Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

Alex Clifford is interested in rejoining Metra as CEO and would be willing to reopen his controversial separation deal to be rehired — under certain circumstances, Clifford’s lawyer said Wednesday.

But the attorney, Michael Shakman, contended that Metra officials can’t unilaterally “undo” Clifford’s 26-month farewell handshake or try to tap a $10 million insurance policy to cover some of the maximum $871,000 settlement tab, as some officials have suggested.

“If they want to reduce their obligation, Mr. Clifford is willing to talk about a new employment agreement extending some years into the future,’’ said Shakman, known best to some as the original plaintiff in a landmark City Hall hiring and firing case.

Shakman commented Wednesday after members of the RTA board, which oversees Metra’s finances, heard the initial results of an RTA audit into the Clifford deal and approved a resolution declaring it “not financially prudent.’’

The resolution also urged Metra to conduct “a thorough examination of its insurance policy’’ to see if a claim could still be filed.

* Daily Herald…

Metra has no basis for canceling the agreement given it was made by a government body that had the proper authority to enter into such an agreement, Shakman said. He added that if Metra stopped payments, it would have to go to arbitration, and if the agency lost it would mean paying more legal fees.

Moreover, Shakman thinks the agency’s insurance policy would not cover Metra over a breach of contract dispute.

* The Question: Should Metra reinstate Alex Clifford with a multi-year employment agreement? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

survey services

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:32 am

Comments

13 votes but no comments. What cojones this guy has. I can not possibly see a healthy working relationship with this person - too much has happened or been said. On both sides. Cut your losses.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:39 am
I voted no, I think with all of the controversy over this that it’s time to start anew. Given all of the new Metra Board appointments coming, the newly constituted board ought to take its time and conduct a thorough search for the best director available.

It’s time to turn the page. I don’t think re-hiring Clifford lets the new board move forward and it really needs to.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:39 am
walk away. its done. start fresh instead of picking at this scab

Comment by Todd Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:42 am
So Shakman has now taken center stage in the Metra scandal, in the place of his client.

Clifford has been pushed deep into an old Illinois political battle, from many directions, about which he is mostly clueless.

He thinks he can just get his old job back, and renegotiate a potential severance that is easier to defend?

Where’s he from? California?

Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:43 am
LOL, no, I think the Clifford train has left the station. And a bunch of board members were lying on the tracks.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:45 am
DD, we usually get between 10-15 votes per explanatory comment here.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:46 am
No. Da noive of dis guy.

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:47 am
No. He thought he was doing a great job. Clearly the board thought otherwise. Stupidity of his departure deal aside, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Also, the naivete of this guy is pretty stunning. I think I’ve seen enough.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:52 am
No. What’s done is done.

And if they do, it should only be done after any remaining board members have also resigned or moved on and a thorough postmortem completed.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:53 am
===Also, the naivete of this guy is pretty stunning===

Maybe it’s naivete, or maybe he figures he already took Metra for $800K, why not try for more? If history is any guide, Metra’s an easy mark.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:54 am
That ship has sailed. He held up Metra for $800k in exchange for keeping quiet. Um, he may not be the worst one here among a bunch of bad guys, but that doesn’t mean he’s clean.

Time to start over.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:58 am
True 47th ward. The naivete I was referring to was the whole “I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say, to find out there is politics involved at Metra!” thing.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:59 am
Wow, who is shaking down whom now ?

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:01 pm
“in exchange for keeping quiet” - if this is silence, I’d like to see what it looks like if he talks.

I vote no.

Comment by siriusly Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:02 pm
NO. I’m offering an explanation only because it was asked for. Not sure it’s even needed. This guy had different currencies of leverage, but chose the one that fattened his back pocket. See ya.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:09 pm
It would be interesting to see what Clifford could do , but the relationship between the Board and president would remain contaminated.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Yes. If anything, he can be more effective if they think they can’t strong arm him. It doesn’t matter if it’s a new board if the same rules apply–which are that some people are more special than others. Everyone will be extra careful trying to influence his management of Metra personnel. It’s the perfect time and environment to hop back on the train. The only ones scrambling to keep him out are the same ones who wanted him out in the first place — and for the wrong reasons, to boot.

