Mayor Brandon Johnson didn't conduct formal national search for CTA head despite claiming otherwise, records show
The CTA has been without a permanent leader since embattled former president Dorval Carter stepped down earlier this year under pressure from lawmakers and transit activists who had long called for his removal. Last month, Johnson told local news site Block Club Chicago that his office had undertaken a national search for a new CTA head, something transit advocates had pushed for in the wake of Carter's resignation.
'We were always in the process of finding someone,' Johnson told Block Club at the time. 'It looked like any other national search.' Johnson told Block Club the search had already been completed.
But Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Tribune failed to reveal records that demonstrated the city has undertaken a thorough or formalized search of any kind.
The Tribune submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for records related to the search to three city departments: the mayor's office, the law department and the department of procurement services.
All three departments told the Tribune they possessed no records of any contracts the city held with search firms involved in vetting candidates, nor invoices from such search firms, resumes of candidates who had been in the running for the job or reports on the search process.
In a statement, Cassio Mendoza, a spokesperson for the mayor, said the administration had 'looked at' candidates who are current leaders of mass transit agencies.
'To maintain the integrity of the process and out of respect for their privacy, we are declining to share the names of specific candidates,' Mendoza said.
'The Johnson administration continues to believe in the importance of public transit for our city and our region,' he said. 'We will continue to work to find the most qualified and capable leader for this critical position.'
The mayor's office said it reached out to three leaders of agencies across the country but none were interested in doing a formal interview for the position. The administration said substandard CEO pay, uncertainty surrounding transit funding in Springfield and what it described as 'hostile' media treatment were barriers to attracting further interest in the position.
The Tribune submitted FOIA requests following a similar request made by transit advocate and environmental policy analyst Nik Hunder.
'It took me under 5 minutes to submit the FOIA request for these records and to unintentionally prove that the Mayor and his staff did not do as they said,' Hunder said.
Johnson's claim that his office had undertaken a national search for a new leader came as he faced scrutiny over rumors he planned to appoint his chief operating officer, John Roberson, to lead the agency.
Roberson has since taken a job at the Obama Foundation, putting an end to speculation that he would be appointed to lead the CTA.
Before Roberson's new job became public last week, his rumored appointment was criticized heavily by transit activists, who called for a thorough, nationwide search for a new CTA head whom they hoped would have experience leading a mass transit agency.
At the CTA's board meeting last month, three of the agency's seven board members had said they too supported a more thorough search, indicating Johnson would have faced opposition in getting Roberson confirmed had he nominated him for the job.
At the same meeting, 17th Ward Ald. David Moore, for whom Roberson had worked as a chief of staff, spoke in support of Roberson, warning CTA board members to 'work with the mayor who put you here' and 'don't be a backbiting snake.'
Only two of the board's seven members were appointed by Johnson. The others were appointed either by former mayor Lori Lightfoot or Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Whomever is ultimately appointed to helm the CTA will be tasked with leading an agency that is facing the possibility of making drastic service cuts next year because state lawmakers adjourned their spring legislative session without passing funding to avert a looming $771 million transit fiscal cliff.
There is still time for the legislators to allocate more funding for transit before the end of the year, but should they fail to, the CTA could be forced to cut more than half its bus routes and eliminate service on whole branches of 'L' lines.
The agency is currently led by an acting president, Nora Leerhsen, who was Carter's chief of staff before he resigned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Wikipedia May Have To Impose Identity Verification On Readers
The Wikimedia Foundation has lost its legal battle in the U.K to avoid having to verify the identity of its readers. At issue were the provisions of the Online Safety Act, which imposes new rules on the content of online platforms, to be managed by regulator Ofcom. Certain organizations are to be rated as Category 1, assessed on criteria such as the ability to forward or share content and number of users. And these are subject to greater requirements, including user verification, swift removal of harmful content and age verification. Most of the Category 1 platforms are those you might expect—Facebook, X and YouTube, for example. But Wikipedia is concerned that the criteria to be used could put it into the same category. This would, it said, threaten online safety by requiring the foundation to interfere with users' editing decisions and possibly even verify their age. It could allow potentially malicious, users to block unverified users from fixing or removing any content they post—meaning more vandalism, disinformation or abuse. It could also expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes, the Foundation argued. The foundation's only alternative would be to reduce the site's number of monthly users to take it out of Category 1 scope. Now, though, the High Court of Justice has dismissed a legal challenge to the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations from the Wikimedia Foundation and an anonymous editor known as BLN. Mr Justice Johnson said there might be ways to work within the law 'without causing undue damage to Wikipedia's operations' - and the Wikimedia Foundation is making the best of a bad job. "While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court's ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented," said Phil Bradley-Schmieg, lead counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. 'The judge recognized the "significant value" of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorizations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors." Meanwhile, the court stressed that the ruling doesn't give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to do anything to significantly impede Wikipedia's operations, and suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules. Ofcom's expected to make its first decisions on categorization this summer. The Online Safety Act has come in for a barrage of criticism: the issue of categorization comes alongside broader concerns about privacy and safety. "It is important to stress that this was not a challenge to the Online Safety Act, but instead to the regulations on categorization," commented Mark Jones, dispute resolution partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach. "Further, the door is very much open for further legal challenge by Wikipedia, if Ofcom makes Wikipedia a category 1 service."
