This afternoon, I spoke with 42nd ward Alderman Brendan Reilly, whose ward covers the Loop and River North - an area with many performance venues and clubs, from the House of Blues to Club 720 to Funky Buddha Lounge to Blues Chicago - about the proposed promoter’s ordinance. Reilly’s generally in favor of the ordinance, but in talking with him, it was clear that there are still vagaries written into this ordinance that would knock most smaller promoters out of the business, and might result in Chicago’s live performance scene being relegated only to the largest venues, booked by the biggest promoters.

TOC: You’ve got quite a few live music venues in your ward.
Brendan Reilly: We sure do.

TOC: At this point, what are your views on the ordinance, as written?
BR: I think the revised substitute ordinance certainly shows dramatic improvements. The original ordinance [from last year] required quite a bit of work. Many criticized it as overly broad and possibly creating insurmountable barriers for promoters to do their business. So I do think the new ordinance is substantially better than the original, and I think it addresses many of the concerns that the industry had.

TOC: There seems to be a lot of gray area in this ordinance, particularly with the way it’s enforced, and how licensing is determined with the size of venues.
BR: I think they’re going to allow the department [of business affairs and licensing] to handle that during rulemaking.
TOC: And that is the five month period after passage, before the enforcement of the ordinance?
BR: That’s correct. The department will basically adopt their own rules based on the guidance provided by the ordinance.
TOC: What kind of decision-making goes into that?
BE: Typically, especially with the department of business affairs and licensing, it’s the director [of the department] who will ultimately make that decision but it’s usually in consultation with the chairman of the [city council licensing] committee and their staff that handle these particular kinds of issues. They are limited by the ordinance in the rules they can write. It takes a couple of months.
TOC: Is it typical for stakeholders affected by the ordinance to have a say in that?
BR: You’d have to ask Chairman [Eugene] Schulter but my experience has been that he does try to work with stakeholders that are affected by these types of ordinances to ensure that there’s some level of comfort in the industry. I think a good case in point was last year when the industry raised all of these objections. He voluntarily tabled the proposal and worked with the industry to improve it. So I think based on that track record, you’ll probably see that here.

TOC: Are you aware that the Chicago Music Commission, the voice for the Chicago music industry, has come out against the ordinance as written?
BR: No, I was not aware.

TOC: They have posted something on their website that says they cannot support this ordinance, as written. I know they’ve been involved with the ordinance, and were at the [licensing committee] hearing last Wednesday.But part of their concern is the insufficient public comment. Is it typical for an ordinance to go through committee and then be brought up for a full vote a week later?
BR: [Laughs] That does happen in the City Council pretty regularly. I really can’t speak for Chairman Schulter, he’s really been administering the process. But no, this isn’t something being ramrodded through to escape public scrutiny. I think this just has to do with the committee’s schedule and being relatively close to the next council date. I think the chairman has tried to be as inclusive as possible and he’s been negotiating the ordinance. I’d be shocked if you were going to tell me every stakeholder loved it. [Laughs]
TOC: Sure, I don’t think you’ll ever find a law that pleases everybody.
BR: Exactly, that would be nirvana.
TOC: But in this particular case, you’ve got the organization that speaks for a majority of the live music community in the city saying that they object to this ordinance. A lot of the venues in your ward would be subject to this ordinance. Have you heard from a lot of them?
BR: Surprisingly no. Typically on a hot issue, I’ll receive e-mails or letters. It’s been awfully quiet on this particular issue.
TOC: Does that suggest to you that venue owners are unaware of this?
BR: I can’t speak to that, I’m not sure. It’s either lack of interest or lack of awareness. I don’t know why I haven’t receive more correspondence on the issue.

TOC: We’re starting to hear from people involved in the theater scene, film exhibitors and comedy performers as well who are concerned with how this would affect them. I’ll admit to not being a lawyer, but it seems to me if you’re a for-profit promoter of a non-profit event, you’re subject to this ordinance. Is that the case?
BR: My read is that employees of the not-for-profit are the ones who qualify for the exemption.
TOC: But if you’re not an employee of the non-profit, you wouldn’t qualify.
BR: That’s correct, based on my read.

TOC: Have you had problems with events that have gotten out of hand in your ward?
BR: We have. It’s been an issue in this ward long before I took office. Certainly, there are plenty of good operators - professionals - who are very mindful of the venue and the neighborhood surrounding the venue and do an excellent job. Unfortunately, there are bad apples in this industry as well who are ruining it for those folks with a good business model. I know that law enforcement is in favor of passing an ordinance that will help us better regulate these folks and license them so we can track the bad actors and get them out of the industry.
TOC: The “anti-rave” ordinance from 2000 made it illegal for a promoter or venue to put on an unlicensed event. How does this ordinance close an existing loophole and what is the loophole? Aren’t there existing laws on the books to prosecute?
BR: Well, I’m sure there are and I’m not familiar with the rave ordinance that you’re referencing. That predates me a bit. As far as I can tell, the true intent of the ordinance is to have a licensing structure in place so the city can track and monitor promoters. And if incidents occur where that promoter shows they’re not being responsible, that gives the city another tool to prevent these folks from having the privilege of promoting events. And so, I think that’s the aim of the ordinance. I’ll have to go through it and make sure that it satisfies that goal.
TOC: I think for most promoters – and when I’m thinking of promoters I’m not just thinking of people who put on large events, but also folks who work for a small magazine or blog who promote, sponsor and book events at PPA-licensed venues – those folks will now have to pay $500-2000 for a 2-year license, and then pay anywhere from $700 to $2000 a year to carry enough liability insurance. Those folks will not be able to put on shows anymore. It sounds like there are good intentions behind this ordinance, but the way it’s written, it’s so broad that I knocks out a broad swath of people who promote live music, theater and film events.
BR: I know that’s not the intent, and no ordinance is perfect. I do see some pretty marked improvement here [from last year].
TOC: And as much as those organizations are profit-making enterprises, a lot of folks do  these events in hopes that they just cover costs. 
BR: I see. I’m going to have to look into that a little more closely before this vote. Obviously, my intent is not to hurt the responsible folks, especially the smaller operators. When I was evaluating the ordinance, I was comparing it to what it used to be, which I thought was pretty heavy-handed, and I thought reducing the commercial general liability insurance and the fees was a good step in the right direction. But I’m going to have to do some more research in the next 48 hours.