Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

It’s virtually certain that a Hannig will continue to represent the 98th House District in the Illinois General Assembly.

Illinois Secretary of Transportation Gary Hannig of Litchfield started his new job this week after being in the House since 1979. Democratic county chairmen in Montgomery and Christian counties both say they favor Hannig’s wife, Elizabeth “Betsy” Hannig, for the job.

* The Question: Should the General Assembly pass a bill to forbid relatives of the former incumbent from being appointed to any vacant legislative seat? Explain fully, and try to keep in mind that some capable people have been appointed that way.

Also, I’m not asking whether a special election should be held. I’m only asking about this limitation.

And don’t attack Mrs. Hannig, please. This isn’t about her, per se. It’s about the issue. Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:08 am

Comments

Yes, it should be a law that Relatives cannot be APPOINTED to the job. If they want to run in the next election that is one thing, but it gives the perception of Royality if they keep the same family in.

Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:20 am
No. Ideally you want experienced people in a job. Often the family memebrs of politicians have been around politics and are in a much better position to hit the ground running.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:23 am
With Bobby Steele’s son appointed to take her place on the Cook County Board and her retirement based upon the County Board Chairman’s salary, then Todd Stroger’s appointment to his father’s Chairnmanship position on that same board, it’s tainted every other vacancy that would be filled by a capleable family member.

Comment by South of I-80 Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:24 am
Only in the case of death and then with some additional restrictions. The public should have the right to vote on the seat at the next opportunity. Todd Stroger was not appointed to succeed his Father.

Comment by bourbonrich Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:27 am
Don’t like who is being appointed? Vote out those making the appointments.

Comment by Zounds Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:29 am
Appointing a family member is much better than selling the seat. In fact, it’s unlikely that a family member bought it. Besides, we have had some very capable people brought to public office this way. Overall, I’m okay with it. If it doesn’t work out, there’s always the regular election.

Comment by Cinho Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:34 am
The problem with appointments is that the appointee then becomes an incumbent at the next general election. This gives that incumbent a significant advantage in all subsequent elections. Sure, relatives of a person may have political experience but I am sure there are many other citizens who have that capacity as well. The possiblity of creating a political elite is real. Inherited power does not foster competition. I believe this creates an aura of entitlement and privilege which is not healthy in a democracy. Even short term appointments until a special election has been held creates an image of incumbency. Low turn out and high election costs are a price we have to bear. Perhaps mail in voting or internet voting can alleviate some of those costs and increase participation. To all those who support the family plan I say, “life is not fair, deal with it”. We created this country specifically to reject the idea of royalty. Family entitlement to government elected office smacks of this.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:41 am
I don’t understand why a certain segment of the population should be precluded from being considered for appointment to office just because they are related to the current officeholder. It penalizes them for no reason except our overzealous concern about “ethics” which has little to do anything that person might have done or might do….and much more about the actual criminals who have taken advantage of their positions and acted illegally to the detriment of the taxpayers. Those criminals should be proscecuted for their illegal acts, but why should others be punished?

Just because you are related to an elected official doesn’t mean you are not qualified to hold office…a prohibition of this sort goes way too far. What is next…to preclude relatives from becoming candidates at all??

If The People don’t like it, they can act to remove the person in the next election. Why are there continued calls to limit the power of the voters? In our efforts to appease the media with “reform” we are eroding the power of democracy. Instead, we should be working to increase turnout and voter participation. Look at Mayor Daley. There is a reason he continues to get elected by a large majority- despite what the papers say, he is a good mayor and the city has never looked better, been safer or cleaner. While he’s certainly not perfect and many of us have our disagreements with him, he is elected over and over.

As for “South of I-80″’s comments, I agree that strong relationships between officers and non-relatives also exist, but again…why is this wrong? Who is to determine what is a “tainted” relationship? Patrick Fitzgerald? Carol Marin? John Kass? Once again, its the voters. If you don’t like the way appointments are made, you can vote out your committeman.

