Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

*** UPDATED x1 - Drury issues statement: “I chose the public over politicians” *** Question of the day

Wednesday, Jan 11, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* If you’ve been following our live coverage post, you know that Rep. Scott Drury (D-Highwood) voted “Present” during the roll call for House Speaker. He was the only House member to take that position. Speaker Madigan was re-elected 66-51.

* The Question: What action, if any, should the House Democrats take on Rep. Drury? Please make sure to explain your vote.

*** UPDATE *** From Rep. Drury…

Earlier today, State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) did not vote for Michael J. Madigan in the election for Speaker of the House, voting “Present” instead. Set forth below is Representative Drury’s statement regarding the vote:

As a high school student, one of my favorite poems was Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken.” The poem tells the story of a traveler who finds himself at a point where two roads diverge. Forced to choose, the traveler chose the one less traveled, and “it made all the difference.”

Today, I found myself at a similar divergence and chose in accordance with Frost’s traveler. I did not vote for Michael J. Madigan in the election for Speaker of the House. To my knowledge, no one has taken this action in approximately 30 years. Whether it will make “all the difference” remains to be seen.

I am confident that my vote represents the view of the vast majority of my constituents. In that respect, the decision was easy. Unfortunately, I have learned that what is popular with constituents does not always align with what is popular in Springfield. In the end, I chose the public over politicians.
While my choice was binary – vote for Mr. Madigan or don’t – the vote was not about him. Illinois is in a free-fall into the abyss. My action today should give hope to the hopeless that a new day is on the horizon.

In the weeks leading up to this vote, I seriously explored the possibility of running for Speaker of the House. To my knowledge, no Democrat has ever taken this initial step in the Madigan era. It became clear that for myriad reasons a majority of the General Assembly is not ready for a new Speaker.
Finally, I have been asked if I fear repercussions. With history as a guide, the answer is yes.

Frost’s traveler said the road less traveled “made all the difference.” He was silent on whether taking it was easy. I will let you know.

90 Comments

*** LIVE *** 100th GA Inauguration Day Coverage

Wednesday, Jan 11, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* As always, follow along with ScribbleLive…

Comments Off

Drury appears to shy away from challenging Madigan

Wednesday, Jan 11, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Tribune…

But on the eve of the vote, as lawmakers closed out a two-day, lame-duck session and some hurried back to Chicago for President Barack Obama’s farewell address, even the lone Democrat who had once publicly suggested finding an alternative to Madigan had backed away from the idea.

“I think everybody who’s voting … has to be aware of the fact that there could be severe consequences if you don’t fall in line, and that’s just a fact of the way in which the General Assembly seems to be run,” said Rep. Scott Drury, a Highwood Democrat who said last month that he was “studying” options for challenging Madigan’s speakership candidacy.

By Tuesday, Drury said he was still considering voting for a candidate other than Madigan should one emerge, but he acknowledged that there was no coordinated effort to put forward an alternative.

Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat and top Madigan deputy, dismissed the notion of a coup.

“We decide as a caucus who our candidate for speaker is going to be, behind closed doors,” Lang said. “And once we decide who our candidate for speaker is, the members of the caucus support the caucus decision.”

That’s true. Democrats are locked in. If Drury votes for someone else despite the caucus vote by acclamation, there will likely be ramifications.

* Meanwhile, the Quad City Times lashed out at Representative-elect Mike Halpin (D-Rock Island) today…

Chances are Mike Halpin will today support Mike Madigan. In so doing, he will delegitimize any previous claim of autonomy.

Make no mistake, even ceremonial opposition to Madigan could damage Halpin’s constituents. Suddenly, the 72nd District finds itself written out of budget lines. Suddenly, Halpin has no power within his caucus. Suddenly, Halpin is isolated and feckless.

But, at the very least, a protest vote for any Democrat willing to challenge Madigan would prove that Halpin meant what he said. Even a simple abstention, should no challenger rise, would send a powerful message.

