and services through a competitive bid process. To date, we have invested $50M in proven programs and practices like street outreach and cognitive behavioral therapy for individuals in proximity to violence.

In July 2020, the Board of Commissioners overwhelmingly supported the Justice for Black Lives Resolution in a 15-1 bipartisan vote. I was proud to support the resolution and this approach, but I want to be clear about what this resolution does and does not provide for.

The Justice for Black Lives resolution proposed several ways for Cook County to increase funding for programs and policies to support residents and address the root causes of violence. Research shows that by investing in policies to promote economic development, accessible healthcare, job creation and workforce development, and affordable housing, we can provide residents with better outcomes and in turn, reduce the rates of violence and increase community safety. This is particularly important for individuals in disinvested communities who may be at higher risk to become involved in the criminal justice system.

The resolution is not, and was never about, defunding law enforcement, cutting services, or laying off workers. The intention was simply to better envision how the County can provide more alternative responses to law enforcement and reduce violence through other strategies.

I’d also add that this resolution was borne from an extremely difficult and traumatic time in residents’ lives. Not only were we grappling with the ongoing pandemic, but the disparities for the Black community were on display more than any time in recent history and a nationwide dialogue began about police reform and reimagining law enforcement to better support communities. This resolution was a symbol that Cook County wanted to be a part of that solution.

Give us your thoughts on the county’s $42 million guaranteed income pilot program for suburban county residents. Tell us whether you feel its scope is sufficient or whether it needs to be expanded, or whether you feel the money should be spent elsewhere.

I look forward to implementing our guaranteed income pilot using $42 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding, making it the largest pilot program in the nation.

I believe the scope of our program is sufficient for the pilot and we will structure the pilot to sustainably transition to a permanent program in the years to come. I believe that direct cash assistance is the best and most efficient way to support residents, especially during this prolonged period of economic recession and uncertainty. The pilot will build on the success of Cook County’s cash assistance program we launched in Fall of 2020 through the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development’s Community Recovery Initiative.

The first round of cash assistance was allocated for $2 million, but after seeing the overwhelming need and positive impact of the program, we quadrupled our investment to about $11 million. Analysis of the program shows that we served about 14,000 households in suburban Cook County, 80% of the households were in communities of color. Feedback from residents in the program showed that the flexibility of this program was key to its success; the $600 payments allowed them to pay bills, put food on the table, pay rent, and other household needs like school supplies for their children.

Critics of guaranteed income programs typically reflect that governments have historically not trusted people in poverty to make decisions about how to spend their money. But our guaranteed income pilot will provide flexibility and allow people to easily access capital in order to make their own financial decisions and create better outcomes for their family and future generations.

How should the guaranteed income pilot program be funded once coronavirus stimulus money runs out?

In planning the pilot program, we have structured it to transition to a permanent program after the initial pilot period. As we will do with all of our American Rescue Plan Initiatives that were approved by our Board of Commissioners in February, we are developing key performance and impact metrics to determine which of our programs are most impactful and should be continued beyond the next 3-5 years when the federal relief funds will no longer be available. Based on the success and lessons learned from the implementation of our cash assistance program, we anticipate similar outcomes over time for the guaranteed income pilot.

Through our recently established Equity Fund in FY21, we committed to intentionally allocating corporate funds and any future surplus of cannabis and other revenue, to address long-standing structural and systemic inequities as we also provide significantly more investments that support our residents through ARPA funds. The Equity Fund currently has $50M to support policy recommendations that will help achieve our goals over the next few years. In the years beyond ARPA, we are strategically planning to also leverage the Equity Fund along with other corporate, philanthropic and grant funds, to sustain the Guaranteed Income Pilot and other ARPA initiatives proven to be effective and impactful.

In many of Cook County’s Southland communities, a moribund tax base and a dearth of jobs has contributed to a bleak economic outlook for those south suburbs. What should the county do to reverse the exodus of jobs, businesses and people from south suburban communities currently under severe economic strain?

The south suburbs of Cook County have great potential and capacity to become an economic hub of Illinois, but struggle from historic disinvestment. Since the beginning of my administration, we have seen that potential and invested in the South Suburbs in the areas of economic and workforce development, public health, violence prevention and infrastructure to name a few.

One way we have invested in the Southland is through the Southland Development Authority, which was created in 2019. The SDA is working to develop the Southland by identifying existing assets in the region to strategically invest in these assets and create projects and opportunities directly in the community.

Federal entitlement dollars received by Cook County based on a population formula including Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME and most recently CARES funds, have been leveraged to support Suburban Cook County with many of those resources being invested in the Southland communities who lack their own municipal resources and infrastructure.

