Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Round-Up: Law & Order; Crime & Punishment
Next Post: Round-Up: Clout U; Clout comes to CPS
Posted in:
[Posted by Mike Murray]
At least on Constitutional officer was able to aviod this headache….
* Giannoulias only statewide officer with state cell phone
Gov. Pat Quinn isn’t the only constitutional officer who doesn’t have a cell phone provided by taxpayers.
In fact, just one of the statewide elected officials, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, has a taxpayer-funded cell phone, a BlackBerry. He also carries his own BlackBerry for personal use, said Scott Burnham, spokesman for the treasurer.
Policies vary on whether call records would be released under the state Freedom of Information Act.
“It (a request) would be denied,” said Henry Haupt, spokesman for Secretary of State Jesse White. “Our reasoning is, the records are not kept by the state, for one. Nor are the calls reimbursed by the state. As a result, they don’t fall under FOIA.”
-AG Madigan views the private cell phone records of public officials as not subject to FOIA, even when the elected official is using that cell phone to conduct state business. Although, the first part of the explanation given from here office does not seem to completely jive with the last part and she would be subject to FIOA if she concluded otherwise.
I am no lawyer, however, so I make no accusations. I Just don’t see a difference between calls and emails. Are there lawyers out there who can explain?
* Do private phones keep the FOIA’s away?
Cara Smith, Madigan’s deputy chief of staff, used the analogy of a government employee who buys his own paper and pencil and uses it to write an agenda for a city council meeting. Such an agenda is a public document even though the paper and pencil weren’t purchased with public funds, she said. In the same way, e-mails about official government business sent on privately owned BlackBerrys are public records, she said.
“To conclude otherwise, when it comes to e-mail records, would create a gaping hole in the law,” Smith said.
Billing records for cell phones used and paid for by elected officials, however, are another matter. Smith said she doesn’t believe such records are subject to FOIA requests.
“The short answer would be no,” Smith said. “And the reason is that if the private phone bill is not paid for and doesn’t implicate the use of public money, there’s no reason the public body would maintain or keep a copy of that bill.”
And of course, editorial boards are enjoying this issue…
* Why the private phone, Gov. Quinn?
On one hand, we applaud you for taking it on the chin and paying the monthly bill for your own BlackBerry in these turbulent budgetary times for the state of Illinois.
But that’s penny-wise and pound-foolish in the sense that you’re losing political capital.
The people of Illinois have a healthy distrust of their political leaders, borne of years of abusive relationships. Rod Blagojevich was only the most recent person to let us down. And for that, we showed him the door.[…]
So do your business on a phone paid for by the state - so we can keep tabs on you as the law allows - or make your phone records public.
* SJ-R: State can afford to buy Quinn a phone
BUT QUINN’S refusal to use a state phone for state business is both odd and inconsistent with his stated desire for open and accountable government. His use of his personal cell phone for phone calls and e-mail allows him to conduct the state’s business without such communications being subject to the state’s Freedom of Information Act, according to a story published Monday by The Associated Press. The governor won’t voluntarily release his phone records.
“His personal cell phone/BB (BlackBerry) usage is not public, so those records do not have to be released,” Quinn spokesman Bob Reed told the AP.
GOVERNMENT watchdogs are right to be concerned about the use of a personal phone to conduct state business. The people of Illinois have a right to see what officials of the government whose salaries they pay are doing and why.
“This is vintage Pat Quinn, doing something in his own quirky way that in this case blurs the line between transparency and privacy in a way that’s hard to resolve,” Andy Shaw, executive director of the Better Government Association, told the AP.
- Quinn might not comment on the FOIA changes, but his intent comes across kinda strong in the last paragraph below. Or at least it did to me…
* Quinn won’t comment on state’s attorneys concerns about open records changes
Alvarez, who Quinn appointed to serve on his blue ribbon ethics panel following the arrest of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, has said she is worried that changes aimed at making it easier to access government documents could lead to the inappropriate release of some crime victim information.
