* Ives campaign…
Gov. Bruce Rauner said last month that’s he’s not in charge. Maybe Nancy Kimme is.
Since Rauner’s election Kimme, who reportedly worked out of the governor’s office for much of his term, has amassed $17 billion in state contracts for her lobbying clients. (See chart here)
It is widely known in Springfield circles that she trades on her relationship with the Rauners to amass clients for her business.
It seems that wherever there is a lucrative state contract to be had, one finds Nancy Kimme wetting her beak. And so it is the case with the $2 billion deal for a private operator to manage the Illinois Lottery per a Chicago Tribune investigation.
Nancy Kimme is yet another commentary on Gov. Rauner’s abdication of leadership and betrayal of Illinois Republicans.
“Gov. Rauner isn’t in charge so institutional interests in Springfield, the men and women of always, filled the power vacuum left by the governor to line their pockets at taxpayer expense,” said conservative reform GOP gubernatorial candidate Jeanne Ives. “Rather than shaking up Springfield and turning around Illinois, Gov. Rauner has allowed Springfield insiders to shake down Illinois families while he turned away from the fight.”
Nobody’s gonna doubt or dispute that Nancy Kimme is a hugely influential Statehouse insider. She knows everybody and she’s shown a real talent for lobbying.
But $12 billion of that “$17 billion in state contracts” is attributed to Family Health Network, which the linked article (from one of Dan Proft’s papers) claims has secured those contracts over the “past three fiscal years.” Trouble is, Kimme was only registered as a lobbyist for that entity last year for less than two months. And since this is Medicaid, all it had to do was provide services to get paid. It wasn’t like it bid on contracts all those years.
The rest of those contracts are for businesses and not-for-profit groups that all have a bunch of Statehouse lobsters.
* On to the Tribune “investigation” linked above…
A top staffer for the Illinois Lottery failed to disclose her relationships and contact with lobbyists for a firm that was bidding for a massive contract to manage the lottery, a state investigation has found.
The lack of disclosure led the state’s top contract officer to suspend the contract with the British lottery firm Camelot, potentially worth at least $2 billion, according to records reviewed by the Tribune. The state reinstated the contract last week after a five-week investigation by an outside law firm determined the lapses were not significant enough to affect the fairness of the bidding process, the records show.
Um, “not significant enough to affect the fairness of the bidding process”? Read the law firm’s actual report and you’ll see this…
The Investigation Found No Evidence Of Outside Infuences By Lobbyists On The Evaluation Committee
Our investigation found no evidence that any evaluation committee member was improperly influenced by a lobbyist for Camelot, or that the work of the evaluation committee was influenced by lobbyists for Camelot.
The Trib story is over-hyped, to say the least.
* Also from that outside investigation…
As noted above; we reviewed the evaluation committee members’ technical response scores. The scores are summarized in the chart in Section III. C. above. The scores for Odom and Mahoney are consistent with their fellow committee members, and their scores do not suggest that they particularly favored Camelot’s proposal. Odom’s average score of 6.188 out of 8 for Camelot’s proposal was in the middle, third highest, among the five-member committee’s scoring. Mahoney’s average score of 5.438 out of 8 for Camelot’s proposal was the lowest of the five member committee.
A complete nothingburger.
* But, of course, another candidate backed by Proft is weighing in as well…
“Illinois families suffer when Jim Durkin and his staff act without transparency or integrity,” said conservative Republican candidate Mickey Straub. “This behavior is rampant in Springfield and is again on display in Durkin’s office. News reports this week detail how Durkin staffer Michael Mahoney declined to disclose his friendship with a lobbyist representing a firm bidding for a ‘massive contract’ that Mahoney himself was partially responsible for vetting.
“These stunning conflicts of interest and continued lack of transparency come from the top. Jim Durkin and his staff are not acting in the best interest of families or this state, whether it be abusing his legislative position in a ‘horrible conflict of interest’ to make money for his law firm, Arnstein & Lehr LLP, helping a strip club consultant and Madigan ally secure an influential meeting, or a staffer who makes decisions on state contracts that benefit his friends.
“Unfortunately, Durkin has consistently shown himself to be more interested in helping other career politicians and well-connected insiders. This culture of corruption and consistent conflicts of interest is why I’m running. I’m going to Springfield to represent the citizens, not self-interest and to promote Lincoln’s core values. It’s time for honesty and transparency in Springfield.”
First, keep in mind that Mahoney’s score was the lowest of anybody’s on that selection committee. Now, as for the alleged “stunning conflicts of interest,” let’s go back to the outside investigative report…
Mahoney’s personal relationship with Elk and Winters was not an actual conflict of interest, but the relationship had the potential to create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The potential to create an appearance. Whew. Off with his head!
