* The whole idea behind the GOP effort to investigate Gov. Pat Quinn’s 2010 anti-violence program was because it somehow helped Quinn win the 2010 campaign, even though no money was handed out until after the campaign was over.
So, while this could be an important development, keep in mind that the contract was handed out sometime during Fiscal Year 2013…
A church closely connected to former top gubernatorial aide Billy Ocasio was awarded a contract for up to $100,000 from Gov. Pat Quinn’s embattled Neighborhood Recovery Initiative — even though Mr. Ocasio had helped supervise NRI grant-making as Mr. Quinn’s senior adviser.
New Life Covenant Church, where Mr. Ocasio’s wife, Veronica Ocasio, works as chief of staff, received the contract and ultimately was paid just under $43,000 for developing a youth employment program, according to records compiled by the Illinois Auditor General’s office and information obtained from state records by Crain’s. […]
“I don’t think it was just a coincidence,” says state Rep. Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove, who serves on the commission and may be able to question Mr. Ocasio, who has been subpoenaed to appear at Wednesday’s session. “What’s available now doesn’t tell enough to reach a firm conclusion, but it would be incredibly naïve to conclude that (Mr. Ocasio’s) influence had no impact on who got the money.” […]
Mr. Ocasio left the governor’s office in May of 2011, assuming a new post at the Illinois Housing Development Authority. While still in the office, he had strongly lobbied in emails for NRI funds for Hispanic groups and arranged a meeting with Mr. Quinn to which New Life had been invited. For instance, in a Sept. 23 [2010] email, to Barbara Shaw, then ICJIA head. Referring to the Neighborhood Recovery program, he wrote, “Barbara, can you please get us a list of the lead agencies for NRP…I want to make sure that the Latino communities are taken care of [and provide meaningful suggestions based on your outline].” […]
In 2009, when Mr. Ocasio resigned as a Chicago alderman to go to work for Mr. Quinn, he pushed for New Life’s pastor, Rev. Wilfredo DeJesus, to be appointed to succeed him and, later, put forward his wife as his replacement. Then-Mayor Richard M. Daley instead chose someone else. In 2011, when Mr. De Jesus briefly ran for mayor, Veronica Ocasio was chairman of his campaign committee.
Expect this to come up during the hearing this week. But, again, we’re talking about a grant that took place two years (at least) after the election. Ocasio showed up to testify during a summer LAC hearing, but was never called. We’ll see what happens this time around.
* Meanwhile, from the Tribune’s front page story today…
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn spent nearly $5 million on special job training grants as part of a sweeping anti-violence program he quickly launched during his 2010 campaign, but about a third of the community groups that received money had to give some of it back.
A Humboldt Park group returned nearly $115,000 earmarked for computer training, a Near West Side group owes nearly $50,000 designated for teaching ex-offenders culinary and maintenance skills, and another group refunded more than $20,000 set aside to prepare Chicago’s disabled population for food service and hospitality jobs.
In all, eight of 25 community groups getting Quinn’s Training for Tomorrow grants fell short of the program’s goals and have returned money or plan to reimburse the state about $220,000. Most of the repayments came in after the Tribune inquired about the grants in early August.
You have to read down to the 12th paragraph to learn that the grant recipients weren’t named until Thanksgiving, which was a few weeks after the election. A few grafs later it’s explained that grant money wasn’t distributed until well into 2011. Also, many of the problems were discovered by audits done by UIUC. And the program overall performed up to expectations…
Some groups had better success than others, and the program ended up with 1,650 people enrolled, more than the 1,462 the state anticipated. The number of people who finished the program, got work and met the benchmark of holding a job for at least 90 days was 798 — only one less than projected, according to state officials.
…Adding… With a hat tip to Wordslinger, Kass’ latest…
Quinn’s administration is under federal investigation for spending $55 million of public money on a gang violence reduction program before his last election.
They must’ve laid off more editors over there.
![Sept. 23 [2010] email](http://www.chicagobusiness.com/Assets/jpg/news/20141003-03.jpg){kind=link}
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:46 am:
When the State spends $6000 per job to attract or retain large businesses it’s called “corporate welfare.” When it spends $6000 per job on NRI lite it’s called “meeting expectations.”
