* The Sun-Times drives another very large nail into the legislative scholarship program’s coffin…
A tan-bricked bungalow in the 4500 block of South Avers Avenue must be a popular hangout for college kids.
Five students certified that same home —owned by a paid campaign staffer to state Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Cicero) — as their permanent residence in order to qualify for highly sought tuition waivers handed out by Sandoval.
The senator told the Chicago Sun-Times he has no explanation for that peculiar coincidence and blamed the State Board of Education for not discovering it, even though Sandoval put his signature on each scholarship application before submitting them to the agency.
After being questioned about the oddity last week by the Sun-Times, a State Board of Education spokesman said his agency has turned the matter over to the FBI and to the Legislative Inspector General’s office for further investigation.
“It seemed strange five individuals who did not have the same last name would list the same address, and so we wanted someone to look into that,” board spokesman Matt Vanover told the Sun-Times.
State law requires that students receiving legislative scholarships live within the awarding lawmaker’s district, and providing any “false or misleading” information on their applications can result in the waivers being revoked and the students having to repay the colleges for the tuition freebies.
Sen. Sandoval blamed his staff, the Illinois State Board of Education and Rudy Acosta, who owned the home. He took no blame for himself.
* Meanwhile, the Legislative Inspector General wants much tougher ethics rules for legislators…
Illinois lawmakers should be subject to censure for misconduct, banned from voting on legislation where there is a conflict of interest and required to make more of their financial matters public, according to a state inspector general’s proposal.
The changes are needed because the 44-year-old law now in place has “proven to be weak medicine,” Legislative Inspector General Thomas Homer wrote in a letter to all 177 lawmakers. Ethics violations result in “no remedial action whatsoever” because the law suggests “merely ideals toward which legislators should strive.” […]
Lawmakers are allowed to declare conflicts of interest and then vote their consciences on legislation. But Homer, a former Democratic lawmaker, said legislators with conflicts should not be able to debate bills, let alone vote for or against them. He also said the current economic disclosure forms are too vague to be effective and need to be beefed up to require lawmakers to make public more financial matters.
Homer said he has seen “apparent violations” of the code of conduct from 1967 that could not be enforced because the law more or less outlines guidelines that “preclude enforcement.”
* As you already know, Governor Pat Quinn’s staff mistakenly sent out an amendatory veto late yesterday afternoon that would have addressed some of Homer’s concerns. The staff then withdrew the notification and asked that it not be published. The AV can be read in full by clicking here…
Recently, the Legislative Inspector General called for stronger provisions related to conflict of interest voting. For over three decades, I have supported ending conflict of interest voting by members of the General Assembly. In 1976, the people of Illinois signed a petition containing 635,158 signatures demanding a prohibition on conflict of interest voting. Today, the people of Illinois demand no less.
* The governor’s proposed (but not really, since they withdrew it) changes to the statute…
When a legislator must take official action on a legislative matter as to which he has a conflict situation created by a personal, family, or client legislative interest, he shall eliminate should consider the possibility of eliminating the interest creating the conflict situation if that is feasible. If that is not feasible, he shall abstain should consider the possibility of abstaining from such official action. […]
He need not abstain if he decides to participate in a manner contrary to the economic
interest which creates the conflict situation. […]
Sections 3-201 through 3-205 shall are intended only as guides to legislator conduct, and not as rules meant to be enforced by disciplinary action, including fines and censure as determined by the Legislative Inspector General.
Thoughts?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:13 am:
Illinois politics are getting even wackier than usual. Withdrawn amendatory vetos. Democratic state speaker meeting Republican national speaker. Cats and dogs living together. What’s next?
- How Ironic - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:13 am:
Hopefully the FBI takes this seriously and leads to Sandoval’s demise. Not suprising he takes no responsiblity even though he signed off on them.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:15 am:
When the words “forwarded to the FBI” and your name are together - WORRY!