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is hypocritical in criticizing US Rep. Delia Ramirez
The Tribune Editorial Board sees no contradiction or hypocrisy, apparently, in its statement about words that matter. Its members decided to criticize U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez, who represents Illinois' 3rd District, for her comment that she felt a strong affiliation with her family's native Guatemala by commenting, 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American' ('Words matter when you're elected to represent America, congresswoman Ramirez,' Aug. 6). The editorial board writes: 'But Americans expect their leaders to confirm their belief in and allegiance to this country.' In these challenging and frustratingly difficult times, I often have to search to find pride in my own American birthright. Our authoritarian president continues his daily attacks on our democracy and has made astounding progress in deconstructing our government with the active assistance of Congress and the Supreme Court. Are there Tribune editorials about Donald Trump's authoritarianism that decry his words? Should I find myself in a discussion with any French, Canadian, British or other person born outside the U.S. about America's values, I would struggle to find the words to support our domestic agenda and the government's poor treatment of other nations with the administration's threats and bullying. What is the importance of words if editorial board members make their living through the use of words but don't see the overriding importance to speak out about the downfall of our democratic institutions? Does the Tribune Editorial Board honestly believe that words matter or is the editorial on Ramirez just clickbait?I am profoundly disappointed with the editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez's speech to the Panamerican Congress. A responsible editorial staff would have published the original Spanish transcript as well as her English remarks and given its audience a fuller context. Instead, the editorial board jumped on the right-wing narrative clearly designed to outrage people. There are competing translations that support the interpretation that she meant to say she identified as American first. Has the editorial board even bothered to consult with Spanish speakers? With so many Spanish speakers in Chicagoland, it is incredible that the editorial board could botch a simple assignment. How is this contributing to the civil discourse that is severely stressed under this current regime?The editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez takes out of context a statement in which Ramirez declares her pride in her ethnicity, twisting it to sound like she is unpatriotic. Does this editorial writer know of anyone of Irish or Mexican or Indian descent who is proud of their ethnic origin? I wonder if the Tribune writer spoke to Ramirez to ascertain what she said or look at her record as a U.S. representative. Her record is as patriotic as any and more courageous than most. She speaks truth to power, risking her political career.I can say that I'm a proud Italian before I'm an American since my father emigrated from Italy and I was born in America, but I would blemish the pride he exhibited as a U.S. citizen who assimilated in his adopted country. He had no formal education and always followed the direction offered by the local Democratic precinct captain who visited our home with instructions on pulling the lever at the polling machine to vote straight Democrat. Recently, Democratic U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois made a controversial comment in saying 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American.' She was born in Chicago to immigrant parents and became a birthright citizen. I'm not attacking Ramirez, but her choice of words in the public domain casts doubt on her loyalty as a federal official taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Will she represent all Illinoisans?For the millionth time, the issue is not immigrants. The issue is unbridled immigration in which we don't know who is coming in. And then on top of that, our government now feels responsible to take care of these migrants when our federal, state and local governments are deeply in debt. , 'out of many, one,' is one our nation's mottos. Immigrants of the past assimilated to our American culture to become full Americans. Now we are ashamed of America and its culture, and we encourage our immigrants to be diverse. Not all assimilate. And that is a weakness. Our country is no longer united. There are very few things that we are united on. Congress is split down the middle. Our country is split down the middle. Our modern immigration policies encourage only more division, not on The Associated Press article 'Many Dems not happy with party' (in print Aug. 4), the Democratic Party is perceived as 'weak' and 'ineffective' at thwarting the growing power and influence of the current White House administration. Conversely, I would like to offer a different perspective and a blueprint for the Democratic Party. Protesting, holding rallies, conducting filibusters in the Senate or expressing unrelenting criticism of the current president is not a formula for sustained, future success. It further divides disillusioned Democratic voters while alienating moderates, independents and Republicans not enamored with the current administration. Instead, the Democratic Party needs to promote a political, economic and social platform that appeals to both its loyal core and disillusioned voters. The Democratic Party needs to focus on issues that unequivocally resonate with its base, such as a robust economy that prioritizes the middle class while providing aid and economic opportunities for the poor. Democrats need to reprioritize clean energy (solar and wind) while providing job training for coal miners and other workers whose jobs will eventually become obsolete. They need to focus on rebuilding and modernizing our nation's infrastructure and aggressively promote mass