Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Delayed & BS
Next Post: Afternoon politics open thread
Posted in:
Blogging may be light today, but, for now, here’s the question:
What do you think of political patronage? Should political hiring for government jobs be curtailed even more? Should the current rules be relaxed, abolished or changed? Explain.
UPDATE: The debate in comments, which was quite good, got us a mention in Governing Magazine’s blog.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Delayed & BS
Next Post: Afternoon politics open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Elected officials should be allowed to hire some employees to effect a change in policy, and to get rid of people who would try to sabotage it and get their party back in power. In the entire federal government, that amounts to 2-3000 people in the so-called “Yellow Book” for political hires. In Illinois it’s many times that.
You don’t need patronage workers as caseworkers for DHS. But you do need them at the top levels of every agency. Illinois needs to fix this, as well as its incredibly hedonistic campaign finance system with no limits and no prospects for dampening pay-to-play for either major party.
Comment by We Don't Want Nobody Nobody Sent Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 6:08 am
A job should not be based on what you did for someone’s campaign. Political hiring for government jobs should not be allowed. I work with a bunch of political hires who feel as though they rightfully deserve the job because they either helped on a campaign or are the relatives of someone who did. They are totally incapable of doing the job. One guy in particular (in his 70’s) either reads the paper or naps at his desk. When his supervisor gave him duties that are assigned to that job, he went over his supervisors head. The supervisor was told to reassign the work to someone else. I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
Comment by girl friday Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 6:10 am
Patronage is ok for management. Like this administration, have the new hires sign a document that clearly states you serve at the will of the governor and you have no expectation of employment after the next governor is sworn in.
But if you scam the public, like this administration does, by having new hires sign this document to get hired at grossly inflated salaries then silently put them in protected positions at an even higher salary, then you are rigging the system for personal gain.
No E-T-H-I-C-S there.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 6:22 am
I don’t have a problem with patronage “IF” that individual is “AS” qualified as the next guy/gal seeking the job. However, if they are unqualified or if they are not performing up to the standards that we taxpayers deserve, then “get rid of them”.
The one thing that I found when I became a precinct committeeman that was disallusioniing is how many other individuals serve as precinct committee people simply to obtain political government jobs and to have political job security. Patronage is a “way of life” in our Illinois political system both on a state, county, and township level. I didn’t realize that previously.
Comment by Beowulf Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 6:58 am
The problem with patronage is you risk placing people in jobs for which they have no qualifications. Blago has done just that. There has to be a middle ground- the politician can choose, but only if the person has the qualifications required. It’s a noble idea to want to run the state like a business, but not all practices transfer. Ask Bill Holland. There are VERY different rules for running a for-profit business and the state. Patronage employees, just by how they obtained the position, often feel they don’t have to follow the rules- they are protected. Sometimes, and I have seen it under this administration, 2 people have the same title. The in-place employee that actually does the work and the patronage hiree who collects a paycheck for showing up to work, sometimes. Patronage hiring needs a big overhaul.
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 7:18 am
Political patronage for higher level positions is okay and is allowed for under current law. It makes sense for office holders to selected high level management types as they see fit. However, most of the jobs at the federal, state and local level are protected from patronage by civil service laws. This makes sense, most of the government workforce should be made up of nonpartisan workers whose first loyalty is to the public, not an elected leader.
The real issue is not whether the civil service laws need to be tinkered with, rather we need strong enforcement of current anti-patronage laws. Fitzgerald going after Daley’s patronage chief Sorich is a perfect example.
Anything less and you get what has happened for most of Rich Daley’s tenure, a complete subversion of the hiring system to bolster his political fortunes. Guys like Daley, Blago, Ryan, etc. only react to drastic threats such as Fitzgerald when it comes to fighting patronage. In the absence of criminal sanctions, they just throw out a bunch of bs spin, the occassional vow of “I will not tolerate this in my administration” and then continue on without changing a thing.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 7:38 am
I think political patronage is the norm in Illinois - so much that it should probably taught in a political studies class at UIS!
However, I do have a problem with putting people that are not qualified into certain positions. It is a disservice to residents of Illinois.
I have worked for a the 15th and 50th senate district campaigns in the past and I have never asked for a job - I was either volunteering or getting college credit for the learning experience and to at least to provide myself with a tiny historical moment in which I was part of the democratic system in Illinois.
I hate hearing when people volunteer for campaigns thinking they are going to get on a state payroll for their service.
I agree with the first commentor - bring in people to help change a certain policy - and get rid of the status quo ‘upper management’ personnel.
