By Jamey Dunn
A legislative commission that reviews state audits voted today to activate its subpoena power to look into Gov. Pat Quinn’s troubled anti-violence program.
A scathing audit from Auditor General William Holland thrust the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative (NRI) into the spotlight earlier this year. According to the report, the program did not use a competitive bidding process to select the providers and dole out grants but instead relied on recommendations from Chicago aldermen. Auditors found that at least $2 million was unaccounted for and necessary documentation was missing, including timecards for workers.
Since the audit, the U.S. attorney's office and the Cook County prosecutor's office have both begun investigating to program. Republicans have accused the governor of using the $54 million program as a “political slush fund.” The bulk of the money for the program came from discretionary spending Quinn is allowed under the state budget. Contracts for the program were signed shortly before Quinn narrowly won the 2010 race for governor, and some of the funding began to go out shortly after Election Day.
Quinn says that he shut the NRI down as soon as he became aware that it had problems. “When it wasn’t going in the right direction, when it wasn’t doing what we wanted it to do, I shut it down completely and stopped it cold,” Quinn said today. “I didn’t sweep anything under the rug. I acted on behalf of the public and shut the program down.” Quinn is also advocating for the passage of House Bill 3820, which would require more oversight for state grants. The House passed the bill last month. “I’m ready to sign it into law. I think that that certainly is something that is an important mission.”
Sen. Jason Barickman, a Bloomington Republican, brought a motion to the Legislative Audit Commission today that would allow the bipartisan panel to subpoena witnesses or information pertaining to the NRI. The commission, which is made up of members of both chambers, reviews audits, holds public hearings with state agency heads and sometimes recommends changes to the law as a result of audit findings. “Given what we know today about this program, given the many questions that many of us have about this program, the statute makes clear that we need to further investigate, find out what facts exist and make our recommendations accordingly,” said Barickman. “It’s clear that we have more work to do to get to the bottom of this.”
The proposal received bipartisan support; however, several Democrats on the commission voiced concerns that a probe from the commission would at best produce nothing beyond what will come out during the ongoing criminal investigations and would at worst impede them. “What’s the value at the end of the day that we’ll be putting on the table?” asked Hoffman Estates Democratic Rep. Fred Crespo, who sponsors HB 3820. “What can we do that they cannot do?” Crespo and others said that the commission does not have the resources to launch a major investigation.
Barickman, who chairs the committee, and co-chair Rep. Frank Mautino, a Democrat from Spring Valley, would both have to sign off on any subpoenas issued. Mautino was the sole vote against the motion. He argued that the information the committee needs is already available and that subpoenas may be unecessary. He noted that Holland’s office has several boxes of documents related to the audit and that no legislative staffers have gone through them at this point. Mautino said that the panel should first ask for the information and witnesses it is seeking instead of resorting to subpoena powers.
Holland said he would provide the commission with any information they want. “You don’t have to subpoena the records, and you don’t have to FOIA the records. You make an appointment, you come in and you take a look. That’s the way we do business,” He said. Holland also said that state agencies are required by law to comply.
Barickman said that because the agency that oversaw the program has been dissolved and some of the people who worked on the NRI have since left state government, the commission may need the legal power to compel them to cooperate.
Barickman said that today’s action would give the committee “every tool available” to look into the issue in the coming months. “We’re not scheduled to meet [again] until late August or September of 2014. So this gives us all of the tools necessary to continue with our duties over the summer.” If the commission decides to bring forward any revelations about the NRI at that next hearing, it would be pretty inopportune political timing for Quinn’s reelection bid.
Quinn called Brickman’s motion politically motivated. “Politcs as usual. It’s a political time of year. We shut the program down. That’s the bottom line. We did it two years ago.”
Barickman said Quinn has been trying to “rewrite the facts” in recent media appearances. He said that the commission’s vote today “demonstrated wholeheartedly” that “this absolutely is not a partisan issue.” But whether the power will actually come into play is yet to be seen. Mautino would have to agree to subpoenas and an equally balanced bipartisan subcommittee would then have to draft them and approve them by a majority vote. Democrats on the commission went along with today’s vote, for the most part, but they may not be as accommodating when and if the subpoenas begin to fly.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
Legislative inspector general calls for laws targeting patronage and clout
By Jamey Dunn
Legislative Inspector General Thomas Homer is leaving the job at the end of June. On his way out, Homer is making the case for ethics reforms in the state.
Homer sent a letter to lawmakers this week urging them to enact stronger ethics laws geared toward preventing patronage hiring practices and giving teeth to the office of legislative inspector general. He cited recent scandals, including students being admitted into the University of Illinois after lawmakers and other influence wielders intervened on their behalf and House Speaker Michael Madigan’s apparent influence on hiring at Metra.
Homer, who is a former state representative and a former judge, said there is nothing wrong with lawmakers advocating for their constituents. But he says that all constituents should get the opportunity, not just campaign donors or the well connected. “When insiders can lay claim to political spoils, people without political connections are denied equal opportunities for government jobs or admission to public universities. Moreover, taxpayers lose when public funds are expended for expensive legal settlements, investigations and attorney’s fees associated with scandals that arise from such activities,” Homer said in a prepared statement.
He called for state agencies and public universities to keep a list of hiring and admissions requests made by lawmakers and other officials. The list would be open to the public. Metra informally kept such a list, but it was only released to the public after a task force seeking to reform the agency reported its existence. Metra released the documents, dubbed the "patronage files" by the task force, this week under a Freedom of Information Act request. The task force called Madigan a “prominent participant” in patronage hiring at Metra over the last 30 years.
At Madigan's request, Homer investigated his involvement and found no violation of the law. The investigation was closed earlier this month. Homer said he could not comment on any specific investigation, but he did have this to say at the time: “Although I can recommend new laws to address what I believe to be inappropriate conduct by legislators, enforcement actions are limited to violations of existing laws and rules.”
Homer also recommended more transparency from his office. He said that the inspector general should be able to release more information from investigations and that the current confidentiality requirements mean that some finding of misconduct from lawmakers never see “the light of day.” He renewed his call for penalties to enforce conflict-of-interest provisions for lawmakers. Currently, the code of conduct for lawmakers is “intended only as guides to legislator conduct, and not as rules meant to be enforced by disciplinary action.” Homer said the lack of penalties makes it difficult for his office to go after misconduct. “The absence of penalty provisions undermines our ability to investigate, expose and prevent abuses,” Homer said.
Legislative Inspector General Thomas Homer is leaving the job at the end of June. On his way out, Homer is making the case for ethics reforms in the state.
Homer sent a letter to lawmakers this week urging them to enact stronger ethics laws geared toward preventing patronage hiring practices and giving teeth to the office of legislative inspector general. He cited recent scandals, including students being admitted into the University of Illinois after lawmakers and other influence wielders intervened on their behalf and House Speaker Michael Madigan’s apparent influence on hiring at Metra.
Homer, who is a former state representative and a former judge, said there is nothing wrong with lawmakers advocating for their constituents. But he says that all constituents should get the opportunity, not just campaign donors or the well connected. “When insiders can lay claim to political spoils, people without political connections are denied equal opportunities for government jobs or admission to public universities. Moreover, taxpayers lose when public funds are expended for expensive legal settlements, investigations and attorney’s fees associated with scandals that arise from such activities,” Homer said in a prepared statement.
He called for state agencies and public universities to keep a list of hiring and admissions requests made by lawmakers and other officials. The list would be open to the public. Metra informally kept such a list, but it was only released to the public after a task force seeking to reform the agency reported its existence. Metra released the documents, dubbed the "patronage files" by the task force, this week under a Freedom of Information Act request. The task force called Madigan a “prominent participant” in patronage hiring at Metra over the last 30 years.
At Madigan's request, Homer investigated his involvement and found no violation of the law. The investigation was closed earlier this month. Homer said he could not comment on any specific investigation, but he did have this to say at the time: “Although I can recommend new laws to address what I believe to be inappropriate conduct by legislators, enforcement actions are limited to violations of existing laws and rules.”
Homer also recommended more transparency from his office. He said that the inspector general should be able to release more information from investigations and that the current confidentiality requirements mean that some finding of misconduct from lawmakers never see “the light of day.” He renewed his call for penalties to enforce conflict-of-interest provisions for lawmakers. Currently, the code of conduct for lawmakers is “intended only as guides to legislator conduct, and not as rules meant to be enforced by disciplinary action.” Homer said the lack of penalties makes it difficult for his office to go after misconduct. “The absence of penalty provisions undermines our ability to investigate, expose and prevent abuses,” Homer said.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Legislator seeks to limit lame-duck sessions
By Jamey Dunn
While supporters of controversial legislation dealing with gun control, pension reform and same sex marriage had little luck during the recent lame-duck session, one legislator is pushing to make it more difficult to get bills passed in the weeks before a new General Assembly is sworn in.
Sponsors of legislation have until March 31 each year to pass bills with a simple majority. After that date, they must find a three-fifths majority in each chamber if they want their bill to go into effect within a year. Bills that pass with a simple majority cannot take effect until June 1 of the next year. However, legislative leaders often call lawmakers into session for a few days or weeks before a new General Assembly is to be seated. Because that happens in January, the clock has been reset, but the new legislative session has not yet started. That allows legislators who are not returning in the new General Assembly, known as lame ducks, and lawmakers who have just won reelection and have a few years until they face another election to vote on proposals that are often controversial. That legislation also does not have to wait a year before taking effect. The time is informally called the lame-duck session.
This year’s lame-duck session was not particularly productive. But in January 2011, the General Assembly voted to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses and end the death penalty in Illinois. “Every two years there seems to be more activity in a short amount of time in the first week of January than there is in the true session,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, who filed House Bill 195 today. The proposal would require a three-fifths majority for bills passed in January before a new legislature is sworn in. Durkin said the measure closes a “loophole” that has been used by for years to ram bills through the process at the end of the two-year legislative session. Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, said that the problem with the lame-duck session is that lawmakers leaving office might be less influenced by the desires of their constituents. They also might be concerned about their future employment after they are no longer serving in the legislature. Many lawmakers go on to lobby their former colleagues on behalf of influential interests and industries such as utility companies and charitable organizations. “These two factors, a lower standard [for the passage of bills] and decreased constituent accountability, play into the appeal of using the lame-duck session as a way to move otherwise highly controversial legislation,” Durkin said. “Are there things I would like to see pass? Of course; however, I feel strongly that these proposals should be properly vetted through the legislative process.”
Durkin said he thinks the lame-duck session also adds to the temptation to put off difficult votes. “It’s the summer, and people are saying, ‘We will take care of [that] in the lame-duck session.’”
Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the practice of looking to the lame-duck session to as a time to pass big bills is a relatively new one. He said it started when the legislature's fall veto session began to expand to include more than just the governor’s vetoes. “When they wrote the 1970 Constitution, they assumed that we’d come back for a couple weeks and do some vetoes and go home. They couldn’t imagine the fall legislative session, which it has morphed into,” he said. “It was exceedingly rare in the '70s and '80s to do anything in veto session other than vetoes. I mean it happened, but generally the legislature came back a day ahead of time [before the swearing in of new lawmakers] and might clean up a little bit of ceremonial stuff in January.” Redfield said legislative action from the veto session started to spill over into January, and now the lame-duck session, which usually takes place over several days in January every two years, has become a fixture.
Redfield said now that legislative leaders have the lame-duck session as an option, it would be hard to turn back the clock. “It’s been way too useful a mechanism in previous General Assemblies. We’ve gotten pretty used to that possibility sitting there,” he said. “I think strategically, you don’t give anything away when you are in the majority.”
Durkin noted that Republicans have taken advantage of the lame-duck session when they held majorities, too. Durkin, who took office in 1995, said that after then-House Speaker Lee Daniels lost his Republican majority, he used the lame-duck session to pass bills before the new Democratic majority was seated. “And I’m sure I voted for a few of those things,” Durkin said. However, he said that Illinois now faces a public opinion crisis along with its fiscal one. “The public’s perception of legislative process is horrible, and at some point we need to be honest with ourselves and our constituents about what we are doing.”
While supporters of controversial legislation dealing with gun control, pension reform and same sex marriage had little luck during the recent lame-duck session, one legislator is pushing to make it more difficult to get bills passed in the weeks before a new General Assembly is sworn in.
Sponsors of legislation have until March 31 each year to pass bills with a simple majority. After that date, they must find a three-fifths majority in each chamber if they want their bill to go into effect within a year. Bills that pass with a simple majority cannot take effect until June 1 of the next year. However, legislative leaders often call lawmakers into session for a few days or weeks before a new General Assembly is to be seated. Because that happens in January, the clock has been reset, but the new legislative session has not yet started. That allows legislators who are not returning in the new General Assembly, known as lame ducks, and lawmakers who have just won reelection and have a few years until they face another election to vote on proposals that are often controversial. That legislation also does not have to wait a year before taking effect. The time is informally called the lame-duck session.
This year’s lame-duck session was not particularly productive. But in January 2011, the General Assembly voted to increase income taxes on individuals and businesses and end the death penalty in Illinois. “Every two years there seems to be more activity in a short amount of time in the first week of January than there is in the true session,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, who filed House Bill 195 today. The proposal would require a three-fifths majority for bills passed in January before a new legislature is sworn in. Durkin said the measure closes a “loophole” that has been used by for years to ram bills through the process at the end of the two-year legislative session. Durkin, a Western Springs Republican, said that the problem with the lame-duck session is that lawmakers leaving office might be less influenced by the desires of their constituents. They also might be concerned about their future employment after they are no longer serving in the legislature. Many lawmakers go on to lobby their former colleagues on behalf of influential interests and industries such as utility companies and charitable organizations. “These two factors, a lower standard [for the passage of bills] and decreased constituent accountability, play into the appeal of using the lame-duck session as a way to move otherwise highly controversial legislation,” Durkin said. “Are there things I would like to see pass? Of course; however, I feel strongly that these proposals should be properly vetted through the legislative process.”
