Accountability
Forest Preserves
Public Safety
Cook County Budget
Forest Pres. Budget
Property Tax Appeal
Health & Hospitals
Policy Resolutions

For the first time in more than a decade, the Cook County Board president wielded his veto power Tuesday to kill two measures limiting pay of top officials and requiring an accounting of vacant positions.

And while that produced considerable debate about the two issues, it sparked a greater debate about the veto power held by the board president.

While most bodies require a two-thirds majority to override a chairman's veto, the Cook County Board requires a four-fifths majority -- or 14 of its 17 members -- to override a veto.

"But because the president is also a commissioner, that's really seven-eights," Commissioner Mike Quigley said. "That's the ability of a president to almost completely control what a legislative body does."

Killed were budgetary amendments that would have:

*Prevented county employees making more than $65,000 from getting both a cost-of-living and step-increase in pay in one year.

*Required county department heads to explain, every six months, the reason for each vacancy among their budgeted positions.

Since Stroger needed only four votes to support his veto, it wasn't a surprise when he got both.

"But it's sad that a majority of the board voted in favor of these amendments," Commissioner Larry Suffredin said. "But they won't be implemented."

Stroger didn't argue much about the power given to the president, but indicated the power has been there since the 1800s and recalled the 1980s "when [former president] George Dunne was here and we vetoed everything."

Speaking of "dissidents" who are giving him his greatest challenge in 10 years as president, Stroger said: "You ought to work with me to make things operate. Because I won't be intimidated by anyone."

Commissioner Deborah Sims chastised those same members to "stop playing games. It's a power struggle where everybody's trying to position themselves for power four years from now."

Stroger didn't rule out revisiting that idea for the 2005 budget, but said the county must first define "executive employees" and not just dictate such action by salary.