|
Question of the day
Thursday, Oct 9, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * On Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn’s chief operating officer Jack Lavin sent an e-mail to some government staff. Click the pic if you have trouble reading the document…  * The following Sunday, Lavin sent this e-mail from his personal computer to Quinn campaign staff. We looked at it yesterday, but let’s look at it again…  * At least some Republicans have implied so far today that this shows Lavin was trying to hurry up the state’s programmatic development process so he could pitch it to the campaign over the weekend. Lavin, for his part, said he was merely pushing to get the program up and running to help alleviate the city’s violence problem. To date, this is the closest thing to a “smoking gun” about the possible unethical mix of government and politics that the GOP has put forth to date. * There is, however, some other evidence that points to possible hinkiness. For instance, everybody who has testified so far has said they were under the impression that neighborhoods were chosen for grants “based on crime statistics.” But those statistics have never been explained because the DHS formula used to choose the neighborhoods was never found even after an extensive search by the Illinois Auditor General. * Pretty much everybody testified yesterday (and today) that the haste in putting together the program had nothing to do with election day, but with getting the program up and running as fast as possible. As we discussed yesterday, former IVPA Director Barbara Shaw said…
* But on October 25, 2010 - just days before the election - Barbara Shaw was doing all she could to pry loose some bigtime state money for the Violence Prevention Authority…  * Again, the standard response has been there was an “emergency” that needed to be addressed. Kids were being murdered, something needed to be done as fast as possible. And the number of shootings and stabbings was indeed still pretty significant as late as October. There were 35 Chicago homicides in October, which was more than the 31 in September, but far less than the 60 in August. Still, there were 42 in July, not much more than October. So, for the moment anyway, let’s set aside the obvious failure of these hearings to meet some way too high GOP expectations, and try to just stick with… * The Question: From what we know so far, do you believe that the roll-out of the NRI program was too overtly political and possibly illegal, or was it overtly political but within an historically accepted mixture of campaigning and government, or was it not political? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. polls
|
- Demoralized - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
I voted overtly political but historically accepted.
Maybe I’m just jaded but I still haven’t seen anything that says to me “illegal.” It was certainly political, but political doesn’t equal illegal.
- MrJM - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
Anyone who choses “not political” is invited to my free investment seminar entitled, “Wealth Management, Bridges and YOU!”
– MrJM
- John A Logan - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:23 pm:
This is not going to stick. Too convoluted. If Quinn himself was called in to testify, then you could make it stick.
- THEGUN - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:27 pm:
Political and illegal
All about funneling $$ as quickly as possible to area’s that could win the Dems the election.
Lavin says nor implies anything about violence.
Its all about elections…
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
The feds are involved.. Possibly illegal…. I like to believe they are out of the witch hunt business. At least as Illinois Governors are concerned. They seem to make it easy.
- Hotel Ibiza - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
Simply, the Democrats buying votes.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:33 pm:
Why are the Quinnsters getting down in the dirt with these guys?
“Let’s make this clear: Republicans’ primary complaint is that state government moves too quickly? That is their smoking gun.”
YDD
- Not surprised - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:34 pm:
Clearly political, but, sadly, historically accepted. There just isn’t a smoking gun, so far. Good to highlight what we’ve become accustomed to accepting, though. Keep informing us!
- Nony - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:36 pm:
In any other state I would say possibly illegal and that’s why i put that answer. However, this seems to be standard operating procedure in Illinois so I think it’s going to be perceived by most as the second answer. I feel as though politicians and political operatives here have become good at covering their tracks and the population has become numb to things like this.
- A guy... - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:37 pm:
For me it’s political and likely beyond. Possibly illegal. With all these folks saying the “killing fields” is what was causing the rush. That’s believable. All of these killing fields were primarily in the city in very easily identifiable “hot spots”. Is there a single email from the Mayor of Chicago, the Police Chief, County President asking to rush this out now? To the places they were much closer to. So far, it appears the rush was being put on in two circles; the Quinn administration and the Quinn campaign. I may have missed something, but I haven’t seen the pleading request for this program and it’s resources from the city where all the bullets were flying.
It’s just a hmmm.
- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
Voted overtly political but historically accepted; business as usual here.
- Apocalypse Now - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:39 pm:
Agree with Hotel Ibiza. Simply buying minority votes. Although why would they have to buy them. They got the vast majority anyway.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:41 pm:
@ Hotel Ibiza “Simply, the Democrats buying votes.”
