Finance
Reevaluating Board Composition
1
By Dr. Robert Straw, CEO Zurich Campus, China Europe International Business School
In an era marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), the effectiveness of a corporate board depends not only on the technical depth of its members but also on the breadth of their strategic and leadership capabilities. This article argues for recalibrating board composition, particularly in global corporations. It contends that the trend of appointing domain-specific experts to the board—a model likened here to a “Noah’s Ark” of paired expertise—is increasingly ineffective. Instead, the most resilient and high-functioning boards are those led by generalist leaders: former chief executive officers (CEOs), senior executives and operational general managers with track records of strategic oversight and people leadership. I propose a hybrid model that favors generalist board composition, supplemented by specialist consultants as needed, thus maintaining the board’s strategic integrity while ensuring subject-matter rigor.
1. The “Noah’s Ark” problem in boardrooms
Across many global boardrooms today, a familiar pattern has taken hold—a structure that mirrors the Biblical Noah’s Ark. For every critical domain, boards are stacked two by two: two cybersecurity experts, two marketing authorities, two finance veterans, two talent gurus, et cetera. The intent is risk mitigation and representation, ensuring every discipline has a voice. Yet this Noah’s Ark strategy, while symbolically complete, is strategically flawed.
Rather than charting a bold course, these boards often resemble floating zoos of expertise, in which directors are isolated by often outdated specialties and are overly deferential to their functional peers. As each pair narrows its focus to its specific discipline, the board risks losing the cross-functional integration and strategic oversight essential to corporate governance. This leads to fragmented accountability, outdated expertise and authority bias—quite often to the advantage of and/or burden on the chairperson.
Roberta Sydney explicitly critiqued this model. “Generalists—rather than specialists—make for great board directors…to be better prepared to govern in times of uncertainty.” The problem is not that specialists lack value; it’s that the permanence of their board seats can create intellectual silos and stagnation.
The academic literature supports this observation. Yaron Nili and Roy Shapira noted in the Yale Journal on Regulation that appointing specialists may, in fact, reduce the diversity and quality of strategic debate. “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints,” they argued, “particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”
The alternative is to rethink the ark: not as a static collection of experts, but as a vessel guided by navigators—generalist leaders who can synthesize, question and direct. These are individuals who have operated companies, not just departments; who have balanced growth and risk, not just analyzed it; who bring perspective, not just credentials.
In this article, I argue that the future of corporate governance lies not in Noah’s Ark duplication of expertise, but in empowering generalist captains who can integrate functional insights and steer with strategic clarity. Functional experts should remain part of the picture—as consultants, advisory panelists or rotating guest participants—but not permanent fixtures at the helm.
2. The limitations of specialist-dominated boards
2.1 Obsolescence of expertise
Expertise, particularly in rapidly evolving fields such as cybersecurity or digital marketing, has a half-life. A director whose reputation is grounded in achievements from a decade ago may no longer be equipped to handle contemporary challenges in that domain. As Sydney remarked, “Expertise earned in the past can easily become obsolete when not continually tested in real-time environments.”
Nili and Shapira found that directors labeled as specialists often experienced a depreciation of influence over time, especially when their technical knowledge failed to align with emerging trends or technologies. In effect, these directors may inadvertently become liabilities rather than assets.
2.2 Authority bias and groupthink
When boards rely heavily on domain specialists, they risk developing a cognitive dependency on those individuals, leading to authority bias. This creates a boardroom dynamic in which certain directors dominate conversations in their areas of specialized expertise, while other members hesitate to challenge or question their contributions.
As Nili and Shapira noted, “Authority bias leads to suppression of diverse viewpoints, particularly when the specialist has been recruited under the premise of exclusivity of knowledge.”
This contributes to groupthink, which may hinder the board’s ability to critically evaluate, discuss and challenge strategic decisions from a multi-dimensional perspective.
2.3 Fragmented oversight and responsibility silos
A board composed of function-specific experts risks devolving into a confederation of silos. Each director may focus narrowly on his or her area, resulting in an aggregation of perspectives rather than an integrated strategic vision. This is antithetical to the board’s purpose, which is to provide overarching governance and align on long-term value creation.
