Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: About those wiretaps…
Next Post: Sweating the small stuff
Posted in:
* It was like pulling teeth yesterday…
The director of the state’s healthcare agency today asserted his attorney-client privilege before a panel weighing impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, saying he would testify about facts surrounding Blagojevich’s push to expand healthcare but would not comment on communications involving the program’s legality.
Barry Maram, director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, said his comments would be limited due to an ongoing court challenge of Blagojevich’s expansion of the state-subsidized FamilyCare insurance program.
* More…
The state’s top welfare officials repeatedly said Thursday they didn’t know or couldn’t recall who it was that decided to press forward with a taxpayer-financed health coverage expansion Gov. Rod Blagojevich wanted but lawmakers rejected.
“I don’t know who initiated the initial initiation,” said Barry Maram, director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
Lawmakers are looking at the program as possible evidence of abuse of power by the governor.
Tamara Hoffman, Maram’s chief of staff, similarly said she couldn’t recall how the push to override lawmakers occurred but she would scan her notes, though she cautioned it might take a while to sort through the clutter.
* And some more…
Panel members were less than pleased with Maram and his chief of staff Tamara Hoffman’s reason for dodging questions. The two were reprimanded several times by Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) who demanded to know how many people were signed up under the expanded program and how much it cost. […]
Lang also hammered the agency officials in asking who decided to move forward with the healthcare expansion. Maram said he did not know who initiated the program, but that his agency met several times with officials from Blagojevich’s office about the expansion beginning more than two years ago. Hoffman said she had a direct conversation with Blagojevich regarding rules to institute the program.
* Ms. Hoffman later posted this comment on my blog…
I had many conversations with many attorneys as we proceeded and, sorry, I really don’t remember at this time what those conversations were. I can tell you that I wasn’t told by the Governor. I can look in the mirror in the morning. The Governor NEVER asked me to do anything unlawful. [emphasis in original]
I checked it out with Tami and it was her.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: About those wiretaps…
Next Post: Sweating the small stuff
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I had many conversations with many attorneys as we proceeded and, sorry, I really don’t remember at this time what those conversations were.
I don’t want to trash lawyers, but surely the Chief of Staff had conversations about health care expansion with persons who were not lawyers. If we have an administration that lawyers up for every single decision, I think we’re in a sorry state.
One problem with Maram and Hoffman’s testimony yesterday is that they kept trying to claim attorney-client privilege over information and discussions that clearly aren’t covered by the privilege. Just because you have a lawyer in the room does not mean the conversation becomes privileged. Yet Hoffman seemed to go out of her way — and her comment confirms this — to place attorneys in every discussion; is this a way to avoid having to answer questions?
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:16 am
Did she actual turn over any documents by the end of the day like she promised?
Comment by Ben Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:20 am
I am somewhat confused about this attorney-client privilege claim. If you’re the attorney for a State agency, aren’t you actually an attorney for the State, i.e. people of Illinois, not just the Governor. I understand that someone holds a privilege, but is it really the Director or the Governor?
If that’s the case, the State is paying Quinlan and Blago’s entire team of lawyers to simply represent Blago, not the State. That doesn’t seem to make sense to me, and actually seems wrong.
Comment by who's lawyer are you Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:21 am
Basically HFS officials are in a no win situation. They either give up the name of the Governor’s office staff that told them to ignor the rule, or they have to admit that they made the decision on their own, thus risking legal action.
Tami posting on the blog was a mistake given the fact she was ordered to provide all sorts of material to the committee. It would not suprise me if she gets called back in and that gets thrown back in her face.
I realize the short notice, but Tami and the director performed horribly in front of the committee. Watching it on CNN made it even worse for her. Meanwile the Auditor General did very well and proved that short notice is no excuse.
Overall, yesterday showed how poorly HFS is Ran.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:23 am
…state’s top welfare officials repeatedly said Thursday they didn’t know or couldn’t recall…
…she couldn’t recall…it might take a while…
…sorry…
Complete and utter contempt for the legislature. Of course, why not? The have complete and utter contempt for the taxpayers and the law.