Durkin said he thinks the lame-duck session also adds to the temptation to put off difficult votes. “It’s the summer, and people are saying, ‘We will take care of [that] in the lame-duck session.’”
Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Illinois Springfield, said the practice of looking to the lame-duck session to as a time to pass big bills is a relatively new one. He said it started when the legislature's fall veto session began to expand to include more than just the governor’s vetoes. “When they wrote the 1970 Constitution, they assumed that we’d come back for a couple weeks and do some vetoes and go home. They couldn’t imagine the fall legislative session, which it has morphed into,” he said. “It was exceedingly rare in the '70s and '80s to do anything in veto session other than vetoes. I mean it happened, but generally the legislature came back a day ahead of time [before the swearing in of new lawmakers] and might clean up a little bit of ceremonial stuff in January.” Redfield said legislative action from the veto session started to spill over into January, and now the lame-duck session, which usually takes place over several days in January every two years, has become a fixture.
Redfield said now that legislative leaders have the lame-duck session as an option, it would be hard to turn back the clock. “It’s been way too useful a mechanism in previous General Assemblies. We’ve gotten pretty used to that possibility sitting there,” he said. “I think strategically, you don’t give anything away when you are in the majority.”
Durkin noted that Republicans have taken advantage of the lame-duck session when they held majorities, too. Durkin, who took office in 1995, said that after then-House Speaker Lee Daniels lost his Republican majority, he used the lame-duck session to pass bills before the new Democratic majority was seated. “And I’m sure I voted for a few of those things,” Durkin said. However, he said that Illinois now faces a public opinion crisis along with its fiscal one. “The public’s perception of legislative process is horrible, and at some point we need to be honest with ourselves and our constituents about what we are doing.”
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Rep. Smith shows up but says little
By Jamey Dunn
Rep. Derrick Smith and his lawyer appeared before a House investigative committee today, but the two did little to shed light on the allegations of bribery against Smith.
Smith faces one charge of bribery from allegedly accepting $7,000 from a day care center, which he believed was seeking a state construction grant. In reality, the center was not seeking a grant, and Smith was the subject of a federal sting. Smith read a prepared statement to the committee, which is tasked with deciding whether there is enough evidence to discipline him. He refused to testify under oath or to answer questions. His lawyer, Victor Henderson, took questions from the committee but declined to answer many of them.
Smith said he is “painfully aware” how his arrest reflects on him and the House. However, he maintained his innocence. “I intend to fight this charge and clear my name,” Smith said. “I will continue to represent the interest of the people in [my] district. They elected me despite the fact that the government had leveled a charge against me just a week before the primary. In the same way that the people in the district did not abandon me, I will not abandon them.” Smith was appointed to his House seat. In March, he won the Democratic primary race in his district with 77 percent of the vote.
Henderson said that Smith may opt to testify before the committee in the future but does not want to do so until federal prosecutors grant the defense access to the evidence against Smith.
Committee members and House Counsel David Ellis, questioned Henderson about specific parts of the criminal compliant. Ellis read the portion of the complaint that describes Smith and the government source counting out the $7,000 that prosecutors say was a bribe. When directly asked, Henderson would say if Smith wrote the letter of support or took the $7,000. Henderson said that he would not comment “without full knowledge” of the information in the case. He said the only people who can provide this information are prosecutors. Henderson said that since federal investigators created a fake nonprofit and other documents as part of their sting, it is difficult to sort out what is real. “By the government’s own admission, they created documents — false documents. So without having access to the discovery [of evidence], who created what? I can’t tell you. All I can tell you is that they acknowledged creating false documents, fake email accounts, fake letters and things of that nature.”
Ellis said the committee was giving Smith the opportunity to present his side of the story. “This is not an adversarial proceeding, believe it or not. This is supposed to be a truth finding function. I am doing what no cross examiner would do, I’m giving you the floor to explain. … I’m trying to figure out, did he write this letter. It’s not a crime to write a letter. That’s just part of the story,” Ellis said.
He tried to push Henderson to deny or explain any aspects of the criminal complaint against Smith, but Henderson continued to stonewall and attempt to cast doubt on prosecutors' case. “The government lawyers put their pants on one leg at time just like the rest of us do. They’re susceptible to being dishonest. They’re susceptible to making mistakes. They’re susceptible sometimes to, you know, not doing the right thing.” Henderson focused on the government’s anonymous witness — who, according to the criminal complaint, brokered the deal between Smith and the day care. Henderson said the informant had been on the “government payroll” long before he met Smith and pointed out that he had criminal convictions and multiple arrests on his record. Henderson said any disciplinary action against Smith before the completion of his criminal case would be “premature.” “Lots of people are charged every day of violating laws, and those charges turn out often times to be unfounded,” he said.
However, Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said he thinks the committee probably has enough evidence to move forward and recommend some disciplinary action based on the criminal complaint against Smith. He said that lawmakers had to make a “judgment call” when they impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and removed him from office before his criminal case had been resolved, and he sees parallels between that situation and the current one. “I’m not sure how many [more] times this committee is going to meet before we begin our deliberations,” he said to Henderson and Smith.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, the chair of the investigative committee, said the committee can consider Smith’s decision not to go under oath or take questions when deciding whether to recommend disciplinary action to the full House. She said the committee will regroup and decide the next step. “I think we all need a little bit of time to reflect on this and think about what we’ve heard to day,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat.
As the committee weighs its options and the criminal case against Smith proceeds, he continues in his position as a legislator. Henderson said Smith has been going to work each day at his legislative office and attending session days in Springfield and that his constituents should be proud. “Everybody, whether you’re a dentist or a news reporter or a lawyer, you’re going to have good days and bad days. And the test of a man is when he has his back up against a wall and shows us. Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, they all had bad days, and they all persevered,” Henderson told reporters after today’s hearing: “You don’t really understand what a man is made of until he’s tested. And I think that there are a whole lot of people who admire him to be able to stand up like he has as opposed to caving. That speaks to his character.”
Rep. Derrick Smith and his lawyer appeared before a House investigative committee today, but the two did little to shed light on the allegations of bribery against Smith.
Smith faces one charge of bribery from allegedly accepting $7,000 from a day care center, which he believed was seeking a state construction grant. In reality, the center was not seeking a grant, and Smith was the subject of a federal sting. Smith read a prepared statement to the committee, which is tasked with deciding whether there is enough evidence to discipline him. He refused to testify under oath or to answer questions. His lawyer, Victor Henderson, took questions from the committee but declined to answer many of them.
Smith said he is “painfully aware” how his arrest reflects on him and the House. However, he maintained his innocence. “I intend to fight this charge and clear my name,” Smith said. “I will continue to represent the interest of the people in [my] district. They elected me despite the fact that the government had leveled a charge against me just a week before the primary. In the same way that the people in the district did not abandon me, I will not abandon them.” Smith was appointed to his House seat. In March, he won the Democratic primary race in his district with 77 percent of the vote.
Henderson said that Smith may opt to testify before the committee in the future but does not want to do so until federal prosecutors grant the defense access to the evidence against Smith.
Committee members and House Counsel David Ellis, questioned Henderson about specific parts of the criminal compliant. Ellis read the portion of the complaint that describes Smith and the government source counting out the $7,000 that prosecutors say was a bribe. When directly asked, Henderson would say if Smith wrote the letter of support or took the $7,000. Henderson said that he would not comment “without full knowledge” of the information in the case. He said the only people who can provide this information are prosecutors. Henderson said that since federal investigators created a fake nonprofit and other documents as part of their sting, it is difficult to sort out what is real. “By the government’s own admission, they created documents — false documents. So without having access to the discovery [of evidence], who created what? I can’t tell you. All I can tell you is that they acknowledged creating false documents, fake email accounts, fake letters and things of that nature.”
Ellis said the committee was giving Smith the opportunity to present his side of the story. “This is not an adversarial proceeding, believe it or not. This is supposed to be a truth finding function. I am doing what no cross examiner would do, I’m giving you the floor to explain. … I’m trying to figure out, did he write this letter. It’s not a crime to write a letter. That’s just part of the story,” Ellis said.
He tried to push Henderson to deny or explain any aspects of the criminal complaint against Smith, but Henderson continued to stonewall and attempt to cast doubt on prosecutors' case. “The government lawyers put their pants on one leg at time just like the rest of us do. They’re susceptible to being dishonest. They’re susceptible to making mistakes. They’re susceptible sometimes to, you know, not doing the right thing.” Henderson focused on the government’s anonymous witness — who, according to the criminal complaint, brokered the deal between Smith and the day care. Henderson said the informant had been on the “government payroll” long before he met Smith and pointed out that he had criminal convictions and multiple arrests on his record. Henderson said any disciplinary action against Smith before the completion of his criminal case would be “premature.” “Lots of people are charged every day of violating laws, and those charges turn out often times to be unfounded,” he said.
However, Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said he thinks the committee probably has enough evidence to move forward and recommend some disciplinary action based on the criminal complaint against Smith. He said that lawmakers had to make a “judgment call” when they impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and removed him from office before his criminal case had been resolved, and he sees parallels between that situation and the current one. “I’m not sure how many [more] times this committee is going to meet before we begin our deliberations,” he said to Henderson and Smith.
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, the chair of the investigative committee, said the committee can consider Smith’s decision not to go under oath or take questions when deciding whether to recommend disciplinary action to the full House. She said the committee will regroup and decide the next step. “I think we all need a little bit of time to reflect on this and think about what we’ve heard to day,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat.
As the committee weighs its options and the criminal case against Smith proceeds, he continues in his position as a legislator. Henderson said Smith has been going to work each day at his legislative office and attending session days in Springfield and that his constituents should be proud. “Everybody, whether you’re a dentist or a news reporter or a lawyer, you’re going to have good days and bad days. And the test of a man is when he has his back up against a wall and shows us. Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, they all had bad days, and they all persevered,” Henderson told reporters after today’s hearing: “You don’t really understand what a man is made of until he’s tested. And I think that there are a whole lot of people who admire him to be able to stand up like he has as opposed to caving. That speaks to his character.”
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Rep. Smith a no-show for first investigative committee hearing
By Jamey Dunn
An Illinois House committee tasked with investigating a lawmaker who was arrested on bribery charges kicked off proceedings today.
The House Special Investigative Committee will consider the charge that Smith misused his office by accepting a bribe for services rendered from his position as a legislator. Investigators contend that he accepted a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter on his legislative letterhead recommending a daycare center for a construction grant. Smith was the subject of a federal sting. The daycare center was not actually seeking a grant, but prosecutors say Smith believed he was accepting a bribe for the letter.
Smith did not show up for the hearing today. He has not been present for legislative session in Springfield since he was arrested March 13. He has also not spoken to the press or responded to requests for comment from Illinois Issues or other media outlets.
Smith won his primary election race in the 10th House District with 77 percent of the vote. However, it is likely that Democratic leaders hope to pressure him to leave the ticket so they can choose a replacement candidate.
David Ellis, counsel for the investigative committee, said that he called Smith last Wednesday when the committee was created. He said he emailed Smith to let him know when and where the hearing would take place. Ellis said Smith told him he was aware of the hearing.
“Rep. Smith has not been convicted of a crime. He has been arrested on the basis of a sworn criminal complaint. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a full criminal trial,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, chair of the investigative committee. However, she added, “There are very serious allegations to be investigated by this committee.” Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, noted that the committee is not tasked with disciplining Smith. Instead, members must decide whether disciplinary actions are warranted. She said that there has not been a similar ethics charge in the chamber in recent history. “In anyone’s memory, there’s been no proceeding like this in the House, especially with the concurrent criminal investigation and charge out there.” But the proceedings are already drawing some comparisons to the impeachment and removal from office of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said the committee is a “hybrid” between a grand jury, which decides whether there is enough evidence to move forward with a case, and a preliminary hearing. Reboletti, a former state’s attorney, said that if the committee decides there is no reason to move forward with a disciplinary tribunal, Smith would be exonerated of the alleged breach of ethics. “Like a preliminary hearing,” Reboletti said, “Rep. Smith is allowed to attend and testify on his behalf, be represented by council and … cross examine any witnesses that appear before this committee.” Nekritz said Smith would have to testify under oath if he appears before the committee. The committee’s vote will have no effect on the criminal case against Smith.
Committee members voted unanimously to consult with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to ensure that their efforts would not interfere with the federal investigation. Nekritz said they would also ask if federal investigators would provide any evidence or witnesses to the committee. But Nekritz said such a move is unlikely. “We’re anticipating, frankly, that we have access to nothing, but we’ll see what they say.”
Nekrtiz said the committee would meet again when it receives a response from Fitzgerald. She estimated that the next meeting would be held on the week of April 8 and would likely take place in Chicago.
An Illinois House committee tasked with investigating a lawmaker who was arrested on bribery charges kicked off proceedings today.
The House Special Investigative Committee will consider the charge that Smith misused his office by accepting a bribe for services rendered from his position as a legislator. Investigators contend that he accepted a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter on his legislative letterhead recommending a daycare center for a construction grant. Smith was the subject of a federal sting. The daycare center was not actually seeking a grant, but prosecutors say Smith believed he was accepting a bribe for the letter.
Smith did not show up for the hearing today. He has not been present for legislative session in Springfield since he was arrested March 13. He has also not spoken to the press or responded to requests for comment from Illinois Issues or other media outlets.
Smith won his primary election race in the 10th House District with 77 percent of the vote. However, it is likely that Democratic leaders hope to pressure him to leave the ticket so they can choose a replacement candidate.