Comment by Marta Elena Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 7:44 am
Most of the do gooders and hand wringers think patronage is terrible. In fact it is no worse than unions.
The trick is for the employers to hold the sponor of the patronage hire accountable. This is a feature not available if the slug on the workforce arrives via a union. Nearly everyone working for government is there because they want to be there. Many also enjoy politics and campaigns. A factoid about 50% of the population does not understand.
Sadly patronage is long gone. Now we have the current system with the added bonus of people like Kent Kanary (who is accountable to no one) huffing and puffing 24/7 and finding corruption lurking behind every corner.
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:24 am
Given the flood of public corruption investigations, indictments, guilty pleas and guilty verdicts coming from 219 S. Dearborn, I’d say most of the huffing and puffing comes from apologists for crime.
Silly Cindi and Kent, they must be hallucinating about the 70+ guilty pleas/guilty verdicts in the Licenses for Bribes scandal, the 30+ guilty pleas in the Hired Truck scandal, the Cari guilty plea, the Tristano guilty plea, etc. I can’t wait to hear the tired excuse of a few bad apples.
Forming and joining a union is a legally protected right. Intentionally disregarding civil service laws, the procurement code and other legal obligations to rewarding your political friends with jobs and contracts solely on the basis of that political friendship is a crime. Yeah, perfectly analogous those two activites.
Lastly, don’t fret about the end of patronage, the Sorich trial will show us all it is alive and well in the City of Chicago. The Daley machine ain’t going to let no stinking civil service laws stop its political hiring of rank and file employees.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:51 am
Call me naive here, but I’m not sure exactly what is considered “political patronage.” I think that most people expect a winning governor, mayor, etc, to fill his administration with like-minded people. And many of these like-minded people were probably extremely involved in his or her campaign. If they weren’t, then how like-minded could they be?
I think it all comes down to trust. Someone who is worthy of governing a state must be trusted to put not just friends in high positions, but friends who have qualifications. Obviously, our leaders have often let us down in that way.
If we severely restrict it, then who would ever want to run for governor if they knew they had to hire all people they don’t know, all people that haven’t been involved in their ascent to office, all people they may not trust?
Perhaps I need to be educated more on this, but that is my take.
Comment by Daniel Darling Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:56 am
Blago says “hey it works for me look how much money I have over my handing out jobs to people who have no idea what planet they are on”.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:58 am
Unfortunately, when patronage is allowed to go unchecked you end up with employees like the former union connected IDOT deputy director who racked up several DUIs and used to brag he got his job because he was childhood friends with the Governor. We taxpayers paid over $100,000 a year for this patronage hack before he got fired. Yes, governors should be allowed to appoint their upper management but their should also be some vetting process to ensure they are qualified for the job. Mid-level management and staff positions should be civil service. Why are we paying for do nothing hacks whose only value is getting votes for their sponsor? They add no value to us taxpayers.
Comment by This is what happens Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:01 am
State jobs in general deserve more scrutiny by Illinois citizens because they are extremely expensive, eating up hundreds of millions of dollars of our money annually, and because many incumbents have minimal qualifications that are far lower than we as citizens deserve. State jobs are more valuable than they used to be because of increased value of pensions, almost-free health care, and the impossibility of firing most state employees after a short probationary period–civil service jobs are lifetime jobs for the most part. With these perks and benefits, we should be able to hire a far more skilled, educated and competitive work force than we now have.
One of the reasons why qualifications for so many jobs are so low is that lower qualifications make it easier for patronage employees to get those jobs without obviously
flouting personnel rules. There is a strong belief in Illinois that while in theory only high-level staff are (legally)exempt from civil service hiring, in reality the current administration is circumventing civil service regs to get a lot of their people permanent government jobs. This needs to be stopped. Citizens deserve a highly qualified, highly skilled work force, period.
Also needed is the elimination of expensive high-level “four year term” positions. These folks make $100k and up, are political appointees, yet
have civil service protection for four years no matter when they are appointed. Some Ryan four-year appointees are still serving today. High level political hires are fine and understandable, but make them serve at the pleasure of the governor and of the
current administration. Don’t give them a four year sinecure on the taxpayer dime, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars each. This type of “civil service” we don’t need.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:02 am
Take away the patronage and you take away about any reason why any competent person would choose to work in government.
