The Chicago Music Commission has posted a PDF of the most recent draft of the promoter’s ordinance that was tabled in committee last spring for additional revisions and input from the local music community. The CMC has also updated its FAQ on the ordinance.

Based on a quick pre-coffee glance this morning, it looks like the current draft expands the list of exemptions, creating more categories of people who are not required to obtain a license to promote events. In addition, the proposed amendment makes provisions for promoters who are under the age of 18 (the previous draft required promoters to be 21 or over). The licensing structure, which many local promoters said was cost-prohibitive, has not changed.

According to the FAQ posted by the CMC, promoters who do not profit from events and merely cover their expenses; promote events exclusively at fixed seating venues regardless of size (like theaters), or are employees of a PPA-licensed venue that  do in-house promotion are not required to obtain a license. (My first question on the latter exemption is the definition of "in-house." Does that apply to flyers within the venue? The venue’s Web site/MySpace page? Flyers from the venue put up by employees around town?)

I’ll have more reporting and analysis on the ordinance later.

While things are still in a holding pattern with respect to Chicago’s event promoter’s ordinance—more meetings, no City Council vote scheduled—a few noteworthy news items have cropped up:

The Chicago Music Commission posted two documents from the city about the ordinance; both attempt to set the record straight—from City Hall’s point of view—about what the ordinance does and does not say. The first is an FAQ titled "Get The Facts!" and reminded me a lot of those handouts I used to get in health class about the dangers of marijuana. The second is a PowerPoint presentation that goes into more detail about the goals of the ordinance, trumpeting the city’s commitment to safety and willingness to work with the live music community (despite said community’s objections to both previous proposed drafts). Both docs are in PDF form and can be downloaded here and here.

Read more »

Perhaps not the last day, but it’s the last day for you to easily add your voice to the chorus.

The Chicago Music Commission has been soliciting public comment on its website from those who participate, enjoy or otherwise care about the local live performance community. Today is the last day to take their survey, the results of which will be passed on to the City Council. (Read more about the CMC’s next steps in our Q&A with board member Chris Schneider, and catch up the rest of our coverage of this issue here.)

CMC board member Paul Natkin appeared on Outside the Loop radio today to discuss this issue. His segment starts at about 21:28.

One of the questions asked throughout our cover story package on Chicago’s protest history was "What would make you mad enough to protest?" No one we interviewed mentioned "the city’s continued assault on rock and dance music," but apparently we were talking to the wrong people, as the fight over the promoter’s ordinance proved that people still get angry enough to take action, if the issue gets personal enough. (All due respect to the brilliant political mind that is The Reader’s Ben Joravsky, but this ongoing struggle is more about the diversity of art and culture than it is about "a really good party.")

Since the ordinance was tabled last week, many have wondered what changes would be made to the ordinance before it was re-submitted to a vote by the City Council. Joravsky posted his take on its future and in a Q&A with Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz, Jim DeRogatis of the Sun-Times surmised that promoters working with PPA-licensed venues would probably be safe, while anyone holding events in VFWs, basements or taco joints (RIP Big Horse) would find themselves dealing with additional regulation. This week, in response to a Sun-Times editorial, Alderman Schulter sent a letter to the paper that said, in part, "My committee will continue to work on these issues and will not present this legislation to the full City Council until a consensus between all of the parties involved has been has been achieved."

The Chicago Music Commission is currently seeking public comment on this issue, in order to form that consensus. Rather than directionless rants against the powers-that-be, the CMC is hoping for more specific testimony, and the questions it asks in its submission form reflect that ("What differences exist between venues that mostly offer live music and more traditional bars?"; "Have you recently attended music events that you considered unsafe? Where was the event and why did you feel unsafe?").

For more on the CMC’s ongoing efforts to work with the city, I spoke with Chris Schneider, studio manager at Pressure Point Studios and CMC board member, about the group’s objections to the ordinance, the concerns he has over how it will affect "cutting-edge" music and non-profit businesses, and the CMC’s efforts to work closer with local venue owners.

The CMC is getting some public comment from folks that are involved with, or have an opinion on the ordinance. What other steps are you guys taking to work with the city on the ordinance?