She’s also suggested the legislation awaiting Quinn’s signature could result in the exposure of secret informants that could potentially jeopardize criminal cases. The open records rewrite extensively narrows exemptions for law enforcement officials when it comes to releasing documents. […]
Quinn would not comment on Alvarez’ concerns, but said he is reviewing that letter along with others, including one from the Illinois Press Association urging Quinn sign the measure as-is. The governor said he would take action soon on that and other ethics bills, and previously has hinted he is considering using his amendatory veto power to change at least one other ethics bill dealing with campaign finance laws.
“I’m going to examine their letter and study their letter, along with many other letters I’ve received on that matter,” Quinn said. “But it’s going to happen soon… We are going to make 2009 a year of reform and that’s my job as governor, to sign into law fundamental, far-reaching reforms that will change our government forever. And I’m committed to that, and that’s why I’m here.”
- The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform makes a interesting argument in opposition to HB 7 that I have not heard voiced previously from the bill’s opponents. I am not saying I am completely sold, but it is worth a read and should spawn some interesting discussion…
* HB 7 in Detail: Defining when a committee “receives” a contribution
n revisions to the Election Code, HB 7 changes the definition of when a committee “receives” a contribution. The date of receipt determines when a committee must report a contribution, and is especially important during the A-1 reporting period: the final 30 days before an election, when committees are required to report contributions over $500 within two working days of receipt. The date of receipt also becomes a factor around the end of the regular reporting period, in determining when the public is told of a contribution.
Current law uses the word “receipt” but does not define it in statute, relying instead on the common sense of the word. The State Board of Elections has defined the word in regulation, relying again on the common sense meaning of the term.
HB 7 changes the definition to when the “candidate or campaign treasurer” has “actual personal physical possession of the contribution.” This greatly narrows the definition in ways that are deeply problematic. When, for instance, would the candidate or treasurer have “actual personal physical possession” of an electronic funds transfer? An on-line contribution? An inter-bank exchange?
But there are deeper problems, and an example will illustrate: In 2006, Todd Stroger, then a candidate for Cook County Board President, missed statutory deadlines to make public reports of more than $250,000 in contributions received in the final weeks before the election. He later claimed that the contributions had been “received” by the committee but were being vetted, and so were not “received” by the officers of the committee. After much haggling, the State Board of Elections disagreed with Stroger’s interpretation. Under current law, he was found to have violated the Election Code and was fined just over $25,000. This provision in HB 7 would validate his failure to disclose.
And ICPR continues
With this change, a committee could receive a contribution without triggering reporting requirements. Until the candidate or treasurer of the committee directed a staff person to hand the contribution to the treasurer or candidate, creating the necessary “actual personal physical possession,” there might be no obligation to report a contribution. There is nothing to require a committee to disclose once a staff person has told the candidate or treasurer of the receipt, so long as the staffer does not deliver “actual personal physical possession” of the contribution. The chair of the committee or other staff could have “actual personal physical possession” of a contribution indefinitely without ever triggering disclosure. Contributions received by the committee before Election Day could, under this proposal, be held until after the voting is over, then delivered to the treasurer, deposited, and used to pay debts incurred before Election Day. This could postpone disclosure for months, completely defeating the purpose of A1 reports.
This is a huge step backward, and one of several reasons why ICPR believes that HB 7 is worse than nothing.
- I should have no from what he is charged with, but his guy has a lot of …well let’s just call it Chutzpah. LOL…
* Cahnman rejects requests to step aside
“I will not run away from the job my constituents sent me to the city council to do,” Cahnman said. “But because of the sensitivity currently involved in the Springfield Police Department, I will recuse myself from any votes involving the department.”
* Democracy without elections
The unfortunate truth is that 4 of the 100 members of the Senate got there without the consent of the governed. They were appointed to fill seats abandoned by someone who moved on to another job (including Barack Obama and Joe Biden). In the House, by contrast, vacated seats can be filled only by special elections.
The number of unelected senators will soon rise. Republican Mel Martinez of Florida is stepping down rather than serve the last 17 months of his term, and Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison plans to leave this year to run for governor. Once their successors are sworn in, 27 percent of Americans will be represented by senators who didn’t get a single vote in a free election.
