Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Feds won’t call Whitaker to the stand
Next Post: Question of the day - Golden Horseshoe Awards
Posted in:
* Shia Kappos at Crain’s…
Diana Rauner’s Ounce of Prevention, which advocates for and funds early childhood education programs, received $14.2 million in state funding in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 28 percent of its $50.0 million budget.
Ethics experts say her dual role creates questions about whether the Rauner administration can impartially supervise existing grants or approve new funding for an organization run by the governor’s wife.
“It’s going to appear that it’s doing well because she’s pulling strings,” says Patricia Werhane, Wicklander chair of business ethics at DePaul University. “She should give up that position.”
Donations to Ounce potentially become a way for lobbyists and vendors to influence the Rauner administration, says Melanie Sloan, executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, in Washington, D.C. “Ounce of Prevention will suddenly be deluged with contributions,” she says.
But the concerns aren’t a reason for Diana Rauner to step down from her unpaid position, according to Ounce spokeswoman Megan Meyer. “There are no ethical issues,” she says, adding that the organization is taking some steps to limit the appearance of a conflict. Meyer says other staff members will lobby legislators on funding issues, although their supervisors will report to Diana Rauner, who reports to the board.
Not all “ethics experts” agree, however. The story quotes Susan Garrett of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform as saying it’s not a big deal as long as there is a firewall. And the Rauner transition team released a response…
The Rauner administration will ensure that the Ounce will receive no special treatment from state agencies and will, as it has for years, compete for grant funds and state contracts on the same fair and evenhanded basis as other valued social service organizations
* Personally, I side with Garrett on this one. Also, I think Diana Rauner has done a tremendous job over at Ounce of Prevention and believe she’d be a moderating influence on her husband if he follows advice from his goofy, hard-right “budget consultant.”
But, as the story points out, the Rauner campaign objected strongly when former Sun-Times reporter Dave McKinney set up an even stronger firewall with his wife, a Democratic political consultant. Those strong objections led to McKinney’s suspension and ultimate resignation.
So, reluctantly, I gotta say: What’s good the for the goose…
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Feds won’t call Whitaker to the stand
Next Post: Question of the day - Golden Horseshoe Awards
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Oh well that’s totally different. McKinney was using WORDS. And the Rauner’s are dealing with actual money here. Clearly this is not the same thing.
Comment by Siriusly Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:09 pm
===“Ounce of Prevention will suddenly be deluged with contributions,” she says.====
Is this a bad thing? I guess it could be perceived that way. But if its a worthy program then personally I don’t care. Much like the After School Matters organization set up by Maggie Daley. Obviously every corporate type donated big time but it is great program serving a definite need.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:14 pm
No one should be put in this position by “experts” on “appearances of impropriety”. The non-profit sector needs strong leaders,it’s an arena with far less of a glass ceiling than many others, and she has clearly proved her worth. Perhaps they should separate for 4 years: would that calm down the henny-penny crowd?
If she or the organization or the Governor start to face real conflicts, they will recognize them (and they’ll have plenty of nothing else to do critics helping them watch)and can deal with them then. Much ado about nothing.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:14 pm
Just asking for trouble. How can anyone that does business with the state contribute to Ounce without it looking hinky?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:15 pm
Perhaps Ounce could solve that by not releasing the names of their contributors (if they currently do)
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:18 pm
I think Garrett’s right on this one too. That being said, if it’s going to be a huge distraction, that’s probably much worse than any perceived conflict. This whole thing has been a lot more transparent and out in the open than the McKinney situation. If the need for a “firewall” even exists, part of that firewall is that every person who’s even paying a little bit of attention should be privy to the details of the situation and the conditions of the “firewall”.
The story about Ounce of Prevention has been out there. There’s already the condition of “no salary” voluntarily put in place. It seems that there is no “here’s the rest of the story” out there. Someone say if there is.
McKinley could’ve/should’ve been handled differently by all parties concerned (including him) It’s hard for me to draw a straight line from one to the other here. But the fact that there even is a comparison out there now might make it more practical to make a different arrangement.
So I assume we’ll see the same with the Illinois Arts Council. Yeah, sure we will.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:21 pm
100% with Schnorf on this.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:23 pm
If you want to be the governor of Illinois, you need to be cognizant of what Illinoisans have gone through regarding ethics in the governor’s office.
