Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Recall, impeachment, etc.
Next Post: Another goofy blog story *** UPDATED x3 ***
Posted in:
* Don Craven is a great lawyer, but I think he may have no case with this one…
Lawyers for 17 former Illinois Department of Transportation workers say a recently disclosed e-mail supports their claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration fired them for political reasons.
But lawyers for the governor’s office say the e-mail simply shows that if you were hired mainly because you’re a Republican, you also can be fired because you’re a Republican.
* Here’s the e-mail…
“Robert, William H. Moss Sr. is a double-exempt employee in traffic safety and is also a Sangamon County Republican Precinct Committeeman,” says the e-mail. “He should be fired don’t you think? The guy is in the paper, renewing his will to work for the other team.”
* A long-ago e-mail from a reporter asking if the firings were political was replied to by IDOT with a statement that no politics were involved. If politics were involved, I don’t see this as a huge deal, regardless of the truth of the initial IDOT response. Moss was apparently hired for his politics by Jim Edgar, and he had a state job that allowed him to be fired because of his politics. It’s that simple.
One of Moss’ lawyers thinks differently…
“That’s something new. They haven’t argued that before,” said John Kerley, Moss’ lawyer. “Our position (is) he was not given that job because of any political influence he exerted over anyone.”
But if Moss was, indeed, double exempt, that means that he’s purely political. If we’re going to ban politics from being considering when firing political hires, then what’s the point of having political hires in the first place? The original e-mail might have been a bit too “truthful,” but that’s about it.
* Also, did anyone understand what Kass was getting at yesterday? His column makes a lot of dark accusations, but never really connects the dots between them.
[And, yes, I know I wrote earlier today that I wouldn’t be linking to SJ-R stories until I could access their website, but a pal sent me the full text and the link to this one.]
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Recall, impeachment, etc.
Next Post: Another goofy blog story *** UPDATED x3 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Also, the Miller in the SJ-R article referenced above is no relation to me - at least not that I know of.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:07 am
Kass babbles and has never been good (or direct) at connecting dots. He and Sneed are equally sloppy in that respect. For example, Zaransky being chair of the convention bureau. Daley has no interest in (and probably no influence on) who holds that honorific title. And the bureau, its chair and CEO are not players within power circles. Now, chair of McPier with its contractual clout — yes to interest on the part of both the mayor and guv.
Comment by jaundiced eye Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:12 am
Rich
Couldn’t you say “His column makes a lot of dark accusations, but never really connects the dots between them” about pretty much every John Kass column?
Comment by tom from chicago Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:13 am
Illinois has certain jobs which do not have to be filled based on merit or competition. Of particualr note, those jobs can be filled by ignoring the requirement that veterans be hired first (verterans preference). Thus the folks in these jobs did not have to compete for them or allow veterans access to those jobs. If the job was filled under this exception then the Gov should be free to toss all those folks out. The bottom line, they used positions that could be filled based on politics to avoid competing for the job, then it is fair to toss them out regardless of whether they assert they flexed political influence to get the job.
Comment by Ghost Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:21 am
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Just ask all of those former wardens and assistant wardens that tried to make the same case.
Comment by Bob Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:35 am
I wonder how many jobs in state government do not
have to be filled through a Rutan-based merit system. It might be worth it to find out, given
how valuable these jobs have become in a global economy. Do we citizens really want thousands (tens of thousands?) of state jobs to go to people solely because the contributed to the right pol (and not that much $$ either) or because they are related to the pol or to a close crony. These are jobs worth potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars if the employee stays on for decades.
As many do, since they have few employment qualifications. And I’m not talking about Blago’s top aides. Any guv should be able to choose his top people. But all those IDOT jobs? Come on. Why aren’t they handled through CMS? We taxpayers are sooooo…..clueless.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:44 am
Kass is all about insinuations without any actual allegations, let alone showing, of wrongdoing. It’s chicken journalism at its finest.
His good guy persona would quickly fall by the wayside if anybody had the ability to write a column about his interesting past and his own run-ins with the law.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:53 am
The issue is that the position really isn’t double exempt. Just because the administration states that it is double exempt does not make it so. In fact the current administration would have every position double exempt, except for the ones their union friends wanted to be covered by collective bargaining.
