* OK, let’s revisit this blowup over the release of Edjuan Payne, who allegedly murdered a Peoria woman this month several weeks after he was let out of prison.
As you already know, Payne was initially released last October under the controversial “MGT Push” program. He was put back in prison by parole agents in January after he violated his terms of release, including failing an alcohol test and living with his mother, who was not on the approved list. The Prisoner Review Board sent him back to prison for 69 days. He got out in March and allegedly committed the murder in May.
The governor and the Department of Corrections have blamed the Prisoner Review Board, claiming that Payne was required to stay in prison until July. The Prisoner Review Board, in its defense, points to a recommendation by the Department of Corrections’ parole agent that Payne serve just two months. The Peoria Journal Star catches us up on the latest back and forth…
[Prisoner Review Board Chairman Jorge Montes] added that the board ultimately relies on parole agents for 99 percent of the decisions they make regarding early release and reiterated that the agent in Payne’s case explicitly recommended a two-month term.
[Department of Corrections spokesperson Sharyn Elman] fundamentally disagreed.
“That’s absolutely not true,” she said. “In many cases, they do not follow what the parole agent and (Department of Corrections) says - and they’re not required to.”
* Ms. Elman actually went much further than that in a statement she wrote for this blog last night. I’ve edited it slightly for style, but here is Elman’s statement…
The Prisoner Review Board bears the responsibility for the release of this inmate. The Department of Corrections did all that it could to make sure that this offender was in custody for as long as possible.
In fact, as a result of the Department of Corrections’ intensive compliance program, this offender was returned to custody. Although the PRB claims that DOC “recommended” that the offender be released after two months, there is no evidence in the record of the PRB’s decision that they considered this—or any other—information from the inmate’s parole violation report. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the PRB inexplicably disregarded significant information from DOC regarding this offender. For example, the PRB violation order finds that Payne violated only one of his parole conditions. According to DOC and to the PRB’s own administrative hearing officer, there was probable cause to find that Payne had three violations.
There are a variety of other discrepancies between the parole violation report and the PRB’s order that illustrate that the PRB, rather than relying on DOC “recommendations”, actually ignored significant and relevant facts from the parole violation report:
* The parole violation report notes that the offender had a violent history; the PRB’s order ignores that fact;
* The parole violation report recommends substance abuse counseling, if the PRB made a finding of guilt; the PRB order ignores that fact.
Moreover, it is disingenuous and inaccurate to characterize statements from a parole agent to a parole supervisor in the context of a parole violation report—an internal document—as official DOC “recommendations” to outside bodies like the Prisoner Review Board. In fact, the PRB’s own administrative rules suggest that internal reports from parole agents regarding the length of incarceration to supervisors are NOT admissible before the PRB as evidence—the administrative code clearly prohibits this. See Illinois Administrative Code Section 1610.40.
Even if the agent’s statement was a “recommendation” that was admissible before the PRB, the PRB was not legally authorized to implement the recommendation. Under the Illinois Administrative Code, Section 1610.160, the PRB has limited and specific choices in resolving parole violation cases after a finding of guilt. The Board may do one of three things for adult parole violators:
* Release the offender from custody to parole, with or without special condition;
* Parole the offender to a halfway house;
* Keep the inmate in custody for the remainder of the inmate’s period of mandatory supervised release, which would have had him behind bars until July 22, 2010.
The Board does not have the authority to craft a mix-and-match remedy. As a result, the idea that the PRB’s decision to release the inmate after 69 days in custody was prompted by a “recommendation” from DOC is simply false: the applicable regulations do not authorize that action.
In fact, PRB made the decision, unilaterally, to release this offender from custody, without any special conditions of any kind.
* Let’s take a look at some of Elman’s claims. For instance, Elman characterizes the parole agent’s report as “an internal document.” That appears to be poppycock. The parole agent’s report is what the Prisoner Review Board gets when it is handed the case. It is no “internal document” at all.