David Ellis, counsel for the investigative committee, said that he called Smith last Wednesday when the committee was created. He said he emailed Smith to let him know when and where the hearing would take place. Ellis said Smith told him he was aware of the hearing.
“Rep. Smith has not been convicted of a crime. He has been arrested on the basis of a sworn criminal complaint. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a full criminal trial,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, chair of the investigative committee. However, she added, “There are very serious allegations to be investigated by this committee.” Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, noted that the committee is not tasked with disciplining Smith. Instead, members must decide whether disciplinary actions are warranted. She said that there has not been a similar ethics charge in the chamber in recent history. “In anyone’s memory, there’s been no proceeding like this in the House, especially with the concurrent criminal investigation and charge out there.” But the proceedings are already drawing some comparisons to the impeachment and removal from office of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said the committee is a “hybrid” between a grand jury, which decides whether there is enough evidence to move forward with a case, and a preliminary hearing. Reboletti, a former state’s attorney, said that if the committee decides there is no reason to move forward with a disciplinary tribunal, Smith would be exonerated of the alleged breach of ethics. “Like a preliminary hearing,” Reboletti said, “Rep. Smith is allowed to attend and testify on his behalf, be represented by council and … cross examine any witnesses that appear before this committee.” Nekritz said Smith would have to testify under oath if he appears before the committee. The committee’s vote will have no effect on the criminal case against Smith.
Committee members voted unanimously to consult with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to ensure that their efforts would not interfere with the federal investigation. Nekritz said they would also ask if federal investigators would provide any evidence or witnesses to the committee. But Nekritz said such a move is unlikely. “We’re anticipating, frankly, that we have access to nothing, but we’ll see what they say.”
Nekrtiz said the committee would meet again when it receives a response from Fitzgerald. She estimated that the next meeting would be held on the week of April 8 and would likely take place in Chicago.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Is Blagojevich's sentence enough to deter corruption?
By Jamey Dunn
Almost three years after his arrest on corruption charges, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years behind bars today, but some say the work to clean up “pay to play politics” in the state is not done.
“The long Blagojevich nightmare is over,” Andy Shaw, director of the Better Government Association, said in Chicago after the sentence came down today.
While the sentence is shorter than the 15 to 20 years that prosecutors requested for Blagojevich's 18 felony convictions, it is the longest prison term ever doled out for corruption in the state. Blagojevich was reportedly contrite today when he addressed U.S. District Judge James Zagel, saying he was sorry and that he has no one to blame but himself. According to the Chicago-Sun Times, Zagel told Blagojevich, “When it is the governor who goes bad, the fabric of Illinois is torn and disfigured and not easily or quickly repaired.” Blagojevich is must surrender on February 16, 2012. Under federal guidelines, he is required to serve 85 percent, almost 12 years, of his sentence. He was also hit with almost $22,000 in fines and penalties.
However, after the sentencing, Blagojevich vowed to fight on. “This is a time to be strong. This is a time to fight through adversity. This is a time for me to be strong for our children, be strong for Patti,” he told reporters in Chicago. “We’re going to keep fighting on though this adversity, and we’ll see you soon.” Blagojevich dusted off one of his favorite literary works, quoting Rudyard Kipling’s If, a poem he has been citing in speeches for years.
“It’s profoundly sad that we are here for the second time in five years to discuss the conviction and sentencing of a governor of Illinois.” U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said today in Chicago. He said the sentence should deter future corruption and that it “sends a strong message that the public has had enough and judges have had enough. This needs to stop.”
Fitzgerald said that an end to corruption in Illinois would come with a change in public sentiment. He said that “to some extent” people are “resigned to corruption.” He encouraged citizens to become whistleblowers and change the climate so that those who would seek money or personal benefit in exchange for a political act “should be afraid to ask.”
Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon said Blagojevich’s sentence does not ensure an end to political malfeasance in the state. "We cannot rely on a prison sentence to deter corruption,” Simon said in a prepared statement. “Illinois needs stronger ethics laws to kill pay-to-play politics. It's time we expose conflicts of interest before they cost taxpayers, and clear the way for true public servants to rebuild trust with the public. Increased transparency, coupled with the threat of serious prison time, can end these shameful courtroom battles. Together we can put this chapter behind us, restore integrity to government and live up to our legacy as the Land of Lincoln.” Simon, who served on an ethics commission that made recommendations to the General Assembly in the wake of Blagojevich’s impeachment and removal from office, said the former governor’s conviction and sentencing provide an opportunity to have “public conversation again” about ethics in the state.
Dick Simpson, a professor and head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois Chicago, agreed with Simon. “I don’t think that the sentence will be enough to deter corruption in the future.” He said that more recommendations from the ethics commission should be enacted. Simpson said that the job of cleaning up Illinois requires an educated public. “I think the most important single [recommendation to act on] would be to reintroduce into the public school system … both civics and the cost of corruption, and those are not taught in most schools anymore.”
He said students should be made aware of both the monetary costs of corruption as well as the human toll. “You can show examples of what happens when you can’t trust the policeman or you can’t trust the inspector and how it undermines trust in government and willingness to pay taxes. It’s not hard to put together a curriculum.”
He added, “Teaching political and civic engagement, rather than just the three branches of government, would be useful.”
He said that locking up offenders would never address the problem on a holistic level. “No amount of sentences would be sufficient. … Catching one crook at a time is not enough. It’s good that we punish people, but it isn’t sufficient.”
Gov. Pat Quinn called his predecessor’s sentence “stiff” but “necessary.” Quinn said there is “more work to do” to implement reforms, including enacting recommendations of the ethics commission. He renewed his call for a change to the state Constitution that would allow for citizens to put ethics measures on the ballot for a popular vote by collecting a enough voters’ signatures. Quinn said such initiatives, if passed, could apply to any level of government in the state. “We should not just have to rely on a legislature, or city councils or county boards [to pass ethics measures.]”
Quinn added, “We need to have a way for people to bypass the insiders to enact reforms that the people, the taxpayers, think are necessary.”
When asked about being Blagojevich’s running mate twice, Quinn said, “I think he let me down like he let down the people of Illinois.”
Other reading:
For more on the lack of civic education in Illinois schools, see Illinois Issues, September 2011.
For more on the history of political corruption in Illinois, see Illinois Issues Blog, December 2008.
For courtroom reporting on the sentencing, see the Chicago-Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune.
Almost three years after his arrest on corruption charges, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years behind bars today, but some say the work to clean up “pay to play politics” in the state is not done.
“The long Blagojevich nightmare is over,” Andy Shaw, director of the Better Government Association, said in Chicago after the sentence came down today.
While the sentence is shorter than the 15 to 20 years that prosecutors requested for Blagojevich's 18 felony convictions, it is the longest prison term ever doled out for corruption in the state. Blagojevich was reportedly contrite today when he addressed U.S. District Judge James Zagel, saying he was sorry and that he has no one to blame but himself. According to the Chicago-Sun Times, Zagel told Blagojevich, “When it is the governor who goes bad, the fabric of Illinois is torn and disfigured and not easily or quickly repaired.” Blagojevich is must surrender on February 16, 2012. Under federal guidelines, he is required to serve 85 percent, almost 12 years, of his sentence. He was also hit with almost $22,000 in fines and penalties.
However, after the sentencing, Blagojevich vowed to fight on. “This is a time to be strong. This is a time to fight through adversity. This is a time for me to be strong for our children, be strong for Patti,” he told reporters in Chicago. “We’re going to keep fighting on though this adversity, and we’ll see you soon.” Blagojevich dusted off one of his favorite literary works, quoting Rudyard Kipling’s If, a poem he has been citing in speeches for years.
“It’s profoundly sad that we are here for the second time in five years to discuss the conviction and sentencing of a governor of Illinois.” U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said today in Chicago. He said the sentence should deter future corruption and that it “sends a strong message that the public has had enough and judges have had enough. This needs to stop.”
Fitzgerald said that an end to corruption in Illinois would come with a change in public sentiment. He said that “to some extent” people are “resigned to corruption.” He encouraged citizens to become whistleblowers and change the climate so that those who would seek money or personal benefit in exchange for a political act “should be afraid to ask.”
Lt. Gov. Shelia Simon said Blagojevich’s sentence does not ensure an end to political malfeasance in the state. "We cannot rely on a prison sentence to deter corruption,” Simon said in a prepared statement. “Illinois needs stronger ethics laws to kill pay-to-play politics. It's time we expose conflicts of interest before they cost taxpayers, and clear the way for true public servants to rebuild trust with the public. Increased transparency, coupled with the threat of serious prison time, can end these shameful courtroom battles. Together we can put this chapter behind us, restore integrity to government and live up to our legacy as the Land of Lincoln.” Simon, who served on an ethics commission that made recommendations to the General Assembly in the wake of Blagojevich’s impeachment and removal from office, said the former governor’s conviction and sentencing provide an opportunity to have “public conversation again” about ethics in the state.
Dick Simpson, a professor and head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois Chicago, agreed with Simon. “I don’t think that the sentence will be enough to deter corruption in the future.” He said that more recommendations from the ethics commission should be enacted. Simpson said that the job of cleaning up Illinois requires an educated public. “I think the most important single [recommendation to act on] would be to reintroduce into the public school system … both civics and the cost of corruption, and those are not taught in most schools anymore.”
He said students should be made aware of both the monetary costs of corruption as well as the human toll. “You can show examples of what happens when you can’t trust the policeman or you can’t trust the inspector and how it undermines trust in government and willingness to pay taxes. It’s not hard to put together a curriculum.”
He added, “Teaching political and civic engagement, rather than just the three branches of government, would be useful.”
He said that locking up offenders would never address the problem on a holistic level. “No amount of sentences would be sufficient. … Catching one crook at a time is not enough. It’s good that we punish people, but it isn’t sufficient.”
Gov. Pat Quinn called his predecessor’s sentence “stiff” but “necessary.” Quinn said there is “more work to do” to implement reforms, including enacting recommendations of the ethics commission. He renewed his call for a change to the state Constitution that would allow for citizens to put ethics measures on the ballot for a popular vote by collecting a enough voters’ signatures. Quinn said such initiatives, if passed, could apply to any level of government in the state. “We should not just have to rely on a legislature, or city councils or county boards [to pass ethics measures.]”
Quinn added, “We need to have a way for people to bypass the insiders to enact reforms that the people, the taxpayers, think are necessary.”
When asked about being Blagojevich’s running mate twice, Quinn said, “I think he let me down like he let down the people of Illinois.”
Other reading:
For more on the lack of civic education in Illinois schools, see Illinois Issues, September 2011.
For more on the history of political corruption in Illinois, see Illinois Issues Blog, December 2008.
For courtroom reporting on the sentencing, see the Chicago-Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
Poll: Illinois voters have appetite for reform
By Jamey Dunn
Illinois voters support a variety of reforms to state government, ranging from tweaks to campaign finance rules to term limits for elected officials
The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale today presented results of a survey of 1,000 registered voters — part of the institute’s annual poll. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Those surveyed strongly backed legislative term limits, with 75 percent saying they support limits of five consecutive two year terms for state representatives and three consecutive four year terms for state senators.
David Yepsen, director of the institute, said widespread support for term limits is an indicator of the public’s frustration with their state government. He noted that the Tea Party has supported term limits, and that issue could become the focus of such a populist movement in Illinois. “If I am member of the legislature, I’ve got to be thinking, ‘How do I get the fuse out of this bomb?’” Yepsen said.
He said he thinks term limits cut in on the democratic process by blocking voters from choosing incumbents once their time has run out, regardless of what the popular vote might be. Yepsen said that forcing out lawmakers with institutional knowledge and experience would leave new lawmakers to turn to staff members and lobbyists for the bulk of information. “Staff people have too much power as it is, and lobbyists have too much power as it is.”
However, Yepsen said, “There’s all kinds of reasons why term limits are a bad idea, but voters are so fed up and so exasperated.”
Charles Leonard, visiting professor and polling director for the institute, agreed that term limits may not be the best public policy choice, but he said that if the redistricting process in the state is not changed, that idea could find more supporters. He said because districts are often drawn to protect incumbency, “a lot of people who might otherwise not support term limits may see it as a desperate move to throwing the bums out.”
Respondents also backed several campaign finance reform measures, including changes to the rules for judges:
Leonard said judicial reform might be low hanging fruit for legislators because they could institute a change that does not apply to their own branch of government.
Voters who responded to the poll also supported reworking the way Illinois redraws its legislative maps every 10 years after the census takes place. A plan to overhaul the redistricting process failed in the legislature last year, and the League of Women Voters was unable to capture the needed signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change the process. But the institute’s poll found that voters generally agreed with one of the primary components of the league’s proposal. About 65 percent of respondents said they were in favor of having a commission independent from the legislature draw the map. That number increased from 53.5 percent in favor of such a plan in 2010. Yepsen and Leonard agreed that the efforts to change the system, as well as media coverage of the legislature drawing new maps last spring, has put the issue on the voters’ radar. “I think our mass media culture is capable of keeping about four items on the agenda at any time given our short attention span, And it’s up there right now,” Leonard said.
Yepsen said another effort to put a new method on the ballot as a constitutional amendment could be successful, but it would take a lot of money and professional organization. “A ballot initiative in a state this size takes a level of sophistication that a bunch of well-meaning volunteers just simply can’t do.” However, he said attempts to get an amendment on the ballot, such as ones from the league and others, may eventually spur legislative change. “I think just the threat of these constitutional amendments might give reform-minded people in the legislature and legislative leaders reason to do something on their own on these things.”
