* A few days ago, the attorney representing Treasurer Dan Rutherford’s accuser said this to WLS…
“Their standard M.O. (mode of operation) is to work out standard severance agreements.That’s what they do, and they’ve been doing that the last two or three years with employees. So I sent a letter to the general counsel, we openly discussed negotiating a severance agreement for about ten days, then there was this press conference on Friday that came out of nowhere”.
I had already heard about previous severance agreements and had checked into that over the weekend. As I told subscribers this morning, I was told that the agreements had nothing to do with any sort of complaint against Rutherford.
* The Sun-Times followed up…
Dan Rutherford’s office today confirmed that two former employees negotiated severance agreements with the office since the Treasurer took the office in 2011.
However, a spokeswoman said there was no accompanying complaints leveled against Rutherford tied to those severances.
“There have been two severance agreements in Treasurer Rutherford’s office during his time in the Treasurer’s office,” said spokeswoman Mary Frances Bragiel. “But no complaints were lodged by the employees and no complaints were lodged against Treasurer Rutherford in connection.”
That particular angle appears to be a dead end, which, of course, is good news for Rutherford.
61 Comments
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Dan Rutherford is going up on the air this week with a “modest” Downstate TV ad buy. No Chicago, according to the Sun-Times…
“We have the resources to bring our message directly to the voters,” said Rutherford in the statement. “No longer will the television and radio space be dominated by a ‘billionaire bully’ who feels his money entitles him to the nomination.” […]
“All the stuff he has ready to go is positive,” Rutherford spokesman Brian Sterling told the Sun-Times. […]
Sterling said there’s no truth to rumors that Rutherford is considering dropping out of the race.
“Almost just the opposite has happened with our volunteer base,” Sterling told the Sun-Times.
“On Saturday we had a volunteer rally in Morris. It was snowing like hell and we had almost 100 volunteers come out. Our supporters are rallying behind him. I don’t think he’s concerned about how this sits with his supporters because I’m sure he’s going to be vindicated.”
* The Question: Do you think Dan Rutherford will still be in the governor’s race on primary day? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey tools
58 Comments
|
Resignation letter published
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Illinois Review has obtained a redacted copy of the resignation letter sent by Dan Rutherford’s accuser to Rutherford’s chief of staff. See it here.
From the letter…
This resignation is based on the conditions that I was forced to work under, and the refusal to provide for a safe work environment. As you know, Kyle, I have referenced the Treasurer’s sexual harassment and political coercion of employees, including me, to you.
In addition, I have objected to turning the Office of the Illinois State Treasurer into a campaign arm of Dan’s bid for governor. You and the Treasurer have forced this issue repeatedly.
Further, as you are aware there are many other names of men in this administration, that have been forwarded to your attorney, who have all felt Dan’s unwanted sexual advances or inappropriate sexual comments. I beg you to please treat these individuals as victims and do not violate their rights as you have mine.
I came into this office with the highest hopes to reform government. It is a shame that senior management did not share that goal.
Oy.
Keep in mind that these are just allegations and that Rutherford has denied any wrongdoing at all.
149 Comments
|
Fun with numbers
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Illinois Watchdog…
[Rep. John Bradley’s] panel has already said the state will have about $34.4 billion to spend next year. The current state budget spends $36 billion. But Illinois has $42.6 billion in bills.
Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka’s office said there are $6.6 billion in unpaid bills either at the comptroller’s office or inside state agencies.
Lawmakers don’t know how they will stretch $34 billion to cover $42.6 billion in obligations. […]
It will likely take a tax increase to make up the rest.
That’s just plain ridiculous.
Adding the entire stack of unpaid bills to next fiscal year’s “must pay” obligation to make the situation look even more dire than it already is and then predicting a gigantic tax increase to pay it all off is fantasy analysis.
8 Comments
|
* Sun-Times…
An employee of the right-leaning Illinois Policy Institute sued the two Democratic legislative leaders and their respective press secretaries Tuesday after being denied credentials that would allow access to the House and Senate press boxes.
Scott Reeder, whom the Illinois Policy Institute describes as its “journalist in residence,” claimed in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Springfield that his First and 14th Amendment rights had been violated by the decision. […]
“You are ineligible at this time to obtain a Senate media credential because you are employed by the Illinois News Network, which is part of and an assumed name for, the Illinois Policy Institute,” wrote Eric Madiar, chief legal counsel to Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, in a letter to Reeder rejecting his application for floor credentials.