- Frenchie Mendoza - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:48 am:
Benghazi
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:53 am:
===When the State spends $6000 per job to attract or retain large businesses it’s called “corporate welfare.”===
It’s usually about ten times that.
===When it spends $6000 per job on NRI lite it’s called “meeting expectations.”===
Um, that was job training. That’s not really all that bad.
- Nonplussed - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:56 am:
Did they do the work? If yes, then there is no story.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 11:59 am:
This has been a focal point since the initial CNN story noting the promises made, the timing of those promises and the specific mention of the election by at least one of those people from the Governor’s office making those promises.
- yo - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:07 pm:
going to be funny watching Republican senators and reps trying to have their Perry Mason moment, especially since some of them are lawyers, and awayyyy we go….
“The truth? You can’t handle the truth, Mr. Lavin!” oops. wrong movie.
“and governor Quinn told you to do this himself when he was cutting his lawn?” “did you hear a lawn mower engine?” “you didn’t?!?” “ahh, haa! that proves that Gov. Quinn did tell you because he uses a lawnmower that doesn’t have an engine, and therefore Gov. Quinn must have been the man that told you. and therefore, Gov Quinn is himself directly responsible for NRI!!”
- R.K. - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:10 pm:
As a factor in the Guv race, this entire episode is going to hinge on Barbara Shaw’s testimony. If she says she was directed to fund projects directly by Quinn or people close to Quinn, then it’s gonna matter big time. If she says that she personally and her staff took recommendations from people in the administration but did there own vetting and determinations on who got grants, then Frenchie’s Benghazi’s analogy will be dead on — lot’s of teeth nashing on the right, but a big shrug from everyone else.
- Louis G Atsaves - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
They did the work in expectation of being paid? And that isn’t a story?
- Walter Mitty - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:13 pm:
All that matters is what Shaw has to say… She isn’t talking with the feds listening if this is all she has got….
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
It would be quite a leap of faith to “sell” votes for payment after the election when it looked like Quinn was going down in flames before November.
Still, the false narrative takes hold.
John Kass, who really stays on top of things, wrote in his Sunday column that Quinn doled out $55 million in NRI money before the election.
That’s completely false, but hey, consider who were dealing with.
And Carol Marin wrote the Quinn administration didn’t take action on NRI until the auditor general’s report came out. She’s off by about two years, but horseshoes and hand grenades, right?
- RNUG - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
May be enough to make some attack ads but to an outsider, right now, it doesn’t look like there is anything criminal there …
- Illannoyed - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
There’s absolutely no doubt that the GOP is making an issue about the politics (timing) behind the program. But another very legitimate issue involves whether taxpayer dollars were spent on a program that was well-thought out, well-implemented, and competently overseen. That’s a “governing,” question that would confront any administration that rolled out a program of this nature. The Auditor General’s report raised these “governing” questions and that’s why this is about more than whether the program was launched for political purposes.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:26 pm:
== If she says that she personally and her staff took recommendations from people in the administration but did there own vetting and determinations on who got grants ==
Didn’t the audit report say part of the impropriety from the beginning was the way the Governor’s office structured the program itself and the state avoided following proper procedures?
For example, going straight to local aldermen and other ==non-state personnel == for their directions or suggestions on who to give the funding to locally? That was supposedly one of the main flaws with the program and causes for suspicion. Whether the Governor’s office was making specific recommendations or not would seem to be a secondary point of interest, or == icing on the cake == as some might say.
- Urban Girl - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:27 pm:
Two predictions: 1) This is potentially bad for Ocasio personally, and hopefully he has hired a lawyer by now; 2) No real impact for the governor’s race unless the Committee ties to do a gotcha interview of Ocasio this month, and then it has the potential for a backlash for republicans in Hispanic community.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
Is anybody naive enough not to think that the nod and wink of grant money coming down the pipe was not enough incentive for these organizations not to mobilize and get out the vote? C’mon.
- Jackson and Laflin - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
WS/Rich, excuse my ignorance but why is the Kass comment false?
