* The State Journal-Register has spent the past two days giving thumbs up and thumbs down to various aspects of the Illinois Reform Commission’s report. The paper never once mentions, however, that the reform commission chairman and many of its members are demanding that the full report must be enacted or Illinois risks leaving doors open to more corruption. The SJ-R’s ratings can be found here and here.
The paper gives a thumbs down to adopting federal campaign contribution limits, suggesting a $10,000 cap is more reasonable. Another thumbs down goes to the creation of an Office of Procurement, which was the centerpiece of the commission’s procurement reform agenda. More thumbs down went to establishing term limits for legislative leaders and creating a public corruption division within Illinois State Police.
“No endorsement” was slapped on a few areas, including changing the budget process (”It’s unlikely the recommendations would have changed anything that happened over the past six years”), FOIA penalties and establishing an Office of Transparency.
* The Tribune ran a blustery front-page editorial yesterday demanding support for the reform commission’s agenda without revealing that it also has major reservations about some of the reform commission’s recommendations…
Right now, many of Illinois’ 177 legislators are just as determined to protect themselves and their clout. They’ll try to mollify you with reassurances that “I’m open to change” or “We’re discussing this” or “Everything’s on the table.” Not good enough. Reject the pabulum. Demand results.
* But the Daily Herald notes that the reform commission never submitted actual legislation, and quotes the governor’s spokesperson as refusing to comment on when such legislation will be drafted. Still, the headline on the story reads: It may take wheeling and dealing, but Quinn’s ethics reforms may pass.
You can’t vote on a press release.
* To me, this looks like a perfectly reasonable proposal…
Rep. Chuck Jefferson and other Democrats want the state’s top watchdog, Auditor General Bill Holland, to complete a full investigation into what harm Blagojevich might have caused during his six years as governor.
“We are just trying to make sure we are doing everything we can to continue to protect our state from the (former) governor,” said Jefferson, a Rockford Democrat. “We are cleaning up after him.”
So, I’m not sure why there’s opposition…
“I think it is an interesting idea, but I don’t really see how that works to the advantage of the citizens right now,” said Sen. Dale Risinger, R-Peoria. “We all recognize the damage the ex-governor did. I mean, after all, we went through an impeachment, we went through a trial. Those issues came out in that.”
A full and complete audit would likely reveal even more damage caused by Blagojevich. Like this, for instance…
In a little-noticed move in December 2006, Blagojevich pardoned the successful Oak Park restaurateur for an old tax-fraud conviction. And the now-impeached governor took the additional step of forever wiping that blemish from Abu-Taleb’s record.
While Abu-Taleb successfully maneuvered through the state’s byzantine clemency process, as many as 20 others who were exonerated of crimes failed to persuade Blagojevich to clear their records.
Something else sets Abu-Taleb apart from those others: the campaign contributions that rolled in to Blagojevich from a powerful Chicago law firm run, in part, by an Abu-Taleb relative who was a character witness in the clemency case.
However, the audit shouldn’t be used to stall reform measures this year. It could be used to help draft more reforms next year, though.
* Related…
* Reeder: If voters think they pick their legislator, they’re wrong
* Your government in secret: weak laws let public officials stonewall records requests
* Demand reform. Here’s how.
* A reform governor? In Illinois?
* Pat Quinn Brings Freedom of Information Requests into 21st Century
* Prosecutors suggest big pay cut for Blago’s lawyers
* Want to represent Blago? You’ll have to take a “pay cut”
* Mr. Quinn goes to Springfield
* Quinn brave where Blago was cowardly — announces he will release Debra Gindorf
- VanillaMan - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:14 am:
Every new governor has to clean up after the previous governor. Quinn has a much bigger job than usual. Six years of corruption’s worth. Bill Holland will reveal some ugly truths but we need to know what they are.
Blagojevich sucked so bad he makes a lot of people ready to accept a powerless governor. On the other hand, we have to remember that a corrupted governor will do damage even if the Office is stripped of power.
One of the failures we have been experiencing in Illinois has been two-fold, one party dead in the water, and other in total control, but not ready for prime-time. Every party makes mistakes, but without a political opposition, we’ve seen a party out of control and out of their minds. The only fighting we’ve witnessed as been the kind of fighting you see on “Bridal Dress Markdown Day” at Filenes, with Democrats acting like hyenas ripping our hide off our backs and sheer blood lust.