Moreover, these silos can lead to poor communication and accountability. For example, cybersecurity may be deemed “handled” because a former chief information security officer (CISO) is on the board, but this individual may not be aligned with current best practices or may fail to integrate the issue into a broader risk framework.
2.4 Firms exemplifying the Noah’s Ark-like board composition
According to my framework evaluation, the following companies have (had) boards predominantly composed of domain-specific experts, which may lead to fragmented oversight and a lack of cohesive strategic direction:
- Credit Suisse Group AG
- Prior to its acquisition by UBS in 2023, Credit Suisse’s board was heavily populated with specialists in risk management, compliance and technology.
- The lack of generalist leadership contributed to challenges in strategic oversight and cohesive decision-making. We all know what happened here.
- Synopsys Inc.
- The board includes individuals with deep expertise in software, semiconductors and related technical fields.
- While this brings valuable insights, in my view, the board lacks a sufficient number of generalist leaders with broad operational experience.
- Ansys Inc.
- Ansys’s board comprises individuals with substantial experience in the engineering and technology sectors.
- The composition leans heavily towards technical expertise, potentially limiting broader strategic perspectives.
- Dell Technologies
- The board is composed of members with extensive backgrounds in technology and engineering.
- This concentration of technical expertise may result in a narrower focus on operational and strategic issues.
- NVIDIA Corporation
- NVIDIA’s board includes several members with strong technical backgrounds in graphics processing and computing.
- While beneficial for product development, this may limit diverse strategic viewpoints at the board level.
3. The strategic value of generalist leadership
3.1 Systems thinking and integration
General managers bring a systems-oriented perspective, honed by years of operational leadership, cross-functional collaboration and enterprise accountability. Unlike specialists, they are not confined by functional dogma and are more adept at evaluating trade-offs, interdependencies and strategic timing.
Generalists also tend to excel in scenario planning, a crucial skill in the VUCA landscape. Their exposures to multiple business cycles, regulatory environments and stakeholder contexts equip them to contextualize issues that transcend functional boundaries.
3.2 Leadership and people-management acumen
Boards are not merely technical advisory bodies; they are fiduciary stewards responsible for setting the tone, culture and long-term direction. As such, directors need more than technical knowledge—they require leadership. Generalists who have led large teams and managed significant P&Ls (profits and losses) bring firsthand knowledge of how strategic decisions impact people, performance and profit.
As Roberta Sydney put it, “Great board members are not those with the narrowest expertise but those with the broadest capacity to lead, challenge, and support from a holistic standpoint.”
3.3 Enhanced strategic dialogue and decision-making
Strategic oversight requires directors to ask the right questions, not just provide the right answers. Generalists, with their cross-functional experience, are often better positioned to identify gaps in strategy and explore unintended consequences. They can bridge specialists’ knowledge without becoming trapped in it.
The National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) has emphasized that effective boards engage in strategic conversations that go beyond operational details. This necessitates board members who can traverse diverse domains and synthesize insights.
3.4 Seven global firms with best-in-class generalist boards
Here are seven “best-in-class” global firms with board compositions that reflect their strong commitments to generalist leadership, strategic breadth and cross-functional oversight. These boards embody the antithesis of the Noah’s Ark model by prioritizing operational experience, enterprise leadership and integrative thinking over siloed technical specialization.
- Best Buy Co., Inc.
- Why it stands out: Includes seasoned CEOs (Corie Barry, Hubert Joly) and chief financial officers (CFOs) (Karen McLoughlin), blending operational, digital and financial acumen.
- Governance strength: The board is involved in long-range planning and organizational culture, not just functional compliance.
- Nestlé S.A.
- Why it stands out: Features former CEOs (Paul Bulcke), global executives and experts in nutrition, marketing and ESG (environmental, social and governance).
- Governance strength: Diversity of leadership backgrounds contributes to long-term strategic alignment across global markets. P.S.: There’s not a single Swiss on the board, although it is Swiss-based.
- Microsoft Corporation
- Why it stands out: Strong mix of tech innovators (Satya Nadella, Reid Hoffman), policy leaders (Penny Pritzker) and investors (Hugh Johnston).
- Governance strength: The board’s composition enables foresight in innovation and adaptability to policy and market shifts.
- Unilever PLC
- Why it stands out: Board members have held leadership positions across consumer goods, sustainability and emerging markets.
- Governance strength: Emphasizes a purpose-driven strategy with operational execution.