So this isn’t just another case of a governor’s wife surrounding herself with ethical firewalls, etc. It is about being governor of Illinois, a state that has locked up more of its political leaders than a Caribbean island nation.
Right now, we don’t need this crap. Maybe a decade or so from now, if we don’t get more jailed governors and politicians, we can perhaps revisit these kinds of issues and deal with them in a manner similar to other states.
Not now.
The Rauner administration has to shake up Springfield by showing that it recognizes the problems we’ve seen coming from Springfield and Chicago. The incoming administration needs to shake itself up first. It has to prove itself different from the previous three administrations.
After Ryan, we supposedly got a white knight from the other party who would clean up the corruption in state government. What we got was worse than Ryan. So we’ve fallen prey to the white knight from the other party gimmick before.
We should have no reason to be embarrassed about our caution on these issues. If Bruce Rauner wants us to relax about him in the governor’s office, then he should respect us enough to avoid anything that could smack of impropriety.
Just like everything else he bought into by becoming governor - these ethical needs are a part of it too.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:25 pm
Mr. Rauner could just cut off all state money to Ounce, and replace it out of his own pocket.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:26 pm
There are two potential problems here.
One is that the State Government could make skewed decisions with grants in favor of Ounce. Susan Garrett is right that a good “fire wall” can work to prevent that.
The second is that lobbyists and other political interests will donate to Ounce primarily to gain influence with the Governor himself. That is very hard to track, and very hard to control. But it is a fairly common problem in government, because lobbyists have so much money to waste. We have to assume that the donations will have no such impact across family connections. There is no fire wall, but personal ethics. Justice Thomas and wife, and the Durbins, come to mind off the top.
You’ve got to trust somebody sometime, and allow them, including Diana Rauner, to work at what they do well.
No need to go the retribution route, based on the ugly, and career-changing attacks on the McKinneys by the Rauner campaign.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:28 pm
An other program to cut entirely in this new age of austerity. use the money for K-12.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:32 pm
Steve, that would be much worse, for all involved. Secret contributions to the governor’s wife’s charity? What could possibly be dodgy about that, lol?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:34 pm
==An other program to cut entirely in this new age of austerity==
Spoken by somebody who doesn’t have a clue what the Ounce does.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:36 pm
Diana’s gotta resign. She can still advocate for the organization as the Governor’s wife.
She can still raise funds, and perhaps provide advice, to whoever can take over running the place.
It’s merely a conceit to claim that no one else can do the job as well.
I remember Blago looking for cushy six figure non-profit board positions for his wife in return for political favors, and I’m sure Rauner doesn’t need that kind of stench attached to him.
Of course hizzoner richard m. daley played this game like a pro. He and the council put a “community” donation requirement into city and CPS contracts, the costs of which that were, of course, passed along to the taxpayers.
Guess where the contractors “favorite” charity turned out to be? Yep. The one Hizzoners wife ran.
Did the organization do good work? I believe so. Did the Daley’s personally profit from this while he was in office? Probably not. But you really can’t start a “reform” administration with something that doesn’t look so square like this.
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:40 pm
I don’t have a problem with Mrs. Rauner continuing in her role with the Ounce of Prevention.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:44 pm
Have to agree w/ Rich. If Brucie hadn’t sent the standard w/ McKinney, it wouldn’t be an issue. On the other hand, what’s one more example of hypocrisy?
Comment by D.P.Gumby Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:51 pm
I agree with you Rich. Bruce complained about McKinney. He needs to build an even stronger firewall. Hopefully Bruce N Stacy learned something about ethics while they ran their laundromats.
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 12:54 pm
It’s best that Ms. Rauner give up the position. For once I agree with VanillaMan - Illinois has enough State government and political ethics problems, and we don’t need this sort of thing going on, no matter how many firewalls are set up.
Ms. Rauner can actually do so much more good as First Lady of Illinois by modeling herself after more broadly activist FLOTUSes. Instead of focusing on one small charity, she could take her message to the entire state and advocate for all sorts of early childhood programs. She has the opportunity to seize the attention of a much wider audience than she ever has before, and it would be a shame if she forewent that in favor of ONE charity.