We have also made the commitment to allocate at least 70% of our ARPA community recovery programs and services in Suburban Cook. The City of Chicago’s own allocation of ARPA funds to be leveraged solely within the City of Chicago.

Because of our intentional work around equity and the establishment of an equitable distribution model we deployed for our CARES funds, many of our ARPA community recovery programs and services will work to help address the economic strain felt by many of these southland communities including guaranteed Income, small business loans and support to help the south suburban tourism and manufacturing industries rebound.

In the Cook County ethics ordinance revamp passed late last year, the yearly amount that vendors and lobbyists can donate to Cook County elected officials and candidates in non-election years doubled from $750 to $1,500. Given that the goal was to strengthen the ethics ordinance, do you feel that doubling that donation amount was the right thing to do? Explain why or why not.

A number of suggested amendments from the Board of Ethics were received in 2020. We considered those amendments, held public hearings through the Legislative and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to garner public input, and met with the previous and current chairs of the Board of Ethics to inform a revised Ethics Ordinance.

Along with Commissioner Daley and Commissioner Suffredin, we introduced these amendments and considered them to be fair and consistent with State law. The amendments did include modifications to the vendor contribution cap in non-election years for County officials. This modification was moved forward to be consistent with caps in election years. The County’s campaign contribution limits remain far below the caps allowed on the State level. The Ethics amendments were supported by the Board of Commissioners, the Ethics Board and the Chair of the Ethics Board.

The comprehensive reforms implemented allow for a stronger and more consistent ordinance and I have and will continue to support reasonable and consistent caps on campaign contributions.

If you support Chief Judge Timothy Evans’ bail reform efforts, please explain why you do—and if you don’t, please explain why you oppose them.

I support Chief Judge Timothy Evans’ bail reform efforts, in coordination with my office and the County’s criminal justice stakeholders. Advancing criminal justice reform has been central to my administration and this means creating a fair and equitable system that increases access to justice for all. I support efforts to incarcerate fewer pretrial defendants in the Cook County Jail, as research shows that defendants who pose no danger to the public and are not a flight risk, can safely be released from custody pending trial.

We have continually defended our criminal justice work over the years despite many of the false narratives that have circulated about bail reform. An independent study released in October 2020 by Loyola University’s Center for Criminal Justice Research confirmed the findings of a 2019 operational study on felony bail reform by the Office of the Chief Judge. This report also found that Cook County’s 2017 bail reform order kept hundreds of people out of jail and did not contribute to an increase in crime. Additionally, this policy saved residents from having to post more than $31 million in bail, just during the six-month period of study.

While I am as concerned as anyone else about the increases in violent crime, nationally and locally, it is misguided to blame pretrial release policies when the data and research do not support the conclusion. I remain committed to working with the Cook County criminal justice stakeholders to further our efforts to create a fair, equitable system that balances public safety and individuals’ rights.

I will also continue to invest significant County, ARPA and other funding into community based violence prevention programs and services that work collectively to reduce violent crime, increase community safety and address the underlying root causes of crime and violence.

Give us the best example of when you displayed independence from your party or staked out an unpopular position.

In May 2020, I issued the first veto of my administration on a resolution that would have provided addresses of COVID-19 positive patients to first responders in Cook County Department of Public Health’s jurisdiction of suburban Cook County. This action was not one I took lightly, but was a decision in line with the guidance of State and County public health departments, as well as individuals’ rights and safety.

The resolution had only narrowly passed the Board of Commissioners, so I had many conversations with the Commissioners who voted both for and against the proposal to have a comprehensive view of the issues related to the resolution. I felt that our goal at that time should have been to support and listen to public health experts, as well as working with federal and state partners to utilize precautions in order to help protect our first responders.

Aside from the specifics of the resolution, this situation speaks to my leadership style and view that vetoes should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Even when issuing the veto, it was imperative to engage the Board of Commissioners for a full understanding of the issues at hand and how to move forward.

Sum up why you believe voters should nominate you and not your opponent(s).

I’m proud to have held this office since 2010 and believe that I have established a proven record for efficiency, transparency, and improved services in Cook County. My administration has upheld our legacy commitments to public health and public safety, increased our economic development footprint, and presented balanced budgets for every year of my tenure, as strong fiscal stewards of taxpayer dollars.

The last two years have been a test unlike any other, but I’m proud of how Cook County guided our 5.2 million residents through the COVID-19 pandemic and provided response and recovery resources every step of the way.

My administration has also improved coordination and collaboration with other units of government in Cook County. Our municipal engagement work was instrumental during the pandemic, when it was necessary to share quickly evolving information and provide resources to residents throughout our 130 municipalities.