Comment by Oh please... Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:46 am
Should the General Assembly pass a bill to forbid relatives of the former incumbent from being appointed to any vacant legislative seat?

If you believe that public offices are the property of the citizens, and not the property of a family, then the General Assembly should definately pass a restriction to prevent this kind of undemocratic act.

What are we saying if we continue this practice? There is no one else capable of doing this job? Out of 12 million people, we have to choose someone directly from the incumbant’s family?

When we allow this kind of undemocratic behavior in our government, we are not empowering our citizens. We are only empowering and uplifting a family of political players. Instead of publically demonstrating that a public office is a public service performed for the public, we are allowing politicians to publically demonstrate that politics is more important than it’s citizens.

It is wrong, and it should not be allowed!

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:52 am
I don’t even care if the person being considered as an appointee is tainted, or not. Appointing someone to a post is not the way to bring people into elected office. Senators were appointed until fairly recently (100 years?) and this was changed due to massive fraud. I would amend my previous position only in cases where persons were appointed to a post with the provision that they do not run for that seat during the next election. We would get the relative with all that experience to “hit the ground running” thus making sure the wheels of govt run smoothly. Reduces the need for special elections so close to a general especially in cases where the election cycle is only 2 years long. Otherwise, get in line with everyone else.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:56 am
No. I don’t like the appointment process or how it’s been abused, but relatives are citizens like anyone else. You can’t take away their rights.

Under the current system, if you don’t like it, organize and beat them in the next election.

By the way, Todd Stroger was elected Cook County Board Chair, defeating Peraica in the general election. He replaced his father as the Dem nominee by a weighted vote of ward and township committeman.

The argument that voters are being cheated by appointments rings somewhat hollow days after less than 20% of registered voters in the 5th bothered to express a preference for Congress. There were a wide variety of choices among the Dems, GOP and Greens.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:58 am
I don’t understand why the first person that people look to to fill a vacant seat is the wife of the congressman. Just because she’s been around it for x number of years doesn’t necessarily make her qualified. That’s like saying it’s ok that a doctor’s wife performs brain surgery; I mean, she’s been around it for 20 years, why not?

People talk about how certain families are the ones that are running everything in the state….isn’t this just perpetuating this? If she wants to run on her own merits, fine; but family members shouldn’t be appointed to positions.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:59 am
I don’t understand why the first person that people look to to fill a vacant seat is the wife of the congressman. Just because she’s been around it for x number of years doesn’t necessarily make her qualified. That’s like saying it’s ok that a doctor’s wife performs brain surgery; I mean, she’s been around it for 20 years, why not?

People talk about how certain families are the ones that are running everything in the state….isn’t this just perpetuating this? If she wants to run on her own merits, fine; but family members shouldn’t be appointed to positions.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:59 am
I dont mind the current appointment process, if that person that’s appointed does a terrible job, then vote him or her out of office. People run government, but people allow government to run them.

Comment by westsider Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:00 am
I would support a ban on family member appointments. Do I need to start enumerating the failures that have come from this process?

Family appointments are part of the problem in politics to a far greater degree than in private enterprise. It is largely a matter of hubris to insist that a family member has any superior qualities for a political position. After all, learning a skill via osmosis is not an accepted learning practice outside politics.

The difference is that in the case of a publicly held corporation, performance will quickly force out the incompetent since profit is the key to continued success. There is no such driving force in government.

In politics the dynasty is a virtual lock for a lifetime of taxpayer benefits. Incompetence is rarely flushed out.

That said, if the family member wants to run for an office, then it is up to the voters to select the level of competence desired.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:07 am
Why don’t we just install a monarchy? Saves the cost of elections, special and otherwise, and the disinterested voters won’t have to be bothered. I think the “Duchess of Litchfield” sounds more distinguished, anyway.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:10 am
I believe that they should pass a bill that would disallow the family member to take the seat if they are not currently an elected official. Allowing family members to take the seat allows polical dynasties to thrive and does little to serve the public.