How fast do you see those “inept staffers” flip on Marty? Faster than it took for me to post this, that is for sure …
“Hello, I am John Doe, Special Agent of the FBI, Chicago Office. I would like to talk to you about Sen. Sandoval. You were recently fired. I was wondering if you would like to make a statement?”
Yeah … faster than I posted this.
To the Legislative Scholarship Program, I have no idea how to “fix” it, as the legislatiors have found ways TO “fix” it for themselves. I would love to see them go away, but I still don’t know by just removing them, the process of education and legislative influence is reduced.
Why not be on the “Higher Education Committee” and hold up all kinds of things … to get “someone” accepted. Possible, not a practice used in the light of day, but it could be even more possible, since 5 to 10 kids are not getting free rides.
Take one thing away, 3 new things pop up. History “kinda” points to that “if/then” when it comes to any perk taken away.
Good luck Marty. Good luck, or get on the bus first to get a seat to run over some colleagues.
- Jonathan Livingston LeGull - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:16 am:
I thought all residents had some interest and a potential for conflict regarding legislation, assuming we can figure out what the legislation is about.
SB 090: Voter Registration at Drivers License Facilities?
SB170: IL Schools for the Deaf?
- Kasich Walker, Jr. - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:22 am:
Imagine a legislator without a personal interest in legislative matters. Is a legislator without an interest in legislation possible?
Campaign contributions are a major concern, but those contributions aren’t possible if the legislator isn’t involved in legislation.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:27 am:
Sandoval might want to clam up. He should at least stop throwing people under the bus, as they might have some tales to tell when the federales come calling.
And remember, Senator, lying to an FBI agent is a felony.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:31 am:
We do need more sanctions against clearly unethical behavior, but we need to be careful in what we define as a personal, family or client “interest”. Does this mean no legislators can vote on tax cuts? or on public education impacting their children? or on issues of interest to their supporters from the local business community? The language had better be tighter than either Homer or PQ staff have suggested.
- Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:36 am:
Why pull out that AV so fast? Makes sense to me. I mean, what are they all fraid of? (hahaha)
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:39 am:
“Sen. Sandoval blamed his staff, the Illinois State Board of Education and Rudy Acosta, who owned the home. He took no blame for himself.”
The Mr. Mom defense, “I wasn’t even in aisle seven.” Yeah, right.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:13 am:
“Withdrawn amendatory vetoes.”
A classic John Kerry moment, Quinn was for it, before he was against it.
- Downstate Commissioner - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:41 am:
At first, considering Quinn’s past comments, I wondered why the amendatory veto wasn’t done? On the surface, it sounds reasonable to me. After reading prior comments, I can see where some extremists could use it to hold up legislation.
For instance, a pro-concealed carry legislator could be accused of having a personal interest just because he wants a permit for himself or family members.
Maybe it could be refined a bit be saying Economic or Political interest. Still looks like a good chance to get some actual reform.
- Lawrence Curlymoe - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:42 am:
Legislators can remove their personal interest in legislation by moving out of state.
- sal-says - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:44 am:
“Withdrawn amendatory vetoes.”
Changes fine. At least Quinn got a message out. Don’t care about business in the past with conflicts; we need legislators to work for the voters who put them in for a change.
- reformer - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 10:50 am:
Something doesn’t smell right about the same address for five different scholarship winners. I suspect if and when this is unraveled, it will be more embarrassing for those responsible if fraud were involved.
- shore - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:08 am:
After job creation and cut spending the first and only words I want to hear from a gop gubernatorial candidate next year are not jim edgars former chief of staff or springfield experience but “will spend 4 years takeing jackhammer to state government” bulldozer would also work, sandoval could be exhibit a for the need for that.
- shore - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:08 am:
taking sorry.
- jake - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:18 am:
Between corrupt (or at least ethically careless) demagogues like Sandoval and well-meaning but incompetent people like Quinn, it is amazing that anything gets done as it should. Actually, people should thank Madigan and Cullerton a lot for the fact that Illinois government works as well as it does. They are underappreciated, in my opinion. Their virtues are taken for granted, and their idiosyncracies are magnified out of proportion.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:23 am:
Shore:
That’s what Blago tried to do and it didn’t work out so well. You can change things but you don’t need to set off a bomb to do it. You don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
- Old Milwaukee - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:36 am:
Where do I sign up to work for Sandoval? Nevermind. Sheesh.