Among these unfortunates are the people of Illinois. Not only did they have no say on their new senator, but they are stuck with a risible appointee, Roland Burris, named by a governor, Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached for his corrupt selection methods.
posted by Mike Murray
Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Round-Up: Law & Order; Crime & Punishment
Next Post: Round-Up: Clout U; Clout comes to CPS
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Wasn’t there a George Will column on Judy Baar Topinka that highlighted the fact that she carried three phones: one for state Treasurer, one for state GOP chair and one for personal? That seems reasonable and in the spirit of good government.
There’s a reason elected officials don’t want the state phone — if anyone ever got a hold of their phone logs, they’d find an awful lot of time is spent on fundraising and campaigning, not so much on business.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:26 am
Carry a state phone and a pay as you go phone. It is easy.
But, what about home phones? When we were in state government the home phone rang all the time. Now, would we have to have a “hot line?”
Comment by Shelbyville Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:38 am
Sorry but, Quinn looks bad and very hypocritical on the cell phone issue. It really does look like he has something to hide. if he has done nothing wrong, why let us see—why not let us be the judge, Governor? For the (Chicago electronic and print) media to give him a pass on this is ridiculous because after all for the past 35 years he is Mr. Let the Sun Shine In.
Chorus sings:
Let it shine
Let it shine
Let it shine
Oh yeah
(remember when a political campaign worker of his was exposed for trying to sell face time with him for $15,000 a few months ago—while the GA was in session no less? One really has to wonder where and from whom she got that order that our reform and squeaky clean governor simply dismissed as a “mistake.”)
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 9:55 am
sorry folks,
that should be why not let us see…
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:11 am
Actually, I didn’t think Quinn was trying to evade
scrutiny by using his personal cell phone although I suppose it’s possible.
I thought his use of a personal phone was yet another effort to use symbolism to distract us from his appalling management of the state budget, his failure to actually implement any significant cuts so far, and his efforts to impose an income tax increase. We’re supposed to confound his use of symbols in our heads with honest, frugal government and support him on the tax increase, and then re-elect him so he can mismanage the budget some more. Obviously, taking a leaf from our Blago’s playbook, Quinn has determined that it’s all about the symbols. And, to be fair, given Illinois’ recent political history, maybe it is.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:16 am
Okay Cassandra, but how convenient of an excuse he has in saying that he used his personal cell to save taxpayers money. I mean, come on. Yes, he’s played that card before, but now it doesn’t work anymore. I have to laugh because as governor he’s hardly shown much of an interest for the welfare and well-being of taxpayers in Illinois.
I think it’s fair to say that looking back over the last several months, his credibility is really bad. I would love to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I consider the last several months and because he so desperately wants to keep the governor job, it’s kinda hard to give him a blank check in terms of benefit of the doubt at this point.
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:31 am
Will County Woman- I can’t help but wonder if you would be calling the Governor out if the scenario was reversed and he DID have a state-paid for cell phone. Would you call him out on using state funds unnecessarily? And why is it any of your or anyone’s business what the Governor or anyone else is talking about on their personal cell phone? I think there is a line between (allegedly) “hiding information from the public” and being entitled to some privacy. Just because elected official’s job is to work for the people doesn’t mean the people are entitled to know what they are doing on their personal time and/or with their personal resources.
Comment by doomed if you do; doomed if you don't Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:35 am
doomed thank you for your questions/concerns as to my agenda.
I am calling out the governor on his inconsistency and blatant hypocrisy, especially given his history as a crusader for sunshine, as the best poliical/government disinfectant. The FACT is that his press secretary, who speaks for him, has acknowledged that the governor has used his personal cell phone to conduct state business. thereinlies the problem.
so, once Bob Reed, the press sec., opened that door with that admission, it is fair and legitimate for people to question the governor on the matter.
with respect to the the governor’s office and on the heels of blago and ryan, as a taxpaying citizen of illinois i care what is done in my name and by whom, don’t you?
there, now hopefully i have answered and addressed your questions and concerns.