We are working directly with Alderman Schulter to re-craft this. So this process that we have set up on our website is to actually get input from people who are directly involved [with live performances]. We’re planning on closing the process by Friday, and delivering all the stuff to the mayor’s office as well as all fifty alderman.

Part of what came out of the economic impact study that we commissioned, was that Chicago is what they called an omnivore’s paradise for having a wide variety of music available to the public. Now, most of that is in cutting-edge small venues, small theater–it isn’t [at] shows of 20,000 at the United Center. This is exactly what that ordinance, in the form that it is in now, would hurt.

Read more »

The proposed promoter’s ordinance will not come to a vote tomorrow.

According to the Chicago Music Commission:

Chairman Schulter (47th Ward) has decided not to report the event promoter ordinance out his City Council Licensing and Consumer Protection Committee.  In other words, it will not be on the City Council agenda tomorrow and there will not be a vote on the bill as previously scheduled. 

Chicago Music Commission is not sure when it will come out of Committee for a vote by the entire City Council, but we hope that Chairman Schulter will wait until he and the City have engaged the music community publicly and meaningfully so their concerns can be heard and hopefully incorporated into the eventual law. 

We are pleased that Chairman Schulter has responded to the music community’s concerns, and we look forward to working with him, members of the Committee, DBA staff and other music community stakeholders to come up with a workable version of the ordinance.  CMC is committed to working with the music community to responsibly engage the City in this important effort.

Also, Bradford Thacker of the the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs says the following:

Please spread the word the Promoters Ordinance has been pulled from City Council until further research. I guess a lot of musicians in clubs etc. responded quickly.

Here’s the statement from Alderman’s Schulter’s office:

This morning, I once again met with members of the local entertainment industry to further discuss their concerns regarding the recent Promoters Ordinance that passed the Committee on License and Consumer Protection. This ordinance was introduced by the Department of Business Affairs and Licensing at the request of Mayor Daley. As Chair of that Committee, it has been very important to me that we consider this ordinance fully and deliberately before taking it before the full City Council. In this capacity, I have held the ordinance for nearly a year to ensure that the concerns of Chicago’s music and entertainment industry are examined. Though the ordinance did pass my Committee last Wednesday, I feel that there are still unanswered questions and issues that should be considered. The ordinance will not be reported out during tomorrow’s City Council meeting and will not be voted on by the Council. My goal as Chairman of the Committee on License and Consumer Protection continues to provide the best possible legislation that serves to both support entrepreneurship and creativity while protecting Chicago residents and consumers.

And finally, some comments from 42nd ward alderman Brendan Reilly, whom I spoke with this afternoon after the ordinance was tabled:

Since you and I spoke…a flurry of e-mails started coming into the office here at City Hall and at my ward office. It became clear after I received the public input over the last 24 hours, that this is going to require some more work. And that the smaller operators could be harmed by the current draft. That’s certainly not the sponsor’s intent.

 

What was underscored in most of the messages that I received was concern that this would have a tremendous negative impact on the smaller promoters. And also there were concerns that the revised ordinance was not crafted with a lot of input from some of the smaller promoters that would be impacted and that people weren’t really sure how this would apply to them. And so certainly that was something that concerned me quite a bit.

It sounds to me that Chairman Schulter is going to hold some more meetings to invite additional input from the industry and try and fine-tune this ordinance so it isn’t having unintended negative consequences for good, honest promoters who behave professionally.

What I’ve been learning about the ordinance over the past 24 hours has given me pause. I’m glad to see this ordinance is going to be worked on some more. Hopefully, that will be an inclusive process that allows all portions of this industry a chance to weigh in and make suggestions on how to improve it.

By now, most people are aware of the biggest complaints about the Chicago promoter’s ordinance (PDF copy here): the expensive license fees, the need for $300,000 in liability insurance, the over-21 age requirement, etc. But the biggest problem with the ordinance is the way it’s written: in overly broad language, that’s subject to interpretation.

The interpretation of the ordinance (as Alderman Brendan Reilly told me in our interview yesterday) is left to the Department of Business Affairs and Licensing, during the five-week rulemaking process. This process often involves local stakeholders, but could also be conducted with even less public comment than has been offered so far, if the department so chose.