Comment by PolPal56 Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:15 pm
I’m interested in seeing how early childhood…a sizeable chunk of discretionary spending in the budget…fares under Gov. Rauner. It’s got got broad, bi-partisan support, and is a pet issue of Mrs. Rauner. Should be interesting to watch.
Comment by Old Shepherd Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:44 pm
I disagree with those advocating that Mrs. Rauner give up give post at Ounce of Prevention. As a matter of fact, I strongly advocate for her to keep her current post. As Rich mentioned, Diana has done a tremendous job working on behalf of this organization and doesn’t accept a paycheck for it. In my opinion there is too much paranoia (oftentimes provoked by the BGA and “good government” groups) that involves everyone being considered corrupt.
I also do not think that the McKinney issue is relevant. This isn’t just about Bruce - this is about Diana as well. Should she be forced to give up something she cares deeply about, a good cause that most can agree would contribute to a better society, because of her husband’s politics?
Even more, there are plenty of couples in Illinois that are involved in Illinois politics and government in some way. Many couples met by way of their involvement in Illinois politics and government. In many cases, both individuals have established outstanding reputations in their own right. Why should one of those individuals be forced to give up something they love because of the simple perception that their spouse’s new position COULD lead to wrongdoing. Im not saying that protections shouldnt be put into place to prevent conflicts - I agree that they should. I just saying that rather than ending someone’s career, we should at least have a factual basis for wrongdoing before we do it.
I leave you with a little food for thought - For those of you that still think that Diana give up her post - why shouldn’t Bruce have to give up his post instead? As a Democrat, I would find that far less objectionable, and, after all, she had her spot first.
Comment by Hacksaw Jim Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:46 pm
“This whole thing has been a lot more transparent and out in the open than the McKinney situation.”
That’s just a falsehood.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:50 pm
===I also do not think that the McKinney issue is relevant. This isn’t just about Bruce - this is about Diana as well. Should she be forced to give up something she cares deeply about===
Totally, absolutely wrong.
McKinney’s wife gave up a lot in their arrangement.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:53 pm
Chinese Wall - How do you set up a Chinese Wall for the President of an organization? Will she now only be responsible for running 3/4 of Ounce, and the 1/4 funded by the state will be run by someone else.
Lack of Financial Benefit - Because she is wealthy enough to not take a salary, does that mean that all ethic rules do not apply? Could she volunteer as a Springfield lobbyist? Should he appoint her as the unpaid head of DCFS or ISBE?
If she keeps the job, they will both come across as a bit tone deaf. She can find another job in 4 or 8 years.
Comment by Urban Girl Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:57 pm
=== Totally, absolutely wrong.
McKinney’s wife gave up a lot in their arrangement. ===
Not saying she didn’t. But McKinney’s wife didnt face public calls to completely give up her position either. Like I said, I’m all for safeguards being put in place to prevent conflicts, but to say that she has to completely give up her position is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Comment by Hacksaw Jim Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 1:59 pm
===But McKinney’s wife didnt face public calls to completely give up her position either===
Rauner’s campaign demanded just such an outcome.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:10 pm
How can this NOT be a conflict? Just like Maggie Daley and ASM–shows how much we have lowered our standards to rationalize that our betters aren’t taking advantage so somehow we don’t have to concern our poor little heads.
Comment by Harry Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:10 pm
Agree with Wordslinger, asking for trouble, why even risk it?
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:11 pm
Couple points;
Hiding the names of the donors going forward will only fuel the speculation that by aiding Mrs. Rauner in the dark, you can get benefits from the Governor. More transparency, not less.
===McKinley could’ve/should’ve been handled differently by all parties concerned (including him) It’s hard for me to draw a straight line from one to the other here.===
McKinney set up an acceptable firewall until Rauner felt it wasn’t acceptable and the owner of the paper, who has a conflict with Rauner, leveraged McKinney to appease his pal Rauner, AND…McKinney’s boss caved on his own integrity.
Where this intersects, the influence, real or otherwise, that donors hope to have by writing checks, is influencing through a spouse, alleged by Rauner about McKinney in that situation, and in this situation, a spouse’s company’s gains could lead to bigger state business gains or policy influences.
Rauner made it about spouses dictating work decisions by their own business interests.