Leonard noted that only about 15 percent of voters think the state is headed in the right direction. “I think there’s some potential for this dissatisfaction to coalesce around an issue.” Out of all the reforms those polled supported, Leonard said redistricting reform may be the most pivotal to changing state government. “I think it’s our best hope at getting reformed politics. “
Illinois voters support a variety of reforms to state government, ranging from tweaks to campaign finance rules to term limits for elected officials
The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale today presented results of a survey of 1,000 registered voters — part of the institute’s annual poll. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Those surveyed strongly backed legislative term limits, with 75 percent saying they support limits of five consecutive two year terms for state representatives and three consecutive four year terms for state senators.
David Yepsen, director of the institute, said widespread support for term limits is an indicator of the public’s frustration with their state government. He noted that the Tea Party has supported term limits, and that issue could become the focus of such a populist movement in Illinois. “If I am member of the legislature, I’ve got to be thinking, ‘How do I get the fuse out of this bomb?’” Yepsen said.
He said he thinks term limits cut in on the democratic process by blocking voters from choosing incumbents once their time has run out, regardless of what the popular vote might be. Yepsen said that forcing out lawmakers with institutional knowledge and experience would leave new lawmakers to turn to staff members and lobbyists for the bulk of information. “Staff people have too much power as it is, and lobbyists have too much power as it is.”
However, Yepsen said, “There’s all kinds of reasons why term limits are a bad idea, but voters are so fed up and so exasperated.”
Charles Leonard, visiting professor and polling director for the institute, agreed that term limits may not be the best public policy choice, but he said that if the redistricting process in the state is not changed, that idea could find more supporters. He said because districts are often drawn to protect incumbency, “a lot of people who might otherwise not support term limits may see it as a desperate move to throwing the bums out.”
Respondents also backed several campaign finance reform measures, including changes to the rules for judges:
- 61.4 percent favored limiting the amount of money that party leaders can give to other candidates.
- 71.4 percent supported limiting the amount of money that people can contribute for judicial races.
- 53.6 percent backed giving judicial candidates public funding for their campaigns.
Leonard said judicial reform might be low hanging fruit for legislators because they could institute a change that does not apply to their own branch of government.
Voters who responded to the poll also supported reworking the way Illinois redraws its legislative maps every 10 years after the census takes place. A plan to overhaul the redistricting process failed in the legislature last year, and the League of Women Voters was unable to capture the needed signatures to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change the process. But the institute’s poll found that voters generally agreed with one of the primary components of the league’s proposal. About 65 percent of respondents said they were in favor of having a commission independent from the legislature draw the map. That number increased from 53.5 percent in favor of such a plan in 2010. Yepsen and Leonard agreed that the efforts to change the system, as well as media coverage of the legislature drawing new maps last spring, has put the issue on the voters’ radar. “I think our mass media culture is capable of keeping about four items on the agenda at any time given our short attention span, And it’s up there right now,” Leonard said.
Yepsen said another effort to put a new method on the ballot as a constitutional amendment could be successful, but it would take a lot of money and professional organization. “A ballot initiative in a state this size takes a level of sophistication that a bunch of well-meaning volunteers just simply can’t do.” However, he said attempts to get an amendment on the ballot, such as ones from the league and others, may eventually spur legislative change. “I think just the threat of these constitutional amendments might give reform-minded people in the legislature and legislative leaders reason to do something on their own on these things.”
Leonard noted that only about 15 percent of voters think the state is headed in the right direction. “I think there’s some potential for this dissatisfaction to coalesce around an issue.” Out of all the reforms those polled supported, Leonard said redistricting reform may be the most pivotal to changing state government. “I think it’s our best hope at getting reformed politics. “
Monday, June 27, 2011
Blagojevich verdicts may spark more reforms
By Jamey Dunn
Another of Illinois’ past governors faces potential years behind bars after being convicted on the majority of the corruption charges he was facing. But some Illinois officials warn it is not yet time to close the book on the state’s history of corruption.
A jury today convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on 17 out of 20 counts. The jury found him not guilty on one count connected to an alleged plot to squeeze campaign money from road construction firms before he would sign a tollway plan that would benefit some builders. The jury did not come to a verdict on another charge related to that scheme and one tied to an alleged attempt to strong-arm U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, into arranging a Blagojevich fundraiser before the governor would release a grant to the Chicago Academy. The defense called Emanuel to testify in the former governor’s retrial. Prosecutors reportedly do not plan to retry Blagojevich on the two charges that they jury could not agree on.
The jury found Blagojevich guilty on charges related to his most well-known scheme, attempting to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat for personal or political gain. He was also convicted on charges relating to him trying to get representatives of the horse racing industry to trade campaign contributions for his signature on a bill that would benefit them, as well as holding up legislation related to funding in an attempt to extort campaign contributions from the chief operating officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital.
“There’s not much left to say other than we want to get home to our little girls,” Blagojevich told reporters as he left the federal courthouse today. He said he was “stunned” and wanted to go home to explain what happened to his two daughters and decide what to do next.
“I’m sure we’ll be seeing you guys again,” he quipped, alluding to a potential appeal. Blagojevich was allowed to go home today, but he is not allowed to travel out of the federal Northern District of Illinois without permission from Judge James Zagel, who has presided over both of Blagojevich’s trials.
In his first criminal trial, Blagojevich was convicted of one charge of lying to federal officers. That jury could not reach an agreement on 23 other counts. Blagojevich decided not to testify at that trial, but he spent days on the stand in his retrial. Sam Adam Jr., who represented Blagojevich in his first trial but not in the most recent one, said that he thinks the jury didn’t believe what the former governor said in his own defense. “It’s obvious that the jury wanted to make a statement, and they made a statement,” Adam told WLS-TV Chicago. “It just seems the jury in this particular case didn’t buy what he had to say.”
Adam said he thinks Blagojevich has grounds for an appeal based on the courts refusal to allow the defense to present some of the pieces of his recorded phone conservations. He added that Blagojevich was unable to “corroborate” his testimony with this barred evidence. “I think he’ll end up vindicated,’ Adam said. He said he would work on an appeal if tapped to do so.
Adam predicted that if an appeal is not successful, Blagojevich could be sentenced to between five and nine years for his convictions. “He’s looking at some serious time here.” Adam added that if Zagel determines that Blagojevich lied during his testimony, the sentence could be longer.
“I'm glad that the verdict is finally in on Rod Blagojevich. However, this closes only one chapter of Democrat corruption in Illinois. Illinois Democratic politicians who now try everything they can to hide their past support of Rod Blagojevich should look themselves in the mirror and remind themselves that little has changed since the day Blagojevich was arrested,” Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady said in a prepared statement. Republicans will likely try to make Illinois Democrats, including President Barack Obama and anyone else who said something positive in the past about the now-convicted felon, live down the legacy of Blagojevich in the next few election cycles.
However, many Democrats have been distancing themselves from the former governor for years, so time will tell whetherf Blagojevich’s conviction will become effective campaign fodder.
"Once again, the former governor's pattern of dishonesty has been confirmed. I thank the jury for its public service. Just as it was sad but necessary for the Senate to remove him from office, today is another sad event for Illinois. I would hope that this verdict would further allow us as a state to move on and ahead,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a written response to the verdict.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno called on Illinois lawmakers to approve more reforms. In the wake of Blagojevich’s arrest, the General Assembly approved a campaign finance reform law that for the first time in Illinois caps the contributions politicians can accept. Lawmakers also enacted new ethics rules for state employees, as well as a new process for the way the state enters into contracts with vendors. However, Republicans have pushed for laws to lower campaign contribution caps and limit party contributions, with no gains over the last few years.
“It was clear that Rod Blagojevich conspired to use the governor's office for personal gain. He inflicted real, permanent damage on the state during his six years in office. Unfortunately, future generations will be paying for his administration for years to come,” Radogno said in a prepared statement. “I am as anxious as everyone to now put this sordid chapter in our state’s history behind us. But some will want to use this verdict to close the door on reform. Instead, it is our job as elected officials to make sure the public has confidence in the integrity of their government. We all have a responsibility to send a clear signal that Illinoisans do not need to tolerate even the appearance of conflicts of interest by elected officials.”
Gov. Pat Quinn agreed. “This is a serious day for our state,” Quinn said at a Chicago news conference. He said Blagojevich’s conviction, along with the previous conviction of former Gov. George Ryan on corruption charges, “underlines … for every person in Illinois the importance of reforming our government on a daily basis from top to bottom.”
He called for lawmakers to revisit several additional ethics provisions. Quinn said legislators should consider allowing open primaries in the state, imposing a mandatory “conflict of interest” requirement on themselves and extending the recall power to all elected offices. Quinn pushed a constitutional amendment approved last November, which allows Illinois voters to recall governors. “I also think that looking at campaign finance again is something worth trying,” he said.
Quinn renewed a call to allow citizens to present ethics laws through a voter initiative system. He tried to tack such a provision onto a bill through an amendatory veto last year, but lawmakers did not take up the veto for a vote. Experts said that the plan would likely not fit into the narrow voter initiative requirements in the state’s Constitution. This time, Quinn is calling for a constitutional amendment. “There’s a lot to be done. I’m sure there are many people with many ideas,” he said.
Quinn said he did not feel the need to apologize for supporting his former running mate in the past, saying Blagojevich had “deceived” him and others. “I have nothing to apologize for because I know I do things in an honest way.”
He said it is regrettable that two of his predecessors, Blagojevich and Ryan, may soon be behind bars. “I’m very sorry that happened to [the Blagojevich] family, but you have to be accountable for your deeds.”
Another of Illinois’ past governors faces potential years behind bars after being convicted on the majority of the corruption charges he was facing. But some Illinois officials warn it is not yet time to close the book on the state’s history of corruption.
A jury today convicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich on 17 out of 20 counts. The jury found him not guilty on one count connected to an alleged plot to squeeze campaign money from road construction firms before he would sign a tollway plan that would benefit some builders. The jury did not come to a verdict on another charge related to that scheme and one tied to an alleged attempt to strong-arm U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, into arranging a Blagojevich fundraiser before the governor would release a grant to the Chicago Academy. The defense called Emanuel to testify in the former governor’s retrial. Prosecutors reportedly do not plan to retry Blagojevich on the two charges that they jury could not agree on.
The jury found Blagojevich guilty on charges related to his most well-known scheme, attempting to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat for personal or political gain. He was also convicted on charges relating to him trying to get representatives of the horse racing industry to trade campaign contributions for his signature on a bill that would benefit them, as well as holding up legislation related to funding in an attempt to extort campaign contributions from the chief operating officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital.
“There’s not much left to say other than we want to get home to our little girls,” Blagojevich told reporters as he left the federal courthouse today. He said he was “stunned” and wanted to go home to explain what happened to his two daughters and decide what to do next.
“I’m sure we’ll be seeing you guys again,” he quipped, alluding to a potential appeal. Blagojevich was allowed to go home today, but he is not allowed to travel out of the federal Northern District of Illinois without permission from Judge James Zagel, who has presided over both of Blagojevich’s trials.
In his first criminal trial, Blagojevich was convicted of one charge of lying to federal officers. That jury could not reach an agreement on 23 other counts. Blagojevich decided not to testify at that trial, but he spent days on the stand in his retrial. Sam Adam Jr., who represented Blagojevich in his first trial but not in the most recent one, said that he thinks the jury didn’t believe what the former governor said in his own defense. “It’s obvious that the jury wanted to make a statement, and they made a statement,” Adam told WLS-TV Chicago. “It just seems the jury in this particular case didn’t buy what he had to say.”
Adam said he thinks Blagojevich has grounds for an appeal based on the courts refusal to allow the defense to present some of the pieces of his recorded phone conservations. He added that Blagojevich was unable to “corroborate” his testimony with this barred evidence. “I think he’ll end up vindicated,’ Adam said. He said he would work on an appeal if tapped to do so.
Adam predicted that if an appeal is not successful, Blagojevich could be sentenced to between five and nine years for his convictions. “He’s looking at some serious time here.” Adam added that if Zagel determines that Blagojevich lied during his testimony, the sentence could be longer.
“I'm glad that the verdict is finally in on Rod Blagojevich. However, this closes only one chapter of Democrat corruption in Illinois. Illinois Democratic politicians who now try everything they can to hide their past support of Rod Blagojevich should look themselves in the mirror and remind themselves that little has changed since the day Blagojevich was arrested,” Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady said in a prepared statement. Republicans will likely try to make Illinois Democrats, including President Barack Obama and anyone else who said something positive in the past about the now-convicted felon, live down the legacy of Blagojevich in the next few election cycles.
However, many Democrats have been distancing themselves from the former governor for years, so time will tell whetherf Blagojevich’s conviction will become effective campaign fodder.
"Once again, the former governor's pattern of dishonesty has been confirmed. I thank the jury for its public service. Just as it was sad but necessary for the Senate to remove him from office, today is another sad event for Illinois. I would hope that this verdict would further allow us as a state to move on and ahead,” Senate President John Cullerton said in a written response to the verdict.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno called on Illinois lawmakers to approve more reforms. In the wake of Blagojevich’s arrest, the General Assembly approved a campaign finance reform law that for the first time in Illinois caps the contributions politicians can accept. Lawmakers also enacted new ethics rules for state employees, as well as a new process for the way the state enters into contracts with vendors. However, Republicans have pushed for laws to lower campaign contribution caps and limit party contributions, with no gains over the last few years.
“It was clear that Rod Blagojevich conspired to use the governor's office for personal gain. He inflicted real, permanent damage on the state during his six years in office. Unfortunately, future generations will be paying for his administration for years to come,” Radogno said in a prepared statement. “I am as anxious as everyone to now put this sordid chapter in our state’s history behind us. But some will want to use this verdict to close the door on reform. Instead, it is our job as elected officials to make sure the public has confidence in the integrity of their government. We all have a responsibility to send a clear signal that Illinoisans do not need to tolerate even the appearance of conflicts of interest by elected officials.”