- Procter & Gamble Co.
- Why it stands out: Broad operational experience across marketing, international business and corporate strategy.
- Governance strength: The board is known for supporting long-term innovation while managing scale and complexity globally.
- ABB Ltd.
- Why it stands out: Chaired by Peter Voser (former Shell CEO) with board members including industrial CEOs, CFOs and operational leaders (e.g., Atlas Copco, Caterpillar Inc.).
- Governance strength: Industrial and engineering complexity is matched by real-world general-management experience across sectors and geographies.
- UBS Group AG
- Why it stands out: Although historically more specialized, the current board reflects a shift towards generalist leadership: banking CEOs (Gail Kelly), macroeconomists (William Dudley), policy advisors and digital leaders. This board has learned from the Credit Suisse debacle, ensuring that it moves towards a more generalist approach.
- Governance strength: Increasing emphasis on governance, geopolitical awareness and technology strategy with global integration.
4. The hybrid model: Generalists with consultative experts
A growing number of governance experts advocate a hybrid model in which boards are composed primarily of generalist leaders while subject-matter experts are brought in on an ad hoc or consultative basis. This model preserves the board’s strategic bandwidth while still incorporating the latest expertise in fast-moving domains.
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance wrote, “Adding a director with a narrow range of expertise may reduce the quality of board discussions on other, more prevalent topics on the agenda. A better approach is to access specialist knowledge via external advisors or advisory boards.”
This approach is not merely theoretical. Many high-performing boards have established external advisory panels or rotate in technical experts for specific strategic reviews or quarterly deep dives. These consultants provide real-time insights without permanently altering the board’s structure or diluting its strategic cohesion.
5. Global governance implications
Global organizations require directors who understand international markets, regulatory systems and geopolitical dynamics. Generalists who have managed operations in multiple regions bring nuanced perspectives that specialists often lack. Their broader worldview is essential in aligning global strategy with local execution.
General managers are more likely to bring experience from multiple sectors, enabling boards to cross-pollinate ideas and practices. In contrast, specialists often have deep but narrow experiences, which can limit innovation or relevance across different contexts.
Generalists tend to be better crisis managers. Having led through downturns, restructurings and transformations, they are equipped to make swift, principled decisions under pressure. Their presence on the board strengthens institutional resilience.
6. Recommendations for board-composition policy
- Prioritize leadership track records in board recruitment.
Search committees and nominating boards should place greater emphasis on operational-leadership experience rather than on recent technical expertise. Candidates should be evaluated on their ability to synthesize, challenge constructively and lead across functions.
- Establish standing advisory councils.
Rather than embedding all needed expertise within the board, organizations should institutionalize external advisory councils composed of domain experts who can be called upon for in-depth consultations.
- Conduct regular composition audits.
Boards should assess their composition annually to ensure alignment with strategic needs, not just with compliance checklists. This includes identifying whether a board has become too narrow in its functional expertise and whether it retains integrative thinkers.
- Educate about governance over expertise.
Board-onboarding programs should stress fiduciary responsibility, enterprise leadership and strategic oversight rather than domain mastery. General governance capabilities should be cultivated and prioritized.
Conclusion
The composition of a board is one of the most powerful levers for corporate performance. In a globalized, fast-changing environment, boards must be able to operate above the fray of specialist silos. The evidence increasingly supports a model that privileges generalist leadership, enriched by specialist insight when needed but not dominated by it.
Don’t fill the ark—staff the bridge: Boards need navigators, not more passengers.
By adopting a generalist-first philosophy in board appointments, global corporations can foster more integrated thinking, sharper strategic oversight and greater institutional resilience. The Noah’s Ark model of expert duplication is outdated; what boards need today are strategic navigators who can steer through complexity—not passengers who specialize in reading one part of the map.
Finance
Equipment finance outlook optimistic as legislation, investment bolster industry
After difficulties this year, next year looks to be better for the equipment finance industry as government legislation and investment in data centers and AI provide opportunities for financiers.
The U.S. economy heads into 2026 resilient, with real gross domestic product growth of 1.8% and a 6.2% increase in equipment and software investment, according to the 2026 Equipment Leasing & Finance U.S. Economic Outlook, released today by the Equipment Leasing and Finance Foundation. Strong equipment demand, AI-driven capital spending and equity market strength should drive growth for the industry.
