* Sun-Times…

For the first time, proof emerged that Gov. Pat Quinn’s 2010 Neighborhood Recovery Initiative factored into his election strategy that year in personal emails from the governor’s former top aide that were released Wednesday by a legislative panel investigating the program.

The emails from ex-Quinn chief of staff Jack Lavin represented a key highlight from the opening of two more days of hearings on the $54.5 million anti-violence grant program that is now under federal investigation. […]

“I don’t think there’s been any question in anyone’s mind that the Quinn administration, his governmental staff and his political staff, used government resources to please certain constituencies that they hoped would increase the voter turnout and suppress the voter turnout for us prior to the election,” Brady told Early & Often, the Chicago Sun-Times political portal.

“There’s been various sightings, so to speak. This clearly is smoke. I don’t know if it’s a smoking gun or not. But clearly, they were using government programs to try to increase their support in certain communities in the state. This is clear evidence of it,” said Brady, who narrowly lost the 2010 election to Quinn and is a member of the Legislative Audit Commission.

* OK, let’s look at the e-mails.

…Adding… The governor’s campaign and a spokesperson for the Senate Republicans clarified that these e-mails were from Jack Lavin’s personal, not his government account.

[If the links don’t work for you, click here, go to NRI Audit Review Documents and then find the Lavin e-mails.] Here’s the relevant part of the Lavin e-mail dump mentioned above. Lavin was Quinn’s chief operating officer at the time and also did work on the campaign during his off-hours…

* This does indeed show cooperation between the governing side and the campaign side. But if you know anything about campaigns and governing, you know that there is no absolute wall separating the two. As long as it’s done outside the confines and locale of government offices, hours, etc., it’s all accepted practice.

Look, incumbents campaign on (or run away from) their records, and so it’s no real surprise that the campaign would discuss the value of using a state program for their guy’s political benefit (or to keep something from becoming a problem). And, again, keep in mind that these aren’t state workers on state time. These are people with the campaign and administration officials on their own time. There’s a huge difference there.

The e-mails certainly show that the NRI was viewed by the campaign as a popular program that would help Quinn’s reelection. I don’t think anyone has ever denied that. Governors do this sort of thing all the time with ribbon cuttings, etc. If you want politics completely out of government, you have to cancel all elections.

* To be illegal, though, you’d probably need some internal state correspondence or a witness who could place overtly campaign decisions within the governing process, instead of the other way around (which is what those e-mails appear to show). Barbara Shaw denied any such connection during her testimony this morning…

“Elected officials, presidents, governors often introduce initiatives and programs to respond to the needs of constituencies that they serve. So, it wasn’t a shock to me, that this was happening during that time. But I do want to say here, the governor’s office never told us who to give the money to, what communities to go in, what agencies should get that money. The elections did not play a role in where that money went to,” Shaw answered.

* So, on to some other e-mails, which are agendas for early morning campaign meetings…

* Again, what this shows is that on at least three days during the the campaign, the political operatives discussed the political value of the NRI program.

Were decisions being made about the actual NRI program during those three meetings, or was NRI discussed in the context of maximizing political benefit from a state program? Standard campaign procedure would suggest it’s most likely the latter, but, of course, we don’t know for sure.

However, “incoming FOIAs” right below “NRI” is quite interesting. We don’t know whether or not the two topics are related. But that’s really interesting. Again, though, the campaign needs to know what to expect from the media and the opposition, and so discussing incoming government FOIA requests would definitely be part of that process.

*** UPDATE 1 *** From the Rauner campaign…

“Governor Quinn’s chief of staff tried to conceal these emails but got caught red-handed,” Rauner campaign spokesperson Mike Schrimpf said. “These emails are the tip of the iceberg but one thing is now clear – the Neighborhood Recovery Initiative had nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that two federal grand juries are investigating the blatant diversion of millions of taxpayer dollars to support the governor’s election. It’s time for Pat Quinn to turn over all of his electronic communications from 2010 so we can finally find out what he knew and when he knew it.”

*** UPDATE 2 *** From the Quinn campaign…

Those were clearly not government conversations.

