22 Comments - Ghost - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 10:47 am: Rich you need some leather bound books on your shelves to set your backdrop - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 10:54 am: That was in my Statehouse office. Kinda dingy digs. - Loop Lady - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 10:58 am: Has Lilia Chacon been hired yet @ WTTW? Love CT! - John Patterson - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 11:04 am: “That was in my Statehouse office. Kinda dingy digs.” Feel free to show up from time to time and clean. Roomie. - Steve-O - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 11:56 am: Proft really schooled the guy representing AFSCME. And I like his point about the public sector employees now making 12% more than private sector employees in the same positions…not including their guaranteed health and pension benefits. - PublicSector - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 12:09 pm: Steve-O said “I like his point about the public sector employees now making 12% more than private sector employees in the same positions…not including their guaranteed health and pension benefits.” That “point” is one of the best arguments in favor of joining a union if you are a private sector employee. - Steve-O - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 12:15 pm: PublicSector: the only problem is…the private sector has to live within its means, otherwise, the business may cease to exist. The public sector can borrow/print money and raise taxes to overpay their employees. - shore - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 12:21 pm: perhaps anders could explain to us which “extremist right wingers” are responsible for the 12 billion dollar budget deficit in Illinois. I don’t remember dick cheney serving in springfield. - fedup dem - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 12:28 pm: Just to let you know Rich that I just tried to watch your video on Chicago Tonight, and I got a notice that the video was not available. - GetOverIt - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 12:39 pm: Yeah all those public defenders and states attorneys are making tons of cash (sigh). Apples and oranges people… - steve schnorf - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:09 pm: This public/private debate grows irksome. The two are not easily or well compared. The purpose of the private (for profit) sector is the accumulation of wealth/money/pick a word for its owners, whether small business people or shareholders in large corporations. The purpose of the public sector is the provision of services to its owners. I wouldn’t want government managing my investments. I wouldn’t want the private sector building and owning my roads, controlling delivery of my mail, or running my schools. Each has its values and each its shortcomings. The biggest difference I see is how the leaders are selected, and neither method seems to particularly stand out as exemplary. - Indeedy - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:09 pm: The “pension” link takes you to the segment on Rick Bayless and the state dinner he prepared. A nice surprise and glad I listened but take a minute and click through to find the segment with Josh Rauh on the pension crisis. Totally worth it. - Patrick McDonough - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:10 pm: we made a great video with scott tucker. watch it.it will be posted soon. thanks. - Amalia - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:14 pm: I thought it was… Pete Giangreco, the most interesting man in the world! - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:14 pm: Legislature Fiscal Mentors SHow The Way Tribune pursues management bonuses with court Published on May 25, 2010 11:31 AM | Submit a comment By Michael Oneal | Tribune Co. plans to pay 35 of its top executives $14.9 million in additional 2009 bonuses, a court filing revealed late Monday, despite pointed opposition to the proposal from several key constituents in its 17-month-old Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The company describes the bonuses, devised as two plans, as rewards for steering the company through bankruptcy court while generating total operating cash flow of $494 million in 2009. The payments would supplement $42.1 million in management incentive bonuses the court allowed Tribune Co. to pay in February to approximately 670 managers, including most of the executives included in the most senior group. The two new plans also anticipate paying $1.3 million in discretionary bonuses to a group of 50 managers who management deems to have made valuable contributions to the restructuring. None of those awards can exceed $65,000, the document said. The total of $58.3 million in bonuses represents $5 million less than the maximum the company could pay under the proposed plans, which are tied to management’s exceeding previously set performance targets. The company said several operating executives failed to meet their targets or exceed them by enough in 2009 to merit the highest rewards. Tribune Co.’s push to pay the bonuses, despite the fact the company is in bankruptcy and still facing declining revenue, has been controversial from the start. The initial motion in July 2009 generated a storm of protest from the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee and the company’s unions, who argued that the company’s performance targets were set too low initially, allowing Tribune Co. to beat them easily. But several key constituencies in the case, including the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, supported the motion and at a hearing in January, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey approved the broader bonus program, while suggesting the company include the other two programs in the “disclosure statement” that must accompany its plan of reorganization. The first version of the disclosure document, filed in April, did not include details on the senior bonus plans yet several creditor groups warned that they were concerned about the potential payments, as well as a future plan under which the company had said it might set aside as much as 7.5 percent of the company’s equity for ongoing management incentive rewards. Even two key creditor allies who otherwise support the company’s restructuring — JPMorgan Chase and Angelo, Gordon & Co. — have taken issue with the amount the bonus plans grant to a few top executives. At Carey’s insistence, the proposed bonus payments were included in a new version of the plan that Tribune Co. filed Monday night, despite the creditor protest. Tribune Co. said in a statement Tuesday that “We are working to address any issues creditors may have and are confident that these performance-based compensation plans will get approved as part of our Plan of Restructuring.” Sources said Tribune has already reworked language surrounding the future equity incentive plan to make its creditors more comfortable. The initial proposal of a 7.5 percent set-aside as a pool for equity incentive programs has been trimmed to 5 percent. Creditors also demanded that the company’s future board of directors, not the current one, decide how the plan works and how much stock management will be granted after Tribune Co.’s emergence from bankruptcy. Nevertheless, one source close to the situation said Tribune Co. will likely face continued opposition over the compensation issues, adding to a mix of problems that several participants, including Carey, have said will likely make the scheduled confirmation hearings in August contentious and difficult. Tribune Co., which owns the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other media assets, still faces stiff opposition from a group of senior creditors led by hedge fund Oaktree Capital Management, as well as several subordinated creditor groups. The new disclosure statement does address some concerns — most notably a call for more information about potential legal claims against the company’s 2007 leveraged buyout and a key change in voting procedures that had incited protest. But Tribune Co. lawyers, who also drafted Eden Martin’s misguided to whack state employee pensions, are still wrangling over the wording in a position statement issued by a group of bridge lenders destined to get a tiny payout under the proposed settlement. And Oaktree, among others, shows no sign of backing off its opposition. Objections to the newest version of the disclosure statement are due Wednesday and a hearing is scheduled to take up the document on Friday. Assuming it passes, Tribune Co. will have 60 days to solicit votes of support for the plan with the hope of having it confirmed during hearings scheduled for the week of Aug. 16. Click here to sign up for breaking news, business and sports alerts. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 1:26 pm: I like Pete, but “Legendary” Democratic political consultant? Really? Pete give you that moniker? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:08 pm: Rich, when the Skype image froze, I thought you were having a Plummer moment. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:16 pm: actually the studies show govt employees are paid 12% LESS then private sector employees. http://www.freep.com/article/20100429/NEWS06/4290389 - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:33 pm: Berkowitz spends a lot of time correcting Giangreco’s spin on the economy, Wall Street, Banks, Kirk, Giannoulias, Congress, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other issues. - Prove Up - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:45 pm: To Ghost - “gov employees paid less” Funny, that study was paid for by the teacher’s unions. They’re probably using the same math techniques that they’re teaching in K-12. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:54 pm: No it wasn’t. The study was from the National Institute on Retirement Security and the Center for State and Local Government looking at 20 years of data. They are non-profits. The data is pretty sound, they compared jobs to job instead of just looking at salaries for positions that do not exists in government etc. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 25, 10 @ 2:56 pm: And for those who think we are better off with a 401K style retirment system, ere is a nice study showing that these tend to cost twice as much http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=121 plus the problems of creating underfunded retiurmenets and ultimatly increasing the burden on social services etc. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.