* Elman says that the administrative code “clearly prohibits” the use of the parole agent’s recommendations in the Prisoner Review Board’s decision. She cites Section 1610.40 of the code. Here it is…
Evidence. The Board is not bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of a parole release hearing and will consider all evidence presented, so long as the evidence is not cumulative, repetitive or inherently unreliable (as, for example, would be testimonials of Department of Corrections employees who are not authorized to make parole recommendations) and so long as it has some relevance to the parole release decision, as described in Section 1610.50.
The prohibition applies only to DoC employees who aren’t authorized to make parole recommendations. But the Department of Corrections’ Parole Violation Report form specifically asks the parole agent for a “Recommended time to be served.” So, Elman’s explanation falls flat.
* Elman claims the Prisoner Review Board can only parole or send the person back to prison for the full time and has no authority “to craft a mix-and-match remedy.” Absolutely untrue, says the PRB, pointing to this state statute…
(730 ILCS 5/3‑3‑10) (from Ch. 38, par. 1003‑3‑10)
Sec. 3‑3‑10. Eligibility after Revocation; Release under Supervision.
(a) A person whose parole or mandatory supervised release has been revoked may be reparoled or rereleased by the Board at any time to the full parole or mandatory supervised release term under Section 3‑3‑8, except that the time which the person shall remain subject to the Board shall not exceed (1) the imposed maximum term of imprisonment or confinement and the parole term for those sentenced under the law in effect prior to the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1977 or (2) the term of imprisonment imposed by the court and the mandatory supervised release term for those sentenced under the law in effect on and after such effective date.
(b) If the Board sets no earlier release date…
The PRB certainly appears to have the right to set an “earlier release date” under state law.
* This is a fight to the death. No question. Losing this distasteful PR battle means Mike Randle, the director of DoC, could lose his job and Pat Quinn could lose the election. The DoC appears to be well aware of this fact and is fighting back on all fronts. The more they can throw at reporters, the more this becomes a “he said/she said” story with no blame assigned. And that’s exactly what they’re trying to do here.
The Prisoner Review Board has obviously been caught off guard by the attacks leveled at it by the governor and the DoC. They don’t appear to be itching for a political fight, but they are willing to defend themselves. The PRB chairman had this to say to the Peoria paper yesterday….
“The buck stops here. The board takes its part of the responsibility,” Montes said.
But Chairman Montes also indicated that the Department of Corrections ought to stand up and accept its portion of the blame. I seriously doubt that the department will ever do that. At least, not until there’s a change at the top, whether that “top” is the director or the governor, or both.
Since so many of DoC’s defenses and attacks have been successfully refuted, it seems clear to me who wins this one. We can argue all day whether the PRB should’ve let Payne out of prison before July, considering his 1988 conviction for murder. But there can be no argument at all that the Department of Corrections also needs to shoulder its own responsibility here and must immediately cease its unseemly buck-passing.
- John Galt - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:09 am:
No matter which way you slice it, this is still bad for Quinn. If he’s having to spend time and energy explaining something that takes more than 15 seconds to explain, then it’s bad by definition.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:12 am:
Randle needs to go, if Quinn wants to stay, and before the end of the week.
- Gathersno - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:15 am:
Rich - I never ceased to be amazed by your thoroughness and accuracy in examining the main political issues of our day! You have my vote for Inspector General.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:21 am:
You have two people fighting over the blame when the blame belongs with the Goveror and the Mike Madigan. The problem for both DOC and the board is that they are underfunded, understaffed and over worked. This is because the Democrats have intentionally opted to spend money in DOC on administrative jobs for cronies who are not smart enough to pass the correctional officer exam. This has made us unable to open the needed facility in Thompson or properly staff the rest of the departments front line. This means people have to be released. End of story. If they kept this guy behind bars another year, that means someone else has to be released. I don’t have recent stats on violent offenders handy, but both are more likely then not going to commit a crime. The individual facts of a particular case is a red hering. The democrats made a conscious decision to spend the money on their friends and this is the result.
Pat Quinn is directly to blame. Although Blago and Madigan created the mess, he could easily purge the do nothing administrators from DOC and give front line staff more resources to weed through some of these problems. This is a no brainer. Until he purges the state of these people he is to blame.
Oh and I will say it again. You people who hammer Brady on the dog thing, how about we get rid of the people who are causing people to die, then worry about the dogs!