Comment by 105th Blues Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:04 am
John “Quarters” Boyle, Angelo Torres, John Briatta, etc. Too bad we didn’t have unregulated patronage to ensure mopes like that never got hired in the first place. I’m sure they were hired solely based on merit, not due to noble and pure patronage considerations.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:13 am
When George Bush took the reigns of Power in Washington, he and his administration fired every single Clinton appointee; Clinton did the same, Bush Sr. did the same, etc., etc. That is how it works. It is absolutely vital to an Administration to do that. Governors are no exception. Their policies must be implimented; therefore, like minded individuals are put in place to effectively “make-it-happen.” Would you want someone in charge of your agency or department that disagrees with your ideas and philosophy? I do not think so. Illinois has a civil service system for entry level positions. After hire, most all employees are in “unions” and have to abide by a “master contract.” Nonetheless, let’s go hypothetical for a seconde, if you are a boss and you have a friend who wants to work with you or for you and that person meets the qualifications for the job. Who are you going to hire, your friend or someone else you don’t know, and thinks “Rush Limbaugh and “W” are the best thing since sliced bread. There is not a problem with patronage as long as the person chosen is equally or more qualified than the person who was not chosen. In Illinois, the Republicans have loaded up state jobs with their people for so long, it is going to take along time to replace them. The main people complaining about state jobs, etc. is the old hacks that are in place that do not like following “Directions and Orders”, ie. policies from Democrats. You know what I say, Too Bad! Oh yeah, another thing, these same folks sit around and complain all day long and brag up their “Republican Homies” and how they can’t wait for the “home team” takes over so they can have their “self-deserved, high-esteem, that has been stolen from them by D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t-s. They do this at work, every day. I hear these fools, and it is sickening. Who cares if the D’s are in power or the R’s. Do your job and STOP complaining. You, Right Wing Republican (nutballs) are not entitled to be in Power. Like I said, I hear these folk every day complaining about this and about that. There is no way in the world I would trust any of them to do the will (impliment) the policies of the current Administration. They do every thing they can to sabotage this Administration and people who support it. I haven’t ever seen the “hate” that these folk spew before now. I am a state worker, highly educated, ex-military, etc. It can be so bad at times that it is embarassing to see grown men and women complain and gossip most of the day every day. This is the Truth.
Comment by TrueBlueandThankful Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:24 am
Like affirmative action should be, as long as they are qualified. But as long as we are in IL, that will never happen. These idiots are too greedy and have their 18 year old son as a building inspector.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:54 am
Rich was right….the Lites are doing most of the blogging today.
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 9:59 am
105th blues… you could not be more wrong. Some of us take our public service VERY seriously. And we’re very insulted by anyone who craps all over the system and violates the public trust. I came to serve, to make things better, and I work very hard at it.
Comment by Dozer Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:10 am
We expect more from governments than we do businesses because we have been told that government can do everything better, cheaper and fairer than businesses. Somehow, someone is going to find the best experts for the best advice, find the sweetest public servants, and take our taxmoney and provide a great service for 100% of all people with no waste. Silly, isn’t it?
We have been told a crock of lies for over 80 years and went from under $400 per year in taxes to all forms of govenment per person to over $10,000. We have been sold a utopian dream that with enough money taken from our neighbor, given to a blue ribbon group of non partisan experts, the result would be a boon for all humankind. We are the dupes for having bought into it.
After a century of government programs designed to end cancer, poverty, turn desert into farmland, provide healthcare to all, cheap energy, we should be laughing when one of our leaders propose a new social program that ensures magic and happiness. We’re the dopes.
No government that ever existed functioned without patronage. No businesses that ever existed functioned without it, and no non-profit either. You might as well dream about flying by waving your arms. Patronage, nepotism, incompetence and dealmaking is how the world works.
The time has come to stop believing the dream of benevolent governments run by saints, and start depending on yourself and friends - because thats what elected officials do, and thats how they got where they are.
You can’t expect perfection from a governor who used nepotism through his father in law for his seat in the General Assembly, the US Congress, and the Governorship. When he claims his virginity, consider it a lie, and vote him out.
Topinka is no better, but at least she respects you enough to tell the ugly truth - you have no friends in politics, just alliances.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:20 am
Why not pay elected officials similar salaries as to what college football coaches or top executives in the private sector are paid? If you are in charge of Illinois’ $53 billion budget like the Governor and legislature, common sense would dicate that pay structure should mirror those running $53 billion dollar companies.
This would have a positive impact in many ways: (a) it would attract the best people for the jobs (similar to the private sector) and (b) would, by using market forces, end most temptations to engage in pay to play because (1) you would have a lot more to lose salary-wise and (2) most likely wouldn’t need the money. Eliminating the financial hardship to serving - in what’s way become much more than a full time job - is the best way, rather than additional regulation, to end the pay to play system.
