Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Should Illinois go first?
Next Post: It’s just a bill
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz…
So if McHenry County Board Chairman Jack Franks was so dangerous he had to effectively be banned from the Capitol, why weren’t other officials and Franks’ constituents told?
That’s the most prominent but by no means the only question in the wake of the remarkable news over the weekend that Franks, who was a Democratic state representative before getting the McHenry job, is the subject of a probe of sexual harassment and stalking being conducted by Illinois State Police. […]
Among those not in the know was House GOP Leader Jim Durkin, whose spokeswoman confirms that the House’s official opposition chief “had no idea” and is “as shocked as anybody else.”
When I asked Madigan spokesman Steve Brown why all of this was kept quiet, he replied, “The first thing we were trying to do is protect the privacy of the individual” as well as protect her physical safety. “I think the actions we took were the appropriate actions,” Brown said.
* An area Senator is also concerned about how the allegations were kept secret during the investigation…
As a representative of McHenry County, I am concerned that the lack of transparency from the Speaker's office has put at risk the safety of my constituents. The situation needs to be fully investigated. https://t.co/Sk9k36yVkl
— Dan McConchie (@DanMcConchie) February 4, 2020
* I told subscribers about this yesterday afternoon. Here’s the Center Square’s Greg Bishop…
The Sangamon County State’s Attorney said House Speaker Michael Madigan ignored a nondisclosure order contained in the search warrant served on Madigan’s office last week seeking information related to sexual harassment allegations involving a former state lawmaker. […]
Sangamon County State’s Attorney Dan Wright on Monday requested the case be under seal moving forward. […]
In the filing, Wright said the warrant “contained an explicit order that the ‘issuance and execution of this Search Warrant shall not (in bold) be disclosed and that any such disclosure could impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with enforcement of the law.’ ”
“The January 29 Order of nondisclosure was entered to preserve the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation conducted by the Illinois State Police … and to protect the rights of any suspects and victims,” the filing said.
“ISP Investigators state that they repeatedly instructed recipients of the Search Warrant that the January 29 Order prohibited disclosure,” Wright said in the filing. “Nevertheless, the recipients of the Search Warrant disclosed the Search Warrant on January 31, 2020, in response to a Freedom of Information Act … request received on that same date.”
“Despite the plain language of the Court’s January 29 Order, the recipients disclosed the Search Warrant although they were not otherwise required to make such disclosure,” the filing said. “Immediate public access is not presumed until after return is made to the Court and filed with the Circuit Clerk.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Should Illinois go first?
Next Post: It’s just a bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t know the laws here, about what should take precedence, but I’m also not going to take a swing at the Speaker for responding to a FOIA too early and too completely.
Also, it’s kinda funny that the first half of the post is people being mad that the allegations weren’t made public, and the second half is mad that the allegations (and warrant) WERE made public.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:49 am
Court orders are more like guidelines to Speaker Madigan
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:49 am
Can Madigan ban people from the Capitol by himself? There’s a Senate, Governor, and other Constitutional officers in the Capitol. What if they wanted to meet with the McHenry County Board Chairman? Has Madigan secretly banned anyone else?
Comment by Abounding Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:52 am
Madigan’s counsel has to take the blame here. Disclosing the warrant when the warrant and the court order said don’t is wrong.
Comment by Gallatin Goop Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:54 am
== I don’t know the laws here, about what should take precedence, but I’m also not going to take a swing at the Speaker for responding to a FOIA too early and too completely.==
There is a clear exception in the foia law that documents can be withheld if releasing them would interfere with an ongoing investigation. The Speaker could’ve easily raised that here, at least for a while. Why he chose not to is a good question.
Comment by fs Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 9:55 am
Abounding, Madigan asked the Secretary of State to do it, and the SOS is responsible for the building and security.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:02 am
== Why he chose not to is a good question.==
Lol, he chose not to because Franks is a jerk and was a huge pain in the speaker’s neck for a decade
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:11 am
===There is a clear exception in the foia law that documents can be withheld if releasing them would interfere with an ongoing investigation===
Not entirely correct, that exemption only applies to the public body conducting the investigation and is not applicable to another public body that is the subject of, or somehow involved in an investigation.
For example, ISP could use the exemption if they were to receive a FOIA about this investigation, but the Office of the Speaker (or whoever the FOIA was addressed to) couldn’t use the same exemption.