Chicago was in a state of emergency in the spring and summer of 2010. The issue of gun violence was a critical concern for many constituencies, particularly in the African American community. Six police officers were slain. Dozens of innocent people were being gunned down every day. A young boy was shot 22 times. There were calls for Governor Quinn to activate the Illinois National Guard.

The Governor acted forcefully in response to the bloodshed on the streets. The NRI program was one of many actions he’s taken that the campaign promotes - he signed bills to crack down on gun violence, prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands and to tackle some of the root causes of violence. He implemented programs to address high unemployment in the most at-risk areas. He came into the inner city often to meet with community activists, clergy, parents, students and law enforcement personnel. He did his job.

In any incumbent’s campaign, you run on your record.

Obviously the campaign would want to promote what we are doing to fight violence in the community during an election, just like any other policy issue in a campaign.

We are constantly taking inventory of all the various policies, programs and achievements of the Governor’s administration so we can properly and fully communicate them to constituencies who care about where he stands, what he’s done and what he will continue to do in office.

       

105 Comments - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 1:59 pm: Wow, you are telling us that political campaigns make strategic decisions based on public policy put into place by candidates who are sitting office holders? Who knew? It’s almost as if one of the points of politics is to put in place public policy to maximize the power of your electoral constituencies. - AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:04 pm: I’m not even sure that this can be called smoke, but if this is smoke, there still is no fire, and definitely no smoking gun. - Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:07 pm: Excellent post, Rich! Isn’t running on your record what campaigns in an ideal world do? I see no smoking gun. There doesn’t appear yet to be even an email from Quinn campaign staff to Quinn governmental staff urging changes in the operation/timing of the NRI. But even that wouldn’t be too bad. What Rauner campaign needs is an email from governmental staff agreeing that they’d change its implementation to help the campaign. And while the whole program arguably existed for the campaign, both staffs were probably was bright enough to not put that in writing. - Aqua Buddha - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:08 pm: Oh Bruce, can’t seem to keep your powder dry. Now that Barb Shaw didn’t trash the Governor like you hoped maybe you ought to at least wait for Lavin to speak before you trash an effort to help the AA community. After all, I don’t see anything in the emails about GOTV or street money. Someone on your campaign has to have enough experience to explain to you what those things are, right? - VM - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:10 pm: It’s pretty common practice to let a person in government know that a FOIA came in requesting information about that person or that the person created. So it certainly would not be unusual for someone with a dual role to know that a FOIA came in from the opposing campaign. There are plenty of reasons a campaign would want to discuss that — primarily speculating what the other side is looking for — that have nothing to do with the governing end. Now a problem may be that those of us who have been on a campaign at the senior level are used to this. How this is spun to a voter with zero political experience is a different question. But still, hard to see the legs here. - archimedes - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:11 pm: Unless more comes out - this shows NRI (as a program) was viewed by the campaign as a positive (ie, what are you doing for jobs and anti-violence?), does not prove it was a lever for votes in particular. By the way, the last two agendas (of the three shown) appear to be the same meeting - so 2 agendas had NRI. - Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:17 pm: If NRI is an example of governing, then it is Exhibit A for exactly how not to govern well. - so... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:19 pm: The date of that Lavin email is September 5th. That’s just days after the program was even conceived of, and more than a month before it was announced. - Been There - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:19 pm: ===“Governor Quinn’s chief of staff tried to conceal these emails but got caught red-handed,”=== Conceal?? I thought these were from his personal or campaign email account. I’m surprised they even had to be turned over. Letting the other camp use a hearing to go after political correspondence seems to go way over the line for me. - Kyle Hillman - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:20 pm: Wait so campaigns aren’t allowed to promote the positive things a candidate did while elected? Even crazier, they can’t announce any new initiatives right before an election? Getting my pitch fork sharpened. That is a lot of people who violated this new concept. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:25 pm: I’m still not seeing a “there” there. I’m not seeing anything out of the ordinary in terms of politicians handing out money before an election. Unless something else comes up I don’t see anything that happened as being illegal. And, on another note, Brady really needs to get over his loss. He didn’t lose because of NRI. Period. - Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:25 pm: This from the Quinn response == Chicago was in a state of emergency in the spring and summer of 2010 == hardly is or was a revelation. That == state of emergency == worsened in 2012 and persists today, but any efforts at a comparable NRI initiative appear to have faded along with our collective short memories. - Anon - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:25 pm: This seems like total political theatre. Shaw is respected in her field — she is an expert in violence prevention programs. She has had bi-partisan support throughout her career. Senator barrickman and rep. Sandack are trying to make a poorly run program into a scandal. I’m a dem, so I’m biased, but am I wrong here? She is doing an outstanding job, by the way. - Sinequanon - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:26 pm: Do we know that the reacted conference line number is not owned by the state? - too obvious - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:26 pm: When you’ve got officials like Topinka actually lobbying the governor for a gov’t job for her son while she’s on the clock and no one cares, it’s hard to get excited about this NRI stuff. - walker - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:31 pm: Shaw’s killing Barickman, on the blatantly political, and obviously false “GOTV” claims. The politicization overall of choices as to what regions or districts get to apply for funds, is being drawn out well by him. And he does well on the appropriations purity arguments and fiscal carryover processes. But those are hardly headline grabbing points. - Amalia - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:31 pm: and it’s lucky that Shaw is a very confident church lady type who has never, ever been convinced of anything other than her correct way. - Rahm'sMiddleFinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:32 pm: Weak sauce. I’ve got the hearings playing the background. Barb Shaw is doing really well. They’ve used over four hours to reveal… nothing. - Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:32 pm: ==Brady really needs to get over his loss. He didn’t lose because of NRI. Period.== Perhaps Brady is just sore because his campaign didn’t have his mass family pet euthanasia legislation as item #1 on their campaign agenda? - Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:34 pm: == He didn’t lose because of NRI == Completely correct. Very, very well said. == anything out of the ordinary in terms of politicians handing out money before an election == It seems like the out of the ordinary part is not the fact politicians were handing out money around election time, but the manner in which this particular program was set up and developed to hand out that money. Also, an interesting observation by @so… 2:19 pm - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:37 pm: No fire, no smoke, not even any kindling. The GOP has overreached, and may come up completely empty-handed. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:37 pm: Bruce, I think it’s time to figure out what’s next. NRI — Not Really Interesting - denial - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:38 pm: Really everyone??? Come in, from day 1 we ALL really know what the NRI was about.. Please this is Chicago politics… Pay for votes…to deny it is/was occurring is quite naive. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:40 pm: ===Pay for votes=== So, is cutting taxes also paying for votes? Or the promise to cut taxes? C’mon. - Frenchie Mendoza - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:41 pm: Nothing Really Incriminiating - Buck I - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:43 pm: “The date of that Lavin email is September 5th. That’s just days after the program was even conceived of, and more than a month before it was announced.” “…to promote the positive things a candidate did while elected? Even crazier, they can’t announce any new initiatives right before an election?” Isn’t it strange that the campaign is discussing it internally before it is announced to the public? Doesn’t this lend credibility to the theory that it was conceived on the campaign side and funded on the state side? - Skeptic - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:44 pm: Denial: Around here they’re repaving roads and patching potholes. I suppose you’ll accuse them of paying for votes too? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:44 pm: ==conceived on the campaign side and funded on the state side== And? I’m sure it’s not the first time that’s happened. I get what you are alluding to. I really do. I just don’t see anything illegal here. - AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:45 pm: OK, let’s all move along. Nothing to see here. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:45 pm: ===Isn’t it strange that the campaign is discussing it internally before it is announced to the public?=== It’s being brought up by the governor’s chief operating officer. ===Doesn’t this lend credibility to the theory that it was conceived on the campaign side and funded on the state side? === I doubt it. People usually take their time coming up with a program before it’s announced. Even after the deets are done, it takes some time to make the official announcement. But even if it was conceived by a campaign aide, as long as the campaign wasn’t controlling the actual spending (which Shaw flatly denies), then that ain’t illegal, either. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:45 pm: ==but the manner in which this particular program was set up and developed to hand out that money.