- JS Mill - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:50 pm:
=Is anybody naive enough not to think that the nod and wink of grant money coming down the pipe was not enough incentive for these organizations not to mobilize and get out the vote? C’mon.=
Does that mean that the grant funding for Diana Rauner’s ECE program is an attempt to buy her vote? I didn’t know it was for sale.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 12:53 pm:
I’ve gone over this a couple of times since it was first reported. So far, there is nothing being uncovered that disproves my theory.
1.) Quinn looked like a goner. Brady wasn’t going to be a friend to all the Chicagoland social groups favored by the Democrats. For them to survive a Brady term, there was a need to create funding that will help them survive. The NRI program was created to do that.
2.) The granting was being awarded for groups before the 2010 election. Money was not yet distributed before the election, but the deals were going through. The deal was to get funding through the Brady term. So - it was often incremental, not short term splurge of monies. However, with the granting, comes the borrowing against those grants. While the money wasn’t arriving before the election, the granting allowed for money to be borrowed. Money could have flowed from these grants before the election, but that would have been borrowed money based on the grants - not literally the state funds.
3.) The intention of NRI could pass the smell test, but NOT the timing. There was no reason Quinn needed to have the grants handled in this was - BEFORE the election, BUT it was. There was time to do this AFTER the election and before the end of the Quinn term - if Brady was elected.
4.) So the fact that no grant money was handed out before the election is IRRELEVANT. The grants were being handed out before the election and that was a source of money to these Democratic groups. Not state money before the election, but still a source of pre-election money to use via borrowing and loans against the grants. How many groups did this? We don’t know at this time.
5.) Did Quinn use NRI for political support - YES. Yes, he did. How many Republican-based groups in Chicagoland received this money? Out of $54,500,000, how much went to a GOP-based organization? Out of all those millions, was there groups receiving grants that were not Democratic? So far - NO.
NRI grants could have been awarded AFTER the election, and many were. But that grant was as good as cash to the lenders working with the groups targeted to get that money. Claims that no money was being ladled out before the election is not true. Grants generate money, regardless of when the state money actually arrives, right? So this is a very silly defense.
I had originally thought this was just a bad case of timing for Governor Quinn, but since the initial reports, that just doesn’t survive scrutiny. NRI could have been done with a lame duck governor. IF the purpose of the grants were to help Democratic organizations survive a Brady term in office - then it all could have waiting until AFTER the election. Many grants actually occur AFTER, proving that point.
It happened before the election. Why?
We know why, even if we want to give Governor Quinn, the benefit of a doubt.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:03 pm:
So, this is what I need to get Quinn off the hook here, and I’d naturally like to see that.
1.) Find any organizations without Democratic ties receiving a buck of that $54,500,000. That would help show that it wasn’t intended for political support, or that the Administration was smart enough to at least spread it around both parties.
2.) Prove that NO GRANTS occurred before the election. I think we are too far for that now, right? But, perhaps I am wrong. We know granting did occur after the election, and I believe we have already verified that it happened before.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:05 pm:
Do we have any records of lending against the grants before the election? With Democrats trying to free the Governor from these attacks, it would help if the GOP could show that money was indeed flowing from the granting of the NRI, before the actual checks were cut.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:09 pm:
Finally, lets imagine that the granting which occurred before the election did result in money going to these Democratic organizations before the election. Bottom line - would that mean that Quinn “bought the election”?
In my opinion, it does.
- Gooner - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:12 pm:
So let me get this straight — government funds went to a church somebody knew somebody?
And Ron Sandack thinks that’s news?
Yes, odds are the somebody knew somebody. The world is a remarkably small place.
As long as it looks like work was done for the money, I’m just not seeing a scandal here.
- Demoralized - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:15 pm:
Contrary to @VMan’s beliefs I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that this was anything but a completely bungled program.
If this was a vote buying strategy then it was implemented poorly. Although @VMan disagrees, it is relevant that no money was handed out prior to the election.
I’m sorry but I don’t see a “there” there with regard to that. I see a disaster of a program. That’s it.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:18 pm:
As long as it looks like work was done for the money, I’m just not seeing a scandal here.
At first, I’d agree. Yet, we’ve seen that defense with Mr. Roland Burris and at times with late-now-felon-Governor Blagojevich. The fact that it looked like a failure doesn’t mean intent is disproven.
