23 Comments - Bill Baar - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:13 am: …panel members gathered informally in Springfield… How do they pull off an “informal” meeting? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:16 am: Split up into two rooms to avoid triggering the open hearings rule. - Pat collins - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:19 am: Blagojevich will be gone by early to mid-February So, the circus will last that long? So cool. How do they pull off an “informal” meeting? Avoiding the open meetings act is why many city boards have 7 or nine members. If only 5, the two people trigger the act! The key is “majority of a quorum”. So, if there are 7, then 5 is a quorum, and 3 are a majority. So, less than 3, you are ok. - Ghost - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:20 am: There is a bit (lot) of karma coming back on the Gov. How many State employees has he ousted from jobs with no process? From the spouses of madigan supporters, to Defraites, to th head of the lincoln meuseum and dozens more in bewteen. Suddenly he finds himself about to have his job and fuinacial support removed has he has malicously done to so many others; and only now is he a porponent of fairness in the process. its karma time, and the blago bill is due. - Ghost - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:21 am: karma time should be read to the the tune of MC Hamers hammer time…. - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:22 am: Although they may (emphasize may) have avoided violating the letter of the open meetings law, they shredded the intent of it. In my view, not the best way to be handling something of this magnitude….especially dealing with someone accused of flaunting state law. - Concerned Observer - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:24 am: Legal or not, this informal meeting stuff just really strikes a bad chord with me. I’m all for impeachment, the sooner the better, but I also like sunshine. I guess I fail to see the harm in calling the meeting 24 hours in advance, showing up, passing out copies of the resolution, and then adjourning to discuss it in groups of three or four. If I remember RT 311 correctly — it’s been awhile, but I got an A — they couldn’t go into closed session. But they could accomplish nearly the same thing with a little less shadiness. Besides, why give Genson and company more ammunition? - Captain Flume - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:31 am: It will be interesting to see if any bill of impeachment includes issues stemming from teh Governor’s arrest, i.e. alleged seeking personal gain in exchange for nominating someone to fill Obama’s seat. If those allegations are not part of the bill, then one may surmise that impeachment hearings could have taken place months ago based on other allegations stemming from his official conduct as governor, e.g. circumvention of the legislative process to implement costs associated with a health care program. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:38 am: ===If those allegations are not part of the bill=== Don’t worry yourself about that. - Lurker - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:42 am: Informal meetings cut down on the bloviating. That I like. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 10:53 am: Informal meetings just continue to show Illinois government and how it operates in a poor light. Even though nothing wrong may be going on in such informal meetings, they leave a bad taste. We have enough of a public relations problem nationally without compounding it using cute little procedural tricks to avoid the Open Meetings Act. In this situation, everything should be open and transparent in this process as precedence is being set for future impeachments. - Gabriel - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:09 am: Closed meeting on a Sunday? Smooth move ILGA. This should help improve the public image. Shouldn’t this erupt into a flurry of stories by state press outlets questioning every participant at the closed door meeting? - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:11 am: Besides the rather mild dustup over subpoena power, the committee, in public at least, has worked remarkably well together. It took a special man like Blago to usher in this new era of bipartisanship. - Bookworm - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:39 am: When Clinton was impeached, the House vote took place on Dec. 19, 1998, when the outgoing 106th Congress was still in session. The Senate trial started on Jan. 7, 1999, after the 107th Congress had been seated. Nobody (at least not that I can remember) questioned that procedure at the time, or insisted that the House had to vote over again after the new Congress was seated. I realize federal rules are different, but if Congress could do this, is there any reason we couldn’t? - Vote Quimby! - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:46 am: ==It took a special man like Blago to usher in this new era of bipartisanship== LOL. Talk about a legacy! - anon - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 11:47 am: I alway thought the GA was exempt from the Open Meetings Act. - Pat collins - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:08 pm: When Clinton was impeached, The US Senate considers its self an ongoing body, so, for them, it was not a different session. - Anon - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:38 pm: == I alway thought the GA was exempt from the Open Meetings Act. == And you are correct. The Open Meetings act applies to “public bodies,” and defines them as follows: “‘Public body’ includes all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.” - Bookworm - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 12:53 pm: One reason the GA is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is that since committee hearings are often scheduled on a moment’s notice, particularly late in the session when a lot of bills are acted on, it would be practically impossible to meet the public notice requirements. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 1:34 pm: –One reason the GA is exempt from the Open Meetings Act is that since committee hearings are often scheduled on a moment’s notice, particularly late in the session when a lot of bills are acted on, it would be practically impossible to meet the public notice requirements.– When I was a young man under the dome, some of the old-timers would prank my more gullible colleagues by ordering them to attend various House/Senate Conference Committees, sending them frantically scurrying about and peaking into every doorway in search of the phantom meetings. - Captain Flume - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:00 pm: == One reason the GA is exempt from the Open Meetings Act == And the Governor contends the FOIA requests were exempt, but a court had to rule otherwise to pry the documents out. The committee winked at the OMA, then thumbed its nose at it, but who will sue to determine the legality of the action? I think there is a one-hour posting requirement for committees to meet, though that rule may be “suspended.” The legislative process is no less muddy than the gubernatorial one. Rule of law is a fiction that keeps the electorate voting instead of revolting, and those rules will always serve the people who make them rather than the people who must live under them. - Ghost - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 2:05 pm: When a body meets a body coming through the rye….. - Bookworm - Monday, Jan 5, 09 @ 6:52 pm: So Fritchey suggests that the House would have to vote to impeach again after Jan. 14 if they vote to impeach this week? Oh, what the heck, they should go for it and impeach Blago twice in one week …that’s a distinction not likely to be repeated even in Illinois Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.