Criminalizing politics?
Wednesday, Jul 2, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The full appellate bench voted 8-2 yesterday to deny Robert Sorich another shot at hearing Robert Sorich’s appeall…
Mayor Richard M. Daley’s former patronage chief and two other former city officials lost their bid Tuesday for an unusual hearing by all of Chicago’s actively sitting federal appeals judges.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a majority of the judges voting on whether to hold a so-called en banc hearing had been against the idea. It would have involved all the court’s judges except those on senior status.
Robert Sorich, 43, once known as the mayor’s patronage chief, was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted in July 2006 of using fraud to cover up the role of political patronage in city hiring. […]
A three-judge panel of the appeals court denied their request for a new trial on April 15, saying they had been “key players in a corrupt and far reaching scheme - that doled out thousands of city civil service jobs based on political patronage and nepotism.”
* But the Tribune makes a good point…
The defense will seize in part on a sharply worded dissent written by Judge Michael S. Kanne and joined by Judge Richard A. Posner, one of the nation’s most influential judges.
McCarthy’s lawyer, Patrick Deady, said Kanne grasped the argument the defendants have made all along: The federal government has criminalized what were violations of the Shakman civil court decree that forbids political influence in most City Hall hiring decisions. The defendants also argued they should not have been convicted of criminal fraud because they never took a dime in bribes or kickbacks.
“Without explicitly saying so, we have left the impression that the use of political patronage in personnel hiring by the city of Chicago is a crime,” Kanne wrote.
“Although no legislatively defined criminal offense outlaws patronage hiring by government entities in Illinois, such hiring is now seen as a crime because it violates the Shakman decrees—never mind that Shakman is simply a series of civil consent decrees subject only to civil penalties, and imposition of contempt if willfully violated,” the dissent said.
* The ruling went overwhelmingly against Sorich and his co-defendants, but I suppose there’s always a tiny ray of sunshine when you see such a strongly-worded dissent.
Sorich and his cohorts did do some really stupid things, like changing test scores and marking down people as having been interviewed when they weren’t. But the dissent - which you can read in full at this link - makes some valid points about the overreaching nature of these convictions.
Thoughts?
- Steve - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:38 am:
Sorich and gang committed fraud on a grand scale.The thousands of people who applied for a job and couldn’t get one because of the lack of 11th Ward or other clout connections speaks for itself.The Justice Department proved that an “unusual” number of people in the 11th Ward got jobs.Are we supposed to believe these are the only capable people for city jobs? Sorich and gang are criminals worked together in a giant enterprise that cost Chicago taxpayers millions of dollars because often the most capable people weren’t hired.The fact that Sorich has been in front of another grand jury after he was convicted suggested other maybe indicted.
- Job Olympics 2008 - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:44 am:
“The defendants also argued they should not have been convicted of criminal fraud because they never took a dime in bribes or kickbacks.”
What a crock. Their entire job was to cheat the system for the Mayor’s buddies. They got a great benefit, i.e their SALARIES. Who needs a bribe when you are making six figures plus? They were fairly judged and are now paying the price.
- fed up - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:49 am:
Sorich deserves jail and that is where he is going. How many lives did he effect by stealing jobs from people that deserved them? He has helped enable the chicago machine to give jobs to political hacks that dont deserve them. How many porces that collapsed and killed people could have been prevented if the building inspectors got their jobs by qualifications instead of who you know or donate to. How many traffic accident could have been prevented if streets and san had quality employees fixing the streets instead of being a patronage army, would the public housing have become the slum it did if its residents had axcess to city jobs, would the public schools be the joke they are if they hired the most qualified instead of the most connected. Sorich never pulled the trigger but the actions of him and others doing the same things to ensure a political army survives instead of quality city services have cost people their lives and done a great harm to the city.
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:51 am:
That’s not politics per se. It’s unethical behavior and there is a long history of criminalizing unethical behavior because it is typically not accepted by society at large.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:52 am:
The dissent seems to want to argue the point of what constitutes personal gain and whether patronage is illegal per se.
It is a stretch to see why the entire court is to convene en banc to consider this decision. It has gone through through two levels of judicial review and only a minority of 2 seem to believe that the issue remains unsettled.
The previous courts appear to accept the fact that personal gain does not have to involve personal direct monetary gain. If that was the case then people like Mr. Sorich could be hired to be the dispensors of favors with no consequences. Hiring less than the best available employee is a fraud on the public. Therefor it is simple to understand why it is illegal to hire people based on ‘who sent ya’
Using a cutout to do your dirty work has worked out very well in this system. This decision appears to erode the effectiveness of that technique.