Because they were trying to combat the bloodbath that was occuring?
So I suppose if the fire department pulled up to your house while it’s burning down you’d turn them away because they are just there to ‘curry favor’ from you?
Get a clue.
- MrJM - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:43 pm:
“Simply buying minority votes. Although why would they have to buy them. They got the vast majority anyway.”
Conclusion followed by rational rebuttal — nevertheless, the foregone conclusion stands.
Well done!
– MrJM
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:43 pm:
Ironic… Why were the most dangerous neighborhoods excluded? If it was just by statistics as claimed? Seems like a legitimate question, Like Robert Palmer, folks are just lookin for clues…
- How Ironic - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:48 pm:
I don’t mind the questions, and to be honest I don’t have that answer. But I grow weary of the drumbeat that every community initiative is at it’s root a corrupt enterprise with the sole intent of ‘buying votes’.
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:49 pm:
You can’t claim helping with the crisis… And avoid the areas where the most areas are in crisis… Uh, Englewood?
- archimedes - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:50 pm:
Overtly political, but within historically accepted….
The impetus and purpose of NRI not so much an issue - the timing to get it going political and beneficial to the campaign. Hey - if we’re going to do this, let’s get it going and get some credit before November.
It would be hard to argue that spending money you were going to spend anyway for NRI, but pushing it before the election, is illegal. If the purpose and program were legit - just ramping it up isn’t illegal.
- Bogart - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:50 pm:
How is this not more offensive than Blago trying to trade an appointment for an appointment? Overtly spending state funds to garner minority votes. I voted historically accepted but would have said that about Blago’s actions as well. Only difference is it sounds uglier when on tape. If this is what the emails say, imagine what the phone calls and private conversations were like.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:51 pm:
===Uh, Englewood? ===
West Englewood was targeted. And as others pointed out in testimony, many of those agencies served both neighborhoods.
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:51 pm:
Ironic.. Very true.. But the questions are being raised and asked by the Feds as well, because it sure looks that way…Unfortunate for all of us. Especially those areas that need the help.
- Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:52 pm:
Rich..I stand corrected on that one… Thanks
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:01 pm:
Voted overtly political but historically accepted.
As referenced by experienced state folks, this has been standard operating procedure by elected officials.
- MrJM - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:02 pm:
And the auditor’s report specifically referred to “Teamwork Englewood, a Reentry providing partner in the Englewood community”.
http://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Performance-Special-Multi/Performance-Audits/2014_Releases/14-IVPA-NRI-Perf-Digest.pdf
But facts aside, the foregone conclusion still stands!
– MrJM
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:05 pm:
Possibly illegal. The raw numbers and the administration’s vastly different reaction during non-election years calls their motives and behavior into question.
The number of murders between July to September are nearly identical in 2010, 2011 and 2014. 2012 and 2013 were even worse.
Sep - 2010 31 2011 39 2012 45 2013 43 2014 45
Aug - 2010 60 2011 37 2012 57 2013 53 2014 46
Jul - 2010 42 2011 59 2012 51 2013 53 2014 40
Total - 2010 133 / 2011 135 / 2012 153 / 2013 149 / 2014 131
If 2010 constituted a crisis and emergency, then where was the reaction to the crisis and emergency of 2013 or 2014?
The most obvious difference is that there was an election pending in 2010.
Where was the $50M+, NRI-style emergency response in 2011, 2012 or 2013? 2014 can be explained by the NRI story blowing up, but otherwise the Governor’s remarkably dissimilar actions in 2010 speak louder than any words.
- Large Mammal - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:06 pm:
Political, but…
Good government is good politics, isn’t that what Mayor Daley said.
The big question seems to be how the communities were selected, or excluded, but didn’t Shaw say yesterday that it was a formula based on poverty rates and other factors in addition to crime statistics?
- A guy... - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:09 pm:
=== Walter Mitty - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 1:52 pm:
Rich..I stand corrected on that one… Thanks===
Don’t feel bad Wally M, Rep. Sandack made the same mistake.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:09 pm:
===If 2010 constituted a crisis and emergency, then where was the reaction to the crisis and emergency of 2013 or 2014? ===
The answer is money was spent in all of those years, and when the Quinn admin transferred some money to pay for a summer jobs program, the Republicans blasted it as NRI The Sequel.
You’re just engaging in empty spin here.
