28 Comments - Leroy - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 6:24 am: >“This will give President Stroger total control,” Suffredin said. I say we call this ordinance the “Enabling Act” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act It’s times like these where the County Board is just going to get in the way, as the members and outsiders jockey for this huge power position. The president should be allowed certain ‘temporary’ powers in order to keep control and keep these threats from tearing Cook County government apart. - Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 6:52 am: Uhm, assuming Stroger’s used up his sick time, and with all due respect and sympathy for his having had a bad stroke 3 MONTHS ago, but on what planet should taxpayers have to continue paying him a salary he is not earning? Suffredin is showing his true colors in opportunistic fashion. He’s trying to position Steele as Stroger’s successor, even though he is a self-promclaimed “reformer”, and Steele has been a Machine and Stroger loyalist “yes man” for 20 years? Why? Because Larry wants jobs and contracts, which are the true reason he ran for commissioner. Seems he’s dropped the “reformer” facade now that opportunity has come a-knocking. - Beowulf - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 8:41 am: Like Sundance said to Butch Cassidy, “Who is this guy?” Who is Larry Suffredin to play the role of “The Candy Man” in granting Stroger or anybody else full benefits while he is not performing the responsibilities and functions of his job? I have a better idea Larry! Give Stroger part of your salary if you feel that this is the right thing to do. Don’t play the role of “Benny Benevolent” on the taxpayer’s dime. It is obvious that you are one of the Stroger “brown nosers” hoping to be rewarded by Stroger when (and if) he is ever able to return back to his office. It is so blatant about what is going on that I feel sorry for poor old Stroger. We won’t be surprised if his minions mummify John Stroger if he should die and place his body behind his desk until the public eventually catches on to the fact that he has been gone for months. There is very little difference between what Stroger followers and his family are doing than that which occurs when an elderly person who has been receiving social security payments dies. The deceased scial security recipient’s family intentionally fails to notify the Social Security Administration of their death so they can continue to collect the deceased’s social security checks. The Cook County Democrat organization has hit a new low with this desecration of poor old John Stroger. - Wumpus - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 9:37 am: I beleive he should get 75% of his pay during his short term/long term disability. - Wow - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 9:45 am: Unbelievable. Comments about Stroger reach new low on this blog. What about this from WBBM AM’s website: “Commissioner Forrest Claypool took to the airwaves Sunday on Newsradio 780 and on the FOX32 Morning Show, saying the Cook County board has no legal right to declare John Stroger’s position vacant, at this point.” “Claypool disagrees about the legality of it all. Claypool says the county board has no legal right to declare Stroger’s position vacant, unless John Stroger himself—or a member of the Stroger family—comes forward and declare that he is no longer able to serve.” I think that’s what I’ve been saying all along here. I guess now Claypool doesn’t know what he’s talking about either, right? - Chicago Dem - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 11:51 am: Wow, Claypool’s point on Fox News was that there’s no state statute or other legal power granted to the Board to simply declare Stroger incompetent, but that the county board itself is acting as if nothing’s wrong, and is letting unelected and unkown staff and power brokers make key decisions on the pending nurses strike and the budget. He says the board should be stepping up to make those decisions, at least until such time as the Stroger camp is more forthcoming. No one is talking about this point–that the county board itself has a responsibility here. After all, they were elected to govern on the same issues that are now in limbo because of the absence of a CEO. - Richard K. Means - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 1:38 pm: It is clear to darn near everyone that Stroger is not running the County. Since he is apparently incapable of directing them, his unelected staff is apparently just guessing what he would want them to do. Uppermost in their minds, evidently, is to keep the 8th Ward’s power intact (and patronage army employed) as long as possible. That’s an outrageous abuse of the citizens who deserve government by those who were elected to make policy. Claypool is just flat wrong about the law. The state statutes require that the Cook County Board declare a vacancy in case of the President’s “inability to act”. What the law does not provide for local officials is the appointment of a temporary replacement (”acting” or “interim”) during a period of temporary disability like the 25th Amendment does for US President or the Illinois Constitution does for Governor. Commissioner Tony Peraica, Stroger’s Republican opponent in November, is the only Board member who has proposed a solution to the problem of determining who is running the show. Peraica’s resolution is simple: to hold hearings to determine whether Stroger is fulfilling his duties by subpoenaing Stroger staff and requiring them to testify, under oath, as to whether they are acting at Stroger’s specific direction. This doesn’t invade Stroger’s privacy. If Stroger is offended by this and remains capable of making decisions, he can prove it by vetoing the ordinance. Concomitantly, if Stroger is not forthcoming and fails to sign or veto the ordinance, that’s a pretty good tipoff that he is incapable to discharge his duties. - Wow - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 