Here’s a simple proposal: The State should pay the Governor 75% of the salary of the highest paid public university college coach and each legislator should get 50% of the coach’s salary. This structure should be sufficient to mark the salaries to a market value.
We’d also get better football coaches at the U of I….
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:55 am
I’ve never understood how it is so wrong to get a job through one’s work on a campaign or connections with a politician. Those expressing outrage are rarely bothered if my uncle who works at Caterpillar got me a job there. Somehow that’s OK?
I think the real question is where is Mary Lee Leahy’s outrage over what’s going on in this administration? How many 22 year-olds with no experience have been hired at $60K before she gets interested? Like so many other hypocrites, I guess she was only outraged when she wasn’t on the gravy train.
Comment by Lincoln Lounger Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:00 am
“If there’s a job that a Democrat can’t fill, let’s eliminate the job.”
Andrew Jackson
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:10 am
The current rules should be relaxed. I very much agree with Jim Thompson on political patronage. You need to hire people you know and who you trust. There is a problem with some political patronage though. Like, say you are a democrat who works construction… and you also happen to be the leader of a certain county’s democratic organization. Then you are hired into the SOS office as a regional manager. A very inept regional manager who cares more about giving George Ryan hires grief than actually doing a good job for the state of Illinois. So, I guess if you are qualified to the job it is fine. But political patronage for the sake of political patronage should be illegal. If I seem vague or flipflopping, let me give an example: You work in a law office all of your adult life. Then you get elected governor. You need to hire counsel. So, do you go and find an attorney from Springfield that you don’t know? No, you use one of your trusted partners whom you know are qualified. That is good political patronage. Here is bad political patronage. You are a governor and in search of somebody to put on an economic development committee. One of your old friends, who happens to be a janitor with no business experience, mentions that he would like to be on the committee. He isn’t qualified, therefore should not be given this patronage. If though, he wanted a job as a janitor in the capitol building, I think that would be a perfectly acceptable form of patronage.
Comment by Mike Flannery's "what?" Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:11 am
Rep. Yarborough Introduces Impeachment Resolution
If you haven’t already seen it – http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=125&GAID=8&DocTypeID=HJR&LegId=25794&SessionID=50&GA=94
Rep. Karen Yarborough represents a slice of Oak Park and was an attendee at our Oak Park DFA (Democracy for America) Legislative Candidates forum in February. I brought up and we discussed the resolution methodology at our March DFA meeting and one of our attendees (http://provisoprobe.blogspot.com) took it to her and she put it on the floor yesterday.
If you’re not familiar with the background (which you can find out more about at www.impeachpac.org), it seems that Thomas Jefferson, ever concerned about abuses by a too-powerful Executive, wrote rules for the US Senate that were eventually adopted by the US House as the “Jefferson Rulesâ€. Section 603 – again, official House rules – provide that any State legislature can call for the impeachment of the President. That call cannot be vetoed by the Governor but goes to the US House, which under the same rules must immediately cease all other business and take up the inquiry.
Suffice it to say this opens up a whole other kettle of fish here in the Bluest State in the Union. I’m not sure it moves anywhere but the law is the law and if we’re not for that then we should just give Hu Jintao the keys the next time he visits. Bush broke the FISA law, admitted it, then claimed it was OK because he said it was OK, and a Speaker Haster isn’t going to exercise his Constitutional responsibility, so I say thank God Jefferson left us this bit of wisdom, too.
Comment by Eric the Red Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:37 am
Some interesting responses but what about outsourcing and third party contracts for governmental services?
Is that a form of pinstripe patronage?
How is a power washing contract different from hiring some precinct worker as a clerk in an office?
The rules may change but the game remains the same.
Louis G. Atsaves
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:41 am
Every government employment application should be reviewed and signed by the US Attorney. Then they can investigate themselves.
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:53 am
Patronage is fine as long as the person is qualified and politics stays out of day to day operations. It will never go away because someone will always do a favor for some trade off. My brother and I used to work summers at a local lumber yard because our uncle was a cop in town and hiring us helped keep the traffic tickets low for the lumber owner’s trucks. At the same time I do feel sorry for long term state workers who have to deal with some over paid, bozo appointee who doesn’t know the agency’s business jargon and has to be trained (tolerated?) by the people they supervise. I have met several of these Dilberts who feel they have some special knowledge/power because they knocked on doors. Thankfully most of the state people I deal with are pretty decent and are serious about their jobn.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 11:58 am
Time and time again political patronage cases have made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not surprisingly, most of the important cases come from Illinois.