- Smitty Irving - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 9:54 am:
Sorich, reading between the lines, seems to be saying that while the Supreme Court said patronage was unconstitutional in the Rutan decision, there are no criminal penalties for violating those constitutional rights. And further, he seems to say, there shouldn’t be any criminal penalties, either.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:00 am:
Rich, if it makes you feel better, think of it as the criminals being convicted of violating the civil rights of unspecified others who could have gotten those jobs.
What you seem to be saying Rich is that the only remedy to Shakman violations should be civil lawsuits that will very rarely be filed.
Let’s say someone does file a civil lawsuit. Do you think civil lawsuit discovery is going to discover that the hiring process is a fraud?
Or is it more likely the political insiders will lie in the their depositions?
So, what’s the remedy to city hall people lying in civil depositions? The remedy is the Cook County State’s Attorney prosecuting for perjury, right?
Ah, but what’s the record of the Cook County State’s Attorney getting involved in political cases? Cases against the Dem Machine? Daley’s Machine?
So, under the Posner/Miller interpretation of the law, the insiders can engage in a completely fraudulent hiring process with no fear of any personal penalties (civil suits will all be paid by the gov’t).
In the very rare event some chump gets enought of the story to bring a case the insiders merely have to lie in their depositions and the chump loses and the insiders are protected.
And the only check against this violation of the plaintiffs civil rights (Fourteenth Amendment, anyone?), is that the Cook County State’s Attorney might (don’t hurt yourself laughing here) prosecute the insiders for perjury in a civil case?
- Anon - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:03 am:
Poaner’s “sharply-worded” dissent in George Ryan’s case didn’t get his cert petition taken. Journalists tend to give too much weight to dissents.
- 2for2 - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:06 am:
Fed Up-
The nature of your questions undermine your first point that Sorich deserves to be in jail. We do not send people to jail based upon speculation. He wasn’t on trial for porch collapses or traffic accidents. Maybe 100 people dies becasue of patronage, maybe zero died. I don’t know, neither do you. He was on trial for manipulating a hiring process that was designed to prevent political patronage. Hiring process, not hiring laws. I’m not saying what he did was right nor am I saying that he is a victim. But in a world of a George Bush Justice Department I am not comfortable with the Federal Government creating criminal violations out of thin air. I wouldn’t be comfortable with an Obama justice Department doing it either.
- siriusly - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:10 am:
I think you’re right Rich. These guys did some stupid things, but the dissent sure makes a very good point. Fitzgerald might even agree, he’s said all along that he wants to bring some order to Illinois - even though our laws aren’t nearly strict enough on political corruption, etc.
He doesn’t need the laws, he can legislate via conviction.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:12 am:
Sorich and the others got screwed. If things are as screwed up as Steve, Job Olympics & fed up think then there is a remedy. Vote out the mayor. That is the way the system is suppose to work. Obviously not enough voters agree.
- fed up - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:16 am:
2for2,
There are alot of things about the Bush administration I am uncomfortable with, prosecuting Sorich and his ilk for their illegal behavior is not one of them. I only hope that more of Daleys, Strogers and Blagos illegal acts are prosecuted.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:19 am:
Was Sorich ever the patrnage chief? I thought it went Degnen, Reyes and Doerrer. The point being that these guys were just the indians and the chiefs got away. Daley and his buffers reap the benefits while their loyal lackies due time.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:20 am:
While Sorich raises the question and starts this conversation, we need to leave Sorich behind because in his particular case, decisions were made that were unethical and clearly so. His trial was handled well and the jury decision is just.
But Posner’s question remains, and has remained for over 150 years. Should patronage be illegal? At what point do we expect politics to end regarding civil service? Those who lost their jobs or were passed over for jobs due to political patronage - do they have a case to make, or are they just whiners?
Shakman is clear enough for those in hiring positions within administrations to heed. Sure, there could be some fuzzy circumstances legally, but legal questions can always be raised, even as we see in the Sorich case, which was pretty clear cut.
Adminstrations are expected to deal with job seekers fairly with any positions that fall under Due Process or listed as such by precedents. The Sorich case brings up a conflict within this process - the “jobs guy” was the Mayor’s guy. Sorich needed to recognize how his fanny was hanging out when he did his job due to this obvious conflict between politics and Due Process.