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:41 pm:
Voted for “Overtly political but within an historically accepted mixture of campaigning and government.” However, I’m not as up-to-date on federal laws regarding federal funds. For Illinois, it’s definitely the middle, but is there not a reason this is under federal investigation?
- Come on man! - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:43 pm:
This is the ILGOP’s Benghazi.
- Anonymoiis - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:52 pm:
I missed a lot yesterday, and I believe one question I had been wondering about was asked but I never heard the answer: how were hurricane relief funds tied into this and justified to use?
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:54 pm:
I voted for “possibly illegal” for two reasons. First, our federal friends haven’t made a practice of investigating and continuing to ask for more stuff on “business as usual” kinda stuff. Secondly, the fancy footwork on the sourcing and expenditure of the actual funds used to pay for NRI doesn’t sit right with me, and apparently not with General Holland. We’ll see.
- AC - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 2:58 pm:
It’s sadly acceptable that politics drives public policy to the degree that it does, but I haven’t seen anything yet that crosses the line to illegality.
- Louis Howe - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 3:10 pm:
I don’t doubt that this was a politically motivated governmental program that could have been taken up for honest public safety motives except for two reason:
1) the historically excessive amount of $50 plus million;
2) any nit-wit doing due diligence would have known that a similar $6.5 million program, “Cease-fire,” was controversial even within the AA community and nearly impossible audit.
Quinn’s administration committed a prima facie case of incompetence
- crazybleedingheart - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 3:29 pm:
LOL, look over there, =====>
the repubs tweeted out Rich’s poll.
So cute!
- F.G. - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 3:37 pm:
This is politics as usual…and if Sandack, Barickman, et al,have ever put out a press release to brag about a grant going into their district, they’ve practiced the same kind of politics.
- bored to zzzzzzzzz - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 3:41 pm:
Political but… And if anything more, this farce wasn’t ever going to get at it. Was already pretty laughable, but republican drive to penetrate veil covering their vaunted “who” went totally limp with Toni Irving.
- Joe M - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 3:55 pm:
Weren’t some Illinois legislators calling for activating the National Guard to some of these neighborhoods because of some much crime and so many murders? A Neighborhood Recovery program seemed to make sense as opposed to calling out the Guard. Maybe the program didn’t work as planned. But I’m not so sure calling out the Guard would have went as planned either.
If the Republicans and other critics have better ideas on how to improve some of these neighborhoods, then please share those ideas with everybody else.
- walker - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 4:29 pm:
“Political” sure. Nothing so far even hints at “illegal.”
Let’s see what the Feds are seriously looking at. It couldn’t be anything the LAC asked questions about so far.
- Enviro - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 5:30 pm:
Political but historically accepted…
I could be wrong but these could also be considered political but historically accepted:
Republican candidate for governor Bruce Rauner made good on a promise to deposit $1 million in a South Side credit union for small business loans.
When asked how he would deal with the General Assembly. Rauner’s response: “We’re gonna raise a PAC, we’re gonna raise a fund dedicated to the state Legislature, members of both parties who take the tough votes.”
Rauner sent a candidate for governor of Pennsylvania a check for $200,000 and $100,000 before the election. After the candidate became governor, the state doubled its stake in Rauner’s company GTCR, to $226 million.
- SamHall - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 6:13 pm:
Political but historically accepted.
Of course selling jobs for political benefits or selling drivers licenses was historically accepted too. Perhaps it is time to consign to the dustbin making policy decisions based upon political considerations and not upon what would be good policy .
- Enviro - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 6:50 pm:
SamHall, selling jobs for political benefits or selling drivers licenses was never historically accepted. Those were proven to be illegal and the reason our last two governors were sent to prison.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 8:15 pm:
Has anyone considered that the feds are investigating who got the money and why? Their concern is about organizations and people receiving the funds yet doing nothing, and any people who directed those funds to such entities knowingly. This isn’t what you think it is folks.
- walker - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 9:52 pm:
It’s also “historically expected.”
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 10:33 pm:
== The answer is money was spent in all of those years ==
It was? I am not trying to engage in spin, but I may have misunderstood something. I thought that roughly $45 million was a one-year allocation of Governor’s Discretionary funds, nearly all of which was awarded in FY11 and designed to be spent on programs during FY11 and FY12.
Does anyone know offhand about how much of those funds were designed to be spent during Jul-Sep of FY13, FY14 or even FY15 which we are in now? Have any of the grantees who have come under fire seen their funds reduced since the audit or some of the more successful ones seen their funds increased?