Rather than a typical temporary cyclical downturn, after 2025 the equipment industry faces a systemic change, Michael Sharov, a partner in consulting firm Oliver Wyman’s Transportation and Advanced Industrials practice, told Equipment Finance News. Evolving channels, customer fragmentation, labor shortages, and digital and supplier realignment will drive change and create opportunities for dealers, lenders and OEMs.
“Systemic change is going to happen, but the industries are not going to fall apart.” — Michael Sharov, transportation and advanced industrial partner, Oliver Wyman
The equipment industry can still prosper because they serve “essential use” industries such as food, infrastructure and materials, “so there is high confidence in recovery, as long as everyone does not hunker down, but uses this downturn,” he said.
Amid restructuring, lenders face battles around asset transparency, uptime and service capacity, changing underwriting factors, longer trade cycles and elevated importance of used equipment, even with the strong long-term outlook, Sharov said.
In industries such as transportation, mergers and acquisitions will allow stronger players to pick up clients as capacity shifts across the industry, Anthony Sasso, head of TD Equipment Finance and senior vice president at TD Bank, told EFN.
“There are more opportunities for companies to pick up good clients for those companies that are financially sound and well-heeled,” he said. “We’re seeing that today.”
Equipment finance industry set for growth
Meanwhile, the equipment finance industry appears set for growth in 2026 alongside the U.S. economy’s recovery following a year plagued by economic uncertainty, Cedric Chehab, chief economist at economic research firm BMI, said during a Dec. 11 webinar.
Factors supporting industry growth include fiscal stimulus and bonus depreciation because of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, additional Federal Reserve rate cuts that are anticipated, resilient corporate profitability and earnings, and especially, continued investment in AI and data centers, which could affect the economy on multiple levels, Chehab said.
“When you combine the huge strengths of AI and the software around AI and the LLMs and how they interact with machines and robotics, they could boost productivity even further,” he said. “Many economies, and in particular the U.S. economy, are pursuing aggressive industrial policy, driving investment in cutting-edge technology, which will not only foster greater competition to a degree, but really accelerate the pace of development of these technologies.”
Deductions, depreciation under OBBBA
A full year under the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, should spur equipment investment, especially for the equipment sectors in need of recovery, according to a Nov. 19 Wells Fargo research note.
“By making bonus depreciation permanent, firms can fully expense capital equipment, machinery and qualifying real estate improvements,” according to the note. “This change, along with other tax incentives, reduced policy uncertainty and lower borrowing rates, should provide support to investment growth next year and keep the CapEx cycle rolling.”
While increased deductions, bonus depreciation and financing can improve liquidity to help pay for replacement assets, weak trucking and finance fundamentals mean the incentives alone may not be enough to drive new equipment purchases, TD’s Sasso said.
“That’s probably one of the areas that, if you see an uptick in that, it may promote more CapEx spending, and this not only applies to the trucking vertical, but it’s for a number of other verticals,” he said. “If you see more CapEx spend, then you’d see the financing go along with that, and that’s where those benefits would kick in.”
Data centers boost construction
Investment in data centers and technology is also expected to continue in 2026, according to the Wells Fargo note.
“The race to build out the next generation of AI capabilities with the latest information processing equipment, software and new data centers has led capital spending to charge ahead despite elevated policy uncertainty,” according to the note. “But this concentration in tech spending glosses over undeniable weakness in more traditional CapEx categories, such as transportation equipment and commercial construction.”


Data centers also require significant capital, with financing for U.S. data centers projected to reach $60 billion in 2025, according to a Dec. 11 release from the Equipment Leasing and Finance Foundation focused on data centers.
In the wider construction segment, sentiment toward growth remains cautious in some regions, with nearly half of construction firms in the Minneapolis Federal Reserve region feeling more pessimistic than they did in mid-2025, Erick Luna, director of regional outreach for the region, said during a Dec. 12 webinar.
“Some of the same challenges showed up in this change of outlook, a slowdown in projects, reduced RFPs, tariffs, etc.,” he said. “Almost half [of the firms] expected backlogs to keep contracting, and in turn, [fewer] projects will be completed and so on.”