Perhaps we will need to see HR clearing houses protected from patronage and protected from politics. All administrative positions would be listed so that HR personnel could process both those handed jobs via elected officials and those seeking work in public service via Due Process.
During college I was snagged for a job to begin after graduation due to political patronage and this allowed me to later move into job positions non-dependant on patronage for my career. So I understand the pros and cons of both systems and believe they can work together.
- ImTellenYou - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:20 am:
I know that patronage is a fact of life in politics but I believe that it is an element of our political system that has to be fought at every turn. I know that it will never be totally done away with but the public should do everything possible to keep it at bay. If the Chicago/Daily political machine were to be broken, then the state of Illinois and maybe even the whole country, would be much better off.
- Job Olympics 2008 - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:29 am:
Hey Been There, seems that you are a true Daley guy. Your statement that the solution to corruption in the Mayor’s office is to simply vote him out is amazing. Corruption is a criminal matter, not an issue for Daley’s political army to bury every four years.
- The Fox - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:36 am:
The dissenting opinion holds water. Being stupid aint a crime. The sentence of 48 months in prison is the crime. Sorry to see CapFax has so many bitter readers.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:36 am:
Saying if you don’t like corruption vote out the Mayor is a ridiculous statement. They corrupt the system in order to control the elections. They fix the jobs? The job holders are them beholden to the administration and work to get their pols elected. They fix the contracts and the contractors donate money and send manpower to get their people elected.
The whole point of corruption is so the people don’t exercise their free right to vote somebody out. C’mon folks, you know that.
- 618er - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:39 am:
Am I reading this wrong?
“Robert Sorich, 43, once known as the mayor’s patronage chief, was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted in July 2006 of using fraud to
cover up the role of political patronage in city hiring. […]”
Sorich wasn’t convicted of political patronage and he was convicted of fraud. Just like Rezko wasn’t convicted of patronage, it was fraud, money laundering, etc..
The argument that fraud, no matter what the underlying justification, isn’t criminal is insane to me.
- DaveChgo - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:40 am:
Rich, forgive the protion, but this was the subject of a vigorous panel discussion sponsored by the Better Government Association and the ABA just last Friday. Pat Collins (Sorich’s prosecutor), Tom Durkin (Sorich’s defense counsel), Michael Shakman and Cliff Kelley debated whether the Sorich case was a great example of stopping fraud in government or prosecutors run amok. If you’re interested, Mark Brown’s column focused on this Sunday and CAN-TV taped the proceedings for broadcast. You can go to the BGA’s website for appropriate links.
The most interesting comment was basically when Pat Collins essentially endorsed the idea of going back to the old system when all jobs were known to be political and at least it was transparent as opposed to the extensive subterfuge performed by the Daley Administration.
- DaveChgo - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:41 am:
Sorry - meant to say promotion.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:41 am:
Hey Job Olympics, what do you think this whole thread is about? We are debating whether their acts were criminal or not. I’m saying they are not and the courts crossed the line into making law. What is wrong with having a political army? I never understood people who want to get rid of the incumbents in any other way except the ballot box. The system is in place. Read about it, learn it and play the game.
- Leave a light on George - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:50 am:
2for2
Geo Ryan is not in prison for a traffic accident that took those poor kids life in Wisconsin. But the fraud and graft under his directions sure helped cause it. Sorich may not have gotten $ directly but he still got lots of benefits. Public figures owe us their honest service.
- Anon - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:51 am:
Who is paying for Sorich’s defense team? Who will pay for Blago’s patronage chief’s defense team? I am sure Blago through everyone under the bus and slammed on the pedal during his two federal interviews.
- Anon - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:52 am:
The appellate court’s underlying decision is absurd — and constitutes clear grand standing by someone who clearly thinks she has a chance at being nominated to the Supreme Court by the incoming president. Her reward: a glowing editorial in the Tribune — and a guarantee of their support of her future nomination, should it come to pass. An abuse of her public office, in short (and a potentially “criminal” one given her own watered-down “definitioni” of “honest services” fraud).
The fact that the petition was denied is a testament to the power of the Chicago Tribune — and the more lilly-livered Seventh Circuit judges’ fear of running afoul of the editorial page.
The chance remains that the Skilling case — the decision in which is imminent — may provide a clear split in the circuits on the ridiculous notion of “honest services” fraud (conined by none other than former Governor Thompson when he was U.S. Attorney) that would garner Supreme Court review — albeit likely in the Spring of 2010, by which time Robert Sorich and Patrick Slattery will have been undeservedly imprisoned for nearly two years.
