Question of the day
Thursday, Jun 13, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Hannah Meisel…
When State Rep. Nathan Reitz (D-Steeleville) was sworn into the Illinois House last month, negotiations for an omnibus gaming expansion bill were well on their way in Springfield — a bill that would ultimately include six new licenses for areas in the state that have long clamored for their own casinos.
Helping make the pipedream for a casino in Southern Illinois a reality this spring session was Dan Reitz, a former legislator, current lobbyist and the state representative’s father.
The younger Reitz voted for the bill. […]
The elder Reitz told The Daily Line that he’d been lobbying for Walker’s Bluff LLC in its efforts to attract a casino for “probably six or seven years.” Dan Reitz said he didn’t see a conflict of interest in his son voting for SB 690 as the House wrapped up its business on June 1.
“I don’t see a conflict,” Dan Reitz said. “Obviously he voted for the bill as a whole. I don’t think there’s a conflict just because I happened to lobby for [Walker’s Bluff]. He voted for the totality of the bill, not because of Walker’s Bluff.”
Dan Reitz said he told his son to “talk to staff” to make sure there was no ethical conundrum in voting for the gaming expansion bill given his father’s lobbying interest.
Rep. Reitz said he did just that.
The new legislator cannot control what his father does for a living, and those two aren’t the only ones with potential conflicts under the dome and the gaming bill passed overwhelmingly. Still…
* The Question: What, if anything, should be done about this situation? Make sure to explain your answer.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:03 pm:
Besides asking why we feel the need for elected offices to ’stay in the family’, not much can be done.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:09 pm:
DR- “I don’t see a conflict,”
Me- “you have to open your eyes first”
One, elected positions are not titles of nobility to be passed down to children. We need to stop treating them this way.
That might help.
- anon - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:11 pm:
Dad getting paid to lobby for something you are voting on is pretty much a direct conflict–he should have abstained. Had he completed his ethics training? If not, may want to give him some slack for being young and uninformed–
- Been There - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:12 pm:
Anyone can look up who Dan’s clients are. That’s public. If he was hiding it for some reason that would be a problem. I’m not sure if Walkers Bluff is in Reitz district but I assume his constituents would want him to vote yes. That’s more important.
- A Jack - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:48 pm:
I don’t see a problem. It would be a different story if his father owned Walker’s Bluff. Otherwise the son may have looked at expanded gambling in general as in helping Illinois with balancing its budget.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:51 pm:
If the conflict(s) are disclosed, and it sounds like they are public knowledge, then I have no problem with his voting on the bill … especially if he is voting the sentiment of his district.
Hey, they take votes on things like raising taxes and spending tax money in their district, which could also be seen as a conflict. Hard to have zero conflicts unless you are an unemployed orphan …
- read first - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:04 pm:
==- anon - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 2:11 pm:
Dad getting paid to lobby for something you are voting on is pretty much a direct conflict–he should have abstained. Had he completed his ethics training? If not, may want to give him some slack for being young and uninformed–==
You think this is covered in ethics training? It’s not, because nothing in the Ethics Act describes what a member can or cannot vote on. There is no law that prohibits a legislator from voting on a bill because a family member works for or has a financial relationship with an entity that benefits from legislation. The Governmental Ethics Act gives advice to members on what to do if there’s a conflict, but there is no law on when a member should or should not vote based on an actual or perceived conflict.
- Ratso Rizzo - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:10 pm:
Just did my 2019 State Ethic training, and I’m pretty sure the authors of the course would’ve looked down upon this situation. But I guess Ethics only applies to us peons and worker bees.
- Nobody Sent - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:19 pm:
The “appearance of impropriety” should be avoided. Unfortunately, most have an excuse for why its not a problem in their situation. He should have recused himself.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
===If the conflict(s) are disclosed, and it sounds like they are public knowledge
Agree with RNUG. If the younger isn’t directly benefiting from it, then disclosure is fine. Let the voters decide then. He might enter into the record the issue to make it clear he’s being transparent.
- Sir Reel - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:32 pm:
While I generally agree with most that this isn’t a conflict, the fact that it involves the Reitz family bothers me.
Father Dan was one of Blago’s few supporters in the House and Blago rewarded him with DNR’s World Shooting and Recreational Complex, a colossal failure and waste of money. Dan’s wife, Nathan’s mom, got a dubious job with DNR, whereI believe she works out of her home. Now Nathan is the State Representative.
Not exactly an example of good government.
- Jocko - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
Nothing. His vote (and family name) will both be public record come re-election time.
- Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 4:16 pm:
Nathan will lose his election bid by 8%. Some real interesting names being floated around. Dad,Mom, brother and potential this Reitz on public pension. I am jealous.
On another note, does Nathan even know his district is losing 325 jobs on Aug 6 because of……
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 4:24 pm:
I don’t see a big conflict, but I’m not a fan of dad explaining why his son voted and also admitting that he told his son to “talk to staff.”
Son should be able to explain his vote and decision not to recuse on his own.
- anon - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 4:40 pm:
(5 ILCS 420/3-202) (from Ch. 127, par. 603-202)
Sec. 3-202. When a legislator must take official action on a legislative matter as to which he has a conflict situation created by a personal, family, or client legislative interest, he should consider the possibility of eliminating the interest creating the conflict situation. If that is not feasible, he should consider the possibility of abstaining from such official action.
- Annonin' - Thursday, Jun 13, 19 @ 7:20 pm:
Does the rep. Still get lunch money from dad? Pretty hokey story
- Commonsense in Illinois - Friday, Jun 14, 19 @ 8:48 am:
Rep. Reitz should have announced on the floor that while there may appear to be a conflict of interest, after checking with XX, it was determined that no conflict existed. Then he has a choice of casting a vote or voting ‘Present”.
Former Senator Denny Jacobs was succeeded by his son Senator Michael Jacobs, and not only did the younger Jacobs vote much the same way as his father had, Denny Jacobs was firmly ensconced in Mike’s office…used state phones and office equipment in furtherance of his lobbying business.
Nothing was ever said…Go figure.
- Wait a second - Friday, Jun 14, 19 @ 9:04 am:
Just because a family member is lobbying for X result doesn’t mean a legislator can’t vote for that too.
On the other hand, SB690 took the unprecedented step of making two entire agencies (racing and gaming board) H list, severely restricting even the lowest level employees from improving their careers, but has barely any impact on anyone else. I don’t know that anyone was complaining about IGB agents being able to get jobs doing casino security or the like.