Comment by howdy Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:58 am
Howdy the position is double exempt. Moss used that double exempt nature to get the job, now he wants to have the court say it should not be considered double exempt after he has the job.
Comment by Ghost Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:16 am
I think Kass might have a tip on a future indictment. He’s throwing everything he has surrounding it into his column so he can claim he had it first if and when it happens.
Still, the connections among government, business, convicted felons and the Outfit is always fascinating and as old as the hills. Read Gus Russo’s the “The Outfit” and “Supermob,” which focuses on Sidney Korshak from the West Side to Las Vegas and Beverly Hills.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:23 am
what’s “double exempt” mean? how is it different from “exempt?”
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:26 am
I don’t read Kass because he always seems to be vague, dark and confused. He is way more of a paranoid ranter than he is a good columnist.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:28 am
The idea of purely political hiring or firing is wrong. We have grown to accept something that needs to be changed.
How does being a Dem or Repub make you a better “sign shop manager.” I understand that close personal aides of politcal office holders, etc will be “political hires”, however the governor nor anyone else should be able to put someone to work based on politics at a job as politically mundane as “sign shop manager.”
Although this hiring and firing boht may have been legal, niether were right.
Comment by Speaking At Will Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:45 am
Sorry banned State lingo
There are two exemption; the personnel code and what the State calls “Rutan” exempt. This refers to the Supreme Courts decision in Rutan v the Republican Party which, to simplify, says you can not use politics to fill low and mid level positions. So double exempt means both exemptions are in place. What it really means, to simplify, is should you be ale to demand loyalty from the employee becuase of their position in Govt and the Gov’s need to be able to control higher level jobs so that they do not undermine his policies.
Imagine if the Govt was run by democrats from say 2003-2019 and in that periond various democrat govs staffed the management positions with political loyalists. Lets say a repub gets the Gov position. They come into office to find agency managment seeded with democrats who refuse to carry out their programs, drag their heals, or otherwise strive to make life difficult for the new gov. They want to make the new repub gov look bad by either covert or overt means. Should the new repub gov be subject to such inside attacks, and should they have to dedicate the majority of their time to controlling such an insurrection. The courts have said no.
The repubs seeded govt with political hires by locking out democrats for upper lvl jobs, and now they are upset that the same rules of play may now apply to them.
Comment by Ghost Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:50 am
I always thought Rutan exempt means you do not have to come off an A Vet list etc-the hiring does not have to be a “merit” hire. The other exempt means you can be dismissed without a civil service “for cause” case being made. However, I believe a firing motivated by politics-as the e-mail seems to indicate this was-is a violation of the employees constitutional rights regardless of anything else. I believe that is the theory of this case. You can fire a double exempt for no reason at all but if you are stupid enough to leave a trail that it was based on politics, you screwed up. Someone tell me if this is correct or incorrect.
Comment by Legal Buzzard Monday, May 5, 08 @ 1:09 pm
Many, many, many, positions which were just “jobs” under Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan became “double exempt” after Blago took over. After 30+ years in state govt., and promotions based on merit….that occured with my former position. You see after becoming “double exempt” and a 48 hour notice from the Civil Service Commission that the change was being made…it was bye bye for me. Strangely the Gov was able to find a “highly qualified” convicted felon working for CHA who could fill my position (briefly).
Comment by Inquiring Mind Monday, May 5, 08 @ 1:40 pm
Legal Buzzard you are incorrect. A double exempt employee means they are exempt from the Personnel code and exempt from “Rutan”. Rutan exempt means they can be fired for political reasons without offending the consitution.
Comment by Ghost Monday, May 5, 08 @ 2:41 pm
Ghost, I think you should read Rutan and look for some support for your view. The case was about people who were not hired or promoted, and it successfully extended then current law that people could not be fired for purely political reasons. If you are correct (and maybe you are) don’t you think the judge in the current case would have thrown it out on a motion to dismiss because it is ok to fire a Rutan exempt employee for purely political reasons? Why is the case continuing? The fact that discovery is ongoing and e-mails are being made available to the plaintiffs pursuant to court order indicates to me that the judge must think that they have a good claim if they can prove that politics was the motive for the firings. The e-mail which is the subject of this post is some indication that politics was the motivation.