- JBilla - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:51 am:
Umm, Jake, I’m not going to say Illinois is in quite good enough a position to shout from the high heavens the competence of our legislative leadership. Somehow, representing a barrage of clients that do business with the state seems odd when also Speaker of the House. Also, we are currently the most unbankable state in the union. No right-to-work, no plan to deal with structurally increasing debts, and no ability to issue high quality bonds to spur local innovation and entrepreneurship.
Somehow, we need to work on this, and being there for 40 years doesn’t alone cut it anymore.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 11:55 am:
===No right-to-work===
Over my dead body.
- State Worker - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:00 pm:
Some how when the governor and general assembly does something unethical the state employees end up with more ethics rules. Not really funny they cost the state millions of dollars to enforce.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
Farmer legislators should not be allowed to vote on farm issue legislation. They are always the ones to support subsidies and block farm equipment from sales taxes. They absolutely benefit!
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:42 pm:
A balance needs to be struck between legislators representing their constituents (which includes the dreaded special interests) and personally benefiting from a piece of legislation. I also think that it is actually okay for campaign contributions to be given as long as there is no quid pro quo meetings involved. I do object when family and friends directly benefit (c.f. Sandoval’s people) from a legislator’s action. Where that line should be drawn is difficult to find, but we all know when someone crosses the line, by the smell.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:46 pm:
===but we all know when someone crosses the line, by the smell. ===
People have different senses of smell. Go read some newspaper comment boards every now and then and you’ll see those folks demand the death penalty for even inocuous stuff.
- Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:56 pm:
The FBI may fly Mr. Acosta back to Illinois so that they can take him to visit Al Sanchez.
It shouldn’t take much more than that for him to want to full explain why the Senator had him establish a U of I Sorrority House in the 14th Ward.
- JBilla - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 12:58 pm:
Wait, whats wrong with right to work? It means you don’t have a non-compete to deal with if you go to work for a competitor. My wife couldn’t work in her industry for a year even though her position was “eliminated.” She couldn’t get unemployment either.
What’s wrong with right to work? I honestly am asking
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
- Go read some newspaper comment boards every now and then and you’ll see those folks demand the death penalty for even inocuous stuff. -
Or listen to Ann Coulter for 5 minutes.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 1:12 pm:
JBilla, I think you are unclear on the concept. Try the Google.
- soccermom - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
JBilla — Many non-competes are not enforceable. If your wife didn’t receive compensation, she probably could have taken a job without fear of retaliation. Did she consult a lawyer?
- JBilla - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 2:58 pm:
SoccerMom, The size and reputation of the company if they are active in the industry you are looking for employment in, is enough to scare off potential employers and even rescind offers.
Rich, I googled it, and that is a completely different issue! Hope you don’t think I’m trying to deny unions the right to recruit members, completely different intent. I wonder if this double phraseology is intentional, or if I completely have the wrong phrase in mind.
I’m talking about the illegality of forcing employees to sign non-compete forms that are enforceable years after the tenure of employment is over. Or on the flip side, I want Illinois to be one of the states that do not recognize non-compete documents as legally binding contracts.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 3:06 pm:
I’m sure $enator $andoval knew nothing of this. I believe him. Move along. These aren’t the scholarships you’re looking for.
I don’t think too many people who have ever dealt with him are surprised by this. I will be genuinely surprised if this is the end of the story.
- siriusly - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 3:07 pm:
Sorry Anon 3:06 was me. I always like to take full credit for my innuendoes. - siriusly
- JBilla - Wednesday, Aug 24, 11 @ 3:20 pm:
http://faircompetitionlaw.com/2010/11/06/50-state-noncompete-survey-chart-updated/
Here’s a list of noncompete enforceability by state