- Hank - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:22 am:
Pat Quinn could lose the election over this?. In another state maybe, not here. The other guy wants to kill your puppy
- hawksfan - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:24 am:
The fact of the matter is the ball was dropped months ago and still nothing has been done. These kinds of stories aren’t going to go away. Change is needed immiediately to show that the problem has at least resonated with the administration.
- ILPundit - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:25 am:
Who appoints the members of the Prison Review Board?
- dupage dan - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:25 am:
Penal Philosophy aside (= Focus on the real problem; prison does not rehabilitate, it makes prisoners better criminals=), for Quinn, this is a problem of perception. Leave the discussion of rehabilitation/punishment/protection of society out of this because it has no bearing on the issue. Make no mistake about it - from the point of view of the voters, this is about who is competent to lead. Quinn has blown it. Firing Randle now only serves to highlight the perception (on the part of the voters) their failures to adequately protect society from dangerous convicted felons. Nothing else matters at this point in the election campaign cycle.
- bman - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:25 am:
This is an example that Quinn didn’t use those years as LG to find out what is going on in state government
- dupage dan - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:29 am:
Lovely drive by comment, Hank. You stick with that, if it makes you feel better.
- Really?? - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:41 am:
So, because Pat Quinn can’t even spit out a declarative sentence, let alone make a decision that he has not only every right to make, but obligation to make (firing Director Randle), we are going to end up with an anti-gay, anti-choice Governor who doesn’t pay taxes.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:50 am:
Quinn can spin all he wants, but the governor wears the jacket. Ask Mike Dukakis. For bald power politics, he needs to throw somebody under the bus in a hurry
- just sayin' - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:53 am:
Pat Quinn, fyi. Michael Dukakis called. Said this ad is coming your way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y
- Anon - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:57 am:
I’m confused about something. The AP story says Payne spent 14 days in prison last fall under MGT push on his two-year sentence.
If he had not been part of the MGT push program, when would he have been released? Wouldn’t he still be in prison on the criminal damage to property charge if he hadn’t been part of the MGT push program?
If so, all the finger pointing at the Prisoner Review Board is moot.
Clarification please?
- gfalkes - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:58 am:
The governor appoints members of the PRB and has several appointments, including Montes, pending. Whose betting that Jorge gets dumped and replaced?
- Hawk Harrelson - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:58 am:
Quinn is terribly weak — a terribly weak leader.
All those years Quinn spent riding George Ryan for the death of the Willis children with his slick gimmicks and slick public relations like the Quinn-sponsored — www.dumpgeorgeryan.com website.
The blood of Ms. Orvette Davis is on the hands of Patrick J. Quinn — what a legacy.
Hawk says……..HE GONE! ! !
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 11:59 am:
This should not even be a fight. At the start of this, Quinn should have said, “This is a very unfortunate event, and my administration takes responsibility for releasing the Mr. Payne. We had to release Mr. Payne because the state cannot afford to incarcerate all of the dangerous criminals that have been entrusted to us. I don’t like it, Director Randle doesn’t like it, and Chairman Montes doesn’t like it, but that’s the way it is.”
If he had done that, the story would be old news.
- Nuance - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 12:06 pm:
Great article and completely agree with the observations made in the article! Great job.
- Ghost - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 12:20 pm:
Quinn needs to take a page from the Obama play book and go with a buck stopshere message, fire the director and take partial blame for the recomendation. PRB definetly made the decisions an shares in its impact, but DOC had input as well.
- girllawyer - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 12:53 pm:
I don’t know the details of this situation and assume Rich is “on the money” re the inaccuracies he points out but in my experience it is very common for the PRB to ignore the recommendations of DOC parole agents and to refuse to revoke parolees. Sometimes even when a new crime is committed. And if the PRB is “underfunded, understaffed and overworked” that must be a new development. A few years ago it was one of the cushiest appointments in IL. $70 grand salary for a couple of days work per week. Perhaps that changed under Blago but that somehow seems unlikely.
- Coach - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:01 pm:
Looks like David Eldridge has his work cut out for him in his new post. Go get ‘em, David!