1:44 pm: If you check other counties, it is exactly the unelected and unknown staff who do run the governments in the absence of the chief executive. No one has yet named the day to day function of County Government that has ground to a halt with Stroger’s absence. As for the Board running things, absent an impeachment process, neither the legislature or the previous boards contemplated that. Even the 25th amendment, comically cited by Peraica, anticipated that the Executive Branch of government initiates the process of declaring a disability in a substitution process–not the legislative. If that was Claypool’s point it got lost in the conversation. - Richard K. Means - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 2:36 pm: WOW’s both points are mistaken. Nothing has ground to a halt. Worse even, policy decisions are apparently being made by Stroger’s staff who are just guessing as to what John would want them to do. If the decisions are being made by somebody who attends council meetings, he can be questioned and thus made accountable, in public, to other elected officials. Now, the decision makers neither report their decisions nor do they receive input from the Commissioners or the public. Cook County has only one executive officer: the President of the Board. Therefore Illinois law (55 ILCS 5/2 6003; Brown v. Johnson, 362 Ill. App.3d 413 (2005)) requires that a vacancy in the office of President (including because of an “inability to act”) must be declared by the county board of commissioners. WOW may not like it, but that is what Illinois law requires. - Wow - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:26 pm: Nice Try, Dick. Unfortunately, the case you cite is way off point, involving a school board and the ability of an intervening school superintendent to declare school board seats vacant. That case says nothing about the Cook County Board’s responsibility. Unfortunately, you can’t take bits and pieces of different laws and cases and make them into some magical new reality. Claypool’s actual statements have it right: the board does not have this authority. Quote the ILCS section which says they do. Not the cite, the actual statutory language. It does not exist. As for staff making decisions, about 98% of what is done never goes to “John’s” desk. And there’s not a lot of guessing. Most of the day-to-day stuff is, well, day-to-day. Nice try on the citation, though. Run a better Lexis search next time. Oh, and Cook County has a Board of Commissioners, not a Council. - Richard K. Means - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:43 pm: Wrong again Wow, Brown v. Johnson stands for the proposition that the public body charged with filling a vacancy has the right to declare that the vacancy exists. It doesn’t matter whether it is a school board case in which the allegation is that the members abandoned their office by moving their residence out of the district. The same principle applies here. As for your denial that Illinois law provides that the Board of Commissioners fills the vacancy, read the Counties Act provisions applicable to Cook County: (55 ILCS 5/2 6003) (from Ch. 34, par. 2 6003) Sec. 2 6003. Vacancy in office of president. In case of the death, resignation, removal from office or other inability to act of the president so elected, if more than 28 months of the unexpired term remain, the vacancy shall be filled at the next general election, at which election one of the regularly elected or appointed members of the board of commissioners shall be elected to serve the unexpired term of the president. If less than two years and sixty days of the unexpired term remain, the board of commissioners shall elect one of their number to serve the unexpired term of the president. (Source: P.A. 86 962.) Or maybe I just made it up? - Anon-mouse - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 4:44 pm: Wow, Just quit while you’re behind. Rich Means is a well respected election attorney. I know, I’ve gone against him a few times; and I’ve been on his side many more. Rich is spot on correct. As noted on previous postings, Wow’s argument is fatuous at best. The law was written in mind clearly to provide for the County Board to declare the vacancy - under exactly these circumstances. While there might be instances where a County Board President would have the integrity to declare the incapacity himself, other instances, such as the instant case, show why the law was designed in the first place. Otherwise, how could a Board President in a coma ever declare an “inability to act.” Or (as hard as this may be to believe) how could a Board President surrounded by bodyguards, liars and protective family, ever declare the inability to act. Whatever Wow thinks of how the world really works, we do operate under a system of laws. What is happening in our system is beyond the pale and no right minded citizen should tolerate it. Stroger should retire and collect a pension. His shills shouldn’t put the County in this position. What a pathetic way for Stroger to end his career. It is readily apparent that Wow is a Stroger hack who spends his time on blogs defending the indefensible, rather than working for the County taxpayers. Wow, go back to work, then go to law school. But either way, go away. Your uninformed rants and ridiculous bias have no merit whatsoever. Unfortunately, because of the sheer timidity of Cook County politicians, what will be required will be to bring this before a judge, as the County Board apparently has its own “inability to act.” But the few that do find the ability to act will earn the respect of Cook County now and in generations to come. - Fed-Up Democrat - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 8:39 pm: Wow is well-known in these parts for having shilled for Stroger from day one of the primary election campaign–facts, evidence, and logic be damned. - Ignatius J. Reily - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 8:48 pm: In politics, do not look for logic, look for politics. - Wow - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 9:05 pm: Mouse: Just because you seem to be intimidated by Dick’s resume, let me help you with the facts, especially since you cannot read posts accurately without resorting to personal attacks. The law does not provide the Board with the authority to declare an inability to act, which is what is necessary to exercise the authority to fill a vacancy. Read my last post. Most succession schemes vest the authority to declare some inability or disability in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the government. In the case of President of the United States, that’s the cabinet. No such scheme exists in Illinois for Cook County. Your “best guess” is that the Board has that authority. Not under the current law. Why would Larry Suffredin be looking to add a redundant “succession process,” with clear lines of authority if he thought one already existed? Whoever, anon-mouse is, clearly you have been on the losing end of a lot elections, and seem to be a bitter, bitter, small person whose opinion is grounded in the obviously not so. Save your personal attacks for the Peraica and Claypool love letters you love to write on blogs like this and others. You certainly have no idea what the law says, yet you do not stop to demonstrate it. - Wow - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 9:22 pm: As far as shilling for Stroger, that’s EXACTLY what I did during the primary and I am proud of it. You were wrong about the County. You were wrong about the result. You are wrong about succession. - Fed-Up Democrat - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 11:10 pm: Wow, You REALLY should have stopped when you were ahead. From the Illinois Election Code, emphasis added: (10 ILCS 5/25‑3) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑3) Sec. 25‑3. (a) Whenever it is alleged that a vacancy in any office exists, the officer, body, or county board who has authority to fill the vacancy by appointment, or to order an election to fill such vacancy, shall have power to determine whether or not the facts occasioning such vacancy exist. That CLEARLY STATES that the County Board itself has the power to determine whether a vacancy in the presidency exists. Therefore, you are wrong, yet again. Your exceedingly poor research skills, and the fact that you’re proud of your association with the man responsible for one of the most poorly run governments in the state–if not the country–says more than I ever could. - Fed-Up Democrat - Monday, Jun 12, 06 @ 11:16 pm: Oh, and Wow: The County is a home rule unit of government. That means, in the words of a little document known as the state constitution, that it “may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs.” That includes passing legislation to address the temporary incapacity of its chief executive officer, something that is left unaddressed in state law (but is not precluded either). - Wumpus - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 8:36 am: How dare these heartlesss democrats jockey for Mr. Stroger’s position when he is just recovering. If Claypool were smart, he would have done the same thing and made health an issue. It would have been honest and legitimate, but he was spineless! Now we have Stroger’s own son jockeying for position while criticizing anyone who questioned a stroke victim’s health. - Wow - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 9:53 am: Tell me how 10 ILCS applies to the Cook County Board when there is a specific act, previously cited here that covers vacancy in the office of the President? 55 ILCS which covers Counties specifically, and specific sections which cover the Cook County Board specifically do not provide the authority for the Board to declare an inability to act in the office of the President. You cannot just take a section of the law that sounds like it applies and use it when you have a specific section of the law that covers the County! When you bring up home rule, all you are doing is making my point: if the members of board had a governing piece of legislation which they felt authorized them to replace the President, they would have done so already. A significant number of people like you who post here clearly get all your information about the County from the media. Wherever you and others get your animus about John Stroger, you certainly have no idea about the good work that is really being done by those people at the County, and I have no problem saying that the good work they do is made possible by John Stroger. - Angry Citizen - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 10:45 am: Wow, Good work? The county under John Stroger? Ask the kids who have been routinely beaten by county staff at the Audy home for years if they think the county is “doing good.” Ask the patients who wait for days in the corridors of emergency rooms at the chronically mis-managed county hospitals if they think the county is “doing good” under this administration. Ask the families confronting used condoms and garbage at picnic groves in the forest preserves. Ask the taxpayers who have had their wallets picked EVERY YEAR with a tax increase in 12 years of Stroger rule. I could go on, by I’m exhausted already! - Anon-mouse - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 10:48 am: Good cite, Fed Up Democrat. You might have added that this section of the election code, which applies to ALL elective offices, also notes events upon which an elective office becomes vacant. 