Question of the day
Wednesday, Jun 20, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jayette Bolinski at Illinois Statehouse News takes a look at the last person expelled from the Illinois House. His offense was ratting out his fellows…
History probably would have overlooked Illinois Rep. Frank Comerford’s speech to law students in Chicago, except for one thing — he named names.
“To say that the Illinois Legislature is a great public auction, where special privileges are sold to the highest corporation bidders, is to put the statement mildly,” Comerford, a Cook County Democrat, told a gathering of Illinois College of Law students and faculty on Jan. 27, 1905.
A 30-year-old lawyer and just months into his first term as a legislator, Comerford then detailed the names of lawmakers rumored to be on the take, how much cash changed hands and where the conversations took place.
Days later, facing fellow lawmakers poised to kick him out of the House, Comerford said he believed the students had a right to know how laws were made here, and that bribery was rampant.
“I was lecturing to the student body of a college — not making charges upon the floor of this House or in the newspapers. I reserve the right to my opinion; I believe now, as I did then, that the stories told me are true,” he said.
Word of Comerford’s speech hit newspapers Jan. 31, and that is how the representative from the 2nd District came to be the first and only lawmaker expelled from the state’s House for “besmirching its good name and reputation” — and it took only nine days for them to do so. Notably, nothing happened to the legislators who allegedly accepted the bribes. Lawmakers said Comerford failed to back up his claims.
So, the next time somebody says that Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago) should be given all due consideration by the House after his indictment for allegedly accepting a $7,000 cash bribe, point that person to Jayette’s article.
* Rep. Dennis Reboletti thinks the rules ought to be tightened…
Reboletti said he anticipates the House rules will be changed in the future to identify the level of misconduct that can trigger an investigation. Theoretically, the way the rules are written, a speeding ticket, a cross word or political ax-grinding could trigger an investigation if at least three representatives request an investigation.
“Just because a representative says something on the House floor or in his or her district, like Comerford did, you don’t want to just base an investigation off of that,” he said. “There has to be a more substantive reason for bringing that course of action.”
I’m not so sure about that. Putting hard and fast rules in place means that if they forget to include a crime the accused legislator could use that loophole to escape expulsion. Kent Redfield thinks differently, however…
Kent Redfield, a political science professor at University of Illinois Springfield and an expert on Illinois government, said the General Assembly historically has dealt with situations like Smith’s on case-by-case basis, which is reflective of the political culture in Illinois.
“We generally tend to treat things as kind of ad hoc — deal with this particular situation, make it go away, as opposed to saying are there systemic issues here that we ought to deal with,” he said.
“My guess is that we are going to deal with this particular situation — that at some point Rep. Smith will be expelled before the end of his term — and then we’ll wait for the next incident to occur and then deal with that.”
By the way, according to Jayette’s piece, Rep. Comerford had the last laugh when he ran as an independent in a special election a few months after he was expelled and won his House seat back. He went on to become a judge.
* The Question: Should the House and Senate adopt rules which specifically define the minimum allegations to trigger an expulsion, or should expulsion continue to be done on a case by case basis? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- reformer - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 1:16 pm:
When rules are specified, that reduces the arbitrariness and double standards.
- TCB - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 1:19 pm:
=== “To say that the Illinois Legislature is a great public auction, where special privileges are sold to the highest corporation bidders, is to put the statement mildly,” Comerford, a Cook County Democrat, told a gathering of Illinois College of Law students and faculty on Jan. 27, 1905.
A 30-year-old lawyer and just months into his first term as a legislator, Comerford then detailed the names of lawmakers rumored to be on the take, how much cash changed hands and where the conversations took place. ===
Wasn’t the Madigan’s 1st term also?
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 1:21 pm:
So the ethical lawmaker was a 2nd District Chicago Democrat?
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
Rich, your example, I don’t think, does not further your ongoing position that expulsion for the legislature should not meet the standards of a criminal trial — quite the contrary. Let’s say Rep. Comerford was dead-on with his assessment of the legislature at the time — you are essentially advocating that there is no concern over expelling members for speaking the unflattering truth.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 1:44 pm:
You’d probably tie yourself up in knots trying to be too specific. Obviously, expulsion isn’t common.
- J - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 2:00 pm:
There aren’t a whole lot of cases where expulsion even becomes a topic of conversation. Since it is so rare, I think so long as you have adequate transparency, legislators won’t abuse the process.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 2:07 pm:
===you are essentially advocating that there is no concern over expelling members for speaking the unflattering truth. ===
No, I’m not.
What I am saying is that this is an inherently political process, not a legal process. The legal process should be left up to the courts. The Constitution gives the GA the authority to make its own rules on expulsion. But if they start listing offenses, they’re gonna miss some stuff. Or they’re gonna have to go thru an expulsion proceeding where it’s clearly not warranted.
But nice try putting words into my mouth. If you want trials and all that stuff, go to a oourt. The Legislature is a branch unto its own, and it ought to stay that way.
- titan - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 2:10 pm:
It’s sort of like pornography, hard to define but you know it when you see it.
Some general gudelines as to what categories of conduct are specifically thought of as appropriate for discipline would be fine, but it shouldn’t be rigidly constrained.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 2:17 pm:
Case by case is the way to go. If we’ve learned nothing else over the past few decades, please tell me we’ve learned that the behavior of our public officials is impossible to predict. Just when you think we’ve sunk as low as we can go (Ryan), somebody goes one step further (Blago).
