40 Comments - lake county democrat - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:46 am: Where was the crime with legislators snatching open University of Illinois and other school slots away from more deserving high school students and giving them to supporters. None at all. Did that make people less angry about it? Take away the pressure to change the law? Rich, it seems like you’re hiding behind the legalities - are you in favor of the most powerful man in Illinois being allowed to effectively “wink and nod” to give expensive, publicly funded favors to his supporters or not? - Hello - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:47 am: Bad optics - Yes; Criminal - I don’t see it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:47 am: If Rutan covered Ward’s position, since raises were frozen across the agency, if Ward received a raise, it would only have occurred because of his political sponsorship. Singling out one employee for a raise because of his sponsorship would have violated the rights of other employees, who did not get a raise because they did not act as Madigan campaign workers/donors. That would be a civil violation of law. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:47 am: ===Rich, it seems like you’re hiding behind the legalities === Not hiding about anything. All the chatter has been about a possible crime. I’m wondering where the crime is. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:53 am: “That would be a civil violation of law.” Need a citation of the law that was violated. - Yossarian Lives - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:55 am: Certainly there is a meaningful distinction between legal and illegal activity, and it’s legitimate to point out that Madigan appears not to have done anything illegal. But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to see here. The willingness of Illinoisans to shrug their shoulders and say, “That’s the way things work here. It wasn’t illegal” is the reason we still have a poor reputation for govermental ethics. - dupage dan - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 11:58 am: Hey, Danger, where’s the fire? In your eyes, Lieutenant Bradshaw. - Jake L. - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:02 pm: Yeah, I dont want to say I am sure about anything, but I feel pretty sure Madigan knows what line to skirt. He reminds me of Ed Burke, or maybe I should say Burke reminds me of Madigan. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:02 pm: ===“That’s the way things work here. It wasn’t illegal” is the reason we still have a poor reputation for govermental ethics.=== And here I thought the main reason was all those governors who went to prison. Look, I don’t deny the optics are horrible. But when the media spends days insisting that laws were likely broken, I think somebody has to highlight the actual testimony. - Amalia - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:04 pm: when you start picking up rocks, you might find slugs. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:04 pm: O’Halloran countered: “I have no relationship with Speaker Madigan.” Probably not many IL pols/public officials who have ever made that statement. - anon - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:14 pm: somebody here is lying. while i dont believe laws were broken, the appearance of coverup will not make this go away. O’Halleren better hope that there is no email evidence that contradicts his assertions before the committee. We are approaching election season and reporters are looking to find stories just like this. they have plenty of time to dig. - Teddy - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:16 pm: Three cheers for Mark Brown for writing the most balanced column on this topic to date (”No heroes”.) A welcome contrasts to Kass’ usual, ego driven — and often illinformed — wiseguy routine. Clifford did no complaining until he got the vibe his contract wasn’t going to be renewed…only then did he become a whisteblower. He strikes me as a shrued bureaucratic butt-coverer, not a profile in courage. The media is so intoxicated by the whiff of scandal the truth is becoming a casuality. Which is not to say the board is innocent…they should all be bounced. - Loop Lady - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:18 pm: Glad there will be an investigation…not illegal, but don’t any of the recently passed ethics laws cover this? I guess MJM didn’t take the Ethics Exam required of ranks d file State employees - Loop Lady - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:19 pm: Bad typing day…rank and file… - Hat Trick - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:20 pm: Mark Brown! The guy who said he’s always loved Pat Quinn, but thought Pat should do the noble thing and step aside for the sake of the people. Now, who would that have helped? Where’s the followup call for Pat to stay and fight the good fight now that Lisa has bowed out? Now that would be a noble column. - just asking - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:32 pm: Mayyyyybe under pre Skilling honest services fraud if Metra was punished for not complying with the request. Still a stretch for illegality but not terribly different from things that were part of cases against others. - Jay Cutler's personality - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:37 pm: “it was just chatter” “the deal was never done”… hmm, where have i heard that defense before? - RonOglesby - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:42 pm: “I need to have a meeting with Mr. Madigan to see what damage you caused to our funding (prospects)” Of course he denies saying it. But anyone doubt funding support can change on a political whim? People wouldn’t hire political cronies if it didnt. Still think we have terrible optics for this and just choose to live with it and elect the same folks over and over. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:42 pm: Mr. Clifford proved himself to be guilty of political naivete in the first degree. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:47 pm: Somebody’s lying here. Or maybe they both are. I don’t know that I’ve seen a hanging offense yet. Sounded juicy a few days ago, but now it looks like one of those dog day tempests that fizzle out pretty fast. I don’t think MJM should be asking for raises for his ward troops, but I’m not swooning over it. I’m not sure how much damage he could do to Metra, anyway, over one request for a raise being declined. Its operations funding comes from fares and RTA sales tax. Put it this way: Madigan has had a target on his back for a long, long time. Fitz was here more than 10 years. If something like this could take him down, it would have been done a long time ago. - just asking - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 12:55 pm: us commenters probably have very little clue about who has what targets on whose backs and that is probably how it should be. - Soccermom - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 1:07 pm: Okay. Back when I had some clout, I once sent a note to a government official about the husband of a friend of mine, who worked in that official’s division. I said the guy had an impressive resume (true) and had been passed over for promotion for several years while various political cronies had leapfrogged over him. (Also true.) Now there was a new sheriff in town, and an open position that the guy wanted, and for which he was qualified. In my note I said I wanted to make sure that the guy wasn’t overlooked once again, and asked that he be considered equally with other candidates. Should I be expecting the guys with the shiny shoes to drop by sometime soon? I mean, here in the private sector, if I know somebody who is looking for a new employee, and I know somebody else who is looking for a job, I am happy to put them in touch with a nice little note. (Just did that very thing today, in fact.) I don’t see the big ethical dilemma here. I mean, if I had sent a note saying “Promote this guy or lose half your budget,” then that’s a problem. But just saying, “hey, I wanted you to be aware of this”? I guess I may have lost my moral compass somewhere along the line… - Original Rambler - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 1:08 pm: I’m still trying to figure out why PQ would hire a 13th Ward foot soldier in May before Lisa announced she wasn’t running. - Amalia - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 1:26 pm: @Wordslinger, don’t know if former USA with Madigan inaction means anything. would Blagojevich have gone down if Mell had not opened his mouth? heck, even Madigan waited to impeach until the USA was in it and much of what was on the impeachment list was not even involved in that criminal case. the USA office looks for information to follow. they can find information in many ways and since there is lots out there they have lots to do. if they are not seeing or hearing anything, would they automatically open an investigation on an elected official for no reason? wouldn’t that be, you know, prosecutorial abuse? but this, well, this is out in the open and bears looking at for even the ethical reason. by whichever legal authority has the guts to do it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 1:58 pm: Why would this have been a civil violation of law if the pay increase had been granted (according to what Clifford said he was told by Metra’s counsel)? Because the state chair of the Democratic party asked for a pay increase for an employee (arguably) based on his political work and affiliation. Language from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Rutan, 497 U.S. 62 (1990): “Today we are asked to decide the constitutionality of several related political patronage practices — whether promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support. We hold that they may not. . . . Employees who do not compromise their beliefs stand to lose the considerable increases in pay and job satisfaction attendant to promotions . . . .” - titan - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:05 pm: “The guy’s supervisor had also recommended a raise, so I’m not sure why giving him a raise would be illegal. Maybe I’m wrong here, so please enlighten me in comments if I am.” You’d need to know whether non-connected people were treated differently. For example, if the supervisor recommends 4 people for raises, and the only one who actually gets a raise is the politically connected guy (following a phone call and/or letter from the party chairman), then that looks problematic. - Bluefish - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:29 pm: Isn’t this the point where 49 out of 50 AGs make a public statement that their office is going to take an in depth look to make sure no laws were broken? - walkinfool - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:38 pm: Soccermom: Amen We gonna crucify someone for doing what happens in business and other arenas in life every day? To be clear, I don’t like these practices either, and avoided them on either end. One key here, is that Clifford, and probably O’Halloran, greatly overestimated both Madigan’s power and his willingness to use it in trivial pursuits. If O’Halloran actually believed there could be a funding risk to RTA from the Speaker’s reaction to a rejected HR recommendation, then I believe O’Halloran when he says he has no relationship with the Speaker. The false myth of the all-powerful Speaker continues; and MJM does find it useful sometimes not to correct it. - Rod - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 2:58 pm: In response to Anonymous on Rutan, since you read the decision your realize Governor Thompson had the administrative authority to order the department heads to open closed position to Republican supporters. Did the Speaker have such administrative authority over Metra? Apparently not because no raise was given. Rutan was not just about politics entering into the employment process, it was about someone with administrative authority utilizing that power to further the interests of the Republican Party. The Speaker had no such authority in relation to Metra. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:18 pm: Rod, The Speaker had no authority. That’s why he was free to make the recommendation. But if Clifford had actually given a raise to Ward (at a time when all raises were frozen) based on his political sponsorship by the state Demo party chair, THAT would have violated Rutan. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 3:55 pm: don’t know, soccermon & walkinfool: I see a not-so-subtle difference between ‘public’ and ‘private’. Public $ are not involved in ‘private’ but they likely are in ‘public’. And, maybe we should expect (and hope for) better there. Maybe we’ve become inured to ‘this is the way it’s done in IL’? Maybe too naive, but where do we start drawing the line in ‘public’? - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:07 pm: Start drawing the line? Shakman was filed in 1969. Elron and Brant were from 1976 and 1980. Rutan was decided by the Supreme Court in 1990. There have been rules for a long time. - Soccermom - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:15 pm: Anonymous at 3:55 — Listen. One of the reasons I’m in the private sector now is because I told a fairly high-ranking official that I report to him/her, but I work for the people. Didn’t go over so well… My point is — if I know that someone is qualified, and if I have worked with that person, aren’t the people better served if we hire/promote somebody who actually is good at the job? And are you saying that I shouldn’t recommend anybody within government, but I could recommend someone for a job in the private sector? What if that private sector job is with a company that does business with the city/county/state/feds? Didn’t you ever ask someone to put in a good word for you for something? Gosh, have you never filled out a job application that asked for three references? - walkinfool - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:17 pm: Anonymous: I actually agree with you. We must get off our high horses about gov’t “corruption” and “ethical shortfalls” and “dirty politicians” and admit openly that we are going to hold our government officials to higher standards than we hold ourselves and others, in other arenas in life. Rather than bemoaning “this is the way it’s done in IL”, we ought to be saying “this is the way it is done in most of our society, but our Illinois government must do better.” The reason this matters is that if we’re going to actually change a “culture of corruption”, we first have to accept how human and commonplace it’s drivers are. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:25 pm: That’s Elrod (decided 1976) and Branti (decided 1980). (Sorry about the typos.) Soccermom, there’s a line between political sponsorship and a job reference. (Line drawing can sometimes be tough, but it usually can be done.) The Speaker wasn’t asking for a raise for Pat Ward (despite a general freeze) because of the Speaker’s personal knowledge of the good job Ward was doing in his role at Metra. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 4:33 pm: “Didn’t you ever ask someone to put in a good word for you for something? Gosh, have you never filled out a job application that asked for three references?” Sorry. ‘References’ aren’t ‘a good word’. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 5:08 pm: The Anti-Lisas whine and whine saying she won’t investigate alleged corruption, but if she did investigate such allegations the Anti-Lisas would whine and whine about “sham investigations” or some such if the investigations did not reach their pre-conceived wants for an end. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Jul 18, 13 @ 9:38 pm: Well, could a Mayor elected in a non-partisan election safely make a recommendation? How about the pastor of a large church, especially one of those churches where flocks are fairly openly informed who the favored candidate is? How about an official of a union that makes endorsements in elections? Or a major contributor to an elected official, making a personnel recommendation to that official? Rich, I think you are so right it’s hard to argue. There ain’t no crime here, Rutan et al are very difficult to implement and enforce, but for all practical purposes patronage, as Rutan intended to address it, is virtually non-existent in state government today. What still thrives, and always will, is what we used to call “personal patronage”; didn’t have anything to do with partisan politics, and isn’t covered by Rutan or any of the other rulings I am aware of. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 19, 13 @ 8:57 am: Mr. Schnorf, Line-drawing can be hard. But these aren’t that hard. If the Mayor is hiring a political supporter because of her political support — it’s not ok. If any of the people get the job because of political support — not ok. It’s ok to hire or fire somebody for any job in the private sector because you think they’re smart (or stupid), because you know their cousin, because they wear green shoes, etc. It’s not ok to hire, fire, promote, etc. on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or religion (and increasingly on the basis of sexual orientation). People get that. These laws have been on the books for years. Sometimes the line is tough to enforce. But we do. Why does the Illinois political class have such trouble complying with law that has been clear for more than a generation? (Because it makes it harder for them to stay in power? That’s the idea behind the court rulings — they shouldn’t use state jobs to make people do political work to keep themselves and their friends in power.) Also, again, please separate the idea of “the crime” from the idea of violating the First Amendment and civil law, as construed by the Supreme Court. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.