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 12:24 pm
E-mail records would be subject to FOIA if they were sent on a personal Blackberry/cell phone ONLY if they were sent/received using a state e-mail account. Those accounts are subject to FOIA regardless of where the e-mail messages originate or are received (state-owned servers hold that data). If employees use a personal cell and send/receive messages using a personal e-mail account they would not be accessible under FOIA.
Comment by Cubs Win Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 12:33 pm
“with respect to the the governor’s office and on the heels of blago and ryan, as a taxpaying citizen of illinois i care what is done in my name and by whom, don’t you?”
To an extent, yes, I care. But I don’t think it is fair to put Gov. Quinn in the same category as Blago and Ryan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the biggest fan of Quinn policies. At the same time, he hasn’t given me a reason to think he runs the Governor’s Office like Blago and Ryan did. For me personally, I don’t really care what subject of his emails or phone calls are. You speak of what you are entitled to as a taxpayer. Well, Pat Quinn is a tax payer in addition to being the Governor so isn’t he entitled to being innocent until proven guilty?
Obviously there is a lot of legal interpretation regarding FOIA and whether or not the law is applicable to personal devices used to conduct state business. However, state resources such as email and phone are always subject to FIOA. So my question to you Will County Woman: If you are so concerned with the Governor’s communications, how many FOIA requests have you made to get information on the Governor’s state email or office phone? And if you have never made any such request, wouldn’t you be guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse the Governor of?
Comment by doomed if you do; doomed if you don't Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 2:38 pm
>>Well, Pat Quinn is a tax payer in addition to being the Governor so isn’t he entitled to being innocent until proven guilty?>So my question to you Will County Woman: If you are so concerned with the Governor’s communications, how many FOIA requests have you made to get information on the Governor’s state email or office phone? And if you have never made any such request, wouldn’t you be guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse the Governor of?
Comment by uh huh... Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 8:29 pm
Er, let me try that again…
“Well, Pat Quinn is a tax payer in addition to being the Governor so isn’t he entitled to being innocent until proven guilty?”—doomed
LOL! Look I am no fan of the guy, but was Blagojevich treated as though he were innocent until proven guilty? No. he wasn’t. After Ryan and Blagojevich no one holding that office should ever expect to really be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty whenever they do something questionable.
“So my question to you Will County Woman: If you are so concerned with the Governor’s communications, how many FOIA requests have you made to get information on the Governor’s state email or office phone? And if you have never made any such request, wouldn’t you be guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse the Governor of? ” —doomed
Relax, doomed.
Comment by uh huh... Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 8:31 pm
uh huh, I feel very sorry for you if you can’t give any leader of our state the benefit of the doubt. Remember the worse type of blindness is not wanting to see. So how are you going to see the true leaders who really do have the state’s best interest at heart if you always assume they have some hidden agenda? Of course, please understand I am not claiming Quinn is that person. I just have faith that that person is out there.
I don’t believe my previous question is off-base. If someone is so concerned with the Governor’s bahavior why not start investigating now? Then request more information as needed? To claim entitlement over information you clearly haven’t thought twice about before this morning is rediculous and without standing.
Again, I’m not Quinn’s biggest fan. But remember, this is the man who still uses a 30 year old briefcase, crossed out the “Lt.” from his business cards and used white lables to cover Rod Blagojevich’s name on stationary in the name of saving money. If I were to believe ANYONE in state government, without question, when they claim their intention was soley to save the state money it would be Pat Quinn
Comment by doomed if you do; doomed if you don't Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 10:12 pm
doomed…
I appreciate the media and government watchdog groups for bringing quinn’s hypocrisy and latest, in a long line of many, inconsistencies to light with repsect to his use of his personal phone to conduct state business. btw… did you happen to read the editoral reactions to this issue that mike murray posted. I finally did just before writing this post in response to your last one to me. seems I’m not the only one thinking that quinn is wrong, in light of blago and ryan etc.
:)
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:02 pm
doomed, out of curiosty what were your thoughts on the way the GA handled Blago last year and earlier this year? please answer truthfully.
Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:05 pm
Doomed, I’m kinda new at this, so tell me about the problems in how Ryan ran the Gov’s office.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Aug 13, 09 @ 11:33 pm