Gov. Pat Quinn agreed. “This is a serious day for our state,” Quinn said at a Chicago news conference. He said Blagojevich’s conviction, along with the previous conviction of former Gov. George Ryan on corruption charges, “underlines … for every person in Illinois the importance of reforming our government on a daily basis from top to bottom.”
He called for lawmakers to revisit several additional ethics provisions. Quinn said legislators should consider allowing open primaries in the state, imposing a mandatory “conflict of interest” requirement on themselves and extending the recall power to all elected offices. Quinn pushed a constitutional amendment approved last November, which allows Illinois voters to recall governors. “I also think that looking at campaign finance again is something worth trying,” he said.
Quinn renewed a call to allow citizens to present ethics laws through a voter initiative system. He tried to tack such a provision onto a bill through an amendatory veto last year, but lawmakers did not take up the veto for a vote. Experts said that the plan would likely not fit into the narrow voter initiative requirements in the state’s Constitution. This time, Quinn is calling for a constitutional amendment. “There’s a lot to be done. I’m sure there are many people with many ideas,” he said.
Quinn said he did not feel the need to apologize for supporting his former running mate in the past, saying Blagojevich had “deceived” him and others. “I have nothing to apologize for because I know I do things in an honest way.”
He said it is regrettable that two of his predecessors, Blagojevich and Ryan, may soon be behind bars. “I’m very sorry that happened to [the Blagojevich] family, but you have to be accountable for your deeds.”
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Quinn wants voters to present reforms
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn issued another amendatory veto today that drastically changes the content of the original bill.
House Bill 5206 allows election officials to electronically remove deceased voters from registration rolls. Quinn left the content of the bill intact but tacked on provisions that would create a citizens' initiative process for ideas pertaining to “ethical conduct and campaign finance reform.”
Earlier this month, Quinn plugged an open primary provision into a bill that originally required the State Board of Elections to post voter guides with candidate information on its website.
Under the new version of HB 5206, proposals that receive 100,000 petition signatures would be drafted into a bill and voted on by the General Assembly. If the legislation failed to become law, it would go onto the ballot as an advisory referendum, which does not have any binding legal power.
Quinn floated the idea of allowing voter initiatives for ethics measures last year while the legislature was fighting it out over campaign finance reform, and proposals from his Illinois Reform Commission were largely failing to gain traction. Quinn's amendatory veto could raise questions of constitutionality. Check back tomorrow for more analysis.
Gov. Pat Quinn issued another amendatory veto today that drastically changes the content of the original bill.
House Bill 5206 allows election officials to electronically remove deceased voters from registration rolls. Quinn left the content of the bill intact but tacked on provisions that would create a citizens' initiative process for ideas pertaining to “ethical conduct and campaign finance reform.”
Earlier this month, Quinn plugged an open primary provision into a bill that originally required the State Board of Elections to post voter guides with candidate information on its website.
Under the new version of HB 5206, proposals that receive 100,000 petition signatures would be drafted into a bill and voted on by the General Assembly. If the legislation failed to become law, it would go onto the ballot as an advisory referendum, which does not have any binding legal power.
Quinn floated the idea of allowing voter initiatives for ethics measures last year while the legislature was fighting it out over campaign finance reform, and proposals from his Illinois Reform Commission were largely failing to gain traction. Quinn's amendatory veto could raise questions of constitutionality. Check back tomorrow for more analysis.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Reform do-over
By Bethany Jaeger
In an unusual move, the Illinois legislative leaders asked the governor to veto a bill that Democratic members sent to his desk in May. Gov. Pat Quinn obliged, saying he would work with members of both political parties, as well as government reform advocates, to start from scratch — and get it done by October 14 — to tighten up the rules for the funding of political campaigns.
Quinn vetoed House Bill 7, which would have established contributions limits of $5,000 for individuals, $10,000 for businesses and labor unions and $90,000 for transfers from statewide political parties. Quinn said since he received the bill, he’s gotten a lot of feedback from individuals, reform advocates and newspaper editorials that the bill was flawed and could have unintended consequences, as well as risked turning voters away from a system that maintains the status quo. In turn, Illinois remains one of only a handful of states with no limits on the amount individuals, businesses or interest groups can donate to political candidates.
“I’d rather take more time to get it right and have public consensus behind it than hastily do something that might have happened in the spring,” Quinn said during a news conference with all four legislative leaders. They were joined by reform advocates from Change Illinois, a coalition of about 50 organizations seeking campaign contribution limits, among other things.
George Ranney, president and chief executive officer of Chicago Metropolis 2020, as well as a co-chair of the reform group Change Illinois, said the governor and the legislative leaders agreeing to work out a compromise before the General Assembly returns for its annual fall veto session was a “major step in the right direction.” Next, he said, “even more so, at this point, we think there is an opportunity to do the right thing for this state, to enact a bill that has strong limits, that has the right kind of committee structure and, importantly, has a real set of provisions for enforcement.”
It was "not perfect"
Quinn’s veto comes after he testified in favor of HB 7 in late May. Sitting next to House Speaker Michael Madigan, the governor said then that the bill was not perfect, but it was a “significant step forward” and that it was the “best we can do at this time.”
His testimony contradicted the recommendations of his own Illinois Reform Commission, which wanted more stringent contribution limits and other enforcement reforms.
Quinn said today that he seriously considered altering the bill or adding to it, which would have sent it back to the legislature. But he said it dawned on him that it was better to totally veto it and make a stronger bill. He added that he would seek the commission’s input on a new version. “Sometimes when you have to alter your course to make things better, you do that. I’d rather make it better than to not do it right.”
Senate President John Cullerton said in Quinn’s defense that a new negotiated bill wasn’t ready by the time Quinn had to act on HB 7 (he faced a Friday deadline). “We asked the governor to veto this bill. We asked him — the sponsors of the bill — asked him to veto it. Because if he signed it, there are people here who think it could be much better, and that would be interpreted as accepting something that had flaws. We didn’t want to do that,” Cullerton said. “He’s not flip- flopping. He’s doing what we’ve asked.”
Cullerton added that the general areas they intend to work on include the level of contribution limits and the ability of officials to enforce the new rules.
Cynthia Canary, who previously described HB 7 as “phony reform,” today defended Quinn. “We often slam our elected officials for not having a backbone, for not listening to us, for flip-flopping. What could be braver than listening to the people coming to the table and saying, ‘We hear you. We’re going to try to do things differently.’”
Republicans, who argued they were cut out of the negotiating process, deemed the bill “seriously flawed” and urged the governor to reject it in totality and start over. Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno today commended Quinn for “courage” in not signing HB 7 just to have something on the books. “As desperate as our state is for reform, and that includes campaign finance reform, there was tremendous pressure on the governor to go ahead and enact a bill that really would have maintained the status quo or even made it worse.”
During the spring legislative session, Radogno sponsored multiple versions of campaign finance limits. One version matched recommendations by the Illinois Reform Commission and Change Illinois. It would have established contribution limits similar to those set at the federal level: $2,400 for individuals, $5,000 for political committees, businesses and unions, and $30,000 for legislative leadership. Her new bill eventually will appear in Senate Bill 2464 (the link won't be available for a while).
House Republicans also supported a Democratic-sponsored bill, HB 24, that would have mirrored federal limits.
House Minority Leader Tom Cross said today that agreeing to start over on campaign finance was a good beginning, but there’s more on the agenda. He said Republicans also want to address the idea of moving back the primary election date (now held in early February), allowing voters to recall elected officials, instituting special elections to fill vacant seats and reforming the redistricting process.
House Bill 7, as approved
HB 7 as approved by the Illinois General Assembly would not have taken effect until January 2011, after the next general election.
One point of contention among reform groups and legislators is that the bill set a pseudo limit on statewide political party transfers. While the dollar amount of transfers would be limited, the Democratic Party of Illinois, for instance, could offer unlimited in-kind contributions. That could include anything from support for advertisements, yard signs, mailers to manpower to knock on doors.
Anther debated provision would create a new type of fund for legislators to pay for maintaining their offices and assisting people in their legislative districts. Contributions to those funds would be capped at $5,000. The money could not be used for campaigns. Critics said the new so-called “constituent services” funds could be used as a loophole for politicians to throw political events.
And contrary to the wishes of the governor’s reform commission, HB 7 as approved would have only required real-time disclosure during the month of May, when state budget negotiations tend to peak. Other than that, political campaigns would have to file financial reports four times a year. The Illinois Reform Commission wanted politicians to immediately report contributions throughout the entire year. They currently only have to file major disclosure reports twice a year. The bill does include a provision to allow the Illinois State Board of Elections to audit candidates and committees if they missed two consecutive reporting deadlines.
House and Senate Republicans issued the following list of “flaws,” in addition to the points made above:
- “Limits are based on an annual cycle, not election cycles” — Annual cycles could benefit incumbents who could raise money year-round, while challengers would struggle to gain name recognition and financial support.
- “Too many possibilities for candidate committees” — It could spur the creation of even more political finance committees because each official and candidate would be able to have up to three separate committees, all with different contribution limits. House Minority Leader Tom Cross said that would cause a “diffusion of contributions, not a limitation on them.”
- “No comprehensive enforcement mechanism” — The Illinois State Board of Elections would gain little power and financial support to enforce the new rules, although it would be able to audit campaigns if they missed two consecutive reporting deadlines.
- “Doesn’t take effect until 2011” — That’s after the next general elections, which House Speaker Michael Madigan has said would make it fairer because candidates who started fundraising under the old rules would have an advantage over those who started under the new ones.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Revamped employee ethics rules enacted
By Bethany Jaeger
In a “week of reform,” Gov. Pat Quinn today signed Senate Bill 54, which addresses state employee ethics rules and lobbyist registration requirements. The governor enacted a revamped Freedom of Information Act yesterday.
Here’s the breakdown of SB 54 and some background, including why provisions to strengthen the role of inspectors general were needed (it relates to when former Gov. Rod Blagojevich formed the inspectors general but did not give them the ability to shine a light on ethics violations).
Employee ethics:
Updated revolving door ban:
New lobbying rules:
In a “week of reform,” Gov. Pat Quinn today signed Senate Bill 54, which addresses state employee ethics rules and lobbyist registration requirements. The governor enacted a revamped Freedom of Information Act yesterday.
Here’s the breakdown of SB 54 and some background, including why provisions to strengthen the role of inspectors general were needed (it relates to when former Gov. Rod Blagojevich formed the inspectors general but did not give them the ability to shine a light on ethics violations).
Employee ethics:
- Reports written by inspectors general will be made public record if the inspectors find wrongdoing and either suspend or terminate a state employee. Some information could still be blacked out, or redacted, if its release would harm an ongoing investigation.
- However, routine reports about the status of investigations will not be subject to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
- Inspectors will be able to open investigations based on anonymous tips.
- The law clarifies the process for investigating potential ethics violations.
- The Executive Ethics Commission will house new procurement officers to oversee the way state agencies buy goods and services.
- Employees and candidates cannot promise compensated time off, benefits, raises, job promotions, favorable regulatory treatment or a state contract in exchange for a campaign contribution.
- State employees have to take an online ethics exam within 30 days of starting their new jobs, rather than within six months, as currently required.
Updated revolving door ban:
- Policymakers will not be able to resign and within a year accept a position with private companies that received significant state contracts from the agencies where the officials worked.
- The state is expected to have an easier time tracking which employees will be subject to the revolving door ban because the legislation also requires agencies and executive offices to list those employees. Those lists will be filed with the agencies' respective ethics commissions.
New lobbying rules:
- People who lobby state boards, commissions or retirement boards now will have to register as lobbyists.
- All lobbyists will have to abide by stricter disclosure requirements, including listing all expenditures related to lobbying activities, their clients and the subject matter of lobbying activities. The reports will have to be filed with the secretary of state on a weekly basis when the legislature is in session and monthly during the off-season.
- Many will have to pay a higher $1,000 fee, which is the way the state is expected to pay for more inspectors to monitor lobbying activities. House Speaker Michael Madigan previously said he would consider lowering the fee for smaller nonprofit groups in the future.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Quinn: "This will be a week of reform"
By Bethany Jaeger
The end of August marks a deadline for Gov. Pat Quinn, who has to act on legislation approved by the General Assembly before bills automatically become law. In Chicago today, Quinn deemed this week as a “week of reform,” starting with today’s enactment of the revamped laws to ensure public access to information. He could soon act on ethics legislation to limit the amount individuals and political organizations could donate to candidates.
Freedom of Information Act = Senate Bill 189
Quinn signed SB 189, which rewrites the Freedom of Information Act (background here). Starting in January 2010, the process of requesting public information is supposed to get faster and more accountable.
In addition to new training requirements and higher standards for denying access to information, the new FOIA will require public bodies to reply to requests for information within five business days, as opposed to the current seven days. And if a public body denies a request, individuals will have to take fewer steps and less time to appeal that denial.
“The main thing this new act does is enforce many of the good words that were already part of Illinois law that were ignored by public officials,” said Hanke Gratteau, a member of Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission and former investigative reporter and managing editor for the Chicago Tribune. “There is now recourse if that is avoided, and that’s why it’s good enough for me.”
The end of August marks a deadline for Gov. Pat Quinn, who has to act on legislation approved by the General Assembly before bills automatically become law. In Chicago today, Quinn deemed this week as a “week of reform,” starting with today’s enactment of the revamped laws to ensure public access to information. He could soon act on ethics legislation to limit the amount individuals and political organizations could donate to candidates.
Freedom of Information Act = Senate Bill 189
Quinn signed SB 189, which rewrites the Freedom of Information Act (background here). Starting in January 2010, the process of requesting public information is supposed to get faster and more accountable.
In addition to new training requirements and higher standards for denying access to information, the new FOIA will require public bodies to reply to requests for information within five business days, as opposed to the current seven days. And if a public body denies a request, individuals will have to take fewer steps and less time to appeal that denial.