- BlackHawk Boone - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:09 pm:
Thanks for fact-checking… try again, Ms. Ives
- Amber Ale - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:19 pm:
Shorter Tribune/Ives: you have been found guilty of knowing the lobsters who lobby.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
With Durkin all day.
Proft going after others just reinforces that Proft himself can serve nothingburgers better than anyone.
- Conn Smythe - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
The real story is Proft starting to get his oppo into the mainstream dailies. I get these guys are thirsty for content but that seems to be a new phenomenon.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:27 pm:
==The real story is Proft starting to get his oppo into the mainstream dailies. I get these guys are thirsty for content but that seems to be a new phenomenon.==
Don’t give Proft that much credit. Tribune has been all over the Lottery for a long time.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:27 pm:
Sorry, - Anonymous - is me…
Also…
The phony Kimme premise… only highlights why Proft is in these races for Proft. It reinforces that facts and honesty are not a Proft trademark, as the facts refute the premise.
- Dan Hampton - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
Dan Proft is a failure
- Deborah Harry - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:37 pm:
Rich on the insde track, although it’s early, for the Walter Duranty Award 2018. Walter, of course, described reports of Stalin’s savage policies policies to the NYT’s readers in virtually the same language…hey, they’re a nothing burger. The scores for a single bidder are immaterial…what was actually going on given the attemted cover up, the hiring of Kimme et al, and the much sweetened deal described in a previous Tribune story?
- Former GO - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:45 pm:
Back in 2016, Nancy could be found wandering the halls of the Gov’s Springfield office, entering offices like she worked there. She was a paid lobbyist at the time (still is, of course).
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:46 pm:
===described reports of Stalin’s savage policies===
Seek immediate mental help.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:55 pm:
–Rich on the insde track, although it’s early, for the Walter Duranty Award 2018. Walter, of course, described reports of Stalin’s savage policies policies to the NYT’s readers in virtually the same language…–
Shine on, you crazy diamond. But give someone the car keys, please.
I’m interested in how a $2B contract attracted just one bidder. Who drew up the specs?
- Ste_with_a_ven - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:55 pm:
So Ives is going for the Trump approach..minus the money, name recognition, allies, etc…
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:56 pm:
===attracted just one bidder===
There’s only a couple companies and we fired one of them. The whole thing is just bizarre.
- Sue - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
I kind of miss Patrick Fitzgerald. Just reading the Tribune article there is a clear federal crime to be investigated out of this story
- Sen. Blutarsky - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
Leave it to an IOPer to start comparing state lottery contracts to the soviet genocide of 100 million people.
There’s something called perspective. But it can’t be found in the propaganda pages of the “North Cook News” or the “Will County Gazette”.
Try elsewhere.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:00 pm:
So Proft is trying to argue about outside groups/lobbyists having influence on the administration? Did he just black out that second half of 2017?
- Sen. Blutarsky - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:00 pm:
Edit: 10 million*
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
I agree that when digging into the story, it is over-hyped but I wouldn’t call it a complete nothingburger. Stories like this tend to stick in the minds of average R voters, and the line of politicians who have caught a lot of heat for stuff like this stretches for miles. “Former Rauner official-turned lobbyist for company that later recieved big government contract” will catch a lot of folks attention, especially after many of them spent the past year screaming “drain the swamp” at DC. Just because it’s the beloved Nancy Kimme doesn’t mean Ives should ignore it. I think this - along with the “Friends of Trey Childress” contract funny business - is another tool for her to effectively hammer Rauner over for an audience of republican primary voters. Does need a better messenger than Proft, though.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
===Just reading the Tribune article there is a clear federal crime===
And that would be… ?
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:05 pm:
Given the choice of a person who was associated with JBT forever, and someone who’s assciates with the far right and Cicero, who would you trust?
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
Pushing all the “is there a crime” garbage to the side, this is a wonderful campaign issue in a primary for a conservative like Ives. Bruce Rauner said he was going to “shake up Springfield” but instead is “shaking down taxpayers.” It’s a pretty thoughtful narrative no matter the actual reality. Perfect for Ives.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:10 pm:
Well, I’m persuaded.
Rauner isn’t getting my vote.
- A guy - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:20 pm:
==“Illinois families suffer when Jim Durkin and his staff act without transparency or integrity,” said conservative Republican candidate Mickey Straub.==
If you know this guy, you’d know that it might take him a full 5 minutes to actually state a sentence like this out loud.
- Been There - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:27 pm:
===The potential to create an appearance. Whew. Off with his head!===
While I think the story is a bit much there are the ex parte communication rules that agencies have to abide by. I think those rules go against our rights of free speech but they are pretty straightforward. If a lobbyist talks to the staff or board they have to report the conversation. The rest of us lobbyist know that will happen if we communicate with the agency so Odums should have just done the right thing and reported it.
- Rusty Jones - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:34 pm:
Why was my comment deleted?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
Rusty, fake news.