Equipment industry faces more challenges
Meanwhile, executives rated the state of the industrials market a 5.7 out of 10, down from 8 last year, according to Oliver Wyman’s 2025 State of Industrial Goods North America, Non-Road report, released on Dec. 3. The report surveyed 105 equipment manufacturer executives in conjunction with the Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
Looking ahead, indicators such as farm receipts, construction activity, residential starts and large data center projects will be central to assessing demand across agriculture and construction, Nate Savona, a partner in Oliver Wyman’s Transportation and Advanced Industrials practice, told EFN.
“What we got from the members that we worked with who are living and breathing the industry is there is cautious optimism, but they’re not feeling great right now. The original sentiment for the [State of Industrial Goods] report was done six months ago or so, and then we revisited the question in the past month, and the sentiment was the same, so it hasn’t gotten better yet.” — Nate Savona, transportation and advanced industrial partner, Oliver Wyman
While the outlook for 2026 does come with optimism, BMI’s Chehab pointed to several risk factors, including:
- A weakening labor market;
- Higher-than-expected inflation;
- Limited Fed easing due to inflation;
- Financial market volatility due to a potential AI bubble;
- Escalating trade tensions; and
- Political uncertainty tied to midterm elections.
Despite the challenges, there’s cautious optimism for 2026, with the potential rebound of the trucking industry on the back of improving values serving as a bellwether for the broader economy, TD’s Sasso said.
“When you look at values, we may be in a trough right now where we’ve hit the bottom, and hopefully those valuations, we’re going to see coming back up,” he said. “Overall, there’s much more optimism going into 2026, and hopefully that is the case that would benefit all businesses, including ours.”
Check out our exclusive industry data here.
Finance
AI readiness, skills gaps top concerns of finance leaders
Finance professionals expect artificial intelligence (AI) to significantly disrupt the profession over the next two years, but few feel equipped to harness the full potential of those tools.
New data from the AICPA and CIMA’s Future-Ready Finance: Technology, Productivity, and Skills Survey Report revealed a significant gap between finance professionals’ expectations of AI’s impact and their organisations’ readiness to adopt it.
The majority of respondents (56%) said generative AI has become the most prominent skills gap for their organisations in 2025. Overall, IT/tech skills also emerged as a leading priority (47%) this year, despite being considered a secondary concern (20%) in 2021.
“This highlights a strategic shift towards using advanced technology as a means of enhancing value and efficiency, rather than simply supporting operations,” the survey said.
However, many organisations are still struggling to shift gears. The survey found that while 88% believe AI will be the most transformative technology trend in accounting and finance over the next 12 to 24 months, only 8% said their organisation is “very well prepared” to manage this transformation.
The AICPA and CIMA surveyed more than 1,400 members in senior finance and accounting roles globally in August and September.
The biggest barrier to technology adoption for companies this year was a lack of human capital, skills, and talent (50%), followed by safety and security concerns (47%) and doubts about technology maturity (42%).
“The advance of AI tools in the last two years is enabling a paradigm shift in how finance teams operate and the work they can do to generate value for their organisations,” Andrew Harding, FCMA, CGMA, chief executive–Management Accounting at the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants, said in a news release. “While professionals recognise the potential on offer, many today feel underprepared and under-skilled. There’s a clear gap between anticipating disruption and taking action.”
To address skills gaps in finance teams, organisations favoured internal training programmes (62%) ahead of external training programmes (45%) and hiring new talent (35%), according to respondents. On-the-job training was ranked the most effective upskilling approach (61%) amongst finance professionals.
Internal training can be flexible, hands-on, and adaptive, often developing through experimentation and adjustment. But while hiring can be seen as a reactive strategy that does not solve the industry-wide skills shortage, the survey said, it is often a necessary step for driving innovation, especially when internal capabilities are limited.
Other key findings from the survey:
Productivity deficits hold back adoption. Lack of skills (41%) and low motivation (37%) were the top barriers to productivity, the release said, followed by incompatible technology systems and poor coordination in tech implementation (both at 32%).
Skills shortages extend beyond gen AI. Broader technology skills (AI, big data, cloud, Internet of Things, robotics) remain a concern (37%), alongside data and analytics (36%), the release said. Significant gaps also persist in areas such as communication, influencing, and critical thinking (33%) and business partnering (32%).