And I don’t know that the reporting is correct that the vpte sas “8-2″ to deny the petition. Six votes would have been required to grant the petition (two judges did not participate for unstated reasons). That the petition was denied means that it didn’t achieve six votes. Presumably one (or more) of the judges on the circuit could have voted in favor of granting an en banc hearing without also joining the dissent (or feeling strongly enough about it to write a dissent of their own). It’s hard to fathom that Easterbrook wouldn’t have voted in favor of granting a hearing en banc given the way the panel steamrolled his opinion in the Georgia Thompson case.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 10:56 am:
It really is amusing that people actually argue that setting up a huge job fixing scheme is not a criminal matter but civil one.
Apparently, you guys think it should be okay with the taxpayers to shell out 12 million to people who couldn’t get a job or a promotion because of the fix.
Apparently, you think it should be okay with the taxpayers to pay millions for attorneys to defend the people who create these fixing schemes.
Apparently, you think it should be okay to contol elections so only politicians beholden to the corruption get elected.
Thanks God the courts didn’t.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:04 am:
Phineas,
Yes
Yes
and Yes
But only if I get hired first so I can get part of the $12 mil or I get my law license so they can hire me as one of the attorneys or I get slated as the candidate.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:07 am:
Been There
Like I said, amusing…at least you would be an honest fixer.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:34 am:
I think Posner is right. This is a bizarre way to enforce a civil order by crafting it into a crimianl action. We should all be afraid of such over reaching by the government. If you do nothing when they come for your neighbors, there will be no one left to help when they come for you.
- Bill - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 11:46 am:
Posner is right. There were no laws broken here. No one has a “right” to a job and no law says that the “most qualified” must be hired. There was no proof that those who were hired didn’t do their jobs well. There was no proof that any crime was committed or that anyone’s rights were violated. There is no law prohibiting what the defendants did. It is not illegal to perpetrate acts that the US Attorney, may, at his whim, find distasteful. The US Attorney should try prosecuting some real criminals for a change and leave honest, hard working, public servants alone. There are plenty of laws for him to try to enforce. He shouldn’t have to make up his own. If he wants to make laws he should run for Congress.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 12:00 pm:
Well Bill,
The civil laws didn’t do anything to curtail job fixing schemes, but Ole Fitz certainly has. Besides their are many ways laws get made in this country and I applaud his creativity which has been upheld. I am sorry the wrong guys went to prison but that is another issue entirely.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 1:15 pm:
I think there should be more Shakman-exempt and Rutan-exempt positions for Blago, Daley, and Stroger to fill. One Chicago manager described the current hiring procedures that they currently follow to fill a position to me during a casual conversation. Based upon this description, I can only characterize the current Shakman-compliant hiring process as byzantine and counterproductive in terms of successfully recruiting qualified non-political people.
However, altering test scores or other documents, destroying evidence, and lying to the FBI, constitute criminal behavior. I do have some sympathy for Sorich, et. al - they are basically taking the fall as “buffers” who were carrying out the Mayor’s policies.
I guess the challenge is to strike a reasonable balance between political hiring/promotion and civil service hiring/promotion.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
Captain America. I think it’s BS that lying to the FBI is a crime. There doesn’t have to be witnesses, they don’t swear you in, there are no transcripts, etc. All they have to have is to say you lied to them and they can stick it to you. Somehow one of Sorich’s cohorts was convicted of only that charge. The G-man couldn’t recall the exact date nor the exact question and he still was convicted.
- DaveChgo - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:24 pm:
Been There,
As I read “I think it’s BS that lying to the FBI is a crime,” I really thought you were joking. Because while I take your point that the FBI can just make stuff up, and while I guess that’s more prevalent in the Ashcroft/Bush years than before, I can’t believe you are really suggesting that lying to the FBI should not be a crime. I mean, with that as the standard, let’s do away with all crimes of lying under oath. And hell, why even have to take an oath. Unless you weren’t serious.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:30 pm:
DaveChgo, nobody is talking about taking an oath. The point he made was that simply not telling the whole truth - or a version of the truth they don’t agree with, or the version they report was said - to an FBI agent at any time is a bigtime felony. They don’t put you under oath, they just start asking questions.