Comment by Hello Pot Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:10 am
Yes. The primary process is heavily weighted to the incumbant. Often districts are heavily weighted to one party (both dem and rep) and it is very difficult to get a viable candidate to “fight” the status quo. Therefore you end up with the incumbant as the weak party can rarely win in such a district.

Comment by wizard Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:16 am
–The difference is that in the case of a publicly held corporation, performance will quickly force out the incompetent since profit is the key to continued success.–

That’s an interesting business model. I would love to see it put into practice.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:20 am
It’s fine. If you could ban hacks from being appointed, that would be good, but there is no reason to rule out family members. The assumption when a family member is appointed is that there will be continuity; that’s just as good a reason as any for making an appointment.

The only other approach would be to have a spot on the ballot for a backup who takes over if the elected official steps down (pretty silly idea) OR the seat is open until the next election (not fair to the district) OR the appointee does not get to run for the seat (but then there is no accountability).

Making an appointment is the best way to go, and there is no good reason to rule relatives out but not some other class.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:21 am
At the end of the day, it is each and everyone of us that vote, or worse…don’t vote, that determine who represents us. If you don’t like the job of the appointee, vote them out of office. Look at the job Sen. Demuzio has done. She was a little wet behind the ears at the start of her tenure, but she has represented her district well.

Comment by BandCamp Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:26 am
How about a law that disallows appointed people from being re-elected?

If an elected official either vacates the office or resigns his/her ballot position, the person appointed can only serve until the next election.

This would cause caretakers to be appointed. And the progeny can run in primaries and let the voters decide.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:26 am
A ban–absolutely. Nepotism is a major problem in state (as well as local and federal) government and as a result taxpayers are denied the services of many talented individuals who don’t happen to have the correct bloodlines. Unfortunately, nepotism is also legal.

The state of Illinois is not a monarchy with assorted local nobles and their families running sections of it. And yet…..

Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:29 am
You could install a sort of affirmative action type of process: On the assumption that a certain class of people (relatives, in this case) has all sorts of advantages in obtaining the position over others, the selectors must interview and consider X number of non-relative candidates before making a decision.

Yeah, that’s tounge and cheek. But only kinda.

Comment by Greg Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:35 am
whoops, tongue in cheek

Comment by Greg Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:37 am
Your question is moot. This would require a change to the Constitution.

Comment by just me Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:37 am
Yes! We definitely need to restrict family members from being appointed to vacant Ill. House seats or Ill. Senate seats. Just in the last handful of years we had Denny Jacobs resign and his son Mike being appointed to the seat. Then we had Emil Jones resign and his son Emil Jones III appointed to the seat. Now we have Gary Hanning resign and his wife gets the seat. The last time I checked this was not the House of Lords where seats are passed down within a family. I’d be okay with an exception if the person holding the seat passed away, such as the case with the late Vince Demuzio and his wife. But the incidents of legislators winning reelection and then resigning so a family member can be appointed as with Jacbos, Jones, and Hanning, should be stopped.

Comment by M Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:43 am
Why stop a spouses? Let’s toss children, neighbors, pets. Dumb idea

I am guessing this is a true signal the Capt. Fax got into the silly sauce last nite and was unable to think of a real QOTD.
BTW, speaking of silly sauce…looks like the GOP rant, led by StateWideTom and RxRon, got zero media attention yesterday. Great effort.

Comment by EmptySuitParade Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:44 am
It seems people always want to change the law or the constitution, only when the results don’t make them happy.

If the people in the district are OK with this, so be it.

Comment by Real Estate Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:52 am
While you’re at it, pass a law saying the Sun can’t rise in the east each morning. Any such law would never pass constitutional muster.

Comment by fedup dem Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:54 am
I want to be able to say that we should not put restrictions of who is appointed. As Rich points out, some family members ended up being pretty good replacements.

The problem is that there simply have been too many nepotistic (if that’s a word!) appointments. The system of replacing an office holder by party insiders has been abused by incumbents to create political dynasties. (DuPage Dan states the case well.)