Anyway, the political figure being sued for inappropriate patronage hiring always argues that patronage is a good thing, even for civil service positions (more loyalty, need to have like minded employees, etc.) and thus patronage should be allowed with no restriction. Time and time again the Court clearly and unambiguously rejects the arguments, usually basing the decision on rank and file employees’ first amendment right of free association, meaning the government cannot and should not enforce a particular political association upon rank and file government workers. The court allows patronage for high level positions, but the bulk of slots must remain free of political coercion or favoritism.
Political insiders may view patronage as a far more important right then some provision of the bill of rights, but the courts don’t agree.
Maybe the insiders can start circulating a petition to amend the constitution to allow for unlimited patronage hiring. I mean, that is the pressing issue facing our country, the collapse of government due to the overly tight patronage restrictions. This public corruption stuff is peanuts.
Unleash patronage and let freedom ring!
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:01 pm
Most people here agree that a leader needs people in policy positions in line with their philosophy. The problem is, when as this governor has done, he has top policy level officials with no experience in their field. Then you have to get rid of all the lower level people so the incompetence of the top level officials is not so apparent.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:05 pm
Well said Navin!
Comment by ChicagoCynic Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:08 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with patronage so long as the person is qualified to do the job. If you are elected, you should have the right to bring in qualified people to fill available and/or open jobs.
Comment by THE Hankster Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:29 pm
Navin,
There is no law against patronage hiring. It is not a crime. There are many ways you can break the law when hiring people based on patronage but, on its own, its not criminal.
Comment by Big Mike Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 12:39 pm
Big Mike,
Actually there are laws against patrongage hiring. For example, Illinois has the Personnel Code, 20 ILCS 415. Its purpose is to “establish for the government of the State of Illinois a system of personnel administration under the Governor, based on merit principles and scientific methods.” The Code itself calls for Class A misdemeanors (fine of up to $2,500 and/or jail up to a year) for intentional violations.
Sorich and his colleagues argued that Fitz couldn’t charge them with a crime for intentionally undermining patronage laws and restrictions and tried to have the charges dismissed. Judge Coar disagreed, and now they are going to trial.
Generally, inappropriate patronage hiring will usually be a civil matter, with some monetary damages awarded to a civil service employee who doesn’t “get it” that he is supposed to support the Governor, Mayor, etc. However, when the patronage hiring is the result of a conspiracy to circumvent patronage laws, then felony level criminal sanctions become a real possiblity due to the inevitable lying under oath, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, etc.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 1:20 pm
The Yarborough resolution is a great political stroke by the Democrats. Allows them to talk about Bush and Topinka even more in the same breath, and further helps get the Dem base enthused.
Comment by Goodbye Napoleon Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 1:38 pm
The state has code but not the federal government and they are the ones bringing charges against people. There is the Shackman but I believe the Shackman Decree is a civil matter only in the sense that you cant bring criminal charges against someone specifically for violating the decree.
Comment by Big Mike Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:05 pm
We have been told a crock of lies for over 80 years and went from under $400 per year in taxes to all forms of govenment per person to over $10,000.
VanillaMan, assuming your dollar amounts are correct (source, please?), you still should pay a visit to an inflation calculator.
$1 in 1926 dollars = $11.29 in 2006 dollars
$400 in 1926 dollars = $4,515.25 in 2006 dollars
Given the huge expansion in the federal military and security apparatus since 1926, as well as the establishment of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, modern water supply and sewage/stormwater treatment facilities, food and drug safety, the Interstate Highway System, etc. etc. etc., it doesn’t surprise or bother me that taxes are twice what they were in 1926. Claims that taxes have gone up by a factor of 25 over the last 80 years are hysterical and false. And if you’re suggesting most Americans would choose to return to the standard of living in 1926, you are seriously mistaken.
Comment by truth squad Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:23 pm
The political hiring case in Chicago is such b.s. Maybe the feds should look at their own shop before they try to put guys in jail for hiring people who have an affilation with a politician. Did you know that in order to fill out an application with the U.S. Attorneys Office, you have to provide 3 letters of recommendation? What is the purpose of a letter of recommendation if the recommedation is not considered in hiring? The feds are doing the same thing as Sorich was doing - considering a recommendation of another in the hiring process. How many U.S. Attorneys are friends or relatives of Federal Judges? There are a few. Do you think that relationship was not considered in hiring? How is that any different from what Sorich was doing? Moreover, how do Federal Judges get their jobs. They are annointed by the President. They are not hired on merit. They certainly are not the most qualified lawyers. Maybe the feds should divert the millions of dollars they are wasting on this and spend it on chasing terrorist.