== I’ve never argued it wasn’t a cluster. I’m just not seeing anything illegal, at least as far as the Governor is concerned. - Buck I - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:47 pm: “So, is cutting taxes also paying for votes? Or the promise to cut taxes?” Rich, gotta differ with you here. There’s a big difference between letting someone keep what they hustle up and doling out government money. Government money gets taken from someone first by the *friendly* Department of Revenue. Not so with your subscriptions. And political promises? We know what they’re worth… - walker - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:48 pm: If this whole issue devolves down into an attack that Quinn blurred the lines between governing and politicking, then not a lot of the voters will be moved. That is a commonly held belief about all governors now. - Meanderthal - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:50 pm: Might not convince you, might not convince me. Lavin better hope he can convince the FBI agent behind the tree. - Illannoyed - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:55 pm: The Rauner folks might be getting some of what they need. Both the Sun-Times and Tribune have headlines and stories that can be used in campaign ads. I understand that a campaign taking advantage of an existing policy isn’t improper in and of itself, but good luck explaining that to an electorate accustomed to political corruption. The nuance is likely to be completely lost. - MrJM - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:55 pm: So officials working for a democratically elected executive approved an anti-violence program that they believed would be popular with voters? Representative government sure is scandalous. – MrJM - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:57 pm: ==and doling out government money== So are you saying that no government money should ever be “doled” out because it could be construed as buying votes? I’m not accusing you of anything here, so don’t take this comment the wrong way. I’m using your comment to make a larger point. I think we are going down a silly road when we are now suggesting that anytime a Governor (or other elected official) hands out grant money that it’s by definition suspect and should be investigated. That it’s somehow “vote buying.” Was this program screwed up? Yes. Was it illegal? Not that I can see. - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:57 pm: Rauner’s for releasing all information so the public can make a judgment? What about that lawsuit with Christine Kirk? Willing to unseal that court record, Bruce? - dave - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:58 pm: **Might not convince you, might not convince me. Lavin better hope he can convince the FBI agent behind the tree.** Based on what we’ve seen so far, there is absolutely nothing Lavin needs to be worried about. - walker - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 2:59 pm: Meanderthal: the FBI might be interested in Lavin for what federal crime exactly? I don’t see one even being hinted, at his level. - chi - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:00 pm: The Quinn administration plans to apologize this afternoon, promising it will focus its efforts during the next term on initiatives the voters don’t like. /snark - OldSmoky2 - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:02 pm: “These emails are the tip of the iceberg…” Well, if they are, the iceberg seems to be melting away pretty quickly, doesn’t it? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:10 pm: ==It’s time for Pat Quinn to turn over all of his electronic communications from 2010 so we can finally find out what he knew and when he knew it.== I’d suggest Rauner and his staff never use e-mail if he is elected because they are once again setting a bar for themselves that they won’t want if they get to the big chair. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:11 pm: To sum up what happened at today’s “gotcha” day long testimony today: https://twitter.com/kylehillman/status/519937103606853632 - Kyle Hillman - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:12 pm: ^ link was obviously from me. I don’t do anonymous posting - just hit submit too fast. - Buck I - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:14 pm: Demoralized, no offense taken. I’m merely pointing out what I believe is the primary difference between letting someone keep what they drum up, earn, whatever (in Rich’s case, selling informative subscriptions) and getting money that has been taken from others by a less than friendly revenue collection agency. I’m sure some people would be fine with depriving anyone who runs for office of any money to spend. (Perhaps only appointed or drafted public officials?) - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:17 pm: Buck, either way, it’s taking what had been “government money” and converting it to personal money. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:28 pm: Still listening. It’s very interesting no matter what your view might be. There is a great deal of rationalizing going on in the comments here. Maybe even expressing some relief a bit prematurely. She’s clearly an extraordinary and decent woman. She’s clearly cagey and rattled on a few answers. If you’re all feeling that way, one wonders why so many of the other characters here are planning to exercise their 5th Amendment rights? Is she the one with the least exposure? She’s offering the best version of these events. It’s not all believable. But I would conclude so far, that she did her best not to be corrupt in this process. She shows some strain in some answers that belie she was squished and then discarded. There’s some there, there. Don’t kid yourselves. - Not OW - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:30 pm: ==As long as it’s done outside the confines and locale of government offices, hours, etc., it’s all accepted practice.