- unspun - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:09 pm:
girllawyer is correct. Speaking of cushy appointments, check out the PRB’s biographic statements about the Board members. Some appear (on the surface) to be highly qualified, while others not so much. A couple of former state reps, and a retired congressman’s son. Are these the best people we can find to carry out this important mission?
http://www2.illinois.gov/prb/Pages/prbbdmem.aspx
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:11 pm:
You do not hand your election over to felons. When Quinn got involved in this process, for whatever reasons, he did just that. Any one of those felons would be turned into a political statement, and so far we have just seen this one make the news.
Governors are always challenged regarding how well they handle their powers regarding felons. Anyone with half a brain remembers the political hay made out of Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential run thanks to Willie Horton.
Quinn did this almost 22 years after this time. How did he think he was going to handle this Russian Roulette political move when the gun goes off?
Public safety is a basic responsibility of a government, and when the leaders within a government fail in this area, voters have every reason to hold those leaders responsible.
The Governor blew this big time. He is either incompetent or naive. After a lifetime in politics, there are no excuses for Quinn’s disaster here.
- cassandra - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:12 pm:
It looks to me as if the parole agents need some kind of risk assessment matrix based on research to work from. With higher-level approval for decisions which seem to contradict the matrix. I sure hope they aren’t making these decisions based on their individual views of what corrections policy is or should be.
As to Randle, are we sure that he had a hand in this explanation-that-went-really-wrong. We are told that he is surrounded by Quinn appointees who are supposed to be keeping an eye on him.
Maybe it’s Quinn’s guys who should go.
And why would Quinn support the DOC over the PRB?
Isn’t the PRB a state entity too, appointed by the governor? Why get into a fight with the PRB over the DOC. After 7 years of Democratic reign, aren’t PRB members all appointed by Democrats by now? Democrats with clout? Why are we fighting with ourselves here?
- Niles Township - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
Pat Quinn could lose the election over this?.
———–
He almost lost the primary over these types of ads, but Hynes ads were so menacing that I’m not sure Brady’s ad could do much more damage over this program. What looked like a terrible thing back in January, may turn out to be a good thing, a bit of an innoculation over this.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
A lot of commenters mentioned this yesterday, but it is a real disservice to try to identify which public official is to blame for a horrible act of murder, or any other crime. (I know Rich has framed this in terms of who is lying.) But this whole framework of scrutiny fails to understand that: criminals are unpredictable, you have to release people at some point, and you can’t second guess everyone along the way as they make decisions. If it is anyone’s fault, then it is decades of expensive mass incarceration and policies that don’t lower recidivism. And now a budget crisis.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:56 pm:
Unfortunately for both the PRB and DOC this was an inmate for whom it seems incarceration had no effect on behavioral and/or attitude change. This type of event has happened in the past and it will occur again. Every individual released, whether due to accrual of good time credits, an early release initiative (secret or otherwise), a returned parolee or someone who served every day of his/her original sentence, has the potential to go out and commit new crimes. What both the PRB and DOC should be doing is cooperatively looking at the criteria each uses in making release recommendations so that recurrences are minimized. All Pat Quinn, Director Randall or the PRB has to do is very publicly apologize and announce how procedures will be change to prevent this from happening in the future…and then hope that it’s a long time until it does. Should Director Randall be fired…probably…for not seizing the initiative. This is PR 101 guys…call me…my professional services contract only needs an amount filled in.
- Streeterville - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:57 pm:
I am really shocked at how aggressively the
Governor and DOC are going after PRB….you would think that they would be on the same team but I guess it is each man for themselves these days
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 1:57 pm:
===Hynes ads were so menacing that I’m not sure Brady’s ad could do much more damage over this program===
Hynes ran ads in the Democratic primary, remember. Democratic voters are less susceptible to this sort of message than independent and GOP voters and people who only vote in general elections.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
===All Pat Quinn, Director Randall or the PRB has to do is very publicly apologize and announce how procedures will be change to prevent this from happening in the future===
If it wasn’t for MGT Push, then maybe. But now it’s way, way too late. Plus, Quinn already said it wouldn’t happen again, and it did. He’s screwed. Period.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:01 pm:
–But this whole framework of scrutiny fails to understand that: criminals are unpredictable, you have to release people at some point, and you can’t second guess everyone along the way as they make decisions.–
Still, he was a convicted murderer who got out for that, went back in and out for other stuff, then allegedly murdered again.