transportation to curtail traffic gridlock. They need to promote an objective and fair immigration policy that encourages immigrants to immigrate to America legally while humanely addressing immigrants in the country illegally. They need to promote a foreign policy that proactively reaches out to and works collaboratively with our allies in addressing unprovoked aggression. They need to embrace a trade policy based on laissez faire principles and eradicate punitive and erratically enacted tariffs. Most importantly, the Democratic Party needs to actively reach out to and listen to its constituents and disillusioned former supporters. The upcoming 2026 congressional elections are a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to sway the current political climate toward an empathetic, kinder atmosphere. The American people are seeking solace and inspiration from its leaders, not pettiness and skullduggery. The time to act is now. The world is was with great interest and gratitude that I read Heidi Stevens' column 'President not owed quiet subservience' (Aug. 3). At a time when too many universities, law firms and politicians are rolling over and capitulating to this president's threats, it is a relief to see articles, such as Stevens', appearing in our local newspaper. But perhaps we are already witnessing a shift in attitude as President Donald Trump's actions become more and more dictatorial and erratic. Economists and others are voicing concerns over his blustering, threatening use of tariffs as a weapon in international affairs. A few Republican members of Congress have spoken out about his threats and denials regarding the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report. Some law firms and universities are standing firm against intimidation. And, of course, there are the rallies and demonstrations where thousands of ordinary citizens are coming out in defense of democracy. I hope the 'quiet subservience' is actually coming to an end, because a Hungarian-style of government will not appeal to many Americans if it should come to pass.
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
California took center stage in ICE raids, but other states saw more immigration arrests
Ever since federal immigration raids ramped up across California, triggering fierce protests that prompted President Trump to deploy troops to Los Angeles, the state has emerged as the symbolic battleground of the administration's deportation campaign. But even as arrests soared, California was not the epicenter of Trump's anti-immigrant project. In the first five months of Trump's second term, California lagged behind the staunchly red states of Texas and Florida in the total arrests. According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data from the Deportation Data Project, Texas reported 26,341 arrests — nearly a quarter of all ICE arrests nationally — followed by 12,982 in Florida and 8,460 in California. Even in June, when masked federal immigration agents swept through L.A., jumping out of vehicles to snatch people from bus stops, car washes and parking lots, California saw 3,391 undocumented immigrants arrested — more than Florida, but still only about half as many as Texas. When factoring in population, California drops to 27th in the nation, with 217 arrests per million residents — about a quarter of Texas' 864 arrests per million and less than half of a whole slew of states including Florida, Arkansas, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and Nevada. The data, released after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the government, excludes arrests made after June 26 and lacks identifying state details in 5% of cases. Nevertheless, it provides the most detailed look yet of national ICE operations. Immigration experts say it is not surprising that California — home to the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the nation and the birthplace of the Chicano movement — lags behind Republican states in the total number of arrests or arrests as a percentage of the population. 'The numbers are secondary to the performative politics of the moment,' said Austin Kocher, a geographer and research assistant professor at Syracuse University who specializes in immigration enforcement. Part of the reason Republican-dominated states have higher arrest numbers — particularly when measured against population — is they have a longer history of working directly with ICE, and a stronger interest in collaboration. In red states from Texas to Mississippi, local law enforcement officers routinely cooperate with federal agents, either by taking on ICE duties through so-called 287(g) agreements or by identifying undocumented immigrants who are incarcerated and letting ICE into their jails and prisons. Indeed, data show that just 7% of ICE arrests made this year in California were made through the Criminal Alien Program, an initiative that requests that local law enforcement identify undocumented immigrants in federal, state and local prisons and jails. That's significantly lower than the 55% of arrests in Texas and 46% in Florida made through prisons or jails. And other conservative states with smaller populations relied on the program even more heavily: 75% of ICE arrests in Alabama and 71% in Indiana took place via prisons and jails. 'State cooperation has been an important buffer in ICE arrests and ICE operations in general for years,' said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a Sacramento-based senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. 