The city is trying to present this ordinance as a positive, an effort to rid the industry of so-called “bad apples.” But in both on and off the record conversations with the people who ought to know the ordinance best, it’s clear to me that many haven’t had a chance to fully understand its implications. As someone who’s done everything to understand this ordinance but sleep with it under my pillow, I think I’ve got as good a read on it as anyone. So here are a few of the contradictions and concerns about the ordinance that I haven’t seen reported so far:

Read more »

While city officials might have good intentions with its proposed promoter’s ordinance, they simply haven’t thought about the street-level, real-time effects of this ordinance. The ordinance might be designed to protect patrons in nightclubs from a worst case scenario, but would more likely be a kick in the stomach to those that make Chicago a vibrant cultural center, adding costly red tape.  And we’ve been hearing from many of them over the last two days (which you can view after the jump in this post).
 
The licensing and insurance fees might seem a reasonable cost to a start-up full time business, but most promoters don’t promote full time, and many don’t do it for the money. This isn’t like going into real estate. They do it for the love of music, the social scene and the opportunity to be creative curators, bringing artists, DJs, musicians, and performers together in our city. Creating this barrier to entry for the amateur and once-a-month promoter would have a detrimental effect on the city’s lively nightlife. In effect, it will leave nightlife and music promoting to those that are full-time businesspersons rather than those that are part-time creative entrepreneurs. Does that sound like fun?

Read more »

Prior to the City Council vote on the proposed promoter’s ordinance, supporters of the Chicago live performance community will gather at City Hall (121 N. LaSalle) at 9am. Organizers say they will either gather outside the building or on the 2nd floor, outside council chambers.

You can also watch the live City Council meeting online via the office of the City Clerk of Chicago’s website.

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.

Read more »

On Friday, I talked to 32nd ward alderman Scott Waguespack about the city’s promoter’s ordinance, which is up for a vote this Wednesday.  Waguespack - whose ward covers the Weed Street district and all its attendant nightlife - is in favor of the ordinance, which would require event promoters to carry $300,000 in insurance, be licensed, and submit to background checks, while paying significant licensing fees. Here’s an excerpt from our conversation:

TOC: I was curious about what you thought about the ordinance because I’m hearing a lot from the music and nightlife community, which is not too happy about it. And then the city spokesperson seems somewhat naive as far as what the natural reaction to this kind of ordinance is going to be. So I wanted to find out where you stood on it.

SW: Well obviously I’ve been getting a lot of phone calls too, mostly from venue and promoter type people. I’ve kind of just been trying to figure out what they’re against, but no one has really been able to say anything specific other than it’s going to cost a lot of money for them. Kind of the way we’ve been looking at it is if you go into any type of business, it costs money. They’re like "Well you’re going to put a lot of us out of business," but no one’s really said it costs X amount of dollars for me to start up this kind of business. Pretty much from numbers that I can tell and I’ve talked to city - the city attorney too that was kind of working on it - and Alderman Schulters’s office, I don’t know if you’ve kind of done the numbers too, but really for the insurance I think what we’re looking at is like $700 a year or something. 

TOC: I’m hearing like $5,000 a year from club promoters. Music 101 is telling me that club promoters are considered more of a high-risk group in this climate, so it’s more like $5,000 a year.

SW: OK. Wouldn’t they be making a lot more money too if they’re doing a huge club? Its kind of like being a realtor or developer I mean there is a certain…

TOC: What strikes me about this is, yes, this makes sense if you’re just looking at people who have already been in the business for awhile and already have it wired and probably could produce this amount of money in a week or two. But because it applies to everybody, it’s not a very healthy thing for people who want to put on events where local people deejay and local bands play. And that’s what Chicago is known for, in a way.

SW: How much would they actually have to pay though? Because my numbers are showing $700 a year for insurance. That’s what that’s the number I got from people calling around [who say] the standard $300,000 policy that a contractor has to pay for is like $700 a year, $1,000 a year. That’s probably less than car insurance.

Read more »