Comment by JSS Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:15 am
===was a huge pain in the speaker’s neck for a decade===
Franks didn’t really tangle with the Speaker. He tangled with governors. He was what he was, a Democrat in a very Republican district.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:17 am
== Not entirely correct, that exemption only applies to the public body conducting the investigation and is not applicable to another public body that is the subject of, or somehow involved in an investigation.==
That’s debatable, especially when there is a court order prohibiting release of the document due to the investigation. It’s a close enough debate that the Speaker could’ve raised the argument if they truly cared about the confidentially of it all.
Comment by fs Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:19 am
Per post yesterday, Madigan issued a statement and released a copy of the warrant after consulting with the AG’s office.
Seems unlikely a search warrant involving the State’s attor ey, state police, Secretary of State, and general assembly would have remained secret more than 12 hours.
Madigan was smart to be first out.
Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:20 am
So if Madigan releases it he is interfering with an investigation, but if he keeps it quiet he is withholding information from the public. No win situation.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:28 am
Key question I have:
1. If the ISP originally requested documents, why did Speaker’s office go to Sangamon Co. State’s attorney to “discuss protocols” for turning over information?
Speculating here, but when you look at how broad the Franks search warrant is, it seems very possible Speaker’s staff balked at the scope of the original ISP document request, tried to go around ISP to Sangamon Co. States Attorney to try to negotiate, and got a full blown search warrant in response.
Comment by ILPundit Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:39 am
== Franks didn’t really tangle with the Speaker. He tangled with governors==
True, but he didn’t make Madigan’s life any easier during the Rauner years. I can’t imagine Franks would get any favors from the third floor
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:40 am
Madigan’s wrong no matter what. /s
Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:40 am
ILPundit, that is an interesting bit of speculation.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:41 am
It seems like a conflict between governmental openness and transparency and the public’s first amendment right to privacy.
Comment by Igor Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 10:43 am
===He was what he was, a Democrat in a very Republican district===
IMO, Franks is a Republican pretending to be a Democrat in a very Republican district.
If a politician is beholden to his or her constituents and wants to be elected and reelected, then for Franks to be popular in his district, most of his views, policies, beliefs, etc. would need to lean Republican. And having lived in McHenry County for 10 years that is my read of Franks. He is a Republican and for what ever reason pretending to be a Democrat and is a liar.
That’s as politically correct I can be. If I really said what I think of Franks I would get banned.
Comment by Big Jer Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 11:07 am
I live in McHenry too. I think he’s the type of politician that will be whatever he needs to be to get elected and get power.
With a ton of Democrats in the legislature his leverage wasn’t as big as when he was a key vote.
So he creates himself a job and runs for it. And of course lied flagrantly that he would not run when he was creating it.
if the Republicans had taken over the legislature in a big way I’m sure Franks would have switched parties.
Comment by Fav human Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 11:23 am
Stop to ask for one minute, just one full minute: what did the victim want?
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 11:25 am
McHenry officials are now calling for resignation.
Comment by McHenry Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 11:32 am
Always thought Jack Franks looked like Charlie Rich, whose biggest hit, ironically. was Behind Closed Doors.
Comment by Upon Further Review Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 12:36 pm
=== Per post yesterday, Madigan issued a statement and released a copy of the warrant after consulting with the AG’s office.===
Thomas Paine, Rich updated later to correct and clarify that Brown said there was no discussion with AG
Comment by NotMe Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 12:58 pm
I don’t believe there was a claim that Franks was a danger to the general public in the Capitol. It would seem the escorted access limitation was intended by SOS to protect the victim in this situation.
If the Speakers office referred the FOIA vs the search warrant issue to the AG what was the detailed response? Apparently it must have provided some direction to the Speaker’s office.
Comment by nadia Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 1:05 pm
@ JSS amd FS
Correct exception would have been 7(1)(a) - release prohibited by state law or rule.
State court’s order prohibiting release makes withholding “proper” and thus not subject to suit. So says the Illinois Supreme Court in “In Re Special Prosecutor”, 2019 IL 122949.
The interesting part is whether the Court will sanction the Speaker for willful non-compliance with the Court’s confidentiality order.
Comment by Just Another Anon Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 1:26 pm
@ Just Another Anon,
I agree but probably will not based on his ’stature’ in the state.
Comment by Billy Sunday Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 4:35 pm
I find it interesting that the Sun Times sent a FOIA about search warrants to the Speaker’s Office on Jan 31 and it was responded to on Jan 31. No FOIA gets responded to that quickly. It is obvious there was a leak from the Speaker’s Office to the Sun Times telling them to FOIA ASAP and it would be answered ASAP.
Comment by Kathy Tuesday, Feb 4, 20 @ 8:25 pm