== Perhaps. But, and no value judgments here, that does play into the theme of shaking up Springfield. There is a certain populist appeal… - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:33 pm: - one wonders why so many of the other characters here are planning to exercise their 5th Amendment rights? - Is this another example of your psychic ability? Are you sure they’re going to? - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:36 pm: Yeah, who said anything about taking the Fifth? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:37 pm: ===It’s not all believable.=== Ok, what’s not believable, specifically? You say it’s not, what’s not? To the Post, The most difficult workings of government and political Crews working is defining the areas and keeping it always beyond reproach, even if it’s 100% legal and pure, but the easiest part is understanding the cause/effect of good government being good politics. There have been great examples how that works, and horrible examples of how it doesn’t work, and I can point to the lower chamber of the GA, in its history, as examples of both. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:38 pm: === Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:33 pm: - one wonders why so many of the other characters here are planning to exercise their 5th Amendment rights? - Is this another example of your psychic ability? Are you sure they’re going to?==== Can you not afford a newspaper goof, or are you unable to read? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:39 pm: There must be more than the revalations of today. Feds don’t usually look twice on issues with the lack of depth displayed today. Stand by for more? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:40 pm: - Can you not afford a newspaper goof, or are you unable to read? - Can you not afford 15 seconds to use Google and shove a link in my face? Still waiting. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:42 pm: Keep waiting. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:46 pm: - Keep waiting. - No problem guy, I know google is hard. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:51 pm: Nothing in here about Lavin taking the Fifth… http://politics.suntimes.com/article/springfield/former-quinn-aide-turns-over-emails-tie-2010-election-nri/wed-10082014-611pm - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:53 pm: So I guess, Mr. Guy, that you have inside information — that Jack Lavin called and asked for your opinion on how best to comport himself during this hearing. After a long and candid conversation, you advised him to invoke his right to avoid self-incrimination, and he thanked you fervently for your wise counsel. Because otherwise, how would you know what he’s going to do? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:54 pm: ==There’s some there, there. Don’t kid yourselves.== Then by all means @A guy, let us in on what the “there” is. You have some secret intelligence on illegal activities that you are keeping to yourself? Just because something was run poorly doesn’t make it illegal. If you see evidence of illegal activity then provide it. I haven’t seen it. Apparently your psychic ability has. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:54 pm: No time to google at the moment. Getting a bit more interesting at this moment. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:54 pm: Maybe - A Guy… - should take the 5th. So, - A Guy… -, ===It’s not all believeable.=== “Not all” - examples please? - James formerly from Wrigley - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:54 pm: I understand that incumbents run on their record. But if NRI is just one part of Pat Quinn’s broad record, why is it and Put Illinois to Work the only two policies being discussed? In one meeting it was the ONLY policy discussed. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:55 pm: ==There is a great deal of rationalizing going on in the comments here== And I don’t think it’s rationalizing. I think it’s viewing the evidence and making a decision based on that. If you have concluded something else from the information provided please guide us through your analysis. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:56 pm: ===In one meeting it was the ONLY policy discussed.=== Wow. In three months! lol - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:57 pm: Gosh, James FFW — I am so glad that I have never worked with you. Because I cannot imagine the psychic pain of attending meetings where we have to discuss EVERYTHING, EVERY SINGLE TIME. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:58 pm: Listening to this whole auditing process, it’s not hard to figure out how this state loses money through fraud, inefficiency,and lack of accountability. There are not enough adequate measures in place to follow the money. The explanation is incredible. That being said, Ms. Shaw is credible. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:58 pm: Some “October Surprise,” huh? Here’s where I weep for the state of the Illinois GOP, or some of its clueless nincompoops. In 2014, all they’ve got is playing some victim card, that the 2010 election was stolen from them because black voters in Chicago were allegedly bribed by chump change after the fact? Like black voters needed another reason in 2010 to vote against some Illinois Republicans. For crying out loud, have you all been paying attention to your actions and rhetoric? Some of the big fat GOP mushrooms in the GA talk about nothing else but secession and making poor people pee in a cup. They’re more interested in the content of their urine than their character. I’m Illinois farm boy/Main Street. No stranger to racism. I know it when I see it. My folks schooled me on the sickness of ignorance and fear. But you know what? Lincoln won the war. TR was a progressive. Ev Dirksen passed the Civil Rights acts. Ogilive, Big Jim, Edgar, Ryan, they didn’t treat black citizens as the enemy. And they sure didn’t act like race-card victims when they lost. You know why? They usually won. Go figure. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 3:58 pm: ===Getting a bit more interesting at this moment.=== Yep. Sloppy governance. That’s not indictable. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:01 pm: @A guy: There aren’t the resources available (money or staff) to conduct audits of grantees. Not saying it shouldn’t be done. Resources aren’t there to do it. I’ve never been involved with any grants where the agency went out and audited the grantee. - The Dude Abides - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:04 pm: So a sitting Governor initiates a anti violence program directed at a community that has a violence problem but this program is also geared to help engender support from the community in a close election in a few months. This sounds like the power of incumbency to me. Like it or not political leaders do this sort of thing all the time. They tend to spend more money on goodies to the public shortly before an election. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:08 pm: - wordslinger -, …and if you call some “out” on it, your Purity is questioned, your measure of looking beyond the telephone booth they talk to themselves, and wondering why My Party is veto-proofed well beyond a Map, because polling has shown that My Party isn’t seen as much of an option anymore. My Party seems to favor whining and complaining about being a super-minority, while requiring perfect Purity. Today wasn’t the train wreck I feared, but the Keystone Kops were taught that Ms. Shaw was prepared, and they weren’t, beyond the Rauner Narrativd that came with Rauner Monies. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:14 pm: Demo, not enough resources to account for the taxpayers money? I understand that actually to a very limited point. This was a huge rush job which exacerbated this problem. You either need to budget for graft and inefficiency or scale down your projects. Telling the citizens you can’t keep track of money even a little carefully isn’t a wonderful message. It’s like just saying “we lost it, that happens in big government programs. Gotta factor it in and just understand it”. Sorry Demo, I don’t. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:19 pm: Okay, I realize that this will do no good whatsoever. But you cannot advocate reducing headcount and slashing state employees on the one hand and then blame an agency for not having the staff to do the incredibly time-intensive work of monitoring the actions of outside grantees. Pick one from column A or one from column B. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:19 pm: @A guy: I’ve been involved in many grants and I can tell you that not one audit ever took place. Not one. Wny? Nobody to do them. You rely on what you are given and if there is something that looks odd to you then you ask for the paperwork to back it up. It’s not ideal but it is what it is. You don’t have to like it or understand it. But those are the facts. Do with them what you will. And I’ll appreciate your support for more funding for staff. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:22 pm: @A guy: I guess my point to all of this is that the simple fact that audits were not conducted is not unique to this program. Again, not saying the program wasn’t screwed up or that it’s ok that audits don’t take place. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:25 pm: ===You either need to budget for graft and inefficiency…=== Is that where Union Bosses or Career Politicians fail? What contempt you have. - James formerly from Wrigley - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:25 pm: Soccermom - Thank you for your response. But I think you presented a fallacious false dicotomy. I did not say or imply that EVERYTHING, EVERY SINGLE TIME needs to be discussed. Illinois has over 75 agencies. https://www2.illinois.gov/pages/agencies.aspx I imagine those 75 agencies each have more than one program. Just like you think its crazy to discuss everything I think its crazy to discuss next to nothing. Whats the exact right number of policies to discuss? I can’t tell you but I think its somewhere closer to the middle of all and none than two. And how do you know we haven’t worked together? Are you and AGuy taking lessons from the same psychic ? - Empty Chair - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:25 pm: Has any smart reporter *cough* asked on the record whether meetings/conversations between government officials and campaign employees are occurring today? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:27 pm: ===whether meetings/conversations between government officials and campaign employees are occurring today? === Well, since the governor is the state’s highest ranking government official and is on the campaign trail today, I’m sure there has been at least conversations. Or should he resign his office while he’s running for reelection? - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:29 pm: ==Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:19 pm: Okay, I realize that this will do no good whatsoever. But you cannot advocate reducing headcount and slashing state employees on the one hand and then blame an agency for not having the staff to do the incredibly time-intensive work of monitoring the actions of outside grantees. Pick one from column A or one from column B.