Comment by Contemptable Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:24 am
I cannot watch or listen to all the of the proceedings of this impeachment process, but it certainly is historic. I admire the committee members for sticking to their charge and focusing on collecting evidence as causes for impeachment. The agenda has been set for the timing of which instances of questionable actions by the Governor are being scrutinized, almost like a musical score, a fugue. I admire the Governor’s attorneys for attempting to make the proceedings look like an actual trial for the media and the public. I don’t know which “angels of our nature” are at play here. The manner in which events are unfolding is fascinating.
Comment by Captain Flume Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:25 am
It is basic human need to CYA. Anyone who works, knows how to do it. When a decision is made that is a concern, those expected to deliver on that decision naturally remembers who would be taking the blame should that decision fall through.
I have contacts within this huge agency that have made it quite clear that even at the most elemental levels of administration, the uppermost concern of Mr. Maram’s staff was who would take the fall when the Governor’s illegal expansion of health care services was stopped in court. In this kind of environment, everyone kept some kind of record of who would be the name they would give to the authorities when this situation was exposed.
Mr. Maram and Ms. Hoffman are unwilling to name names. While they may be playing legal gymnastics with themselves over it - they have their CYA name. Mr. Lang repeatedly demanded that they announce who this was. Instead of answering the questions in the spirit they were intended, these two parsed and deviated. Perhaps they feel that they are being professional by focusing on exactly who their “go ahead” person was on this case, but they are not being honest to the citizens of Illinois.
They understood the questions, yet they refused to answer them. We all heard this repeatedly.
A need to go through meeting notes and other who-ha is ridiculous. They know who is their fall-guy.
Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:27 am
“The Governor NEVER asked me to do anything unlawful.”
Technically no, he didn’t ask you to do anything illegal. Because you are playing a mind-game with yourself that says since the Illinois Supreme Court hasn’t reached a verdict on your last appeal, then what the Governor did wasn’t technically illegal in your own mind.
We are telling you that what the Governor did was illegal. When he told his people to move forward after his acts were declared illegal, a crime was committed. Just because you appealed that decision, doesn’t mean it wasn’t illegal.
If a convicted murderer appeals his verdict, does that mean he is not convicted? When Blagojevich said to go ahead, his decision was already illegal.
Do what everyone else is doing and try some old fashioned honesty.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:32 am
Asserting attorney/client privilege (sounds more like executive privilege) is is one thing; it seems to me that determining whether such a claim exists might have to be hashed out in court.
Saying that you don’t know how a multi-million dollar program came into being on your watch is something else entirely and I think quite dangerous. They were under oath. Government agencies tend to leave long paper trails filled with signatures, initials, etc. And for their sakes, I hope no one even thinks about having a shredding party.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:37 am
Actually the Governor asked her to do things unlawful…he just did not tell her, did not care…did not know
The acts were nevertheless unlawful
Comment by 2ConfusedCrew Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:49 am
This must be the Quote of the Year: “I don’t know who initiated the initial initiation,” said Barry Maram….
Listening yesterday it sounded odd, but seeing it in print is hilarious. Way to go, Barry!!
Comment by DuPage Dave Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:51 am
The privelege is a bit misudnerstood I think. To begin with, the privledge belongs to the agnecy in this context, not the individual. There were cases discussing this issue when a former secretary of state became gov, and wanted to claim prvledge on certain discussions that occured during his role as the SoS. The court held the privledge was owned by the agency, not the individual.
This means the agency can waive the privledge. The privledge is in place to allow the agnecy to confer about priledge issues in private with its attoenrys. In this case the legislature should ask the agnecy to waice any privledge, since there is no need to conceal these conversations from the public or the legislature.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 10:56 am
“The Governor NEVER asked me to do anything unlawful”.
Funny how this statement wasn’t emphatically made to the Committee while she was under oath, only after she went back and started blogging in her personal, not professional, capacity.
Comment by Anon Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:02 am
–This must be the Quote of the Year: “I don’t know who initiated the initial initiation,” said Barry Maram….–
That could make for a trippy comeback song by Kenny Rogers and The New Edition.
Maybe it could be featured in a dream sequence in the upcoming major motion picture from Rich Miller Productions, “The Big Blagojevich.”