Comment by Legal Buzzard Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:01 pm
Thank you for asking about Kass’s column yesterday.
I was sure it was just me having brain fatigue. All those names and their possibly sleazy connections were wonderful to think about but right, how do they connect and with what, or with whom?
I had a lot less trouble with Mary Schmich’s rhymes.
Comment by been there Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:08 pm
I’m gonna have more on that in a couple of days. From what I know now, it was truly an unfair hit on several people.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:09 pm
A public servant with a taste for fine wheels befitting their station has any number of choices for their taxpayer-paid auto leasing needs, but only one area firm has a sterling reputation for their certified service in rebating a portion of the recently-taxpayer’s money to your political campaign.
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:33 pm
===taxpayer-paid auto leasing needs===
There is no such deal for legislators.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:35 pm
Lease from the firm that understands your special needs: how much it means to you to have them pick up a 10-ticket table at your next funder.
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:37 pm
Except that the relatively modest campaign contributions from CAR and Zaransky don’t appear to show that.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:39 pm
The allegations against Zaransky involve wrongdoing only on his part and only for his gain. In this instance, the people that Kass made to look guilty of something are going to be shown to have ZERO culpability and were actually victims.
But Kass never wants to let the facts get in the way of good innuendo. Reckless writing on his part - again.
Comment by Bet on this Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:50 pm
===ZERO culpability and were actually victims.===
From what I know right now, that’s pretty much right. We’ll see.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 3:51 pm
Possibly Kass believes as I do: If you lie down with dogs, you will get fleas.
Comment by Chanson Monday, May 5, 08 @ 5:03 pm
So, if they were ripped off, it’s their own fault?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 5:04 pm
Count me in for thinking this was another one of Kass’ up on the grassy knoll columns.
I alawys thought it was legal for GA members to lease a vehicle out of the district office expense allowance and/or fund it from their per diems. In this regard, I thought Lou Lang in particular took a cheap shot. (Two Chryslers? The guy is a masochist.)
On the other hand, DeLeo never ceases to amaze. Not just the rides, but his foto on the front page of the Friday Trib with Franks, Fritchey, and a gold Rolex on his wrist with more bling than the chandeliers in the Senate Chamber.
Comment by No Fan of Kass Monday, May 5, 08 @ 5:59 pm
===fund it from their per diems===
Per diems are just checks to members. They can do anything with them.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 6:01 pm
Does anyone else find it ironic that we get all worked up about some political appointments for jobs potentially worth several hundred thousand dollars over the course of a career and we sit by and allow millions and billions of taxpayer dollars go to the firms represented by lobbyists in Washington on a daily basis? The things that happen on the federal level totally dwarf the shenanigans that take place at the state level and both are equally wrong. We need to vote the entire bunch out but we simply can not compete with the corporate dollars.
Comment by Jay SeaBee Monday, May 5, 08 @ 9:57 pm
I have never heard the term “doubly-exempt” until the current admin.
I think we get worked up, Jay SeaBee, even tho we all know we pay waaay more in fed taxes than state taxes, is that we know these folks. Blago lives a a mile from me, his father-in-law is the alderman for the ward next door and Lisa Madigan lives 3 blocks away from me.
This is where I come to get the scoop on what’s going on in Springfield.
Comment by Emily Booth Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:50 pm
Agreed, EB. If you want to talk about federal stuff, there are a kabillion blogs for that.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 5, 08 @ 10:53 pm
I will say, for the record, my old job at IDOT I had to work with the central sign shop, which Bill Moss ran, and it was one of the smoothest and most professional run departments in all of DOT. Bill was really organized, his staffing was excellent, hard working folks, and they really were efficient and dedicated to doing a good job. He brought in a bunch of ideas that saved the state alot of money, and was a really decent guy to work with.
Maybe his placement in the first place was political, but IDOT lost a valuable dedicated employee when BLAGO let Bill go……
Comment by IDOT Guy Monday, May 5, 08 @ 11:16 pm