Mrs. Rauner’s new role as First Lady of Illinois could do far more good for far more people than running an extremely successful non-profit, if she wanted that role. Think about how tirelessly she can advocate for so many people with her position than working for one group as CEO.
Let’s be clear about Rauner, his wife, their family;
There are two sets of rules they have lived their life by, Rauner abd his wife can do whatever they want no matter who they step over, and if others have a conflict, that should be stopped, unless they donate millions to wipe away their sins.
Personal ethics in real world situations is a personal failing of the Rauner family.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:14 pm
@Demoralized,
“Spoken by somebody who doesn’t have a clue what the Ounce does.”
You seem to just love to be snarky, don’t you.
I am certainly aware of this program. It is a variant of programs that started over 30 years ago much of it in universities under the “0-3″ program.
It is not a bad program but its long term outcome (like Headstart) has many intelligent and thoughtful critics.
In any case there is limited amount of funding, k-12 is going to take a hit, and that is where I believe the money should go.
Get off your high horse and realize that others may have thoughtful opinions. As I have demonstrated to you before.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:14 pm
I agree OW.
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:37 pm
I think the right thing to do here is for Bruce to resign his position. By all accounts, Diana is very good at her job, so she shouldn’t be forced out because of her husband’s new job.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:41 pm
@Federalist:
Only pointing out the obvious. Own it or don’t. I don’t care.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:44 pm
===But McKinney’s wife didnt face public calls to completely give up her position either===
***Rauner’s campaign demanded just such an outcome.***
Well that is just as wrong then. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Comment by Hacksaw Jim Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 2:50 pm
Are we resurrecting old wounds here? The comparison of the McKinney controversy to the Rauner’s purported conflict of interest is misleading and unfounded. Yes, the Rauners should absolutely be held to the highest ethical standards and serve as role models for State workers. Moving on, there is no story here…
Comment by Black Ivy Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:07 pm
BI — “old wounds”? still feels pretty fresh to me…
Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:15 pm
===comparison of the McKinney controversy to the Rauner’s purported conflict of interest is misleading and unfounded===
Why? It looks perfectly founded to my eyes. You complain about something during the campaign and then do the exact same thing after the election? Sorry, that won’t wash.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:16 pm
==The comparison of the McKinney controversy to the Rauner’s purported conflict of interest is misleading and unfounded==
Only to the ignorant.
Since you missed the point, I’ll provide it for you. Rauner went after McKinney because of a perceived conflict of interest. Now conflict of interest issues are being raised with Mrs. Rauner’s involvement with the Ounce of Prevention.
It doesn’t take a genius to see the link between the two.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:17 pm
===Are we resurrecting old wounds here?===
lol, this isn’t his 3rd year as governor, this is the ending of his 5 week…as Governor-Elect.
Rauner isn’t even sworn in and the ethics questions start, and start only because of the McKinney comparison that not only fits, but is very fresh to thise following along, no need to move along unless you completely miss the point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:32 pm
So we trust neither Mr Rauner nor his wife? I think that’s BS. We just elected him. And if we trust him, and it’s obvious Ounce, a highly reputable organization trusts her, what’s the problem?
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:36 pm
I think she needs to resign, which is a shame and her husband’s fault.
Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:37 pm
- steve schnorf -,
With great respect,
Two huge factors are denying the benefit of the doubt here;
The fact that Bruce Rauner himself has made “insiders” and “conflicts of interests” a campaign platform…
The fact that Mrs. Rauner’s role in a non-profit that seeks donations, and has state ties…
Those two on their own seem to run counter-productive to themselves, then throw in, understandably, the idea Rauner made that McKinney’s wife influenced his own work, the question can be asked then, “How much influence will the CEO of a non-profit have with the governor, whom she’s married to, when the names of her donors are brought up when seeking favor from her husband’s administration?
Rauner brought on the scrutiny by claiming McKinney could be, may have been, “was” influenced by his wife…for a story.
You can’t play “Mr. Clean” when standing next to puddles with your critics throwing rocks to splash that mud on you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:47 pm
Steve, I can almost see your point. There are so many legal ways to purchase politicians now, openly and secretly, that maybe it doesn’t matter.