Learning preferences should guide skills strategy. “The dominance of internal training and the strong preference for on-the-job learning indicate a clear path forward,” the survey said. “Strategic investment must be channelled into practical, accessible, and continuous upskilling programmes and collaborative projects to bridge the readiness gap and unlock productivity gains.”
— To comment on this article or to suggest an idea for another article, contact Steph Brown at Stephanie.Brown@aicpa-cima.com.
Finance
Chicago finance committee approves alternate budget proposal without mayor’s controversial head tax
CHICAGO (WLS) — A Chicago City Council committee approved an alternative budget plan brought by a group of alderpersons on Tuesday.
A group of alderpersons presented the plan, which more than half of city council members are currently supporting, during Tuesday’s Finance Committee meeting.
ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch
The substitute budget ordinance faced scrutiny from supporters of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s budget during the hearing, which lasted several hours.
The alternate budget group is looking to build support for their plan even as they put additional council meetings on the schedule, including meetings this weekend and on Christmas Eve.
The Finance Committee meeting revealed some new revenue options for the 2026 budget proposal and tweaked some others.
It includes raising the plastic shopping bag tax from $0.10 to $0.15, and a pilot program to put advertising on bridge houses as well as light poles.
RELATED | Chicago City Council revises alternative budget proposal, mayor defends head tax as deadline looms
It officially gets rid of the corporate head tax, which has been a major source of contention since Johnson first presented his budget plan. The mayor and his allies are insisting that corporations pay more.
“What you have here is balancing the budget with fines and fees and taking out the corporate head tax. I want to hear your rationale to do that,” said 25th Ward Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez.
“Our proposal, in terms of new revenues, impacts businesses at 84% and individuals at 16%. I want everybody to take a look at this for a minute,” said Budget Committee Vice Chair Ald. Nicole Lee.
The alternative budget group says this plan is 98% in line with Johnson’s. Still, some of his allies were frustrated at not seeing the numbers sooner.
READ MORE | Chicago budget discussions reach stalemate, raising possibility of 1st-ever city government shutdown
“This is our first time reviewing this. This is incredibly disrespectful,” said 35th Ward Ald. Anthony Quezada.
There were also questions about the alternate plan to sell off outstanding debt to raise nearly $90 million. The city comptroller cautioned against it.
“I would say is that I would not. I would not rely on $89 million in this budget. This has never been done by any state,” said Chicago Comptroller Michael Belsky.
But supporters are defending this plan as worthy of consideration calling projections conservative and balanced.
“The group that’s worked on this has spent hundreds of hours bringing in the majority of the city council to talk about this,” said 19th Ward Ald. Matt O’Shea. “We relied on the advice and counsel of budgetary experts.”
The alternative budget plan passed out of finance committee 22-13. Its next stop is the Budget Committee on Wednesday.
It is clear that this breakaway group is flexing its muscle. What’s not clear is what the mayor’s next move will be.
But we now have city council meetings planned for Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and then, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week.
Johnson issued a statement on Tuesday evening, saying, “As the leaders of the Alternative Group made clear throughout their presentation, the Secret Budget that passed out of the Finance Committee this afternoon is substantially similar to the proposal we introduced more than two months ago.
At our insistence, the Alternative Group agreed to restore the cuts they made to youth employment, and they removed the proposal to double the garbage tax. They have finally conceded to some degree, the point that I have made from the beginning: that corporations must pay their fair share in order to protect Chicagoans at this moment.
Unfortunately, at the behest of certain corporate interests, they chose to replace a tax on the largest corporations with $90M+ in “enhanced debt collections” on everyday Chicagoans. This seems to be in direct contradiction with their expressed desires to shift the financial burden away from working people.
Not only is this proposal immoral, it is simply not feasible. There is no way to sell off Chicagoans’ debts that would yield that amount of revenue. If passed as is, this proposal would likely result in a significant midyear budget shortfall and leave Chicagoans vulnerable to deep cuts to city services.
We will spend the next few days with our budget, finance, legal, and policy teams reviewing these proposals. Chicago cannot afford a government shutdown when we are making so much progress growing our economy and reducing violent crime to historic lows.
Tomorrow, the Budget Committee will review their proposal publicly so that Chicagoans can understand exactly what is in this Secret Budget.”
Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.
-
Iowa3 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine2 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland3 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota4 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class