“The main thing this new act does is enforce many of the good words that were already part of Illinois law that were ignored by public officials,” said Hanke Gratteau, a member of Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission and former investigative reporter and managing editor for the Chicago Tribune. “There is now recourse if that is avoided, and that’s why it’s good enough for me.”
Local and state governments still can deny access to information under a series of exemptions, and the legislature still can withhold internal documents such as staff analyses and final reports drafted by consultants.
But there are new penalties, something absent from the current FOIA. Under the new version, if a court finds that a public official intentionally violated the FOIA or Open Meetings Act, the official could be fined between $2,400 and $5,000 for each offense.
The Illinois Municipal League, however, believes the new FOIA will place a heavy burden on local governments and won’t go as smoothly as lawmakers think in the next four and a half months, said Roger Huebner, the organization’s deputy executive director and general counsel. Every governmental body covered by the FOIA now has had its primary function fundamentally redefined to field information requests, regardless of whether their budgets have been slashed, he added. More background on the Municipal League’s statements are online.
Quinn’s enactment of the new FOIA comes after the governor came under media scrutiny for reportedly using his personal cell phone rather than using a state-provided phone that is subject to public access laws. Quinn said in Chicago today that taxpayers do not pay for his private cell phone and that he doesn’t use it for official state business.
“I do not use this phone to make e-mails to government employees or conduct any kind of communication with government employees,” he said. “As the person of the attorney general’s office who oversees this law [determined], private phone calls that don’t come out of public funds are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”
Transparency = House Bill 35
The state also launched a new Web site where anyone with Internet access can look up state employee salaries, state contacts and state-issued licenses. It’s called the Illinois Transparency and Accountability Portal.
Individuals also can look up all board and commission members, as well as their terms and whether they get paid at a new site dedicated to executive appointments. It was created under Senate Bill 1602, which also establishes new ethics requirements for board and commission members.
Campaign finance reform = House Bill 7
Quinn indicated he also could act as soon as tomorrow on legislation that would limit the amount individuals and political organizations could donate to political campaigns. HB 7 won legislative approval but was not the version recommended by the governor’s own Illinois Reform Commission. (Background here.)
But there are new penalties, something absent from the current FOIA. Under the new version, if a court finds that a public official intentionally violated the FOIA or Open Meetings Act, the official could be fined between $2,400 and $5,000 for each offense.
The new law also gives new powers to the Illinois attorney general's office, where members of the public, media or government can seek help from a specialized lawyer to settle disputes about whether information should be released. The so-called public access counselor will have new authority to issue binding opinions and to subpoena information.
“Today, we can say that Illinois will officially make it out of the Stone Age of transparency,” Attorney General Lisa Madigan said. “We will end the culture of secrecy that surrounds our government, and we will have, I think, a better relationship and better trust with members of the public.”
“Today, we can say that Illinois will officially make it out of the Stone Age of transparency,” Attorney General Lisa Madigan said. “We will end the culture of secrecy that surrounds our government, and we will have, I think, a better relationship and better trust with members of the public.”
The Illinois Municipal League, however, believes the new FOIA will place a heavy burden on local governments and won’t go as smoothly as lawmakers think in the next four and a half months, said Roger Huebner, the organization’s deputy executive director and general counsel. Every governmental body covered by the FOIA now has had its primary function fundamentally redefined to field information requests, regardless of whether their budgets have been slashed, he added. More background on the Municipal League’s statements are online.
Cara Smith, deputy chief of staff of policy and communications for the attorney general's office, said she disagrees and that the new law could lessen the burden on local governments because they will have a built-in resource with access to a public access counselor, as opposed to an outside legal counsel.
Heubner referred to commercial requests, in particular, as problematic because they tend to be broad, time-consuming requests. “That’s going to become a financial nightmare.” Local governments still can reject requests by deeming them unduly burdensome.
Heubner also said the new FOIA isn’t written for lay people and that information requests immediately will become legal matters if disputed. “This bill has gone from the hope to help the laymen to the lawyer’s dream.”
Heubner referred to commercial requests, in particular, as problematic because they tend to be broad, time-consuming requests. “That’s going to become a financial nightmare.” Local governments still can reject requests by deeming them unduly burdensome.
Heubner also said the new FOIA isn’t written for lay people and that information requests immediately will become legal matters if disputed. “This bill has gone from the hope to help the laymen to the lawyer’s dream.”
Smith said: "If the public body has denied a request and the citizen comes to us for help, then the public body will have to decide if they want to interact with us informally or if they have to get a lawyer. It's certainly not necessary." She added, "I recognize that the public bodies have not looked at this as a benefit to them, but I think that over time, they will see it as just that."
Quinn’s enactment of the new FOIA comes after the governor came under media scrutiny for reportedly using his personal cell phone rather than using a state-provided phone that is subject to public access laws. Quinn said in Chicago today that taxpayers do not pay for his private cell phone and that he doesn’t use it for official state business.
“I do not use this phone to make e-mails to government employees or conduct any kind of communication with government employees,” he said. “As the person of the attorney general’s office who oversees this law [determined], private phone calls that don’t come out of public funds are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”
Transparency = House Bill 35
The state also launched a new Web site where anyone with Internet access can look up state employee salaries, state contacts and state-issued licenses. It’s called the Illinois Transparency and Accountability Portal.
Individuals also can look up all board and commission members, as well as their terms and whether they get paid at a new site dedicated to executive appointments. It was created under Senate Bill 1602, which also establishes new ethics requirements for board and commission members.
Campaign finance reform = House Bill 7
Quinn indicated he also could act as soon as tomorrow on legislation that would limit the amount individuals and political organizations could donate to political campaigns. HB 7 won legislative approval but was not the version recommended by the governor’s own Illinois Reform Commission. (Background here.)
Quinn could use his amendatory veto power to change the legislation, although he said he uses that power judiciously. “I’m going to use that only where it’s needed and where it can advance the common good. I think that’s the way we have to do it. We don’t do it to kick the legislature in the shins. I don’t believe in that.”
Patty Schuh, spokeswoman for the Senate Republicans, said Minority Leader Christine Radogno asked the governor to veto the bill in its entirety "because it’s been called worse than nothing. We believe there is ample opportunity to revisit this if everyone is committed to change,” Schuh said.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Recall returns, other reforms coming
By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The legislature continues to advance measures that would try to prevent the alleged wrongdoing by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich from going on long enough for a federal indictment to intervene.
Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and longtime Blagojevich critic, revived his effort to change the state Constitution so voters could “recall” elected officials. The effort failed last year. This time, however, he’s calling for a constitutional amendment that would only focus on allowing voters to recall the governor, not other statewide officeholders or legislators.
Franks called it a first step and said that recall should only be used in extreme situations, describing recall authority as a “nuclear option” to remove corrupt or inept officials. He pointed to 18 other states that have some version of a recall provision, but it’s only been used twice in recent history, the most recent in California in 2003.
The bill is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow morning. We’ll have more then.
Sen. Susan Garrett, a Lake Forest Democrat, also is sponsoring a measure to increase transparency in the way the governor appoints people to boards and commissions. While Gov. Pat Quinn’s office already published a Web site listing all appointments, Garrett’s bill, SB 1602, would aim to increase transparency, prevent conflicts of interest and “ensure the process isn’t dominated by political insiders.” She referred to several Blagojevich appointments involved in the ongoing federal investigation of using public office for private gain.
Both Franks and Garrett said the legislature continues to advance reform measures not addressed by Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission. Franks said the panel did good work, “but by no means is it all inclusive or the only reasonable voice.”
The commission did not make a specific recommendation, for instance, about whether to let voters recall elected officials. Commissioner Patrick Collins previously said the group only gave recommendations that received unanimous support, and recall was not unanimous but deserved additional consideration.
One area the commission did make specific recommendations was campaign finance. While last week’s attempt to debate so-called contribution limits soured, another attempt could be made as soon as tomorrow. Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, went as far to say he expects some form of contribution caps to pass both chambers tomorrow. The process is expected to start with a Senate committee hearing in the afternoon.
Harmon has been negotiating a compromise with lawmakers and the Illinois Reform Commission. He said there is “if not broad agreement, at least broad acceptance” of $5,000 contribution limits for individual donors. That’s a more lenient limit than the $2,400 cap recommended by the commission. But the bigger sticking point, according to Harmon, is whether to limit the amount statewide political parties can donate to their candidates.
But a statement from House Speaker Michael Madigan today made it seem as though that issue may be close to a resolution among Democrats.
A public TV program called Illinois Lawmakers reported that Madigan said he and Senate President John Cullerton have come to an agreement on capping the amount of money political parties can transfer to candidates’ campaign committees. Both leaders have withheld their support of the idea in the past.
“We are moving in the right direction.” Madigan said. “There should be caps on contributions. There should be caps on transfers between committees.”
FOIA rewrite advances
One area where lawmakers did strike a compromise with competing versions is strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.
The Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Attorney General expressed disappointment with a watered down version last week, but both enthusiastically supported the version that won House approval today. “This bill did not have everything we wanted, but we were very happy with this bill,” said David Porter, spokesman for the Illinois Press Association.
Senate Bill 189 would increase the standard for public bodies to proving a requested document is exempt from the law. It also would shorten the time public bodies would have to respond to requests from seven business days to five.
One major change is that a certified “public access counselor” would have authority to review and determine whether documents should have been released under the FOIA, and he or she would be able to subpoena documents. The counselor could go as far as issuing binding opinions to resolve disputes and sue to enforce those opinions.
We’ll have much more in the next few days.
The legislature continues to advance measures that would try to prevent the alleged wrongdoing by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich from going on long enough for a federal indictment to intervene.
Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat and longtime Blagojevich critic, revived his effort to change the state Constitution so voters could “recall” elected officials. The effort failed last year. This time, however, he’s calling for a constitutional amendment that would only focus on allowing voters to recall the governor, not other statewide officeholders or legislators.
Franks called it a first step and said that recall should only be used in extreme situations, describing recall authority as a “nuclear option” to remove corrupt or inept officials. He pointed to 18 other states that have some version of a recall provision, but it’s only been used twice in recent history, the most recent in California in 2003.
The bill is scheduled for a committee hearing tomorrow morning. We’ll have more then.
Sen. Susan Garrett, a Lake Forest Democrat, also is sponsoring a measure to increase transparency in the way the governor appoints people to boards and commissions. While Gov. Pat Quinn’s office already published a Web site listing all appointments, Garrett’s bill, SB 1602, would aim to increase transparency, prevent conflicts of interest and “ensure the process isn’t dominated by political insiders.” She referred to several Blagojevich appointments involved in the ongoing federal investigation of using public office for private gain.
Both Franks and Garrett said the legislature continues to advance reform measures not addressed by Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission. Franks said the panel did good work, “but by no means is it all inclusive or the only reasonable voice.”
The commission did not make a specific recommendation, for instance, about whether to let voters recall elected officials. Commissioner Patrick Collins previously said the group only gave recommendations that received unanimous support, and recall was not unanimous but deserved additional consideration.
One area the commission did make specific recommendations was campaign finance. While last week’s attempt to debate so-called contribution limits soured, another attempt could be made as soon as tomorrow. Sen. Don Harmon, an Oak Park Democrat, went as far to say he expects some form of contribution caps to pass both chambers tomorrow. The process is expected to start with a Senate committee hearing in the afternoon.
Harmon has been negotiating a compromise with lawmakers and the Illinois Reform Commission. He said there is “if not broad agreement, at least broad acceptance” of $5,000 contribution limits for individual donors. That’s a more lenient limit than the $2,400 cap recommended by the commission. But the bigger sticking point, according to Harmon, is whether to limit the amount statewide political parties can donate to their candidates.
But a statement from House Speaker Michael Madigan today made it seem as though that issue may be close to a resolution among Democrats.
A public TV program called Illinois Lawmakers reported that Madigan said he and Senate President John Cullerton have come to an agreement on capping the amount of money political parties can transfer to candidates’ campaign committees. Both leaders have withheld their support of the idea in the past.
“We are moving in the right direction.” Madigan said. “There should be caps on contributions. There should be caps on transfers between committees.”
FOIA rewrite advances
One area where lawmakers did strike a compromise with competing versions is strengthening the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.
The Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Attorney General expressed disappointment with a watered down version last week, but both enthusiastically supported the version that won House approval today. “This bill did not have everything we wanted, but we were very happy with this bill,” said David Porter, spokesman for the Illinois Press Association.
Senate Bill 189 would increase the standard for public bodies to proving a requested document is exempt from the law. It also would shorten the time public bodies would have to respond to requests from seven business days to five.
One major change is that a certified “public access counselor” would have authority to review and determine whether documents should have been released under the FOIA, and he or she would be able to subpoena documents. The counselor could go as far as issuing binding opinions to resolve disputes and sue to enforce those opinions.
We’ll have much more in the next few days.
Friday, May 22, 2009
If not today, Thursday?
By Bethany Jaeger and Jamey Dunn
The day that was supposed to be “Ethics Day” in the General Assembly came and went with confusing and dramatic developments that sent lawmakers and reformers back to the drawing table, with less than nine days left in the legislature’s regularly scheduled spring session.
And the legislature took Memorial Day weekend off, returning to Springfield Tuesday. And they still hope to adjourn May 29, although the actual deadline isn’t until the 31st.
Gov. Pat Quinn started the day by saying he doesn’t intend to sign a $26 billion infrastructure program until the legislature sends him an operating budget and a series of government reform measures. But movement on a significant portion of the reform measures is delayed until the day before Senate President John Cullerton hoped to adjourn.
Campaign contribution limits, for instance, were supposed to be debated today in the Senate. But a string of misunderstandings and tension-ridden conversations resulted in no action.
