* A recent Sun-Times headline read “Felon William Cellini’s family still profits off state contracts.” But that’s not exactly what’s going on…
As a convicted felon, William F. Cellini — the longtime Republican power broker recently convicted of corruption tied to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s “pay-to-play” schemes — can no longer do business with the state of Illinois, as he has done for more than four decades.
But the Illinois law under which Cellini faces a five-year ban on getting any state contracts doesn’t apply to his vast network of business ventures, some of which have been turned over to his daughter and son, according to state officials.
Cellini companies — New Frontier Management and an affiliate, Pacific Management Corp., which is owned in part by his daughter and son-in-law — have agreements with private landlords to manage 18 buildings now occupied by state agencies that include the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Transportation, state officials say.
* Under current law, the state cannot force private property owners to hire or fire certain management companies…
Untangling the state’s relationship with Cellini-associated companies might be difficult. The state is not paying rent to Cellini-associated companies. The companies that own the buildings pay the Cellini-associated firms fees to manage them.
“I don’t think state has the authority to dictate for a landlord with whom they can do business,” said [Alka Nayyar, a spokeswoman for the Department of Central Management Services].
When the state seeks to lease property, it puts out a request for information from property owners, spelling out the amount of space needed and other requirements.
“We can’t pre-determine who responds to an RFI,” Nayyar said. “In all cases possible, we try to go with the lowest respondent as long as their particular proposal meets all the space requirements for the agencies.”
And since when do we start actively punishing children for their fathers’ crimes?
* And while this story is certainly heartbreaking…
A suspected drunken driver charged with killing a pedestrian on a northwest side of Chicago street last year is now on the run — and the victim’s family is pointing the finger at Cook County’s elected leaders.
William “Denny” McCann’s family believes the suspect, Saul Chavez, would still be in the custody of law enforcement — and not a fugitive — if the Cook County Board hadn’t passed an ordinance that the family argues paved the way for the suspect to disappear.
“They f—– up,” Kevin McCann, the victim’s brother, told the Sun-Times. “He (allegedly killed) my brother, and they let him out of jail.”
The alleged felon made bail. The reason this is garnering media heat is because he was an undocumented immigrant…
In the days after Chavez’s arrest, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a “detainer” for him, asking that the county jail notify the agency when the suspect posted bond and to detain him up to 48 hours so agents could pick him up for possible deportation proceedings.
But in September, county commissioners passed an ordinance instructing the jail to ignore the immigration detainers, whether the charges are for misdemeanors or felonies — describing the detainers as requests and not arrest warrants, as a federal court ruled earlier in the year.
Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle championed the measure, saying the detainers sometimes targeted U.S. citizens and became costly as federal agents routinely would ask for the hold and forget about it. Both say they feel sympathy for the McCann family but that this points to problems with setting bonds.
The bond was set at $250,000. A family member scraped up the cash and he was let go. If Cook County had not passed the ordinance, he would’ve been turned over to Immigration, which would’ve then deported him south of the border. John Kass is riled up…
It wasn’t as if the politicians of the Cook County Board weren’t warned that they were creating a Willie Horton problem.
They were indeed warned, by Cook County Commissioner Timothy Schneider, as they passed a foolish new law.
But, as Kass himself notes…
The proposal passed. And the feds weren’t notified. Chavez, a Mexican national who had previously been convicted of a DUI, came up with $25,000, bonded out and disappeared. Now he’s believed to have skipped back home.
In other words, Chavez is right where the feds would’ve sent him anyway.
The problem in this particular instance is the bond, not necessarily the law.
…Adding… A couple of commenters have pointed out that the feds would likely have held Chavez in detention until his trial. So, yeah, this is a problem. Apologies all around. However, as another commenter pointed out, what bail bondsman in his right mind would agree to a $250,000 bond on a flight risk like this?
* Yes, I’m fully aware that both of these positions put me way out of the so-called “mainstream.” But when the media pack attacks, I usually try to take a couple of steps back to see if it’s a valid attack. Both of these stories allow people to get all worked up and fume at the powers that be, but, in my opinion, the outrage is misplaced.
*** UPDATE *** Via e-mail from Cook County Commissioner John Fritchey…
While there is no simple answer to this issue, what is being ignored in this story is that the suspect was being held in county jail for over FIVE MONTHS and ICE did nothing to take him into their custody.