Any action that brings dishonor to the chamber is grounds for removal, providing a majority (or is it supermajority?) votes for the punishment. Keeping it undefined is the best way to let circumstances dictate action as opposed to technicalities and partisan gamesmanship.
I think it’s clear why Derrick Smith is about to be expelled. We can’t possibly predict the next incident that might bring the House (or Senate) into dishonor, so let’s not write a 10 commandments for good behavior that a crafty legislator can find loopholes in.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 2:18 pm:
I don’t think you can define it. I think it continues to be done on a case by case basis. I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to understand that the GA can kick whoever out of office that they want and for whatever reason. If they misbehave a Court will intervene and tell them their actions were over the top.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 3:18 pm:
Case by case basis … I don’t think, even if we hired Blago, Ryan & Walker to make up the list of ‘crimes’, we could cover everything. At most, maybe specify a few more guidelines in a bit more detail than ‘conduct unbecoming’ … like don’t take bribes and pay your taxes when due
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 3:21 pm:
=== this is an inherently political process, not a legal process. ===
True, Rich. But it is an inherently political process that overturns a Democratic election, which is Constitutionally protected. That ought to call for a pretty high standard.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, five lawmakers were expelled under similar proceedings in New York. Their crime? Than ran as, and were elected as, Socialists.
Its not hard to imagine lawmakers being ejected in the not-so-distant past running as members of the Black Panther Party.
That said, as long as we all understand that this is an inherently political process, not about “justice,” whether a lawmaker has caused any actual offense, I’m fine with having no standard at all.
Let’s just remember, far worse things have been said about The Speaker than Rep. Smith, so this isn’t really about protecting the General Assembly’s reputation.
I hope Senator Schmidt is next!
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 3:28 pm:
YDD:
This is from the Illinois Constitution. It says absolutely nothing of what standard should be used and gives full discretion to the General Assembly to expel it’s own members. It just says it requires a 2/3 vote.
Each house shall determine the rules of its
proceedings, judge the elections, returns and qualifications
of its members and choose its officers. No member shall be
expelled by either house, except by a vote of two-thirds of
the members elected to that house. A member may be expelled
only once for the same offense. Each house may punish by
imprisonment any person, not a member, guilty of disrespect
to the house by disorderly or contemptuous behavior in its
presence. Imprisonment shall not extend beyond twenty-four
hours at one time unless the person persists in disorderly or
contemptuous behavior.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
- Blago's Hare - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 3:31 pm:
47th Ward got it right. Nice observation.
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 3:41 pm:
Either way they won’t stop cheating,the place will
never be run cleanly. The cheating has been going
on for over 100 years. It’s like expecting the Cubs to win a world Series, it ain’t going happen.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 4:07 pm:
@mokenavince -
In my experience, people in state government are no less honest or honorable than people in the private sector — quite the contrary.
The vast majority of people in the General Assembly are honorable and honest folks. Even those I disagree with on questions of public policy are, I believe, earnestly doing what they think is right.
We’ve set up a system where “what is right” is most easily defined as “what will get you re-elected.” So I can hardly fault lawmakers from both parties for — over at least most of the past two decades — voting to increase spending on programs the public values without raising taxes.
Is it “good governance”? Nope. Is it the government we deserve? Certainly.
If folks were bent on being thieves, they’d be flocking to the private sector, for the same reason bank robbers rob banks.
Just. Look. At Wall Street.
- TCB - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 4:25 pm:
I can see both sides of the coin here. I mean the people of a certain district elected a certain official, what right do the fellow members have to override the will of the people of his/her district without serious allegations? However, there are certain times where a member isn’t worthy of the office & the people of that district shouldn’t be forced to wait until the next election cycle to have competent & ethical representation.
Ultimately, I think the system is fine as it is. Comparing this silly occurrence in 1905 to today’s legislature is a gigantic stretch. A situation like this hasn’t happened since & it won’t happen again. There are times when members need to be expelled & Rep. Smith is one of those individuals, adding red tape to the process only makes an already slow process drag out even further.
- Excessively Rabid - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 4:34 pm:
Suspension and barring from all official functions if you are indicted for a felony or a violent misdemeanor. Expulsion if you are convicted. That doesn’t cover it, but those should be included and automatic, not subject to any sort of debate or excuse.
- Sunshine - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 4:38 pm:
A set of basic rules would be good but you can bet they will be written in such a way as to provide many loopholes and interpretations. However, it would serve to set some guidelines.
Most of the infractions are still going to occur with the most embarrassing or outrageous ones getting attention. Common skullduggery and questionable ethics will continue to be overlooked, rules or not.
- Esquire - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 7:00 pm:
I wonder if Frank Comerford was an ancestor of the former Presiding Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court Harry Comeford? Some local politicians and bureaucrats are really in a family business that spans generations.
- nearNWsidejoe - Wednesday, Jun 20, 12 @ 8:30 pm:
The establishment of at least a bare bones baseline of rules can be pointed when lawmakers make questionable decisions. We cannot simply go around saying something is wrong after somebody has already done it. The amendment against ex post facto punishment is in our Constitution.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 6:14 am:
So much for waiting for a ruling. Even dug up a former FEC Commissioner. No shame whatsoever.
http://freebeacon.com/fatal-attraction/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
- Phineas Fogg - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 8:53 am:
Case-by-case basis. I believe that civility and common sense still exist within our state government.Our state elected officials should not have to someday face a situation where a legal technicalty allows an “ethically challenged” member to thumb his nose at our state governmental structure.