“I just can’t seem, to glean who initiated the initial initiation..
Yeah… Yeah…Oh Yeah… initiated the initial initiation….”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:09 am
I wonder how many and how long these sycophants will continue to ride the Pony Blago?
Comment by Crystal Clear Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:09 am
“The acts were nevertheless unlawful”
“I wonder how many and how long these sycophants will continue to ride the Pony Blago?”
The more we all treat this like an indictment of their actions or character the more they will be difficult as witnesses.
They should not be distracted by trying to clean up their name, when the Gov is the only thing this committee and we should care about regarding impeachment.
If they aren’t trying to protect their character, they have no excuse but to answer the questions. Answering the ‘who was there’ and ‘what was said’ questions yesterday wouldn’t have even flirted with legalese questions. Just answer what you think is true. Every little bit is relevant.
Comment by COPN Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:20 am
INTERPRETATION 1: Every large company I ever worked with had some sort of upward approval process for any major project or somethng that was likely to cause controversy. The higher ups always had to agree before something went forward. It never mattered who “initiated the initial initiatation” (Man, that phrase is beautiful BS from a pro or someone trying to look smart on the essay question) because the boss said “Go” to the project.
INTERPRETATION 2: History shows that saying too much leads to a “pursuing other opportunities” letter.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:23 am
Their performance in front of the cmte yesterday was embarrassing for them and for the state. From HFS on down, every agency in this state is being run by these political hacks. Tami Hoffman’s performance yesterday reminded me of the kid back in grade school who would be called upon to answer a question about a reading assignment and instead of just telling the truth and saying she didn’t do her homework, she tried to make up answers that were even more embarrassing than the truth.
Comment by So ILL Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 11:23 am
Oh Tami thinks she was good but instead she was showing what a Blago toady she really is. Instead of going back to her office yesterday afternoon and gathering facts and figures as she promised to deliver to the Committee by days end, what did she do? She jumped on this blog and tried to defend herself and noted that she was “on vacation”. I think the only way the Committee is going to get information from Tami and her boss is via waterboarding.
Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:04 pm
Mr. Maram and Ms. Hoffman know darn well who initiated the initial initiation. Just look in the mirror. Ignoring JCAR and the courts was an explicit policy decision for which they are responsible. Sure, they were told to do so by Blago and others who never put anything in writing, but they made the decision and have to live with defending it, which, it appears, they are not prepared to do.
Comment by DuPage Dave Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:05 pm
There is no attorney client privilege in this instances. Clinton tried it and lost, Ryan tried it and lost see the decision regarding Bickel’s claim of A/C privilege. The Client here is the state not the Governor, he cannot assert it as to conversations with attorneys in these situations.
Comment by Madame Defarge Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:07 pm
Looks like HFS should be the first agency to be fumigated.
Comment by Can't Use My Nickname Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:24 pm
They could give two answers: Rod initiated it OR _______ (someone not Rod) initiated it. Either way, Rod is not doing the job he was elected to do. (To wit: he tried to run around the legislature OR he is not making the command decisions that rest with his office.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:27 pm
To the deleted commenter named Former 4d3. Tami is on vacation, so there was no state time used.
Also, state employees are welcome to post here at any time. Back off.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:30 pm
Rich, you didn’t delete my comment regarding Tami/vacation but don’t you think she had a duty to do what was requested of her by the Committee, a request she agreed to fulfill, and then she spent time yesterday afternoon blogging? No matter how much time she spent here, she should have been doing what she was told to do.
Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 12:47 pm
words, “The Big Blagojevich.” Hilarious.
It’s a very complicated Administration. A lot of ins, a lot of outs. A lot of threads to keep straight in my head.
You want an initiation? I can get you an initiation. There are ways. I can get you an initiation by 3 o’clock. With initials.
Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Ivory, maybe Rod should channel the Dude this afternoon in his statement:
“Look, man, I’ve got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new stuff, you know, I-I-I-I… this could be a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it’s not just, it might not be just such a simple… uh, you know? This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.”
He could close with: ‘The Dude abides.”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 1:23 pm