The problem with the detainers is that they don’t require any probable cause and have been ruled to be voluntary detention requests. Candidly, some of you may be fine with this concept as long as it involves an undocumented person but what about if the detainer were erroneously used against a U.S. citizen or even a veteran, as has happened?
There are a few leading factors that allowed this situation to turn out the way it did.
Factor One: If the judge or State’s Attorney thought the suspect was a flight risk, they could have, and should have, set a higher bail or no bail.
Factor Two: If the feds wanted to deport him, they had five months to take him from county custody. They repeatedly choose not to because they don’t want to absorb the costs of processing and incarcerating these individuals.
Factor Three: And last June, a 7th Circuit Federal Court ruled that the ICE detainers are voluntary requests meaning that we have NO legal right to hold somebody once they post bond. To then comply with the detainer means that we would be unconstitutionally holding depriving somebody of their liberty.
And I am confident that once the county would be required to pay out the first million dollar plus judgment for a civil rights violation, there would be shouts that we shouldn’t be holding people without due process. Again, if the feds feel that they have a basis to hold somebody, they are more than able to take them from the county while we are legally detaining them.
Also not pointed out in the article is that the county ordinance provides that the Sheriff can still hold these individuals provided that the feds indemnify us for doing so.
To blame the outcome on the county policy is overly simplistic, misplaced and incorrect.
- I don't want to live in Teabagistan - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:21 am:
Agreed re: the Bright One’s story. The State does not contract directly with the company and the company is not owned by a convicted felon.
- Hiram Spleenwell - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:27 am:
Thank the heavens you’re not joining in, Rich. I woke this morning praying that Rich Miller hadn’t joined the media pack in these outrageous attacks. Now my prayers have been answered and I can get on with my day.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:36 am:
I caught that yesterday, too: Kass was angry that the dude jumped bail to Mexico rather than be deported to Mexico.
Of course, he ignores the larger issue the county is trying to deal with: Homeland Security is asking them to hold those suspected of being in the country illegally without bail, but does not reimburse the county for the cost.
It’s not like 26th and Cal has a lot of spare room to do the feds work for nothing.
- soccermom - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:39 am:
Sorry, but I do think kids bear responsibility for their parents’ crimes if they are heading companies set up by their parents for them.
- Spring - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:47 am:
Is ICE pretending they would’ve deported him, not sure the victims family would’ve liked that?
- haverford - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:49 am:
The not punishing the kids angle (which I agree with) aside, I’m pretty okay with the idea that the state doesn’t seek out who is tangentially related to potential state vending contracts.
Yes, you get the odd case like this with a “great” headline, but with the way this state runs (legislators with numerous side businesses, the lobbying connections, etc), it’s got to prevent a bunch of sweetheart deals, too.
Due diligence on the vendor and lowest price. Done.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:51 am:
On the immigration matter, your comment about the bond is right on point. The judge in question seems to have a problem requiring people to post reasonable bonds, particularly when they are flight risks.
I’m getting to the point where although I support D’s for most offices, I have a tough time voting for any D for judge unless I’ve met the person and talked at length (or appeared before the judge enough times to get an idea as to the overall views of the judge). Judges need to realize that part of their job is keeping us safe. They need to take it seriously.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:02 am:
I agree this is a bond issue. McCann’s family should direct their anger at the judge who set too low a bond for an obvious flight risk.
In crimes like these, what does immigration status have to do with anything? We cannot effectively prevent illegal immigration, so why is it an issue?
- so... - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:04 am:
Rich, as I understand it, when an illegal immigrant commits a felony here, the feds don’t immediately deport him back to his home county. He would first serve his prison sentence, and then be deported once his prison term was up.
So I don’t think your point that he’s now where he would have ended up anyway if Cook County had held him for the Feds is valid. As things stand now, he’s probably free as a bird in Mexico. If he’d been held, he’d have to serve some time for killing William McCann.
Yes, the fact that someone who is an extremely probable flight risk even got bond is a big issue. But the Cook County board still removed a layer of protection that would have otherwise been there and prevented this miscarriage of justice from occurring.
- Dale - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:09 am:
Kudos to Tim Schneider for leading on this issue. Being right is more important than being politically correct.
- Fed up - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:18 am:
Wordslinger there is plenty of room at 26 St prisoner counts are way down. The reason thier was a ice warrant for him is he is a convicted criminal in the country illegally. Not every undocumented alien has an ice warrant. Not enforcing the warrant is wrong. Everyone is assuming he is back in Mexico when he can be driving drunk again later today when you gou to pick up your kids. Yes the bond was to low big surprise there in cook co.