- MJMFCC - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 1:51 pm:
I am by no means a Rauner defender - I believe 90% of our current problems can be attributed to his failed leadership. With that said, the Tribune articles seems to exaggerate the situation. A person scoring a procurement is never going to have 100% blinders on, particularly when there’s a prior relationship with someone working on a bid, but there would be some evidence if the person was working to steer a bid or give a preference. Here, you have a very reputable law firm doing what appears to be a very thorough review of the situation. They found nothing. For background, this isn’t a shill-GOP law firm. They do a significant amount of work for the State in various capacities, and they represent people of both parties. The names of the people who did that investigation include a former US Attorney and a former IL Solicitor General. These aren’t partisan hacks looking to help out Rauner.
In other words, this is much ado about nothing.
- Sue - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:05 pm:
Rich- honest services fraud/ to the extent a violation of the Illinois ethic act utilized the mail or internet and or phones mail fraud
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
===honest services fraud===
That’s gone out the window.
- Sue - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:23 pm:
Rich- This person got a financial benefit according to the tribune. It’s still viable
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:23 pm:
==Rich- honest services fraud/ to the extent a violation of the Illinois ethic act utilized the mail or internet and or phones mail fraud==
Simple failure to disclose doesn’t fall within that. You might want to catch up to what the “current” law is, starting with cases such as Skilling v US, 130 S. Ct. 2896.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:25 pm:
===This person got===
Which person?
- Sue - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:28 pm:
Kimme- a job is a financial benefit
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:29 pm:
I’m not trying to be difficult here. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, so what job did she get?
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:34 pm:
She had been out of State government, I believe, since not too long after Rauner came in. So exactly what bribe or kickback, the only thing HS Fraud address, did she receive from her actions as a State employee?
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:35 pm:
Just so we’re clear Rich, it’s ok to be on a procurement selection committee while not disclosing a relationship with a lobbyist who got you your job, and having conversations with that lobbyist regarding the procurement while they are being paid by the bidder under consideration?
You’re ok with that?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
Just by the numbers, the assumption(s) on the contracts are provably inaccurate to say the least, then throw the time frame that doesn’t match, what’s left, the “thought” of a “job” that wasn’t also true?
Nothingburger, but Proft saying something without real context to say it.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:40 pm:
===You’re ok with that? ===
Odom should’ve definitely disclosed those relationships. It’s the cover-up what gets you because the probe found zero improper influence. So, move along.
- Sue - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:54 pm:
Perhaps I misread the article. Didn’t Kimme become the lobbyist for the lottery contractor?
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 2:54 pm:
Rich, thanks for being a voice of reason here. Odom messed up and should have disclosed the relationships. But there was no impact on the outcome. This story is the journalistic equivalent of a Twinkie.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:10 pm:
- the probe found zero improper influence. So, move along. -
With all due respect, it found no evidence of improper influence. Those selection committees aren’t a completely objective system, and we don’t know what people said that wasn’t written down.
This is $2 billion we’re talking about, not an amount anyone should take lightly.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:18 pm:
===With all due respect, it found no evidence of improper influence===
Fine. But the two people who were investigated gave the lowest and third lowest scores to the company. If there was undue influence, you’d think their scores would be higher.
If you know of evidence that there was improper influence, let’s see it. I haven’t seen anything except a way overly hyped Tribune story and a couple of partisan press releases.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:20 pm:
==Perhaps I misread the article. Didn’t Kimme become the lobbyist for the lottery contractor?==
From what I read she was hired by them for a brief time in 2017. She’d been out of government since 2015. There’s no “there” there.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:26 pm:
===she was hired by them for a brief time in 2017===
She was hired in March and she’s still working for them.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:31 pm:
==She was hired in March and she’s still working for them.==
Point being if there’s a two year gap, there’s no way she got the job in return for some favorable treatment she gave to their contract while exercising her duties as a State employee. She was likely hired because she had a good relationship with Government…which is what lobbyists are hired for
- MyTwoCents - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
Stipulating that this is an over-hyped story I do have concerns with a lobbyist being hired to intervene in a procurement outside of the formal process. This is Illinois after all and the procurement rules are probably among the strictest in the nation for a reason. As an old government hand Kimme should have known better than to call an official who is not a formal procurement official to inquire about an ongoing procurement and Odom should have never provided an update. Companies hiring lobbyists and treating procurements like any other government action is troubling to me and both Kimme and Odom screwed up on this one.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 5, 18 @ 4:17 pm:
==should have known better than to call an official who is not a formal procurement official to inquire about an ongoing procurement and Odom should have never provided an update.==
If they’re just inquiring as to the status, I’m not sure I agree that’s a problem. Should’ve been disclosed, sure, but just getting an update on how long it’s taking is no big deal to me.