There is a few times Pat Quinn’s intent failed to generate results.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:20 pm:
Although @VMan disagrees, it is relevant that no money was handed out prior to the election.
I don’t disagree with that. This is why I’d like to see what borrowing was done against those grants before the election. That is from where the money arrived. It was, as some might put it, “laundered” through bank loans.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:35 pm:
VanillaMan, to your point - http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/01/justice/chicago-crime-program-criticized/
== “There was discussion regarding the payment for this initiative, as the state is already late on payment of existing bills to community-based agencies with state contracts,” according to the minutes of the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority’s September 30, 2010, meeting, which were obtained by CNN.
At the meeting, an official from Quinn’s administration assured state officials that the program would have the necessary funds.
“The governor’s office is committed to allocating some of the funds for this initiative immediately and will allocate the rest after the election,” the official said, according to the meeting’s minutes.
Murphy called that statement a “smoking gun.” It shows, according to Murphy, “that motivation for this program was to get money out in politically important neighborhoods for Gov. Quinn before … a tight election.”
Murphy and other Republican legislators point to the fact that most of the program’s funding went to black neighborhoods in Chicago that were ultimately critical to Quinn’s election.
“Why on earth would anybody in a government position talk about the timing of an election with the release of public taxpayer dollars if it wasn’t for the political advancement of their boss?” Murphy said, referring to the Quinn staffer’s comments.
“I wouldn’t say it’s buying votes,” said Democratic state Rep. Thaddeus Jones, when asked about the timing of the governor’s announcement of the anti-violence program. “I could see (it as) currying favor.”
Quinn ended up winning the 2010 election by less than one percentage point, largely due to the turnout of the black vote in Chicago. ==
- Lunchbox - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:41 pm:
Unless I’m missing something, I feel like the returned job training funds aren’t a big deal. Doesn’t than mean the money is being well accounted for? If the organizations had spent all the funds without achieving their goals, then it would be a lack of accountability. And, the program overall performed to near expectations.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:43 pm:
===Quinn ended up winning the 2010 election by less than one percentage point, largely due to the turnout of the black vote in Chicago===
lol
That’s called juicing the story.
You could say that about a dozen different factors, including Brady’s reluctance to campaign in Cook County.
Quinn made peace with AFSCME, then got a big check. Nobody is investigating that.
He got major backing from Personal PAC (which helped him clobber Brady in the north and northwest suburbs) and then put the group’s leader on a state board. Nobody is investigating that.
He did a ribbon cutting on a big project in St. Clair County days before the election, which was attended by political supporters. Nobody is investigating that.
Scott Lee Cohen split the anti-Quinn vote with Brady, but nobody ever remembers perhaps one of the single biggest factors in Brady’s loss.
But, somehow, handing out anti-violence money - after the election - to crime-ridden black neighborhoods is what got him elected and is therefore worthy of an investigation.
Look, there were huge problems with 2010-2011 NRI. Huge. But indictable problems? At the bottom, maybe so. At the very top? Seems doubtful with everything I’ve seen so far. Maybe something else will surface, but what’s come out so far doesn’t look illegal to me (at the top).
But, hey, let’s all blame Quinn’s 2010 election on the black vote.
That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
- Three in a Row - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:55 pm:
Looks like to me we may have Three Governors in a row sent to Federal prison. When will politicians learn they are not above the law. We need to push for extended sentences for public officials that uses his/her position for personal gain. If you wonder why the state is broke this is one reason.
- Demoralized - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 1:59 pm:
==Quinn ended up winning the 2010 election by less than one percentage point, largely due to the turnout of the black vote in Chicago==
I’ve always thought it was absolutely ridiculous for people to attempt to say that Quinn won the election because of this program. That’s just complete and utter nonsense.
- Tequila Mockingbird - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:01 pm:
Regardless of all the allegations, at least it reduced violence, right? …Right?
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:08 pm:
==That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.==
But they don’t have a racist bone in their bodies.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:11 pm:
Rich, my data may be old, but I think it’s pretty good. The rule of thumb back in my days in economic development was that $5,000 per job created/retained was a reasonable deal for the State. Job training grants for full time jobs seldom went for more than $1000/$1500 per job.