10 ILCS 5/25-2. The code states that “(e)very elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term of such office…(3) His or her becoming a person under a legal disability.” Id. The code also provides that “(n)o elective office…shall become vacant until the successor of the incumbent of such office has been appointed or elected, as the case may be, and qualified.” Id. The Counties Code and the Election Code both support the position that a successor must be appointed and that the seat is vacant. As usual, the Stroger camp just doesn’t have the law on their side. They just figure if the corrupt crew can circle the wagons long enough, the gravy train will keep rolling on. Feel free to hurl insults, but Team Stroger’s ignorance really is showing. And by the way, I have won many more than I’ve lost, and I’ve beaten Rich Means the few times I was on the opposing side as well. Fact is, some people actually work for everything they have and do - while others sit around as hacks collecting a paycheck for corrupt, bloated politicians. - Fed-Up Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 11:02 am: Thanks, Anon-mouse, for demolishing Wow’s latest nonsense, so I don’t have to. By the way, Wow, how do you know where I get all of my information? For all you know, I could be Claypool. Oh, and for anyone who still doubts the County is a frigging mess, check out Mark Brown’s column in the Sun-Times today. Apparently commissioner Quigley has discovered the County is over $40 million in the hole in the CURRENT fiscal year–in other words, it’s broke. Or maybe I’m Quigley, Wow. - Wow - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 11:29 am: In the last three days no less an authority than Forrest Claypool (you) and now Mike Quigley (the other you) have said pretty clearly that they believe the authority is not there to remove John Stroger. To follow your practice of selectively citing Mark Brown’s column, here is Quigley today: “We don’t have the statutory authority to push him out of office,” Quigley said. The Claypool quotes are in this post earlier. How can two people, so dedicated to pushing John Stroger out of office be as wrong as I am on this issue? This doesn’t even include Suffredin, no friend of John Stroger’s, who is proposing a measure to CREATE a process because none exists! C’mon, stop the wishful thinking and face up to the same facts that these three did! All attorneys, all who have worked in Springfield, all opponents of Stroger. Or maybe, perhaps, your wishful thinking about which laws actually apply to Cook County has clouded your mind? I’d go to court any day to argue that the Counties Code and the sections that specifically govern Cook County apply to the County before any other part of state law on this issue. - Fed-Up Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 1:40 pm: Wow, You seem to think President Stroger is infallible. Unlike you, however, I do not labor under such laughable misconceptions about him or any other politician. As humans, it is quite possible that Quigley and Claypool are wrong, or to put it more kindly, misinformed. The State’s Attorney was asked last week to research these succession issues and there should be some definitive answers soon. Until then, we’re all speculating. But there is informed speculation, and then there’s whatever it is you’re doing. And once again, rather than engage my points, you veer off into absurdities. You completely mischaracterize Commissioner Suffredin’s proposed ordinance, which would allow for an Acting President, as somehow conflicting with state law. As I said before, as a home rule unit, the County may legislate on matters pertaining to its own affairs in the absence of direct statutory language forbidding certain actions. NONE of these limitations exist in this case–state law simply says nothing about an interim president–which means the matter may be addressed by County legislation, derived from home rule. If you wish to dispute this, please tell us SPECIFICALLY why home rule power cannot be used in this case, and what SPECIFIC state statute would be violated by the creation of an Acting President. Please remember, per the state constitution, that home rule units may be restricted in their use of home rule authority by the state legislature in only three circumstances, none of which apply here. If I’m wrong, PROVE IT. See you in court! P.S. Looks like I was right about the County’s stellar financial performance–and Stroger’s own staff has confirmed the financial hole the County faces: http://tinyurl.com/o78yp . What a well-run government! - Bobby Douglas - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 4:24 pm: I’d like to know who is running the County. My guess is they (the democrats) are just buying time to clean up the mess and corruption left behind by Strogers sudden departure. In the mean time who does Tony Peraica have to debate for the Cook County Board Presidents race ? Nobody; the same person running Cook County - Wow - Tuesday, Jun 13, 06 @ 9:22 pm: Here’s why you shouldn’t base your arguments on what you read in the papers… I’ve read the State’s Attorney’s research on this issue. It was a set of answers to questions posed by Commissioner Goslin and it went over the responsibility of the Board relative to 55 ILCS the Counties Code statutes that we have been discussing. The State’s Attorney does NOT assert that the Board has the ability to take initiative, under current state law, to remove the President. If it said something else, don’t you think any of the anti-Stroger Commissioners would have quoted it by now? I didn’t disagree with what you said about home rule. I merely pointed out that Suffredin’s efforts to enact a law makes it clear that no law current exists. I never said what he was propsing conflicted with state law. Unfortunately, I can’t engage your points unless you actually make one. I can’t believe I am actually saying this, but I agree with Quigley, Claypool and Suffredin! Someone check hell for ice cubes! - anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 14, 06 @ 4:27 pm: I’ve also seen that memo to Goslin and the reason the state’s atty “does not assert that the Board has the ability to take initiative, under current state law, to remove the President” is because Goslin didn’t ask about that. He merely asked how a vacancy in the presidency–were one to exist–would play out. Quigley’s request last week for an opinion will answer the question about declaring a vacancy, and rumor has it the state’s atty will be completing that research soon. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.