- Kasich Walker, Jr. - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:20 am:
The tangential relations — as aptly put by haverford — are inconsequential.
What matters: what does the state receive and for how much?
I would’t be shocked to learn of situations where the state could buy the building or one that would satisfy all needs & get it maintained on with existing payroll for what it pays a third party for maintenance alone.
- Dirt Digger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:25 am:
That’s on whatever bail bondsman decided a $250K bail for a foreign national was a good investment. He’ll almost certainly spend more than $25K to retrieve the guy from Mexico now, and he has to do that because it beats losing $250K.
Talk about poor risk assessment…
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:28 am:
Rich,
You have the immigration point wrong. Under standard practice, if there is an INS detainer on a defendant, he would normally be kept in prison until trial. After trial, if convicted he would begin serving his sentence. Under some circumstances, he would serve all his sentence here, then be deported at the end of his sentence. Under others, Mexican nationals would be permitted to serve a portion of their sentences in Mexican prisons. Either way, he would not have been deported before trial.
For a description of the transfer program for convicted and sentenced foreign nationals, see:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/oeo/iptu/guidelines.html
Kass is correct this time.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 10:45 am:
As noted by others, what the detention policy is really about, in addition to votes, is the cost of detention until trial. By emptying Cook County Jail of people who should be detained because of their immigration status, the County Board saves a chunk of money. The County Board members probably saw this as a win-win: good for the Hispanic vote, good for the budget.
Whether or not the judge making the bail decision knew of the immigration status, the judge could well have been taking a cue from the County Board that defendants like this should be allowed to make bail and leave.
Detaining foreign nationals until trial may be viewed by some as an “unfunded mandate.” But the community is safer if the County does its job.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:38 am:
Cook County receives a federal grant every year from the United States Department of Justice called SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens with at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law.
Last year, Cook County received $2,290,019 in SCAAP money.
So the “unfunded mandate” argument is unfounded.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:39 am:
John Kass. Heh.
- John Fritchey - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 11:49 am:
Rich et al, this is what I posted on my Facebook page:
While there is no simple answer to this issue, what is being ignored in this story is that the suspect was being held in county jail for over FIVE MONTHS and ICE did nothing to take him into their custody.
The problem with the detainers is that they don’t require any probable cause and have been ruled to be voluntary detention requests. Candidly, some of you may be fine with this concept as long as it involves an undocumented person but what about if the detainer were erroneously used against a U.S. citizen or even a veteran, as has happened?
If the judge or State’s Attorney thought the suspect was a flight risk, they could have, and should have, set a higher bail or no bail.
If the feds wanted to deport him, again they had five months to take him from county custody. They repeatedly choose not to because they don’t want to absorb the costs of processing and incarcerating these individuals.
And last June, a federal court ruled that the ICE detainers are voluntary requests meaning that we have no legal right to hold somebody once they post bond. As such, our ordinance provides that the Sheriff can still hold these individuals provided that the feds indemnify us for doing so.
To blame this on the county policy is overly simplistic, misplaced and incorrect.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
Excellent update by Commissioner Fritchey. Many thanks.
Somehow those facts didn’t make it into Kass’ column. Wonder why.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:47 pm:
Commr. Fritchey’s statement about the 7th Circuit is misleading. The ruling was a preliminary ruling by one federal district judge in Indiana (which is in the 7th Circuit, headquartered in Chicago), but isn’t binding precedent in Illinois. That ruling was an excuse, not a justification.
And Chavez wasn’t just an undocumented immigrant who was potentially deportable because of that status. He was, according to the press reports, an undocumented immigrant with a prior felony conviction.
Again, this was about politics and money.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
Anon, to my mind, Fritchey’s most potent argument was that ICE had five months to pick that guy up and didn’t do it.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
Well doesn’t that happen to people currently in Cook County Jail, are there not people who will be found innocent at trial or even have their charges dropped? Are perhaps some of them vets?
We have had judgments in the past against the county due to the actions or inaction of those who work for the county. Yet they still run pools, jails, hospitals and have law enforcement.
You didn’t stop doing those things either due to risk of a lawsuit or due to a lawsuit, did you?
Imagine that concept, we might get sued if brain surgery goes wrong, so lets get Stroger Hospital out of the neurology business…
Commissioner, you make some very good points, but the ‘it might target the wrong person’ isn’t one of them.