Madigan won’t release his grip on Illinois voluntarily. Only a rank-and-file rebellion will do.

* Related…

* ADDED: When Republicans Voted For Speaker Madigan

* Despite GOP pressure, Phelps likely to support Madigan for speaker

20 Comments

Protected: *** UPDATED x2 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Printable list of 100th GA inauguration events

Wednesday, Jan 11, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

Comments Off

The BGA’s fishing expedition and off the record e-mails

Tuesday, Jan 10, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From WMAY…

A judge has ordered Governor Bruce Rauner to cooperate with an investigation into whether he and top staffers conducted state business on private emails.

WMAY’s watchdog partner, the Better Government Association, has been pushing to see emails between Rauner and top communications staffers on how to deal with media inquiries.

Actually, no. The BGA originally FOIA’d all e-mails sent to or by Gov. Rauner and communications guys Lance Trover and Mike Schrimpf from January 12-19, 2015. That includes, by definition, e-mails that reporters sent to Trover and Schrimpf along with the replies.

The governor’s office found over 3,500 e-mails and asked the BGA to narrow the scope of its request. The BGA narrowed it to January 13, 2015 - the day after Rauner was inaugurated.

* So, what the heck is going on here? From the BGA…

A Cook County judge Monday opened the door to examining whether Gov. Bruce Rauner and top officials in his administration used personal email to conduct public business.

Acting on a lawsuit filed by the Better Government Association, Circuit Court Judge Kathleen M. Pantle ordered the governor’s office to cooperate with the watchdog group in determining whether emails discussing government business could be found on personal email accounts of Rauner and two top aides.

The BGA lawsuit, filed in July 2015, seeks business related emails sent on selected days during Rauner’s first month in office to or from the governor, his then Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Mike Schrimpf and Communications Director Lance Trover. […]

In her ruling, Pantle said she will personally review the disputed emails to determine whether they should become public.

What’s more, her order requires the governor’s office and the BGA to “engage in discovery” on whether emails on personal accounts of the three involved discussions of public business. That decision came in response to an argument from the BGA questioning the thoroughness of a search for emails that did not include personal accounts used to transact public business.

So, apparently they’re trying to figure out whether Rauner and some people in the governor’s office are sending government-related e-mails on private e-mail accounts.

I gotta admit it will be interesting to see what they dig up on Rauner because he supposedly doesn’t do e-mail any longer and has no state e-mail account.

But the target date of that FOIA is, as mentioned above, the day after the swearing in. I imagine people still didn’t have fully functioning offices yet. Whatever they find might not mean much.

I checked my in-box and I can’t find a single government-related e-mail from Trover or Schrimpf that was sent from their personal G-Mail accounts. All the government-related e-mails I’ve received have been from their state accounts.

* In the meantime, does this mean that the BGA wants to gain access to off the record exchanges between the governor’s office and reporters? The governor’s people say that’s one reason why they’re resisting the FOIA. I asked Andy Shaw, and he sent me to his group’s attorney Matt Topic, who e-mailed me a few hours later…

We aren’t aware of that being an issue in our suit one way or the other, but I’m not aware of any legal basis under FOIA to withhold off-the-record statements in emails by government officials simply on that basis, regardless of what account was used.

So, in other words, if I ask a question off the record and/or receive an off the record response, that’s FOIA-able.

I don’t think I love that idea.

…Adding… I think some may be unclear on this. If I send an off the record question or whatever to someone’s private e-mail account, is that really fair game for FOIA? I haven’t done so with Trover, but seriously? You should be able to access that correspondence, too?

…Adding More… I really think off the record reporter conversations are (or should be) exempted from FOIA. From the exemption list..

Business trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential and disclosure would cause a competitive harm to the person or business.

So, I truly don’t see how anyone can think that confidential, off the record conversations which could put commercial media outlets at a competitive disadvantage are FOIA-able.