[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.