As the WSJ article regarding our reform efforts makes clear, laws don’t stop corrupted people once in office. We have to stop them before they get on the ballot! We need to demand that each political party nominate good and competent people, not just political winners on Election Day. Both parties have failed Illinois, and we should be beating both of them over the heads because we are paying for their blunders. When the GOP gave us Ryan, voters threw them out. The Democrats have given us Blagojevich and Stroger, and deserve the same voter response.
In a sick way, perhaps it was good that we didn’t see a constitutional convention accepted in November. With Blagojevich’s and the Democrat’s corruption in the headlines, we might have seen people demand a weak, powerless governor.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:30 am:
“… the reform commission chairman and many of its members are demanding that the full report must be enacted or Illinois risks leaving doors open to more corruption.”
I know the commission held some public hearings around the state, but I don’t recall them descending from Mount Sinai with any stone tablets.
Its’ a democracy, folks. You’re participating. You don’t have all the wisdom, and not everyone’s corrupt. Strange as it may seem, elected legislators will have a significant role to play in drafting laws.
An audit of Blago’s years seems like a no-brainer. You’d think Quinn would have started that on his own after he took office as a matter of course.
- Anon - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:04 am:
Jefferson has the right idea. The scope should be clearly defined so that the results are clear and unambiguous as well as timely.
For instance Jefferson should list things Holland should look at like:
All OEIG “Founded” (allegations were found to be true) investigation results where management did not implement the OEIGs recommendations.
All appointees still in place that were targets/responsible management of targeted OEIG investigations where action was not taken.
Review all other investigative results (Internal Audits, Management reviews, Board reviews etc)
for resolution.
The idea is not to re-invent the wheel or take two years to complete. A lot of good work was already done, just not acted upon. For instance no follow-up was done with major audits/investigations presented to the Legislative Audit Commission. (eg Lottery, IDOT, DHS, etc)
- You Go Boy - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:13 am:
Jefferson’s proposal is basically sound, but it may get thumbs down (in private) from pols that may be found out in the process. Back when Blago and gang were getting their way with no interference, alot of bad things could have gone down without notice. An investigation could bring nasty exposure to some who thought they’d gotten away with it.
- Anon - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:17 am:
“An investigation could bring nasty exposure to some who thought they’d gotten away with it.”
Exactly — let’s get some sunshine on all those who did because Blago’s crew did not follow through on OEIG recommendations.
- Anonymous45 - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:21 am:
Most of the fiscal folks leftover from the Blago administration are still around. Instead of a big investigation and all the opportunities for legislators to don their tinfoil hats, assemble all of them in front of Quinn’s staff and ask away…I think this idea was dreamt up so legislators could look busy whilst Madigan decides what he gonna do on the capital bill, and instead of focusing on real reform, the spectre of Rod’s malfeasance will be raised again so they can tell us again how they saved us from him…I hate May in Springfield…silly season deluxe…
- Linda - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:41 am:
Yesterday’s Trib also had a story headlined Government in secret: Open records advocate sees limits to transparency, but the odd headline buried the lede – it wasn’t just any old “advocate,” it was Lisa Madigan. And she doesn’t “see limits” – she wants limits.
Specifically, Lisa Madigan is opposed to removing the “draft” exemption to FOIA requests. This is the exemption relied upon in so many of the FOIA denials the Trib has reported on over the last few days.
It means that the only documents that are available to the public are the “final” ones, in other words, only after most of the critical decision-making has been completed.
The Quinn / Collins reform commission pretty much agrees. Its recommendation is this:
“The Commission recommends making the latest-drafted “preliminary documents” public if no subsequent versions are created within six months of the last draft. In that case, the preliminary document would be deemed “final” and releasable to the public.”
This presumably means that there can be a six-month wait for the draft — to see if another draft emerges during that period. Each subsequent draft then starts the six-month clock ticking. It almost encourages mischief-making.
Worse, the public will only get to see the last draft — the one they tidy up for public view. A 100-page discussion draft could be buried and the “final” draft — say one paragraph — can then released to the public with all the names, dollars, deals and dealmakers “legally” redacted.