Abuse of the system to foster nepotism has made such legislation necessary.

At a minimum, though, the GA should consider a law that prevents a Dan Lipinski/Todd Stroger situation — appointing a first-degree relative as the nominee of the party when the nominee voluntarily steps down. There’s speculation that this may happen again with Bobby Rush in the 1st District.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:06 am
Real Estate wrote:

If the people in the district are OK with this, so be it.

If the people in the district want to elect a family member, I think they absolutely have that right. But we’re talking about appointments by committeemen — by definition political insiders.

Look, if there is a qualified first degree relative, the committeemen can easily appoint a placeholder until the next election. The point is that the system has been abused too often to give a relative the advantage of incumbency and lock out the people from making a choice.

And sorry for double-posting. I’ll be quiet for a while now.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:10 am
Anon your example is comparing apples to oranges. A doctor has to go to school for years, pass a number of specialized exams, get licnsed, stay certified, etc.

We regualte who can be a doctor. Under your doctor analogy, would we let anyone who achieved popular support perfomr brain surgery if the docotor was unavailable? no, because we have reuirments for performin surgery.

What education, training or testing do we require to be a politician? none. generally speaking, if you comply with any age or ciizenry requirments that may apply, everyone is qualified to be a politician. So given that the spouse is qualified, whats the next criteria? the ability to represent. How do politicians get deals done? they talk to each other and negotiate. What makes people good at talking or negotiating with politicians? being present and invovled in political conversations and meetings over the years. If a family emmebr knows the otherpoliticians and they now the prospective replacement, then tere are existing realtionships from which they can work. Just being around in politics is a substantial part of the job. Knowing who to talk to, how to talk to them, and the best way to approach a topic is experience you cant buy. Gte somone with that background and your better off then somone who has no idea what to do next once they are in office.

By your analogy, would you rather have your brain surgeobn performed by a kid fresh out of medical scholl who has never pickedup a scalpel, or would you rather have the doctor who assited the chief surgeon for years and was ready to step up.

Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:13 am
As long as the candidate is otherwise qualified for the appointment, they should not be disqualified by virtue of who they married or are related to.

Comment by The Earl of Elwood Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:21 am
If relatives want to hold office, by all means, let them run for it. No appointments.

As far as relatives having been around politics and being familiar with it so as to hit the ground running….having been around, and familiar with Illinois politics, has taken on a new meaning.

Comment by SpfldJimbo Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:45 am
As much as this appeals to me, there are two problems. First, I don’t think it would be constitutional. Second, there are some things you just can’t legislate against, like stupidity.

Simply put, voters need to be more vigilant. If they don’t like it, don’t vote for them or their supporters. In the meantime, if you’re angry, call Gary’s office and the Speaker’s office and complain.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:46 am
In what universe would incumbent Illinois politicians seriously consider such a ban?

Not that I support such a restriction; I cannot for the life of me see it ever seriously approved.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:00 am
I can see where there are certain legislative districts where a spouse could fill the seat quite nicely. However, in the particular instance of one senate district in Southern Illinois, I’m pretty sure the wife is just as UNqualified, UNeducated, and UNintelligent as the current person holding the job. So why would we want more of the same? But then again, we got what we asked for (at least the 51% who voted him back into office) so perhaps the wife wouldn’t be any worse.

Heck, I don’t know. They all do what they want to do, pass the bills they want, and don’t listen to us anyway. So who really thinks a law would be passed in this State to disqualify a family member from taking over the job?

Comment by Just My Opinion Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:08 am
No. Define “family” first under today’s definitions. Step children? Grand-children? Ex-wives? Gay partner? Ex-brother-in-law?

Too much trouble and aggravation to bother with.

Ultimately, let the voters decide if they should be kept or bounced.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:12 am
No appointments by anybody to any vacancy. It is about time the voting public took the state back. The incumbents have proven they are all too willing to look the other way, until the situation hits the public radar whereapon they finally grow a spine and are ’shocked’. Does anyone buy that anymore? I don’t. Trust the voter to decide for themselves who should represent them, not the politician to decide it for them.