Comment by The Truth Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:33 pm
Big Mike,
In 1883 the U.S. Congress passed the Pendelton Civil Service Reform Act. It established the principle of merit selection for federal employment. The last major revision was the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Sure sounds like a law to me.
In any event, the heart of the case against Sorich is not merely that there was an inadvertent violation of Shakman, rather they are alleging that Sorich and the others conspired to undermine it wholesale, including lying under oath, altering government records and destroying government records, mail fraud, obstructing justice, all of which are illegal under federal law, Illinois law and/or the Chicago Municipal Code.
To the extent there has been an inadvertent violation of Shakman, absent the conspiracy, document destruction, lying and obstruction of justice, etc., it just a civil matter. However, destroying documents, obstructing justice, etc. are still crimes even in the absence of Shakman.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:35 pm
Well said Truth Squad.
Comment by Big Mike Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 2:36 pm
I was waiting for someone to challenge that amount. It is $400 in today’s money. Plus, the costs of modern society you mention undervalues the existing infrastructure that existed pre-1920. Maybe where your family lived in a cave 80 years ago, but the vast majority of Americans had the full modern societal conveniences you described. We’re getting screwed with taxes, but you’re just too comfortable since you don’t get a giant bill annually. Since we pay taxes throughout our day, we are kept from fully understanding how much of our income goes to wasted government programs.
Be an adult and stop being snippy about it. We’re getting gouged with taxes and we should always be alert to the chump social programs we have been snookered into. It’s not being hysterical, it’s understanding basic freedoms and the importance of allowing people the income they earn without burdening them.
Patronage, nepotism, and graft in governments are the ways of the world. If we didn’t sell out of freedoms to lying politicians and bureaucrats promising eternal life, we would have far less government scandal to deal with. It is time we grew up and took responsibility for our own actions, instead of looking to governments for answers. There are never solutions found in government programs, and the whole charade of 20th Century Industrial Thought is obsolete in today’s world.
You are starting to sound French.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:01 pm
Truth,
Mr. Sorich’s attorney’s tried a slightly higher minded argument in their motion to dismiss the charges. Judge Coar threw out their motion and the case is proceeding to trial.
The question is not are these acts a crime? The question is can the feds prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sorich and others committed those acts?
Recommendations are not prohibited. What is prohibited is restricting civil service employment solely on the basis of political activity/affiliation.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states in part “The president shall … nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate … judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.” I don’t see anything in that section about merit selection.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:09 pm
I agree lying ect is a crime, no doubt about that. The interesting question I think this raises is the ability for the government to charge someone with anything while “invetigating” something that is not itself criminal. I can see an interesting argument of entrapment. In any case, its interesting.
Comment by Big Mike Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:14 pm
My state agency is in shambles, thanks to the alien invasion we’ve endured since Hairdo took office. We’ve even got the former limo driver to an alderman acting as CFO. Yes, one might expect some degree of patronage in state government, but this has been unreal.
Comment by riot queen Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:17 pm
VanillaMan:
Are you joking or are you really trying to argue that we had the same quality of life and government servies that we had 80 years ago? I mean I guess you are right, we had a vast interstate system, social security, water and sewage systems throughout the nation…oh wait, we had NONE of those things.
Moving on, I guess it may be cheaper to not have social security, medicare, medicaid, ect? We could just let the people who cant afford healthcare be sick and die. Seems like a great country you want for yourself. Oh, and by the way, not that you should know this, but we are one of the lowest taxed developed nations in the world.
Comment by Jimbo Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:27 pm
Big Mike,
The feds allege that that fraudulent hiring scheme goes back to at least 1993. Hard to argue entrapment when the illegal conduct started years before any investigation by the feds began.
Maybe, just maybe, there really are crimes being committed in City Hall. I thought the Licenses for Bribes investigation and the resulting guilty pleas/convictions would put to rest the view that corruption isn’t all that widespread, but from the postings on this thread it looks like that is not the case.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:44 pm
Navin,
Maybe I am wrong but it seems many of these people are being brought up on charges directly related to their interviews with the feds (obstruction, ect). What I am saying is that if the charges were a result of the government going after them on Shackman then you must at least look at the question of entrapment. I hope it ends up that way because I would like to see how they rule.