Back in the day, Reagan was elected twice accepting public funding and spending limits. Spent about $30 million in each race. Seemed to get his message across alright.
Now, the price of presidential poker starts at $1 billion.
Back in the day, Reagan appointee Rudy Giuliani had no hesitation taking down the biggest crooks on Wall Street, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milliken.
Clearly, today, you can’t chase Wall Street crooks when you have to raise obscene amounts of money to get elected president, senator or rep. And with the Citizens United ruling, it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 3:53 pm
==what’s the problem?==
I don’t personally have a problem with it and I think Mrs. Rauner should continue to do the work she is doing.
That being said, I think that perhaps Gov-Elect Rauner shouldn’t have thrown a stone from his glass house. Sometimes stones get thrown back. This is one of those cases.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 4:01 pm
I think the comparison with McKinney example is a little off here. In the McKinney example, the relationship between himself, his job and his wife, were disclosed not to the public, but to McKinney’s employer and I am assuming, his wife’s employer (even though she has an ownership stake in it). When he co-authored the story, that relationship was not voluntarily disclosed to the public anywhere within the story.
I don’t see all of that with the Rauners and this organization. The relationship is disclosed to the public right now. That is far more transparent than the McKinney example.
Should Ms. Rauner bow out anyway? That should be the real discussion. Comparing it to McKinney is borderline apples and oranges and just clouds the main issue a bit.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 4:22 pm
Louis, you’re missing the point, which is that Rauner complained about McKinney and now thinks he doesn’t have to abide by the same rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 4:35 pm
“Rauner not abiding by the same rules.”
If journalists were to accurately describe Bruce, Diana and their entire family properly, this would be it.
He was born this way, lived this way, and will govern this way.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 4:54 pm
Everyone in the nonprofit sector can see the conflict of interest.
No one believes their organization is on an equal footing when it comes to receiving funding.
No one believes that alleged licensing violations at ounce-backed day care centers can be independently investigated.
Let’s resurrect the comments regarding Madigan and the Illinois Arts Council, shall we?
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 4:57 pm
Ounce of Prevention is an early childhood education non-profit organization. It has great potential for improving the education of disadvantaged Chicago children. It deserves our support.
Comment by Enviro Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 5:33 pm
I’m with Steve Schnorf on this.
Just because someone built a shaky scaffold of “potential appearance of conflict of interest” to attack someone else, doesn’t mean we have to turn around and hang him on it.
If it was wrong then it is wrong now. Reasonable safeguards and trust have to be sufficient.
And I’m leaning with Hacksaw, in that the decision is Diana Rauner’s not ours, and I trust her to make it ethically.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 6:04 pm
Firewall for Rauner? What a joke.
Comment by too obvious Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 7:28 pm
Money isn’t the only conflict. For several years, there’s been a proposal on the table from local health departments and many maternal and child health advocates to move MCH programs from DHS to DPH. Ounce of Prevention has successfully lobbied against the move of their program because they have a sweet deal with DHS and weren’t sure they’d get the same deal from DPH. How does the Rauner adminstration deal with that conflict with his wife at the helm? (Actually, how do they deal with it even if she quits . . . .)
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 8:21 pm
It might go the other way too. Diana Rauner might be in a worse position because her spouse is Governor. Gov-to-be Rauner might be overly harsh with Ounce, just to remove any potential doubts of his “impartiality.”
Like having your parent be your team’s coach, or your school principle.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 8:46 pm
===So we trust neither Mr Rauner nor his wife?===
It’s 2014. Why we as a society trust anyone with an advanced business degree to be truthful and ethical outside of deposition under oath (and even then it’s kind of iffy) is one of the mysteries of our time.
Elections have consequences. For everyone. Blagojevich tried to use his family as rhetorical human shields and rightly got called out for it. If this is important enough to Diana Rauner, I’m sure she can find a capable replacement for herself.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 9:18 pm
== And if we trust him, and it’s obvious Ounce, a highly reputable organization trusts her, what’s the problem? ==
Classic Illinois somebody-sent ethics: Conflict? There’s no “conflict” if we LIKE you!
Guess Bruce was holding a bottle of Chateau Plu Ca Change 2014
(Anyway…not everybody is in love with Ounce.)
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Dec 9, 14 @ 10:15 pm