Comment by Belle Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:15 am
Yes there should be a law against a family member being appointed. Reasons are:
Bottomline it is a State job. There would be holy heck raised if a department head or facility manager handed their job over to their spouse or family member. In fact it could probably not be done because they wouldn’t have the authority to do that. The Legislators need to get it through their heads that there is no difference between them and any other state employee.
Second reason: Conflict of interest. Which agency do you think will have the inside track for appropriations as far as Legislator Hannig is concerned? How is that good government.
Third reason: Our Agency has a nepotism rule. You can not supervise a family member. (That has not always been followed recently however) The same rule should apply to the GA. And since they do have indirect authority over Agency heads this should not be allowed.
Fourth reason: How do we know that Secretary Hannig is not going to continue to manage the course of Legislator Hannigs office. He could be doing both jobs, just not on paper. That also is not good government.

Comment by Irish Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:23 am
NO — there have been many STELLAR appointees that assumed their seats after their family members — and have been re-elected on their own merits. Mautino & Demuzio are great examples.

Comment by 312 Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:28 am
Instead of excluding family members of officeholders who vacate their positions, I agree with a few others here that the underlying problem is the way the appointment process has been set up to benefit those in power, related or not. So let’s change that process. Whenever a vacancy occurs before the end of a term, call for a special election. The election could be held within a short period of time, or it could be held during the next regularly scheduled election (for any office) in that area. If that’s going to be longer than, say, three or four months, then in the meantime appoint someone with the provision that he or she can’t be a candidate in the special election.

Comment by OldSmokey2 Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:32 am
If these family members are so wonderful getting elected should be a snap! There should be no short cut to elected office. No matter what. Being wonderful and related shouldn’t guarantee the office. Life is not fair. Get in line and run for office like all the rest of us. That is what a representative form of govt is all about.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:38 am
It makes it very hard to get new blood in some offices.
Bobbie Steele appoints son Robert Steele

Bill Beavers gets annointed CC Commish, daughter Darcel Beavers gets the 7th Ward Alderman post (which she later lost in the election to Sandi Jackson, wife of Jesse Jr.)

Then the Emil Jones’

Special Elections are costly. But if these people did not appoint their relatives, then it would be friends and not immediate family who are cut from the same cloth. It’s a no win situation, at least they will have to face election eventually, then they could be voted out.

Comment by thirdgenerationchicagonative Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:45 am
No. Another thought, among the many noted…what is the difference between a relative being appointed and being elected to the same seat? Does the sanctity of “let the voters decide” really wash away the impurities of being force-fed our representatives. Is that what will happen if/when the Speaker ensures the AG her next move?

Comment by COPN Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:48 am
I’m not sure there should be legislation banning this, however the fact that any party leaders would consider a relative of a departing/departed political official is a sign of sheer laziness in my opinion. There should be someone who’s waiting in the wings to take on the job and it shouldn’t have to be a relative.

Comment by Levois Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:58 am
It’s seems to me the argument should really be whether appointments are appropriate in any instance.

VM said: “If you believe that public offices are the property of the citizens, and not the property of a family, then the General Assembly should definately pass a restriction to prevent this kind of undemocratic act.”

If he truly believes that, then all appointments should be out of order. Either that or he believes they’re only the property of the citizens if the potential appointee isn’t related to the current officeholder. What kind of logic is that?

All that said, I vote nay, primarily because it’s unconstitutional to exclude a certain class of people from consideration. Equal treatment under the law and all that.

Now, if you want to have the discussion of taking away the appointment process altogether, you might find a sympathetic ear here.

Comment by Randolph Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:05 pm
Here is a suggestion that will stir up some controversy and also give pause to those who would move out of their current position mid term. What if the seat automatically went to the second highest vote getter in the last election for the seat? That will never pass but would be interesting.

