7 Comments - Add Your Comment

Congress Hotel lawyers have spent the first two days of their trial questioning witnesses about the minutiae of how the City of Chicago approves various land use applications and trying to tease out the links between 2nd Ward Ald. Robert Fioretti's office and Unite Here Local 1, whose members have been striking the hotel since 2003.
The federal lawsuit alleges that Fioretti, whose ward includes the Congress, violated equal protection clauses guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by allegedly using his so-called "aldermanic prerogative" to block issuance of permits the hotel needs to establish a sidewalk cafe outside their structure at 520 S. Michigan. The hotel accuses Fioretti of meddling in a labor dispute that is covered by the National Labor Relations Act, a federal statute.
"If an alderman does not approve a permit, a development, whatever, the other aldermen respect that," Congress lawyer Peter Andjelkovich told Judge Ronald Guzman Wednesday in his opening statement.
"As a result of that conduct, our client has been damaged," he said, missing out on four seasons of sidewalk cafe business and $200,000 in lost revenue.
"The hotel's case hangs on the [notion] that a local alderman is the gatekeeper to get approval for a sidewalk cafe," city attorney Andrew Worseck responded in his opening remarks.
He said the hotel must prove aldermanic prerogative constitutes a "categorical veto power" over development decisions, a burden he predicted they wouldn't be able to meet.
Worseck said the hotel’s estimate of lost revenue was "hastily generated on the eve of the trial on the instruction of their attorney."
The trial will resume July 13.

Day one, July 8: The former alderman, the current alderman
Madeline Haithcock, who Fioretti defeated in the bitterly contest race for 2nd Ward alderman in 2007, was the first on the stand.
Andjelkovich quizzed Haithcock about why she changed her position from supporting a sidewalk cafe permit for the Congress — the hotel briefly operated such a cafe in August 2006 — to opposing it. "I wanted everything to cool down. I wanted them to get their house in order," she said of the hotel.
She said was getting e-mail complaining about the hotel and its conditions. But her memory wasn’t exactly clear either.
"This was something that was not on the top of my agenda. I had a lot of developments," she said in remarks that were stricken after Andjelkovich objected.
Haithcock delved into the ’07 campaign, stating her position on the Big Box Ordinance inspired unions to send workers to door knock the ward and pay for commercial and mailing criticizing her reign.
After she left the stand, Haithcock stated she didn’t have any reason to pull her support for the cafe permits as a balm to organized labor because they were already stacked against her.

In his testimony, Ariel Adkins, architect for the hotel, broached the topic a July 9, 20007 meeting attended by Adkins, Andjelkovich, hotel president Shlomo Nahmias, Fioretti and his aide Hanah Jubeh.
The session is a linchpin in the hotel's case; in their amended complaint, the hotel alleges Fioetti said he would not "issue or approve any permits for the Congress Hotel until the strike by Local 1 … is resolved" because he "“made this promise to the union before I was elected."
The city responded in the complaint by denying that aldermen issue permits and that the Congress had failed to even submitted an application for a 2007 sidewalk cafe.

Fioretti's testimony lasted nearly one hour and 45 minutes.
It was something of performance, with the alderman even eliciting laughter from the courtroom when he compared the hotel's lawsuit against him to a river that never stops flowing (Andjelkovich then objected and Guzman agreed to strike the statement from the record. “I don't think that’s particularly helpful,” the judge said.).
Throughout, Fioretti asked Andjelkovich to repeat questions; Andjelkovich grew annoyed, sharply addressing Fioretti once and repeatedly asking Judge Guzman to strike answers he considered 'non-responsive."
During the start of questions, Andjelkovich asked if Fioretti remembered his campaign.
"I do recall I race for office" was the response.
Andjelkovich went quickly to the July 9, '07 meeting, asking if Fioretti remembered saying he would not approve any permits for the Congress while the strike was ongoing. "No, I do not," Fioretti said.
Below is a paraphrase of Andjelkovich and Fioretti's exchange. For this section of the post, and other sections below, questions from Andjelkovich are in bold; Fioretti’s answers are left unbolded.

Andjelkovich went back to a Dec. 27, 2007 deposition to try to show contradictory answers in that document and Fioretti’s testimony, and to prove the strike was discussed at the July 9, 2007 meeting. Fioretti then admitted the topic might have come up.
Then this, from Andjelkovich: Why is a strike a factor in your approval of a sidewalk cafe permit?
There are many factors, Fioretti said — but he also said he doesn't have "sole authority" to issue a sidewalk cafe permits.
One such factor: the positions of the cafe and the strikers.
Fioretti testified during cross-examination by his lawyers he had heard hotel patrons verbal abusing the picketing hotel workers, even yelling “F-you” at them. “That’s not healthy for anybody,” he said.
"We should have good labor relations, good corporate citizens," the alderman said. "All of that is a factor in signing off on a sidewalk café."
Andjelkovich got into questions that dealt with aldermanic prerogative.

Andjelkovich asked why Fioretti approved - signed off on - nine other sidewalk cafe applications in May 2009 but not the Congress Hotel's.
"Because I don't think I’ve ever seen an application in '09," from the hotel, the alderman said.

Andjelkovich objected to that answer.
The hotel lawyer broached the June 25, 2009 Committee on Transportation and Public Way meeting, where 48 sidewalk cafe permits were recommended for approval by the full city council, and one, the Congress's application, was not.

During the cross examination, city lawyer Karen Dorff asked Fioretti about 11 other public right-of-way permissions for the hotel the alderman supported, for such things as canopies, awnings and the like.
After he stepped down from the stand, Fioretti said the July 2007 meeting lasted a mere 10 minutes - and that the hotel threatened to spend $1 million to defeat him in the next aldermanic campaign.

---

7 Comments - Add Your Comment

Copyright 2011, Chicago Journal
141 S. Oak Park Ave., Oak Park, IL 60302, 312/243-2696
To view any of the other websites owned and operated by Wednesday Journal, Inc., click on the appropriate link.
Chicago Parent magazine • Skyline • Wednesday Journal
Forest Park Review • Riverside Brookfield Landmark • Austin Weekly News
Developed by: Zero Degree Production | Powered by: Snowflake