=== I pick you. I don’t know why. I just do. Maybe I’m just smitten like the other guys who agree with you more than I do. I have not spoken to Mr. Lavin. I suspect (my gut), he won’t take the 5th. He’s pretty savvy, as has been Ms. Shaw. The others are riskier. The papers all suggested two months ago and reiterated lately, they’ll likely exercise their right. Time will tell - circularfiringsquad - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:30 pm: Several thoughts 1. Brady 2010 asking if they can ever convince ComandoMakeItUp to say Bill is not as bad as looks…answer no. 2. Mitt not realizing his attacks on AA groups buries him there 3. Jack’s emails all look non govt stuff…..hmmm - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:36 pm: ===one wonders why so many of the other characters here are planning to exercise their 5th Amendment rights?=== Hmm. ===I suspect (my gut), he won’t take the 5th. He’s pretty savvy, as has been Ms. Shaw. The others are riskier. The papers all suggested two months ago and reiterated lately, they’ll likely exercise their right.=== Your “gut” was more forceful before being called on it… - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:55 pm: Demo, I don’t know what agencies you are familiar with, but I just can’t believe that no “field” monitoring of grantees is occurring. I admit my knowledge is dated, but back in my day (ca. Thompson/Edgar) we had statutory/Code requirements to audit grantees on site and would be cited by the OAG if it didn’t get done. But, times change. It ain’t sexy and it ain’t vote-buying, but taking unspent FY10 money and transferring it to an FY11 lump-sum account and calling it an “expenditure” (which is how the Quinnies funded this mess) is flat-out wrong and everyone involved in that should be spanked hard. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:57 pm: OW, well Wilbur, Ocasio is now up there not pleading (I’m impressed) but with a very dramatic case of amnesia. He just doesn’t seem to remember anything so far. Am I being “called out” on what I’ve read in newspapers. I read at least 4-5 of them a day as part of my work. If I am, yes sir, you got me. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:01 pm: …And so do the Senate Republicans. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:02 pm: ===Wilbur=== What part if the horse are ya again, lol Ocasio is doing his best Rauner(?) And what wasn’t believable? That’s a softball question, not a “gotcha” - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:03 pm: A Guy, here we are the great LAC hearings to get to the bottom of things. What’s your headline from today’s testimony? “Time sheets not in order?” - Ginhouse Tommy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:06 pm: Great. A bunch of political people talk about how much of a political advantage they can get out of a program for stopping violence that has ravaged Chicago. The body bags keep coming and they try to hide their political greed. It is a old joke that anybody running for office that they will be tough on crime but they never sit down with law enforcement officials or experts who have made things like this their career and come up a workable strategy to help out the long suffering citizens of Chi-town. I guess paying political friends is easier. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:19 pm: there hasn’t been an infrastructure in place to monitor state grantees in a long time. It went away with budget cuts, sort of a “we can choose between feeding people or watching what they eat” kind of process. Not good, just real. Those on here opposed to taxes, don’t b___h, because these are the natural results. - A guy... - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:23 pm: === wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:03 pm: A Guy, here we are the great LAC hearings to get to the bottom of things. What’s your headline from today’s testimony? “Time sheets not in order?”=== I’m still listening Sling. Is “time sheets not in order” the extent of what you’ve gleaned? Lot of money missing, wasted, gone. One thing no one disputes is that this thing was a big mess. We’re looking to see if it’s a corrupt mess. My Dem friends often chided Ronald Reagan for his poor memory. He was an older man who we later found out would have Alzheimer Disease. So far Mr. Ocasio is pretty forgetful. These guys are being very careful (as they should be) with something more ferocious than the LAC asking questions. It’s a professional hearing. We’ll see where it leads. My headline deadline is later than yours. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:24 pm: Mr. Guy, I honestly don’t know what to say. My goodness. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:27 pm: ===So far Mr. Ocasio is pretty forgetful.=== “So far Mr. Rauner is pretty forgetful.” The Reagan analogy, what does that mean? You suggesting anything? You explain, so I have it clear. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:36 pm: – The others are riskier. The papers all suggested two months ago and reiterated lately, they’ll likely exercise their right. Time will tell -=- Thye don’t even have to show up if they don’t want to. The LAC can’t compel testimony without a judge’s order. At this point, I doubt if anyone would even bother to take a pass. If they’ve been called before the grand jury, they know which way the wind blows. And they certainly know by now that the Republicans on the LAC are just chasing their tails. Again, where do we get to the part about state money being doled out before the election to buy votes? Wasn’t that what we were all waiting for? - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:41 pm: Thanks, Steve. I miss the old tax and spend days, I guess. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:46 pm: To the Hearing, Today’s results are exactly why the pristine beauty of an untarnished line of; “There is an ongoing federal, possibly criminal, investigation is being conducted.” You hammer that thought. You shake the premise… “It was triggered by the Illinois Auditor General’s report. Scathing, and while being frustrated, and angry, and disappointed, an investigation from a US Attorney’s Office is about finding a different truth than an Audit Commission. The Republicans would want to defer, completely, until we know the findings of the US Attorney, and that might be after this election, but possible criminality is something no one from the Republicans of the General Assembly wants to impede.” It was such an obvious political play with very few downsides, huge upsides, and the ambiguity rules the day. Today just reinforced that belief I have had since the beginning. - Just Me - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:53 pm: Rich, I see and understand your point, but I’m not sure I completely agree with it. These e-mails prove that the government side was telling the political side what it was doing so the political side could promote the Governor’s decisions. However, who among us doesn’t believe that the political side suggested to the government side what would be a good story to promote and they led the decision making process? These e-mails show that the coordination was a little too close and “coordinated” for my comfort level. Didn’t any of these people learn anything from the previous Governor’s mistakes that they were so willing to repeat them? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 5:56 pm: === However, who among us doesn’t believe that the political side suggested to the government side what would be a good story to promote and they led the decision making process?=== That’s an amazingly huge leap in logic from the tiny handful of emails we have here. If you want to believe that they did something illegal, go ahead, but if you’re gonna call somebody a criminal, you need to do a whole lot more than darkly speculate. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 6:10 pm: === However, who among us doesn’t believe that the political side suggested to the government side what would be a good story to promote and they led the decision making process?=== It’s doesn’t matter what you believe, it only matters what you can prove… - Abe the Babe - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 6:23 pm: ==Didn’t any of these people learn anything from the previous Governor’s mistakes that they were so willing to repeat them?== Good point. I forgot that Gov. Big Hair went to jail over a campaign meeting that included updates/people from the government side. I must have imagined the extortion plots. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 6:52 pm: And incidentally - there is nothing wrong with campaign people coming up with good policy ideas. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that good policy is good politics… - MrJM - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 7:42 pm: Every time the GOP inquisitors took a shot at the competence of AA neighborhood organizations, I felt better about the Chicago turnout on election day. – MrJM - Glass Sealing - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 8:51 pm: Two thoughts: 1) Brady’s and Holland’s red-faced badgering and interrupting Ms. Shaw was embarrassing. 2) if Holland said the transferring of late appropriated NRI funds as expenditures at the direction of the administration was bigger/worse than NRI, does that mean something more than hours of wasted time today? - Despicable You - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 7:41 am: == A guy… - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:29 pm: ==Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 8, 14 @ 4:19 pm: Okay, I realize that this will do no good whatsoever. But you cannot advocate reducing headcount and slashing state employees on the one hand and then blame an agency for not having the staff to do the incredibly time-intensive work of monitoring the actions of outside grantees. Pick one from column A or one from column B.=== I pick you. I don’t know why. I just do. Maybe I’m just smitten like the other guys who agree with you more than I do. I have not spoken to Mr. Lavin. I suspect (my gut), he won’t take the 5th. He’s pretty savvy, as has been Ms. Shaw. The others are riskier. The papers all suggested two months ago and reiterated lately, they’ll likely exercise their right. Time will tell == A guy that “smitten” comment about soccermom and other commenters is the most offensive thing I have read here. Time to get out of the cave. Women are smart and can voice their opinions. Men who agree with a women are not “smitten” because they agree. - Just Me - Thursday, Oct 9, 14 @ 8:05 am: Rich, I thought about your comment at 5:56, and you make a good point. However, I went back and looked at Lavin’s e-mails again and not only is the government side telling the political side what it is doing, but the government side is telling the political side why it is good for the campaign. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? This suggests to me the government’s intentions weren’t based on good public policy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.