“As such, the Illinois News Network is not per the guidelines ‘owned and operated independently of any industry, institution, association or lobbying organization,’” Madiar wrote in his Jan. 16 letter to Reeder.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, Reeder alleged the no-lobbying prohibition has not been evenly enforced since floor privileges were granted to reporters for the Chicago Tribune despite it being a registered lobbying entity in Springfield in 2000 and hiring lobbyists in 2002 and 2003.
Reeder’s lawsuit described his employer, the Illinois Policy Institute, as a not-for-profit, “non-partisan public-policy research and education organization that promotes personal and economic freedom in Illinois.”
* The lobbying issue is mostly a red herring because the Illinois Policy Institute’s attorney wrote a letter to both chamber leaders saying it would not register as a lobbying entity this year.
That’s an interesting development on its own, but let’s move along.
*** UPDATE *** A good point from a commenter…
Madiar’s argument, as I understand it, is in part that there is no meaningful distinction between IPI and Illinois Policy Action, the name under which IPI is now engaged in lobbying. The same people that registered as lobbyists for IPI are now registered as lobbyists for IPA, which in turn appears to be nothing more than an attempt by IPI to pretend that it’s separating it’s “lobbying” activities from its “think tank” activities (God help us all when IPI is busy “thinking,” let alone lobbying).
Under Madiar’s argument, the IPI attorney’s assertion that IPI is no longer engaged as a lobbying entity would therefore appear to be meaningless - again, a difference without a distinction.
Incidentally, it’s interesting to note that IPI’s half-hearted attempt to couch its lobbying activity under a new and separate name follows Rich’s criticism on this blog. Rich called them out, and now they’re trying to shield themselves.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Reeder’s lawsuit lays out his news network’s reach…
In a typical month, 60 to 80 newspapers across the state publish news articles and columns by Mr. Reeder or other Illinois News Network journalists.
On information and belief, in the past year alone the Illinois News Network served 109 newspapers with an aggregate circulation of more than one million.
In fact, many of these newspapers lack statehouse reporters of their own and rely on the Illinois News Network for news reporting on state government.
* More…
Mr. Reeder has never engaged in any lobbying for IPI or any other organization.
Defendants have never accused Mr. Reeder of personally lobbying legislators or other state officials.
Mr. Reeder is and always has been a journalist, not a lobbyist.
Although Defendants have refused to grant Mr. Reeder press credentials, other governmental bodies have granted him credentials.
In January 2014, for example, Mr. Reeder received press credentials from the Illinois Secretary of State, which allow him access to areas of the Illinois statehouse other than the House and Senate floors, and from the United States Supreme Court.
* Getting to the heart of the matter in the House…
The Lobbyist Registration Act and House Rules’ exclusion of journalists employed by “not-for-profit corporations engaged primarily in endeavors other than the dissemination of news” from House press facilities is not the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest and therefore violates the right to freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face and as applied to Plaintiff Scott Reeder.
Defendants Madigan and Brown’s denial of Plaintiff Scott Reeder’s 2014 request for press credentials on the basis that IPI is “neither a press nor a media organization” was arbitrary and unreasonable and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of the press. […]
Defendants Madigan and Brown’s denial of Mr. Reeder’s 2014 application for media credentials on the basis that IPI “is neither a press nor a media organization” – in the absence of any statute or rule defining “press organization” or “media organization” – violated his right to due process of law.
Defendants Madigan and Brown’s failure to provide any means of impartial review of their denial of Mr. Reeder’s applications for press credentials violated his right to due process of law.
* Senate…
In addition, the Senate Media Guidelines’ rule denying media credentials to journalists whose employers are not “owned and operated independently of any industry, institution, association, or lobbying organization” is not the least restrictive means of serving a compelling governmental interest and therefore violates the right to freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendment on its face and as applied to Plaintiff Scott Reeder.
* And this is some of what Reeder wants the court to do…
Declare that the House Rules’ exclusion of journalists employed by “not-for- profit corporations engaged primarily in endeavors other than the dissemination of news” from the House press facilities violates the right to freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face and as applied to Plaintiff Scott Reeder.