At the end of the day I don’t see how if ICE had him it would have done any good. Do they deport people with criminal charges?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:01 pm:
OneMan
ICE deports people with felony convictions. They wouldn’t deport someone before a pending charge was resolved.
Politics and money.
- Fed up - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:03 pm:
Rich
Ice doesn’t pick up on these detainers until the pending court case is finished or if the wanted offender is going to be released. Cook co doesn’t send a wanted offender to dupage will co or anywhere else until their case is finished in cook. If the wanted offender is issued a bond then the other jurisdiction is notified to come get the offender. Unless of course the offender is an illegal immigrant wanted on an ice warrant then cook co ignores it. If this offender was wanted in Ford co for a crime cook co would of held him after he made bond for Ford co to come get him. And commissioner fritchey should know that the Feds don’t deport until after the case against an individual is finished. The problem is cook co do to politics chooses to ignore ICE warrants.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:04 pm:
–ICE deports people with felony convictions. –
ICE deports people who are in this country illegally, and has done so in record numbers during the Obama years.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/188241-ice-announces-record-breaking-deportations
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:19 pm:
foreign national, illegally here or not, or born in the U.S.A., determine who a person is, figure out their priors if any, get justice for victims. the County ordinance is a perceived roadblock to doing things the standard way. safety first.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:27 pm:
Amalia, read Fritchey’s post. The guy posted bond set by a judge. The county could not legally hold him unless the feds stepped up. They did not.
Kass is just off on an ignorant rant about Democrats buying Hispanic votes.
How does he explain the record number of deportations under Obama?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:27 pm:
===figure out their priors if any, get justice for victims. the County ordinance is a perceived roadblock to doing things the standard way. safety first. ===
Shouldn’t that also be directed to the judge and the state’s attorney?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:48 pm:
An apology to Commr. Fritchey and to you, Rich.
ICE has revised its detainer policies, and the ICE FAQ and the new detention form make it clear that ICE has 48 hours to pick up persons subject to a detainer, and that if ICE doesn’t and they otherwise make bail, they should be released:
http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/detainer-faqs.htm
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/immigration-detainer-form.pdf
While the article linked to by Word does show that ICE’s policy is to focus on persons convicted of crimes, ICE no longer expects local jurisdictions to hold indefinitely pretrial detainees who can make bail. Mea culpa.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
Rich-It also should be directed at the judge and state’s attorney, but without the ordinance from the County Board, it’s a moot point. Who is going to post bond if they know ICE is going to pick them up? Put it this way, in the case of Saul Chavez, if the Board didn’t pass that ordinance, he’d still be in jail today and not on the run.
- girlawyer - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:26 pm:
Bail bondsman? Does such a creature still exist in Illinois? In every Illinois county I know of, you post with the court 10% of the bond set and out the door you go.
- John Fritchey - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:35 pm:
Anon, you’re simply incorrect. The Sheriff’s office will even tell you that it is not uncommon for ICE to issue a detainer and still not pick up the individual in the allotted timeframe.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:41 pm:
I really miss John Fritchey in Springfield.
Thanks Commish, for providing some sunshine!
- mokenavince - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 2:58 pm:
As a guy who comes out of the 10th Ward in Chicago
Cellini would best be discribed as a guy who could
dance thru a harp.No one will have to run a tag day for Bill Cellini.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 3:15 pm:
@Rich Miller, directed at everyone, but I believe the County policy confuses.
- amalia - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 3:43 pm:
and as long as we are on the crime beat, there is a not to be missed article in this month’s Chicago Magazine regarding prison movement and politicians.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
- steve schnorf - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 5:34 pm:
note to all: The US Constitution officially frowns on corruption of blood as a means of punishment
- John Fritchey - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 6:46 pm:
Still think that there are no problems with ICE detainers? Read this: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/05/397705/teenager-mistakenly-deported/?mobile=nc
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jan 5, 12 @ 9:45 pm:
I think the most cogent point made by Commissioner Fritchey was this:
“The problem with the detainers is that they don’t require any probable cause and have been ruled to be voluntary detention requests.”
The last time I checked, we have Due Process Rights in this country. And I don’t believe that Cook County can hold someone just because the federal government asked nicely.
Incarceration for even a short period of time is such a serious broach of our basic God-given liberties that Article One of The U.S. Constitution requires due process and judicial review.
For further information, please Google “Habeas corpus.”