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:36 pm
Why would he want to come back? To get a better deal the next time he leaves?

Comment by Anon. Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:38 pm
No, I don’t believe he should go back to Metra. From the Mass Transit hearing in Chicago, it is rather clear there are some rather irate members of the General Assembly over the secrecy of his severence pay and some of the allegations he declared in the April memo.

Why would he go back to a public entity which apparently has some strained relationships with General Assembly?

Time to move on Clifford…..

Comment by Transportation GOO - GOO Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:43 pm
What a great way to come back, Anon and Transportation. Strained relations with the GA? Who better to come back after it’s been disclosed (by the GA) that he was only trying to do the right thing (in the eyes of the Franks’ committee)? You (as Clifford) were front and center trying to do the right thing, got ousted, and now everyone will be watching with a huge microscope, which only strengthens your hand if you’re really an apolitical administrator trying to do a good job. What better way to come riding back in? The GA’s issue was with the Board, not Clifford, right?

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:48 pm
Unless, of course, you’re in a top state transportation position right now looking to snag the Clifford job under a new Metra board. Hmm.

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Yes
This is totally selfish. I don’t want this story to end — it is too interesting.
Realistically–it’s NO. It’s toxic relationship that cannot be repaired. I wish the “clean-up” will take permanently though.

Comment by Belle Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:55 pm
The well seems a bit poisoned. Also not sure his hands are entirely clean — leveraging an $800,000 severance on the way out the door doesn’t entirely reflect an unwavering commitment to good governance.

Comment by davidh Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm
Nope…everyone should be swept away including Clifford. Clifford has unclean hands in this.
Sayonara…enjoy your $800K.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:06 pm
I am not trying to keep the story going, either, Belle (though it is juicy as Il politics go). But, again, how is the relationship between Clifford and the GA toxic? He didn’t want to leave and the board made it clear they wanted him gone, so he took his pound of flesh. I guess you could say he welched on his nondisclosure, but I genuinely believe the guy wanted to stay and do a good job. The only well that is poisoned is for the people who expect the head of Metra to be accountable to the “special” people out there, instead of the taxpayers.

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:08 pm
I think with this ploy, Clifford is trying “not to get hired” for the remainder of his buyout deal window so he can collect the full amount.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Jake, et al. So, Clifford had a contract and they didn’t want him there because he refused a favor(s) they thought he should have granted. He said, “Fine. Pay me then.” How does that dirty him up? He should have gone quietly into that good night?

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:11 pm
Hat Trick,

He told the board “give me a contract extension or I’m going to talk.” They instead gave him hush money in exchange for his silence. When it went bad, the GA and RTA made Metra waive the secrecy provisions. How does that not make him somewhat dirty?

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:27 pm
Hat Trick, I find your argument thought provoking, but I still fall back to ‘No’. Before the board/severance issues arose, Clifford was still a guy who doesn’t seem equipped to navigate government. He may know something about trains, but that’s just the minimum for a transit system which effects so many lives and communities. As it was in the past, trains are the future economically for the region.

Comment by WestSider Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Let’s just say that there is a significant likelihood that Clifford would find his working conditions to be less than ideal should he be allowed to return to METRA. His ability to lead that agency has been forever compromised.

This is all just a red herring, no?
They are not going to rehire this guy, right?

Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:40 pm
I’m trying to remember, here, CC. Clifford refused some favors. The board members said “Whoa, dude, you don’t say No to these people. You will cost us money. You better move on.” (Or, as some on here are saying, oddly, ‘you poisoned the well.’) Clifford says, “Wait a minute. I have a deal. If you want business as usual, I’ll get out but you have to pay me.” How does Clifford getting as much money as possible and not just quietly stepping aside make him a bad actor here? He is there to make money and run this obviously political behemoth like a business, right? I guess the fact that he squealed might leave a bad taste on some tongues, but not with the people who think Metra needed someone like Clifford to stand up long ago. I’ll let it go CC and WestSider, but in my long observation of these machinations, I imagine there are a lot of well-heeled people who want this to go away and have everything quietly, ever so quietly, ever so very quietly, ever so quietly that you wouldn’t even notice the change in hue, quietly go away.

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:40 pm
Yes I believe the guy has some talent. Instead of just paying him a glob of money and, walk let him work it off.
If most of the no voters had to reach in their own pocket to pay this guy it would be a landslide for the YES’S.

Pretty easy to spend money that’s not yours.

Comment by Mokenavince Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:33 pm
Yeah, talent at doing what - browbeating a weak board into paying a triple severance package? How does one word that on a job description or CV?

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:53 pm
No, it is time to move on. The board severed their relationship with the man. The problem is the severance package which is way too much. But, that board cannot walk it back now. Time for new leadership and a new board.

Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:11 pm
At this keeps MJM out the news cycle.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:20 pm
I voted no. Could the remaining Metra Board really trust this guy at this point? I wouldn’t think so. Is it worth making a decision based on money and expediency in settling this particularly troublesome situation? I wouldn’t think so based on where it has gotten Metra so far. In this case, I think that ethical and moral considerations “trump” financial considerations since the other party in question lacks (or seems to lack) a moral code and credibility. It now becomes a matter of whether it is ethically right or wrong in the eyes of the voters of Illinois. Damn the cost, this guy seems to want to rub the Illinois taxpayer’s nose in it. As far as the taxpayers see it,Clifford’s well has suddenly run dry.

Comment by A Casual Observer Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:40 pm
Can’t resist one last time. DD, browbeating them? ACO, trust him? Trust him to do what? Run the agency without kowtowing to every legislator who steps up and threatens your funding everytime they want something or someone “taken care of?”

You know what, they could have whacked his a*s if they thought they were in the right, right? Then he could have made his case to the public that he thought he did the right thing (by refusing to give the raise and hire the recommended hires) and the board could have made their case that the guy just didn’t understand how state government was supposed to work. Then let the taxpayers, the GA, the IG, the feds and the media fight over who was right. They are anyway.

Comment by Hat Trick Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 3:46 pm
He wants the job back? Was this the guy on TLC the other night?

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:36 pm
NO. NO. NO. - Can’t be trusted. He has shown his true mettle. He placed his silence for hush money above the transparency his position requires.

Tell him: “You’ll get nothing and LIKE it!”

Comment by Judge Smails Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 4:40 pm
voted yes then have a bipartisan committee with legislative oversight investigate ALL members and how they got appointed and what backrounds make them “experts” in transportation issues….then blow the whole mess up top to bottom…hey maybe they can “pick” where they want to serve time too? !!

Comment by railrat Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:03 pm
I have no interest in unwinding whatever is going on at that agency, but you don’t re-hire someone you fire. Never a good idea, never will be.

Comment by Will Caskey Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 5:23 pm
Not in a million years. The entire board needs to be scrubbed and started over.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 6:32 pm
No. No way. Too much has happened since he left–for one, he happily kissed all the customers of Metra and the taxpayers good-bye–whining all the way out the door when under his watch MANY problems remained unresolved–and that original golden parachute he had in place was outrageously high. Nope–like the Bears, it’s high time for a fresh start to the CEO’s slot and across the Board. Thanks, but NO thanks…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 7:02 pm
No. Truly shocking that 25% say yes. Agreed, the most powerful politician in IL should not be asking for favors from an agency where he has a great deal of say over the funding, but rehiring the guy who basically blackmailed his bosses to keep his job? Who’d want to serve on that board?

Comment by Truth teller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 8:21 pm