Comment by Big Mike Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 3:56 pm
This current administration is making a mockery of the civil service and Rutan court decision. Positions that are borderline clerical in nature are being made Rutan exempted and filled with political friends. You simply have to include reference in the job description that the position may be exposed to confidential information or is a public spokesperson. The fact that true spokepersons have all be reassigned to CMS or that true confidential information of a political nature is rarely released outside of an extremely small circle seems irrelevant. The Civil Service Commission is charged with assuring that these positions are properly classified. Unfortunately it appears that the present reality is that the commission rubber stamps anything approved by the Governor’s Office.
It appears to me that the need exists for checks and balances to assure that only those true upper level policy making positions receive the Rutan exempted status. It further appears that the Civil Service Commission has been too politicized to perform this function. I encourage the establishment of some kind of non-partisan committee to review the determination of Rutan exempted positions.
While I do not really have an overall issue with patronage, provided the employee is qualified, I question the long term impact of the state’s workforce when patronage is used for termination as well as hiring. I fear that the anger being generated by many of the Governor’s personnel decisions will result in retaliation upon the next administration change. It is my belief that competent, hard working employees should be retained within the state regardless of their political beliefs, provided they are not obstructionists to the implementation of policy estblished by the Governor. It seems foolish to set up a system in which anybody quasi-associated with the Governor will either be released or “re-organized” when parties change again simply because the posiitions and hiring were initially established as a sham.
Comment by Swami Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:14 pm
My chief insight is that until we agree on objective standards for determining who is more and less qualified for a job, it’s almost impossible to due away with patronage.
If the employer can identify a wide field of candidates that are theoretically qualified for a position then the employer gets to pick the person he likes.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:18 pm
Patronage gets a bad name from those who don’t understand it and those who abuse it.
The worst abuse by government is those employees who “go along to get along” because they’re safely covered by civil service and basically accountable to no one. That creates situations of non-responsive governement and just plain crabby and unconcerned employees. That bothers me a hell of a lot more than patronage.
I like the idea of employees having some loyalty to their employer. What’s wrong though is when someone is hired without being qualified for the job or when they take their loyalty to their patron too far and ignore violations of the law. The last bit (ignoring violations of the law) occurs in every hiring scheme, not just patronage.
The fact that a qualified person who does a good job is hired from within a patronage system should never be a crime - despite the fact that some would make it exactly that. Instead, those who abuse the system and put unqualified people into positions and those who fail to perform their job with due dilegence should be held accountable.
Every system will have failures and abuse. I prefer those of the patronage system to the civil service system.
Comment by Lt. Guv Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:20 pm
Jobs that are politically specific, such as working for a Congressman or (directly) working for the Governor, should be based on party affiliation. After all, hiring a liberal college grad to staff a conservative Senator is a bad idea. But jobs such as Secretary of State license clerk, prison guard, DCFS caseworker or IDOT road crewman should be open to everyone. The fact that patronage is involved in those jobs does, in my opinion, contribute to the lacksidaisical (sp?), arrogant attitude that many bureaucrats and government workers have. Why should a 20 year old kid have to be so-and-so’s son to get a job with a road crew? Why should you have to be a Democratic precinct committeeman have to get a job with Jesse White’s office? It’s maddening. It’s also frustrating that you can’t fire a bureaucrat for poor performance, but that’s another discussion for another day.
In all honesty, patronage hiring is unfair. We the taxpaying public pay into a corrupt government and then most of us (or our friends and family members) have no chance at getting those state jobs. So not only do we get poor service, we also have no hope of landing a cushy gig with decent pay and incredible insurance. There are reasons why the populous dislikes its government, and this is one of those reasons.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:39 pm
Big Mike,
The feds have alleged Sorich & co. were conspiring and acting to undermine Shakman beginning at least in 1993, years before any questions were asked by the feds.
In order the implement their conspiracy to undermine Shakman, they undertook certain actions, such as altering official government records which is specificially forbidden under the City Code and every public official’s favorite felony, mail fraud (depriving the pubic of their intagible right to honest and faithful services). The conspiracy and the actions to implement and cover it up are crimes.
I’d find it pretty odd that if someone sets up an illegal scheme, engages in the scheme for years, and the feds subsequently uncover the scheme set up by the defendants then it is entrapment on the part of the feds.