If the State paid $60,000 per job in incentives, direct or indirect, to any employer a) I missed it and b) that should be scrootened as hard as NRI.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:12 pm:
===If the State paid $60,000 per job in incentives, direct or indirect, to any employer a) I missed it and b) that should be scrootened as hard as NRI. ===
How about the deal we gave CBOT?
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:13 pm:
Are there any African American groups claiming that Quinn got elected on the “black vote”?
I trust their POV on that.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:13 pm:
===Job training grants for full time jobs seldom went for more than $1000/$1500 per job.===
To companies, yes. I don’t think that training went to companies.
- Soccermom - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:29 pm:
Ugh, Rich, please don’t bring up CBOT again. At least not on a Monday…
- walker - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:29 pm:
We can stretch like a yogi making taffy.
But this Ocasio thing, if it’s a problem, looks like an unrelated one.
- Anon. - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:44 pm:
==How about the deal we gave CBOT?==
Considering that no jobs were really involved in that deal, it certainly pulls the average cost per job up.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 2:50 pm:
Rich, I was thinking in terms of the State paying out cash as opposed to tax credit deals. Point well made. I won’t further mess up Mom’s day by posting the $/job of CBOE, but it was less than $60k.
I’m sure there’s a good reason why “community organizations” spend four times as much to train part-timers as companies do to train full-timers, and I’m looking forward to hearing it.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:05 pm:
==That leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.==
But they don’t have a racist bone in their bodies.
==Are there any African American groups claiming that Quinn got elected on the “black vote”?
I trust their POV on that. ==
Voters in Chicago’s majority black wards were the strongest base of support for Quinn, just as they were for former Governor Rod Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006. Quinn won 90 percent of the vote in the city’s 20 majority black wards, according to an analysis of election data by The Chicago Reporter. However, without President Obama’s push to get out the vote and the efforts of other African-American political figures–I got calls from U.S. Rep, Bobby Rush, U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, Secretary of State Jesse White and the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr.–Quinn might have come up short in his gubernatorial race with Republican Bill Brady.
Collectively, the turnout in Chicago’s majority black wards was 52.3 percent in last week’s election. Quinn received nearly 248,000 more votes in those wards than did Brady, according to the Reporter’s analysis. In 2006, the turnout there was 46.6 percent. Had voters in Chicago’s black wards turned out last week at the same rate as they did in 2006, Quinn’s margin of victory would have been nearly 221,000 votes. That 27,000-vote bump was slightly more than Quinn’s eventual 20,000-vote victory. - The Chicago Reporter 11/7/10
The Chicago Reporter isn’t a racist publication.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:11 pm:
=== That 27,000-vote bump was slightly more than Quinn’s eventual 20,000-vote victory.===
Um, Quinn won by 31,834 votes. http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/VoteTotalsList.aspx?ElectionType=GE&ElectionID=29&SearchType=OfficeSearch&OfficeID=5370&QueryType=Office&
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:14 pm:
I didn’t say it was correct.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:22 pm:
lol
Check before posting, please.
Also, if you really think promises of some maybe NRI funding in the future accounted for that many votes, you’re living in another world. Also, Topinka did much better with black voters than Brady (twice the support in exit polling) because she wasn’t perceived as hostile to their interests as he was. A whole lot of things happened in 2010. You cannot point to one single eureka moment.
Was NRI designed to give PQ favorable publicity and strengthen some bonds and encourage more support? Sure thing, man. But all governors in every state do this every election season. See my comment above.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 3:29 pm:
–I didn’t say it was correct.–
Then what’s the point of posting it?
What about all those alleged loans those groups were taking out on the alleged deals that were made before the election? Who do you get to lend money based on that kind of collateral?
Are you saying any of that’s correct? Do you have any evidence whatsoever or are you just making it all up?
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Oct 6, 14 @ 5:25 pm:
== That’s called juicing the story ==
Well, learn something new every day lol.
Good points, all, and it raises the question that was bothering me while reading that story. Where did CNN come up with that line in the first place? Unless the have some sort of irrefutable data or evidence we are unaware of, they could just as easily have pointed to any number of things you list.