- Anon - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 2:33 pm:
Patrick Slattery was convicted for filling out interview forms after the fact in a way that favored pre-ordained job candidates. The interview forms were required to be completed by the union — not by the personnel department. The interview forms were subjective in nature. (for example, evaluating an interviewee’s “communication skills” on a 1 to 5 scale). Nonetheless they were city forms. But they weren’t “tests” and no one was accused, tried or convicted of “altering test scores.”
Robert Sorich didn’t have anything to do with filling out forms. He was convicted for recommending certain job applicants to the various departments (some of whom were hired, and some of whom were not hired). At times, the recommendations came from politicians. That is apparently illegal. And you are — according to the U.S. Attorneys’ office — disqualified, per se, from entertaining city employment if you are politically active.
Neither Slattery nor Sorich was convicted of lying to the FBI (there’s no indication that either of them were interviewed by the FBI prior to their arrests).
Former Ald. Pat Huels ex-son-in-law testified that Sorich “ordered” him to erase something off a computer in the mid-1990s when Huels was under Sun Times scrutiny. Even assuming the truth of that dubious testimony, it’s fantastic to think that a public employee needs to preserve everything on every computer at all times forever. Whatever materials the US Attorneys were claiming were “erased” were provided in hard copy form in the late 1990s — as well as in computerized form. Any reasonable judge would have excluded all of this ridiculousness from evidence. But they weren’t tried by a reasonable judge.
And, of course, Michael Shakman’s former law partner was one of the prosecuting attorneys.
It all seems just a little bit unfair. Or sane people would think so.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 3:31 pm:
Dave Chicago - I am serious. And thanks Rich for pointing out that the FBI doesn’t first make you swear an oath, swear on the bible or hook pinky fingers with you. If you were under oath and there were witnesses or video or transcripts then I believe lying to the FBI should be a crime. The way it is now is BS.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 4:55 pm:
Noted the comments pertainig to lying to the FBI, I’m not a lawyer and I haven’t read the trial transcripts.
I’m not opposed to patronage hiring per se, assuming applicants meet the minimum qualifications for a particular job. I even believe there is a strong argument for making many more managerial positions Shakman exempt. But the system developed by Mayor Daley’s operatives was totally rigged - political connections trumped qualifications and everyhting else. Unconnected highly qualified people undoubtedly did not have a fair opportunity to compete in .
- Disgusted - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 6:35 pm:
All of you out there parsing words for Sorich and his ilk must make your grandparents turn in their graves. They worked hard, raised their children to do the right thing and now we’ve come full circle to people thinking that a little bit of corruption is to be expected and condoned. Big, whopping doses of it are also excused. When will people be able to trust their Public Servants again? Not in my lifetime, I expect
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 2, 08 @ 6:36 pm:
“Excused” and “not criminalized” are two different things.
- Maori - Thursday, Jul 3, 08 @ 7:05 am:
The F.B.I. interview of Mayor Richard Daley was unusual to say the least. A stenographer was present, it was done at City Hall, and the mayor was allowed to redact his replies to questions posed by agents. This was made even more pointed during the B.G.A. conference last Friday at the Harold Washington Library. Thomas Durkin, the defense attorney for Robert Sorich made mention of the document even though it appears to be sealed.
In light of Al Sanchez’s upcoming September trial, this document will undoubtedly become crucial in Sanchez’s defense and Daley’s possible indictment on perjury charges. The mayor of Chicago is a micro-manager, to think that he does not know a thing about what really goes on in city government is absurd. The Fed’s are setting a precedent with the convictions of Sorich, Slattery and McCarthy being upheld on appeal. The Supreme Court will also uphold the decision. Daley should be ready for a serious challenge to his “business as usual” approach to public accountability for abuse of power. To destroy Daley and his machine will send shock waves through the national political system and finally return this country to it’s senses in regards to the illegal patronage hiring which is rampant. The taxpayers deserve qualified public employees to perform government services, not political patronage hacks
- Pinson - Friday, Jul 4, 08 @ 11:28 am:
What I would find interesting is to see a list of all elected officials in Illinois;the governor, the speaker, the reps/senators, treasurer,cook county officials, city officials etc, and see how many staff are political patronage hires, and then go a little deeper and see all the friends given positions of authority throughout each system. What we would find is probably a giant cesspool of general incompetence, (with the exception of some intelligent competent hires) that has led to dozens of investigations into waste, fraud, corruption, etc. and the real reason why Illinois governments are such a failure.