The Senate did agree with the House and approved two of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s measures. If signed by the governor, they would revamp the way the state buys products and services and shine more light on investigations into corruption within state government. Senate Bill 51 addresses procurement, while Senate Bill 54 addresses state employee ethics laws and lobbyist registration. The Senate did not, however, approve Madigan’s “fumigation” bill to terminate up to 750 employees appointed by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.
Enforcement
The governor’s Illinois Reform Commission did present the first of its major proposals, which also happened to be a rather complex and controversial topic of state-level prosecution of public corruption cases. Only one of nine provisions won Senate approval today.
A visibly frustrated Collins held an impromptu news conference after a Senate hearing. “That’s not the process that we were promised,” he said after the votes. “We did not get enforcement reform today.”
According to Collins, the package was designed to give state prosecutors more ‘tools” to investigate corruption. The commission also sought greater penalties for such crimes. The amendment that met the most opposition would have expanded state’s attorneys’ authority to record conversations, including giving them power to wiretap telephones, with a judge’s approval.
Collins also advocated for making it harder for someone convicted of public corruption to get off with just probation, unless he or she cooperated with the investigation.
One attorney opposed the idea because he said it would take sentencing powers away from judges. Attorney Robert Loeb joined the Illinois Bar Association in opposing all of the commission’s the ideas because he said they would create extreme penalties for some minor offenses. He added that many aspects of the proposals already are covered by existing law.
Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat who voted “present” on all of the proposals, said that he was hesitant to greatly expand the powers of state’s attorneys because they are elected rather than appointed and might use political power to target opponents.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said he worried about giving greater eavesdropping powers to state’s attorneys because there are 102 of them throughout the state, challenging consistency in training and enforcement.
The only provision that won approval was crafted by Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat. It had no opposition.
Collins said while the legislators complained about not having enough time to consider the commission’s proposals, they approved Kotowski’s provision the same day it was filed.
Kotowski designed the measure to strike at the heart of Blagojevich’s alleged wrongdoings: his political campaign fund. The measure, which won Senate approval this afternoon and now heads to the House, would punish an individual who was convicted of public corruption the same as if he or she were a convicted drug dealer. The person would be subject to forfeiting property, assets or political funds.
“If you commit the act of corruption and graft, you’re going to lose your property, you’re going to lose your campaign fund, you’re going to lose anything that you acquired as a result of that,” Kotowski said.
Kotowski added that the commission’s enforcement provisions include rather far-reaching reforms that could take time to educate legislators and the public. “I’m not giving up on this stuff,” he said, adding that the ideas could be negotiated and brought up during the legislature’s annual fall session. “It’s not everything that we want to accomplish, not by any stretch. But it’s a really good first step, and I am excited about that.”
Campaign finance
The debate about campaign contribution limits has been bumped back to May 28 at the request of Collins, who said he needed time to negotiate an agreement between competing bills. “We’re at different places,” he said during his second Statehouse news conference of the day.
The commission proposes limiting individual donations at $2,400, while other proposals would limit them to $5,000 or $10,000. The commission also wants to limit large transfers of money from statewide political parties to their candidates. A Democratic proposal would not limit such transfers.
“Hopefully we can close that gap in the next few days,” Collins said. “And if we don’t, we’ve been assured many different ways with a lot of witnesses that we will get an up-or-down vote on the [commission’s] bill.”
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno has sponsored two different versions (a $10,000 limit and a $2,400 limit on behalf of the commission), none of which have been called for debate. She said it sounded as if Democratic leaders were trying to “run out the clock” on campaign finance limits. “I think there are people who want the status quo to continue, and those would be the people who have the majorities in this institution right now, the Democrats. They don’t want to change it.”
Senate President John Cullerton disagreed and said leadership was trying to five the commission’ time to negotiate bills. “These issues are not simple black and white issues. They require a lot of nuance.”
FOIA
Efforts to strengthen the understanding and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act are still in the works, although the Illinois Press Association and attorney general’s office expressed dissatisfaction with some water-downed versions. The Illinois Reform Commission is still trying to negotiate and could try to advance a revised measure Thursday, as well.
FYI: Here's the Illinois Reform Commission's full report.
The day that was supposed to be “Ethics Day” in the General Assembly came and went with confusing and dramatic developments that sent lawmakers and reformers back to the drawing table, with less than nine days left in the legislature’s regularly scheduled spring session.
And the legislature took Memorial Day weekend off, returning to Springfield Tuesday. And they still hope to adjourn May 29, although the actual deadline isn’t until the 31st.
Gov. Pat Quinn started the day by saying he doesn’t intend to sign a $26 billion infrastructure program until the legislature sends him an operating budget and a series of government reform measures. But movement on a significant portion of the reform measures is delayed until the day before Senate President John Cullerton hoped to adjourn.
Campaign contribution limits, for instance, were supposed to be debated today in the Senate. But a string of misunderstandings and tension-ridden conversations resulted in no action.
The Senate did agree with the House and approved two of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s measures. If signed by the governor, they would revamp the way the state buys products and services and shine more light on investigations into corruption within state government. Senate Bill 51 addresses procurement, while Senate Bill 54 addresses state employee ethics laws and lobbyist registration. The Senate did not, however, approve Madigan’s “fumigation” bill to terminate up to 750 employees appointed by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.
Enforcement
The governor’s Illinois Reform Commission did present the first of its major proposals, which also happened to be a rather complex and controversial topic of state-level prosecution of public corruption cases. Only one of nine provisions won Senate approval today.
A visibly frustrated Collins held an impromptu news conference after a Senate hearing. “That’s not the process that we were promised,” he said after the votes. “We did not get enforcement reform today.”
According to Collins, the package was designed to give state prosecutors more ‘tools” to investigate corruption. The commission also sought greater penalties for such crimes. The amendment that met the most opposition would have expanded state’s attorneys’ authority to record conversations, including giving them power to wiretap telephones, with a judge’s approval.
Collins also advocated for making it harder for someone convicted of public corruption to get off with just probation, unless he or she cooperated with the investigation.
One attorney opposed the idea because he said it would take sentencing powers away from judges. Attorney Robert Loeb joined the Illinois Bar Association in opposing all of the commission’s the ideas because he said they would create extreme penalties for some minor offenses. He added that many aspects of the proposals already are covered by existing law.
Sen. Bill Haine, an Alton Democrat who voted “present” on all of the proposals, said that he was hesitant to greatly expand the powers of state’s attorneys because they are elected rather than appointed and might use political power to target opponents.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said he worried about giving greater eavesdropping powers to state’s attorneys because there are 102 of them throughout the state, challenging consistency in training and enforcement.
The only provision that won approval was crafted by Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat. It had no opposition.
Collins said while the legislators complained about not having enough time to consider the commission’s proposals, they approved Kotowski’s provision the same day it was filed.
Kotowski designed the measure to strike at the heart of Blagojevich’s alleged wrongdoings: his political campaign fund. The measure, which won Senate approval this afternoon and now heads to the House, would punish an individual who was convicted of public corruption the same as if he or she were a convicted drug dealer. The person would be subject to forfeiting property, assets or political funds.
“If you commit the act of corruption and graft, you’re going to lose your property, you’re going to lose your campaign fund, you’re going to lose anything that you acquired as a result of that,” Kotowski said.
Kotowski added that the commission’s enforcement provisions include rather far-reaching reforms that could take time to educate legislators and the public. “I’m not giving up on this stuff,” he said, adding that the ideas could be negotiated and brought up during the legislature’s annual fall session. “It’s not everything that we want to accomplish, not by any stretch. But it’s a really good first step, and I am excited about that.”
Campaign finance
The debate about campaign contribution limits has been bumped back to May 28 at the request of Collins, who said he needed time to negotiate an agreement between competing bills. “We’re at different places,” he said during his second Statehouse news conference of the day.
The commission proposes limiting individual donations at $2,400, while other proposals would limit them to $5,000 or $10,000. The commission also wants to limit large transfers of money from statewide political parties to their candidates. A Democratic proposal would not limit such transfers.
“Hopefully we can close that gap in the next few days,” Collins said. “And if we don’t, we’ve been assured many different ways with a lot of witnesses that we will get an up-or-down vote on the [commission’s] bill.”
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno has sponsored two different versions (a $10,000 limit and a $2,400 limit on behalf of the commission), none of which have been called for debate. She said it sounded as if Democratic leaders were trying to “run out the clock” on campaign finance limits. “I think there are people who want the status quo to continue, and those would be the people who have the majorities in this institution right now, the Democrats. They don’t want to change it.”
Senate President John Cullerton disagreed and said leadership was trying to five the commission’ time to negotiate bills. “These issues are not simple black and white issues. They require a lot of nuance.”
FOIA
Efforts to strengthen the understanding and enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act are still in the works, although the Illinois Press Association and attorney general’s office expressed dissatisfaction with some water-downed versions. The Illinois Reform Commission is still trying to negotiate and could try to advance a revised measure Thursday, as well.
FYI: Here's the Illinois Reform Commission's full report.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Procurement, ethics, employee reforms sail to Senate
By Bethany Jaeger
The House overwhelmingly approved three measures to shield state contracts from political influence, to shine a light on the secretive process of investigating ethical violations and to “fumigate” the state of political appointees of former Govs. George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich.
The measures, all sponsored by House Speaker Michael Madigan, now head to the Senate, where more government reforms are expected to be debated tomorrow.
Madigan focused on procurement, employee ethics and political appointees. They received near-unanimous support. Republican Rep. Bill Black of Danville said, “These bills are some of the most important bills we’ve discussed in a long, long time.”
Procurement, SB 51
The speaker’s proposal would not go as far as preferred by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission when changing the way the state purchases products and services. But Madigan’s goal mirrors that of the commission’s. “This was designed to shut the door on misuse of procurement and to isolate the procurement process and the procurement people from undue influence, especially from the office of the governor,” Madigan said on the House floor.
Rather than create one “procurement czar” in a new state procurement agency, as the commission wanted, Madigan proposed hiring a series of independent procurement officials in a "six-level system" of oversight:
Each procurement officer, compliance monitor and internal auditor would serve a five-year term, pending Senate confirmation. And they couldn’t be fired without a public hearing that determined cause for removal.
The use of sub-contractors would have to be disclosed, CORRECTION: but a provision that would have strengthened the so-called pay-to-play ban so that businesses holding state contracts of $25,000 (instead of the current $50,000) would be banned from donating to the officeholders' political campaign didn't make it into the final version. The $50,000 threshold remains.
“The bill is laced with transparency requirements,” Madigan said. “Our whole intent was two-fold: open up the process — make it more transparent — and insulate the process from undue influence, especially coming out of the governor’s office.”
Employee ethics, SB 54
Blagojevich enacted a law in 2003 that created inspectors to root out corruption or improper political donations from state contractors. But the process of investigating allegations lacked teeth and was cloaked in secrecy, with no way for the general public or legislators to know whether a corruption allegation was investigated or addressed.
“In the past, a lot of this work has been done in the dark,” Madigan said.
So his measure would allow reports of the inspectors to be public record if they found wrongdoing and either suspended or terminated an employee. Some of the information could be blacked out if it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. And it would change the law so the inspectors could start an investigation based on anonymous tips.
It also would strengthen the so-called revolving door ban to prevent high-ranking officials from accepting jobs with private companies that received significant state contracts from the agency where the official worked. Agencies would have to list all of the employees who would be affected by the ban.
Stricter lobbying regulations would require people who lobby state boards, commissions or retirement boards to register as lobbyists, and all lobbyists would have to abide by stricter disclosure requirements. They’d also pay a higher fee of $1,000, as opposed to the current $350, which is how the state would pay for two inspectors to oversee lobbying activities. Madigan said he would consider reducing the fees for smaller nonprofit lobbying groups down the road.
Employee “fumigation,” SB 1333
At the request of the governor, Madigan reduced his original attempt to force Quinn to fire up to 3,000 employees or commissioners appointed by Ryan or Blagojevich. His measure now would apply to about 750 agency directors and their assistants, who can be hired or fired based on their political affiliations. He also would give the governor 90 days instead of 60 to review each of those employees before they would automatically be terminated.
Also at Quinn’s request “on a very personal level,” Madigan removed a provision that would have fired one of the governor’s longtime friends, John Filan. But that’s with the understanding the Filan would resign as the executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority July 1. “I took the governor at his word,” Madigan said. Filan was Blagojevich’s first-term budget director and former chief operating officer who played an integral role in several of Blagojevich’s controversial budget proposals, including floating $10 billion in pension obligation bonds and skipping $2.3 billion in state contributions in fiscal years ’06 and ’07.
Even without the provision to fire Filan, the bill drew concerns about the separation of powers because the legislature would fire people appointed by the executive branch. “We are, if not blurring those lines, we may actually be crossing those lines,” Black said.
Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted present on the measure, said: “If [Quinn] wants to fire employees, he should do that and not come to the General Assembly to ask us to do that for him. … It certainly appears like maybe they’re doing him a favor.”
Madigan said the legislature has changed boards and commissions that were appointed by the executive branch before, including when the legislature twice revamped the Illinois State Board of Education and the Health Facilities Planning Board. Madigan added that Quinn “agreed to the bill.”
The House overwhelmingly approved three measures to shield state contracts from political influence, to shine a light on the secretive process of investigating ethical violations and to “fumigate” the state of political appointees of former Govs. George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich.
The measures, all sponsored by House Speaker Michael Madigan, now head to the Senate, where more government reforms are expected to be debated tomorrow.
Madigan focused on procurement, employee ethics and political appointees. They received near-unanimous support. Republican Rep. Bill Black of Danville said, “These bills are some of the most important bills we’ve discussed in a long, long time.”