Now, you may be of the view that the intentional and elaborate scheme to evade Shakman is not illegal in a criminal sense. I’d simply point out that Judge Coar threw out Sorich’s motion to dismiss the charges despite his argument that no criminal acts occurred. Coar found that if Sorich and the others are shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have engaged in the conduct they are accused of, then they committed crimes.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:41 pm
Hey, Lt. Guv, I have voted R in the last four primaries and graduated college with honors. For some reason, Blago won’t give me a job. I must be unqualified to sit behind a desk, answer phones and open mail.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:43 pm
Lt. Guv 4:20 p.m.,
You must be the 1983-1991 Lt. Govenor, not the current one.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 4:44 pm
I have to disagree with Lt. Guv. Myself and many other State employees were hired under civil service rules, which included various tests and even background checks to obtain our positions. Most of us try to work hard to keep a good reputation. The problem begins when an administration (Blago’s not the only one) hires unqualified patronage supervisors, who don’t have a clue what they’re doing. It makes those who have actually passed the tests and gone up the ranks feel resentful, as we see the bloated waste of money. In over 20 years of State employment, I have seen abundantly more failures and abuse of the patronage system than in the civil service system. Patronage has its place, but not as often as the politicos would like to have it.
Comment by Walking Wounded Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 5:14 pm
I have always argued that patronage is a good thing, it helps promote folks to get involved in the political system, if you want to become a political hack get involved and pick a winner!
In Illinois an informed voter knows that when they vote for a candidate for Gov., Co. Chairman, SOS or other “leader” type position they are also voting in this persons group of patronage friends.
As a D I felt this way under the Thompson, Edgar and Ryan administrations the Blago administration was at a huge disavantage since it had been so long since a D had been Gov. they had no experienced pool of state workers to choose from to place in the Rutan exempt positions, this came about because there were few D’s hired for 26 years. Of course that makes the arguement that it is a good idea to change party’s in control every 12 years or so.
Comment by mmph Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:14 pm
Mmph,
Some degree of patronage is allowed at the federal, state and local level. Usually, the top management positions are explicitly exempt from patronage restrictions.
I don’t think most registered voters in Illinois approve of the “vote for the leaders, vote for the patronage army” scenario you describe. Rather, they resign themselves to the “fact” that unseemly patronage is fundamental to Illinois politics. Not a ringing endorsement, rather a disprited acceptance of status quo.
Maybe if Daley, Stroger, Blagojevich et al. join the ranks with George Ryan the scales will be lifted from the voters eyes and they realize that a better, not perfect, but better future is actually obtainable.
Or, we can keep Pat Fitzgerald and Pat Collins busy for the forseeable future.
Comment by Navin Johnson Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 8:56 pm
I was hired for a state position because I passed the tests, I have a good deal of education and I can handle just about any job given to me. I try to do the best job I can every time. But I’m not getting ahead because there is no place to promote into. The higher positions are held by political friends of the governor who are inexperienced with state government rules and regulations and who have to be trained by their own staff. My agency is divided into two distinct camps. Those, like myself, who try to do their best and those who were hired through the political patronage system in both the Republican and Democratic camps and who don’t feel the need to work. I see people who take days off each week, spend most of their time, when there, in the smoking lounge and who “disappear” for part of the day. But when there is a supervisor around, they whine and moan about how over-worked they are and the supervisors sometimes even help them with their work, most of which the real workers in the place could do in an hour. Add to that the fact that we must worry about the pension money being there when we retire and that we are falling behind monetarily. This is just the reverse of what we should be doing as we near retirement and it all makes for a very disheartening work life.
Comment by Disgusted Friday, Apr 21, 06 @ 10:07 pm
True be told, most state of Illinois workers couldn’t get a job at their salaries and work level anywhere else in the private sector. That’s why these jobs are so coveted…they are mostly gravy. A huge overhaul needs to be done, but the Blago Bunch is not the group to do so. They have made an even bigger mess of a rotten system. Patronage sucks when it elevates the mediocre to important positions for which they are imminently unqualified. These people have distorted visions of themselves and the world. If the people of Illinois only knew how bad it was, there would be revolts in the streets. Illinois is a sinking ship on so many levels. A broken system has only been worsened by the goofs in power now. Go Fitzgerald go! Dig deeper!
Comment by Criminal Enterprise Called Illinois Saturday, Apr 22, 06 @ 2:16 am
Another myth with the above poster. There were plenty of experienced Dems who knew state government who this administration could have hired. Sadly, Blago went with people from New York and Washington who had no clue about Illinois government.
Comment by Minion Saturday, Apr 22, 06 @ 3:06 pm
For the Minion: What you say is true, but does not contradict what I said. Yes, the Blago Bunch brought in out-of-state Keystone Cops. I know from whence I speak. If you did, you’d understand my post. Trust me…its worse than you know.
Comment by Criminal Enterprise Called Illinois Thursday, Apr 27, 06 @ 1:45 am