Declare that the Senate Rules’ exclusion of journalists employed by “not-for- profit corporations engaged primarily in endeavors other than dissemination of news” from the Senate press facilities violates the right to freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face as applied to Plaintiff Scott Reeder. […]
Declare that Defendants’ denials of Plaintiff Scott Reeder’s applications on the basis of their belief that the Illinois Policy Institute is a lobbying organization violated his right to equal protection under the law;
* He also wants both leaders “permanently” enjoined from barring his press box access and he wants his attorneys fees, costs and expenses reimbursed.
Your thoughts?
39 Comments
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Feeding Madigan’s ducklings
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As subscribers have known for a while, House Speaker Michael Madigan is backing indicted state Rep. Derrick Smith in his five-way Democratic primary. The Sun-Times takes a look…
“We support incumbents,” Madigan’s longtime spokesman Steve Brown said when asked about the speaker’s endorsement of Smith. “He’s an incumbent.”
The indictment isn’t a factor?
“I believe — let me go back and check — oh, yeah, that’s right, I believe you are presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Brown said. “Isn’t that right?”
Uh, yeah, that’s right.
“Great,” Brown said. “Is that all?”
All right then, we offered you a chance and received no rousing defense of Smith. There was not even faint praise for us to convey to the voters of Smith’s diverse 10th Illinois House District, which covers an area from Lincoln Park to West Garfield Park.
All that matters is Smith is Madigan’s guy, and he hasn’t been convicted.
Smith received support from Madigan in the 2012 primary, but not when Smith faced a third party candidate in the general election because Smith had been ejected from the House by then. Now, he’s back. Madigan will need his vote on various things this spring, so he’s being supported.
It’s just cold calculation. Keep your members well-fed and happy and they’ll follow along.
* Meanwhile, Madigan’s ducklings often say stuff like this, but freshman Democratic state Rep. Kathleen Willis is being more than a bit ludicrous here…
“I’m not going to deny that I have the support of the Illinois Democrats, but they don’t control me,” Willis said. “I value my independence.”
She was plucked by Madigan from almost complete obscurity to challenge longtime GOP Rep. Skip Saviano. She walked a lot of precincts, but the Madigan operation did pretty much everything for her, and that hand-holding continues to this day.
I mean, her Democratic primary opponent raised less than $2K last quarter and yet Willis has a Madigan campaign staffer in her district. That says something.
She was at an event in her district not long ago and confused the state Constitution’s drafting date with the establishment dates for the state’s pension funds, according to a top Democrat who was there and shaking his head in disbelief.
Willis is the perfect Madigan legislator: She loves walking precincts, but is otherwise dependent in almost every way.
*** UPDATE *** Speaking of ducklings…
House Speaker Michael Madigan has too much power, but it’s not clear what can be done about it, state Rep. Sue Scherer, D-Decatur, said Tuesday.
Scherer, speaking to The State Journal-Register editorial board, said she was frustrated that a bill calling for Decatur-based Archer Daniels Midland Co. to bring jobs to the city wasn’t called for a vote in December.
“I felt like I had to support it because of the number of jobs,” Scherer said. “I went to the speaker numerous times and asked him to call it for a vote. For whatever reasons, he didn’t call it for a vote.”
Asked if she thought Madigan had too much power, Scherer simply replied, “yes,” before adding that she does not know what can be done about it. Scherer said the fact Madigan provided several hundred thousand dollars to her 2012 election campaign, along with other staff support, didn’t make any difference.
What a goofy thing to say. She doesn’t know what can be done about Madigan’s power? How about voting against Madigan for Speaker? How about voting against Madigan’s House rules?
I’m just speechless at this response of hers.
52 Comments
|
End the lame ducks?
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a press release…
House Republican Leader Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs) and members of the House Republican caucus [yesterday] unveiled legislation asking voters to put an end to lame duck sessions of the Illinois General Assembly by moving up the date of inauguration. The proposal also requires the outgoing General Assembly to conclude their work by Election Day.
“You never know what shenanigans are going to be played in a lame duck session. In 2011 under the veil of night, Democrats in the lame duck legislature voted to impose the largest income tax increase on families and employers in the history of our state. Outgoing lawmakers, who are no longer accountable to the voters, should not be approving such controversial legislation,” said Durkin.