This is the dumbest idea in the name of reform I have ever heard. And Madigan won’t even go that far.
I think it is essential to make ALL drafts public — this is where deliberations are revealed, which is at the core of the operation of government.
How can the public comment and be involved in the deliberative process if it is done in secret? Once something is “final” it’s too late.
Lastly, all bill drafts should be public as well as well as legislative staff analyses of bills.
- Amuzing Myself - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:58 am:
I’m all for the top-to-bottom audit idea, but I’m not sure it’s practical to have Holland’s office do it. I’d LIKE it to be his office, but I’m afraid they’re SEVERELY understaffed to take on such an enormous task when they can barely keep up with the bi-annual audits they currently already do.
I guess the question would be: Do you hire more staff (or on contract) in his office to do such an audit or do you bring in a non-Illinois-related firm to do it from a total outsider’s perspective, likely at a much higher cost.
I think I’d be inclined to pay for the outside audit by a large reputable firm so the public can see a product that is - at least conceptually - not subject to Illinois politics. You and I know that Holland’s office is beyond reproach, but as soon as the average taxpayer hears a “government” entity did the audit, you lose credibility.
Interesting.
- Ghost - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:58 am:
I would be curious to know what research the commission did to develop its recomendations. i.e. can they actually point to these in an eiting governement operation and show they reduced or eliminated corruption?
I like the idea of doing a more detailed audit to identify where breakdonws occured. Any rule you put in place will just develope a new wrk around. keep in mind Blaggo was intending to hav cash stored up by others and paid to him when he left office. If a politician is of a mind to do wrong, hews laws ae of no impeddiment. They do however make fundraising so complex then newcomers are chased away or suffer technical violation for a process that should be easier, not harder.
Our protection against coruption is the checks and balances of our current structure. We really need is just more imeemdiate access to information and more openess.
This way the GA or courts can act sooner to block unlawful deals. keep in mind what blag did was already illegal. We do not ened more laws, we need better enforcement and openess o bring things to the light faster.
For that matter if somone should jave acted on Hollands earlier reports.
I beleive the GA failed its watchdog role. Also we should make the courts more accessible to block questionable dealings. We have the checks and balances, we dont need more prohibitions, we need more enforcement.
- jake - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:59 am:
It is impossible for the legislature to deal with the reform agenda at the same time they are dealing with the budget crisis and a possible tax increase/restructuring. On the other hand, the reform agenda would be a perfect topic for a one-week special session, after the budget is settled. If I were a Quinn advisor, I would suggest that route, with the proviso that the timing of the special session be done in consultation with the legislative leaders. Otherwise the reform agenda will just be buried.
- steve schnorf - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:26 pm:
A couple of weeks ago I would have said “let it go, let’s move forward.” That’s before I saw the testimony on the Pepsi contract, that basically the whole procurement, including determining what was legal or not was being run out of the Governor’s office, with the agency just expected to sign the papers.
I’m sure all of the wise folks out there think that’s everyday procedures for years and years. Let me tell you, I’ve never seen or heard anything like it in my time in Government.
If those are the sorts of things that were going on, bring Holland on. We need to find out a lot more not only about what was going on, but why. Did they do things that way because they thought that was how it was always done? Did they know better, but did it anyway? Did Directors know procurements weren’t supposed to be done out of the Governor’s office in an agencies’ name (remember, almost all of them would have had no experiential basis for knowing different)?
- Cosmic Charlie - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:39 pm:
To add to what Steve Schnorf said, how about the Sun-Times article today on the possible sale of a clemency by Blago? As painful as it might be, I think we need to air out all of this junk so that we can AT A MINIMUM remove those still in government who participated or facilitated in these activities.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:32 pm:
I agree with Schnorf. We need to know how they did it and whether the staff involved understood that they were violating procurement procedures ( if indeed they were). It seems pretty clear that we Illinoisians have a blind spot when it comes to hiring trustworthy governors. Send us a charmer and we’ll go with him/her over substance. We are easily fooled.
So the procedures need to be air tight with severel penalties for those who violate them.
And if they were violated under Blago, those folks should be subject to legal action if they failed to follow those procedures–even if they claim they didn’t understand them. Part of taking the job is being responsible for understanding the rules.