Procurement, SB 51
The speaker’s proposal would not go as far as preferred by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission when changing the way the state purchases products and services. But Madigan’s goal mirrors that of the commission’s. “This was designed to shut the door on misuse of procurement and to isolate the procurement process and the procurement people from undue influence, especially from the office of the governor,” Madigan said on the House floor.
Rather than create one “procurement czar” in a new state procurement agency, as the commission wanted, Madigan proposed hiring a series of independent procurement officials in a "six-level system" of oversight:
- Chief procurement officers would oversee procurement for the Capital Development Board, the Illinois Department of Transportation and higher education. The rest would be placed with the state’s main purchasing arm, Central Management Services.
- Procurement compliance monitors would oversee the procurement process in real time and be able to recommend changes or expose abuses.
- Independent internal auditors would be placed in their respective agencies, reversing a Blagojevich decision to consolidate them all into Central Management Services.
- One executive procurement officer in the governor’s office would advise the governor and the procurement officers. The position would end in January 2011, either when Quinn started his first full term as governor or when a new governor took office.
- The Procurement Policy Board would be strengthened so it could review contracts or bidder information and make recommendations for the chief procurement officers regarding conflicts of interest.
Each procurement officer, compliance monitor and internal auditor would serve a five-year term, pending Senate confirmation. And they couldn’t be fired without a public hearing that determined cause for removal.
The use of sub-contractors would have to be disclosed, CORRECTION: but a provision that would have strengthened the so-called pay-to-play ban so that businesses holding state contracts of $25,000 (instead of the current $50,000) would be banned from donating to the officeholders' political campaign didn't make it into the final version. The $50,000 threshold remains.
“The bill is laced with transparency requirements,” Madigan said. “Our whole intent was two-fold: open up the process — make it more transparent — and insulate the process from undue influence, especially coming out of the governor’s office.”
Employee ethics, SB 54
Blagojevich enacted a law in 2003 that created inspectors to root out corruption or improper political donations from state contractors. But the process of investigating allegations lacked teeth and was cloaked in secrecy, with no way for the general public or legislators to know whether a corruption allegation was investigated or addressed.
“In the past, a lot of this work has been done in the dark,” Madigan said.
So his measure would allow reports of the inspectors to be public record if they found wrongdoing and either suspended or terminated an employee. Some of the information could be blacked out if it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. And it would change the law so the inspectors could start an investigation based on anonymous tips.
It also would strengthen the so-called revolving door ban to prevent high-ranking officials from accepting jobs with private companies that received significant state contracts from the agency where the official worked. Agencies would have to list all of the employees who would be affected by the ban.
Stricter lobbying regulations would require people who lobby state boards, commissions or retirement boards to register as lobbyists, and all lobbyists would have to abide by stricter disclosure requirements. They’d also pay a higher fee of $1,000, as opposed to the current $350, which is how the state would pay for two inspectors to oversee lobbying activities. Madigan said he would consider reducing the fees for smaller nonprofit lobbying groups down the road.
Employee “fumigation,” SB 1333
At the request of the governor, Madigan reduced his original attempt to force Quinn to fire up to 3,000 employees or commissioners appointed by Ryan or Blagojevich. His measure now would apply to about 750 agency directors and their assistants, who can be hired or fired based on their political affiliations. He also would give the governor 90 days instead of 60 to review each of those employees before they would automatically be terminated.
Also at Quinn’s request “on a very personal level,” Madigan removed a provision that would have fired one of the governor’s longtime friends, John Filan. But that’s with the understanding the Filan would resign as the executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority July 1. “I took the governor at his word,” Madigan said. Filan was Blagojevich’s first-term budget director and former chief operating officer who played an integral role in several of Blagojevich’s controversial budget proposals, including floating $10 billion in pension obligation bonds and skipping $2.3 billion in state contributions in fiscal years ’06 and ’07.
Even without the provision to fire Filan, the bill drew concerns about the separation of powers because the legislature would fire people appointed by the executive branch. “We are, if not blurring those lines, we may actually be crossing those lines,” Black said.
Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted present on the measure, said: “If [Quinn] wants to fire employees, he should do that and not come to the General Assembly to ask us to do that for him. … It certainly appears like maybe they’re doing him a favor.”
Madigan said the legislature has changed boards and commissions that were appointed by the executive branch before, including when the legislature twice revamped the Illinois State Board of Education and the Health Facilities Planning Board. Madigan added that Quinn “agreed to the bill.”
Friday, May 15, 2009
End-of-session preview 2009
The legislature is preparing for a two-week push to accomplish three major issues — the state operating budget, a major construction program and a government reform initiative — for a potential May 29 adjournment. That’s the goal, according to Senate President John Cullerton.
All four legislative leaders met behind closed doors this afternoon to talk about a major capital construction program, which is expected to roll out next week. Earlier in the day, House Republicans held an unprecedented open-door meeting (caucuses usually meet behind closed doors and don’t invite the media) to talk about government reforms with Patrick Collins, chairman of the Reform Commission.
The Senate will come back Sunday evening, while the House is scheduled to return to the Capitol Monday evening. Here's where things stand, as of Friday evening:
Budget
Preparation to negotiate details of an operating budget, which is projected to have a deficit between $9 billion and $12 billion, is expected to start in earnest early next week. The process could be a little different than previous years in an attempt to increase transparency, but we’ll have more on that later.
Capital plan
By Jamey Dunn
The four legislative leaders seem to be nearing an agreement on revenue sources for a major infrastructure program. A vote could come next week.
Cullerton said that the money for the plan would come from several proposals and that no one source would dominate. “It’s a combination — it’s a potpourri — of funding sources for the capital bill.”
We wrote about some revenue ideas earlier this week. Cullerton said some of the details could change. He said that beer and not just wine and spirits, as previously mentioned, could be included in a liquor tax increase. He added that a proposal to sell lottery tickets online would have to be cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that legalizing video gaming and taxing it as a revenue source could actually reduce the number of video poker consoles in the state. She said the legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated about 65,000 machines could be operating throughout the state, while one proposal would reduce that to about 45,000. However, the actual number of existing machines is unknown, according to the commission.
“I think the idea is to limit them, not to have them on every street corner,” Radogno said. “I mean, they’re already out there, and we want to make sure that the state’s getting the revenue that we could get from the activity that’s already going on.”
Rep. Frank Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat, already has a video poker measure advancing through the legislature.
That’s the revenue side. The spending side invites a whole new set of complications. “We want to be sure that everyone’s comfortable with the spending before we vote for the revenue side of it,” Radogno said. “So, there’s a lot of detail that has to be worked out there. There’s not gong to be any hidden allocations. No lump sums.”
She said that the leaders have been talking about funneling a large potion of the money through existing programs with established criteria in an attempt to take some of the bickering out of the highly political process.
Ethics
By Bethany Jaeger
Legislation drafted by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission is expected to be ready for debate later next week, and campaign finance limits likely are in the mix.
Sen. Don Harmon, an assistant majority leader from Oak Park, has been working with Patrick Collins, chairman of the commission and former assistant U.S. attorney. While some items such as Freedom of Information Act reforms are expected to sail through the legislative process, more controversial items likely would be introduced in competing bills and debated.
Campaign contribution limits are one example. Lawmakers would debate various proposals and take up-or-down votes on each, according to Harmon.
The Reform Commission recommended capping individual donations at $2,400 and corporate or political organizations’ donations at $5,000. But Harmon said the controversy is “not whether there should be campaign contribution limits — but the size.” Some legislators think that a $2,400 cap is too low and that it would require them to spend too much time raising campaign cash in smaller increments.
A $10,000 limit per calendar year, on the other hand, may be a more comfortable level for many legislators, Harmon said. Some Senate Democrats don’t like basing the limit on a calendar year, but, Harmon said, “We need limits that are meaningful, and the calendar year seems to be an understandable measurement and could enhance the likelihood of enforcement.”
Here are some of the contribution limit bills waiting for action:
A longer-term proposal, on the other hand, is changing the way the legislature redraws congressional districts. Redistricting is being discussed but not lumped in as part of the end-of-session rush. Reform ideas, which include using a computerized process similar to Iowa’s, are likely to be debated in public hearings throughout this summer or, potentially, a special legislative session in September.
Another controversial issue that could be pushed back is the commission’s recommendation to grant state’s attorneys authority to wiretap conversations as part of public corruption investigations. Federal prosecutors have that power, while state’s attorneys do not (although they can wiretap for other kind of investigations).
A former state’s attorney, Democratic Sen. Bill Haine of Alton, sees red flags in the proposal. State’s attorneys are elected on a partisan basis, while federal attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Federal prosecutors also answer to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney general, which Haine said provides a checks-and-balances system. “So before we vest local politically elected prosecutors with the vast powers of the United States government, we should have a clear idea of where we are going to draw the line and what the checks and balances are. Just giving wiretapping authority, warrentless wiretapping authority or additional wiretapping authority without looking at how we’re going to have checks and balances on that authority, I think, is a mistake.”
All four legislative leaders met behind closed doors this afternoon to talk about a major capital construction program, which is expected to roll out next week. Earlier in the day, House Republicans held an unprecedented open-door meeting (caucuses usually meet behind closed doors and don’t invite the media) to talk about government reforms with Patrick Collins, chairman of the Reform Commission.
The Senate will come back Sunday evening, while the House is scheduled to return to the Capitol Monday evening. Here's where things stand, as of Friday evening:
Budget
Preparation to negotiate details of an operating budget, which is projected to have a deficit between $9 billion and $12 billion, is expected to start in earnest early next week. The process could be a little different than previous years in an attempt to increase transparency, but we’ll have more on that later.
Capital plan
By Jamey Dunn
The four legislative leaders seem to be nearing an agreement on revenue sources for a major infrastructure program. A vote could come next week.
Cullerton said that the money for the plan would come from several proposals and that no one source would dominate. “It’s a combination — it’s a potpourri — of funding sources for the capital bill.”
We wrote about some revenue ideas earlier this week. Cullerton said some of the details could change. He said that beer and not just wine and spirits, as previously mentioned, could be included in a liquor tax increase. He added that a proposal to sell lottery tickets online would have to be cleared with the U.S. Department of Justice.
Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that legalizing video gaming and taxing it as a revenue source could actually reduce the number of video poker consoles in the state. She said the legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated about 65,000 machines could be operating throughout the state, while one proposal would reduce that to about 45,000. However, the actual number of existing machines is unknown, according to the commission.
“I think the idea is to limit them, not to have them on every street corner,” Radogno said. “I mean, they’re already out there, and we want to make sure that the state’s getting the revenue that we could get from the activity that’s already going on.”
Rep. Frank Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat, already has a video poker measure advancing through the legislature.
That’s the revenue side. The spending side invites a whole new set of complications. “We want to be sure that everyone’s comfortable with the spending before we vote for the revenue side of it,” Radogno said. “So, there’s a lot of detail that has to be worked out there. There’s not gong to be any hidden allocations. No lump sums.”
She said that the leaders have been talking about funneling a large potion of the money through existing programs with established criteria in an attempt to take some of the bickering out of the highly political process.
Ethics
By Bethany Jaeger
Legislation drafted by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission is expected to be ready for debate later next week, and campaign finance limits likely are in the mix.
Sen. Don Harmon, an assistant majority leader from Oak Park, has been working with Patrick Collins, chairman of the commission and former assistant U.S. attorney. While some items such as Freedom of Information Act reforms are expected to sail through the legislative process, more controversial items likely would be introduced in competing bills and debated.
Campaign contribution limits are one example. Lawmakers would debate various proposals and take up-or-down votes on each, according to Harmon.
The Reform Commission recommended capping individual donations at $2,400 and corporate or political organizations’ donations at $5,000. But Harmon said the controversy is “not whether there should be campaign contribution limits — but the size.” Some legislators think that a $2,400 cap is too low and that it would require them to spend too much time raising campaign cash in smaller increments.
A $10,000 limit per calendar year, on the other hand, may be a more comfortable level for many legislators, Harmon said. Some Senate Democrats don’t like basing the limit on a calendar year, but, Harmon said, “We need limits that are meaningful, and the calendar year seems to be an understandable measurement and could enhance the likelihood of enforcement.”
Here are some of the contribution limit bills waiting for action:
- Radogno has proposed SB 1548, a $10,000 limit for individuals, corporations, unions and clubs or political organizations.
- Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, however, would limit individual donations to $7,500 and corporate donations to $20,000, under SB 2257.
- Democratic Rep. Harry Osterman of Chicago introduced HB 24, which resembles the Illinois Reform Commission’s recommendations to mirror federal limits: $2,400 for individuals and $5,000 for political organizations.
- Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, is behind SB 1768, which would establish limits for individuals and political action committees, but it also would cap the amount statewide political campaigns could transfer to candidates at $30,000.
A longer-term proposal, on the other hand, is changing the way the legislature redraws congressional districts. Redistricting is being discussed but not lumped in as part of the end-of-session rush. Reform ideas, which include using a computerized process similar to Iowa’s, are likely to be debated in public hearings throughout this summer or, potentially, a special legislative session in September.
Another controversial issue that could be pushed back is the commission’s recommendation to grant state’s attorneys authority to wiretap conversations as part of public corruption investigations. Federal prosecutors have that power, while state’s attorneys do not (although they can wiretap for other kind of investigations).
A former state’s attorney, Democratic Sen. Bill Haine of Alton, sees red flags in the proposal. State’s attorneys are elected on a partisan basis, while federal attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Federal prosecutors also answer to the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. attorney general, which Haine said provides a checks-and-balances system. “So before we vest local politically elected prosecutors with the vast powers of the United States government, we should have a clear idea of where we are going to draw the line and what the checks and balances are. Just giving wiretapping authority, warrentless wiretapping authority or additional wiretapping authority without looking at how we’re going to have checks and balances on that authority, I think, is a mistake.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