How about life without parole for the first murder? That way, you avoid the expense and philosophical discussion of the death penalty. It’s so much cheaper, and if DNA or some other evidence turns up later, the state hasn’t made the tragic mistake.
How about a bipartisan amen?
- Dan S, a taxpayer and a Cubs Fan - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:11 pm:
As with most Government FUBAR’s what we have here is a failure to commnicate.
- Rubbernecker - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:13 pm:
Anon (11:57) - I’ve asked myself the same question: when would the alleged murderer been released if not for the MGT Push policy. If he had already served 6 months on a 2-year sentence by October 1, 2009 he probably would have been eligible for parole sometime in April 2010 (assuming the one day good time credit calculation applied, which it likely would have), so he would have been released before this horrible event anyway. But Brady won’t let that fact get in the way of a good attack ad. This is a wicket of stickiest proportions for Quinn and it could very well cost him the election.
Pot Calling Kettle (11:59) - Why would Quinn take responsibility now when he didn’t on MGT Push when it first came up? Accepting blame does not seem to be in his DNA.
I didn’t think Quinn would lose in November before this, but now…
- Area 2 - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:23 pm:
Maybe Pat Quinn can roll-out some real nasty puppy euthanasia commercials — LMAO!!!
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Me thinks independents, GOP general election and conservative Dem voters will be more motivated by Brady’s lower-taxes, pro-law enforcement message than Quinn’s anti-puppy gas chamber/I’m really not BFF with Claypool, Axelrod and Blagoyevich message.
- jonbtuba - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
It’s a messy situation, for sure but to say that this would cost Quinn the election is a bit over-the-top. It’s only May and voters have plenty of time to learn how nutso Brady is.
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 2:53 pm:
- Brady’s lower-taxes, pro-law enforcement message -
More like Brady’s no budget, denying things he said on video message.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 3:05 pm:
==Still, he was a convicted murderer who got out for that, went back in and out for other stuff, then allegedly murdered again.
How about life without parole for the first murder?==== wordslinger 2:01 pm
The sentencing decision is a different issue. And when you look at a crime like this, I can see why there just isn’t anything left to say. But, most crimes are committed by brand new people, not recidivists, and we can’t just lock up all the brand new criminals forever. For one thing, we can’t afford it. But for another, it doesn’t actually prevent future crime or make us safer. (BJS data shows that people who serve a long time with one murder conviction actually have the lowest recidivism rate of all offenders when they get out.)
Regardless, we can’t ask the IDOC and the PRB to run an overcrowded prison, add mandatory minimum sentences to everything, and then scandalize them when they LEGALLY release people. There is risk involved in releasing people. Some people WILL reoffend. Yes, we can and should do risk assessments, but there is no way to know who. Humans are unpredictable. And even more will reoffend since we abandoned rehabilitation and education.
Another tragedy here is that we could prevent future victims with good policies, but we don’t. But, that’s another isse, and one that the legislators (and the press) are not willing to deal with.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 3:36 pm:
=== You have two people fighting over the blame when the blame belongs with the Goveror and the Mike Madigan. The problem for both DOC and the board is that they are underfunded, understaffed and over worked. ===
All the more reason to blame the guy who not only opposes additional funding for DOC, but wants to cut it by 10%.
FYI, the biggest defenders of DOC patronage in the past have been the Republicans, not the Democrats. Look whose legislative districts the prisons are in and you’ll understand why.
- duh - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 3:40 pm:
== You have two people fighting over the blame when the blame belongs with the Goveror and the Mike Madigan. The problem for both DOC and the board is that they are underfunded, understaffed and over worked. This is because the Democrats have intentionally opted to spend money in DOC on administrative jobs for cronies who are not smart enough to pass the correctional officer exam. ==
I know you can pin lots of problems on Madigan, but this isn’t one of them. He doesn’t run DOC, and I would bet he has no input into staffing decisions. Quinn put Sean Vinck and David Eldridge there to clean up DOC, and neither have corrections experience. That was Quinn’s fault, not Madigan’s. As for budget issues, you could dedicate 100% of the state’s revenue to DOC and people would still complain we need more guards, prisons, rehabiliation programs, policing of those released, etc. Don’t get me wrong - I agree that DOC is woefully underfunded - but more guards and more prisons isn’t going to keep the people of Illinois safe.