“History shows that these post-election lame duck sessions really only exist as venues to pass volatile, controversial legislation with the largest number of outgoing legislators – legislators who have technically already been replaced by the voters from their districts. These sessions are an insult to Illinois voters and need to be abolished,” said State Representative Kay Hatcher (R-Yorkville).
Durkin’s proposal would put on the November general election ballot a constitutional amendment asking voters to move the date of inauguration to the second Wednesday in December, approximately one month following the election. Currently, inauguration is held on the second Wednesday in January.
House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 43 would also prohibit the outgoing General Assembly from convening or acting on legislation unless a special session is convened with the joint approval of the Governor, and each of the four legislative leaders (the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the House, and the Minority Leader of the Senate). The purpose of the session must be specified in the proclamation and action limited to the topic identified.
“This would allow the legislature to convene if there was a true emergency such as an act of terrorism or natural disaster,” said Durkin.
* Ormsby’s take…
Essentially, the plan arms the minority party leaders with short-term veto power over any legislative action by the majority leaders and governor.
* Maura Zurick at the Tribune calls the proposal a “futile stab at ending Illinois’ ritual of putting off controversial issues until after an election”…
Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said the speaker would take the matter “under review, but I don’t know why you would want to tie the legislature’s hands.”
Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, also said Durkin’s intention is to stop legislation when it sometimes can be easier to move along. “We shouldn’t change the Constitution simply because some members are more willing to vote for legislation when they are a lame duck than when they are not a lame duck,” Lang said.
Lots of people hate the lame duck sessions because so many things can happen that can’t happen before an election. But the other side of the coin is that some things just have to get done, so lame duck sessions are invaluable.
Your thoughts?
30 Comments
|
Rauner’s myopia
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Bruce Rauner was interviewed by the Daily Herald editorial board this week…
The Winnetka businessman, in a meeting with the Daily Herald editorial board Tuesday, said not every member of the Illinois House and Senate is “corrupt” but said it’s “mostly true.”
Yet, “I want to work with the legislature to drive results, and I’ll be down there every day they’re in session.”
Sigh.
* But this is the quote I want to get to…
“Probably a third, maybe more, of the Republicans in Springfield have sold out to the government union bosses,” Rauner said.
This shows just how “My way or the highway” Rauner is. Anybody who disagrees with him has “sold out” to the other side and are “corrupt.”
* Back in the day, when Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan were building state facilities, the governors put them in Republican areas. Lots of state workers are Republicans, many of the older workers got their jobs through GOP patronage or connections.
Not to mention the unionized local employees, like teachers and university workers.
* So, these Republican legislators whom Rauner so despises come from areas where being a Republican and a union member is the thing to do. Voting to harm large numbers of their fellow district residents is neither in their personal DNA nor their political makeup.
Dismissing his fellow Republicans as corrupt puppets of union bosses is completely ridiculous.
* Phil Kadner makes some good points today as well…
Rauner hammers away at teacher unions, saying they are at fault for failing students. Yet, those unions are present in every successful suburban school district in Illinois.
Maybe schools could be run cheaper without teacher unions, but I don’t buy that unions necessarily mean worse schools. And I’ve always found it interesting that schools located in the wealthiest suburbs almost always pay their unionized teachers top dollar.
It seems to me those school districts, like the one in Winnetka, where Rauner owns a house, could clearly demonstrate that money doesn’t matter by paying their teachers less than any other school system in the state.
The students likely would still do well because they come from homes with tremendous advantages and where education is valued highly.
But I understand why they don’t want to experiment with their kids’ lives, just as I understand why Rauner, Emanuel, Obama and Daley made the choices they did.
It’s always other people’s children who are the guinea pigs, the ones who can’t get their kids into schools like Payton College Prep.
Discuss.
74 Comments
|
Comments Off
|
Caption contest!
Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Scott Stantis…
* Image deleted. Here’s why…
Dear Mr. Miller:
I am writing on behalf of Chicago Tribune. We own copyrights in the cartoons of Scott Stantis, a Chicago Tribune employee.
It has come to our attention that one of Mr. Stantis’s cartoons has been republished on your website without a license:
https://capitolfax.com/2014/02/05/caption-contest-172/#comments
We ask that you please remove Mr. Stantis’s cartoon from your website and refrain from any unlicensed republication of Mr. Stantis’s cartoons in the future.
Thank you in advance for your compliance with the foregoing request.
Sincerely,
Mike Hendershot
Senior Counsel
Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
52 Comments
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|