'We've seen that states are not only willing to cooperate with ICE, but are proactively now establishing 287(g) agreements with their local law enforcement, are naturally going to cast a wider net of enforcement in the boundaries of that state.' While California considers only some criminal offenses, such as serious felonies, significant enough to share information with ICE; Texas and Florida are more likely to report offenses that may not be as severe, such as minor traffic infractions. Still, even if fewer people were arrested in California than other states, it also witnessed one of the most dramatic increases in arrests in the country. California ranked 30th in ICE arrests per million in February. By June, the state had climbed to 10th place. ICE arrested around 8,460 immigrants across California between Jan. 20 and June 26, a 212% increase compared with the five months before Trump took office. That contrasts with a 159% increase nationally for the same period. Much of ICE's activity in California was hyper-focused on Greater Los Angeles: About 60% of ICE arrests in the state took place in the seven counties in and around L.A. during Trump's first five months in office. The number of arrests in the Los Angeles area soared from 463 in January to 2,185 in June — a 372% spike, second only to New York's 432% increase. Even if California is not seeing the largest numbers of arrests, experts say, the dramatic increase in captures stands out from other places because of the lack of official cooperation and public hostility toward immigration agents. 'A smaller increase in a place that has very little cooperation is, in a way, more significant than seeing an increase in areas that have lots and lots of cooperation,' Kocher said. ICE agents, Kocher said, have to work much harder to arrest immigrants in places like L.A. or California that define themselves as 'sanctuary' jurisdictions and limit their cooperation with federal immigration agents. 'They really had to go out of their way,' he said. Trump administration officials have long argued that sanctuary jurisdictions give them no choice but to round up people on the streets. Not long after Trump won the 2024 election and the L.A. City Council voted unanimously to block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement, incoming border enforcement advisor Tom Homan threatened an onslaught. 'If I've got to send twice as many officers to L.A. because we're not getting any assistance, then that's what we're going to do,' Homan told Newsmax. With limited cooperation from California jails, ICE agents went out into communities, rounding up people they suspected of being undocumented on street corners and at factories and farms. That shift in tactics meant that immigrants with criminal convictions no longer made up the bulk of California ICE arrests. While about 66% of immigrants arrested in the first four months of the year had criminal convictions, that percentage fell to 30% in June. The sweeping nature of the arrests drew immediate criticism as racial profiling and spawned robust community condemnation. Some immigration experts and community activists cite the organized resistance in L.A. as another reason the numbers of ICE arrests were lower in California than in Texas and even lower than dozens of states by percentage of population. 'The reason is the resistance, organized resistance: the people who literally went to war with them in Paramount, in Compton, in Bell and Huntington Park,' said Ron Gochez, a member of Unión del Barrio Los Angeles, an independent political group that patrols neighborhoods to alert residents of immigration sweeps. 'They've been chased out in the different neighborhoods where we organize,' he said. 'We've been able to mobilize the community to surround the agents when they come to kidnap people.' In L.A., activists patrolled the streets from 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., seven days a week, Gochez said. They faced off with ICE agents in Home Depot parking lots and at warehouses and farms. 'We were doing everything that we could to try to keep up with the intensity of the military assault,' Gochez said. 'The resistance was strong. … We've been able, on numerous occasions, to successfully defend the communities and drive them out of our community.' The protests prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard and Marines in June, with the stated purpose of protecting federal buildings and personnel. But the administration's ability to ratchet up arrests hit a roadblock on July 11. That's when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking immigration agents in Southern and Central California from targeting people based on race, language, vocation or location without reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. That decision was upheld last week by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But on Thursday, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to lift the temporary ban on its patrols, arguing that it 'threatens to upend immigration officials' ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.' The order led to a significant drop in arrests across Los Angeles last month. But this week, federal agents carried out a series of raids at Home Depots from Westlake to Van Nuys. Trump administration officials have indicated that the July ruling and arrest slowdown do not signal a permanent change in tactics. 'Sanctuary cities are going to get exactly what they don't want: more agents in the communities and more work site enforcement,' Homan told reporters two weeks after the court blocked roving patrols. 'Why is that? Because they won't let one agent arrest one bad guy in the jail.' U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Gregory Bovino, who has been leading operations in California, posted a fast-moving video on X that spliced L.A. Mayor Karen Bass telling reporters that 'this experiment that was practiced on the city of Los Angeles failed' with video showing him grinning. Then, as a frenetic drum and bass mix kicked in, federal agents jump out of a van and chase people. 'When you're faced with opposition to law and order, what do you do?' Bovino wrote. 'Improvise, adapt, and overcome!' Clearly, the Trump administration is willing to expend significant resources to make California a political battleground and test case, Ruiz Soto said. The question is, at what economic and political cost? 'If they really wanted to scale up and ramp up their deportations,' Ruiz Soto said, 'they could go to other places, do it more more safely, more quickly and more efficiently.'