There is no doubt that this was a tragedy. There is no doubt DOC and Quinn have handled this wrong from a PR standpoint. There is also no doubt that this criminal was going to commit crimes, whether he was released in 2 months, 2 years, or 20 years. If he wasn’t a hardened criminal when he went to prison, a few weeks would certainly seal the deal. Face it, people, prison doesn’t turn criminals into saints. It turns them into more dangerous criminals.
Playing the blame game on this one isn’t going to make a difference.
- Cousin Eddie - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 3:42 pm:
This is not going to end well!
- The Shadow - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 3:58 pm:
The Patriot is right. DoC’s decision-making process revolves around one single issue……money. Nothing else matters other than the bottom line.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 4:13 pm:
It is very difficult for Pat Quinn to make the argument, as some here would have him do, that “I released inmates early because we can’t afford to incarcerate them.” After all, what would follow is, “Therefore we need a tax increase to keep these criminals behind bars.” But Quinn’s tax increase is only for schools, not public safety or anything else. If he was for a real budget, he could make the argument you’re asking him to make, but to this point, he’s not.
- downstater - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 4:15 pm:
Plain and simple Quinn has to fire Randle. Randle has been a torn in Quinn’s side since day one. The man is not capable to run the DOC, Now he has blood on his hands for his lack of leadership and knowledge. Come on Quinn fire him for the sake of the taxpayers and their safety.
- Dan Bureaucrat - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 4:42 pm:
I know downstaters don’t like Randel, but the guy is a red herring. If Quinn wants to win, he needs to learn how to run a campaign, and respond to this stuff. Firing Randle will not help Quinn one bit. Only Quinn can help himself.
- Area 2 - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 5:11 pm:
Can’t wait until Pat Quinn pens his autobiography — The Maverick and the Machine 2.0: Governor Pat Quinn Tells How He Transformed from Populist to Consummate Insider.
Or perhaps the autobiography will be titled — The Maverick and the Machine 2.0: How to lose a gubernatorial race in less than 30 days for Dummies.
- Responsa - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 5:59 pm:
I am starting to think that Pat Quinn is just not very detail oriented. At least no one can accuse him of micro-managing.
- Loop Lady - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 7:33 pm:
Responsa: it depends on the day… sometimes his focus is not on the red meat issues like this one, and it sure has come round to bite him…
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 9:01 pm:
==But Quinn’s tax increase is only for schools, not public safety or anything else. If he was for a real budget, he could make the argument you’re asking him to make, but to this point, he’s not.==
That is my point. He should take responsibility when bad things happen, trace it back to the source (ie. the lack of funds to keep people locked up), and pledge to work to fix it. Quinn’s not doing any of these things. This battle is especially stupid because the DOC and PRB are both Quinn’s responsibility; so he’s blaming one part of his administration instead of the other.
- You know - Tuesday, May 18, 10 @ 9:43 pm:
Randle hasn’t had the opportunity to “run” Corrections yet. It’s Quinn and his woefully incompentent staff that are calling the shots making stuff up as they go. I thought Blago’s folks were arrogant and pompus–(they were) but they were smart people that had ideas of addressing problems even if they were not embraced by others. If you’re gonna paid people to do a job, give ‘em chance to do so, hold ‘em accountable and if they don’t meet your expectations–get rid of them.
Cutting a Director’s legs out from under them and interferring with day-to-day gets you what we got-
nonsense and confusion.
- downstater - Wednesday, May 19, 10 @ 8:59 am:
If you recall Randel came into this state with baggage, he was under investigation in Ohio for not following the rules. Now he is in the state of Illinois making his own rules again. Quinn stated the first time around. “I told him (Randel) not to release any violent inmates”. Randel is not the person to run the DOC and continuely proves that.