Comment by Irish Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:25 pm
I believe that, in cases where the legislator has suddenly died or become deeply incapacitated, a spouse or son/daughter is ok to fill in, to ensure the seat would vote pretty much as the seatholder would have wanted, which is the way the constituents would have wanted. But. This in no way should create an automatic incumbency, and when the remainder of the term is done, you start with a clean slate as much as possible, with a legit primary. Automatic dynasties are for monarchies, not Americans.

Comment by Gregor Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:04 pm
Relatives replacing relatives in politics is a 2 edged sword.

Relatives have name recognition based on the approval rating of the replaced relative. The replacement may not have the capacity to continue on as a competent office holder.

I vote for the end of relative replacing another relative elected or not.

On the issue of special elections to replace a Federal Senator—all for it. No governor should have that much power.

Comment by garry albrecht Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:15 pm
Cardiss Collins became the first — and so far only — Chicago woman to represent the city of Chicago in Congress after her husband was killed in a plane crash.

Given her distinguished record in Congress, I think that ONE example is a strong enough argument for allowing whomever meets the legal qualifications to be appointed.

Yes, appointees gain the benefits of incumbency without having actually been elected. But so would ANY appointee.

If people don’t like Mrs. Hannig or Todd Stroger or Commissioner Steele or whomever, I have a suggestion: vote them out of office in their next election.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Absolutely pass the law! We do not live in an aristocracy. Denny Jacobs appointment of his son, Mike, is just one example among many of abuse of the power. If someone wants to resign before their term is up, then hold a special election.

Comment by Just a Citizen Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:44 pm
Have never understood the people who are totally against all nepotism. If the person is qualified for the job, there should be no problem. If they are unqualified, vote them out-it may be difficult, but it can be done.
Regarding the Appointment of relatives, the same thing goes-if they are qualified, why not? Admit that Hanning’s wife taking his place might be a little cozy (conflict of interest) when he is taking another state job, but Deanna Demuzio seems to have dona a good job of taking the place of her husband.
If you want the position to remain vacant until the next REGULARLY SCHEDULED election, then okay, that might be the best solution, but banning someone because of who they are related to won’t really solve the problem.

Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:47 pm
Margaret Smith replaced her husband and went on to serve with distinction. Is there anyone who thinks Shirley Madigan isn’t qualified to assumer her husband’s seat if, God forbid, lightning should strike? Jesse Jr.’s wife is an elected official, she’d certainly be qualified to serve out his term. Jan Schakowsky? Bob is fine, but if you weren’t up for him, if you’ve ever met Jan’s daughter, you’d know that she’s got a good head on her shoulders. In my estimation, members of the family seem far less ofjectionable that the vultures, waiting in the wings, wondering if an hour after the funeral is too soon to clean out the deceased’s desk and change order new stationary.

Comment by Dolly Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:20 pm
No need for a ban. There are some very quality people (some are family members, others are not)ready and willing to step into a position if the need pops up. Demuzio is a great example as others have said. There are also some dunces who are basically place holders anyhow. I’ll leave those names out. As YDD said ya don’t like em, vote them out.

To me the bigger issue is people who resign before their term is up to take a ‘better’ position. Doesn’t being elected include a pact to those who elected you that you would do a good job for them if they vote for you. That includes completing the job you said you wanted while you were campaigning. You want different job? Great. Finish your term and then go for an appointment or run for another office. May not get that appointment, but that is the chance you take.

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:23 pm
YDD, as usual makes good points. The appointment process is under scrutiny right now and I think it needs reforming, but banning relatives is not really the answer here.

Here’s my solution: take the appointment power away from the committeemen. Although they are elected, these are people who are basically not held accountable in any way.

The replacement process should be as such:
* If less than 12 months remains in the term, the office shall remain vacant until the election.
* If there are more than 12 months remaining in the term, hold a special election.

This is the kind of reform that people want, not more insider fighting about who can or cannot be appointed. The entire vacancy / appointment process is designed to serve those in power, it doesn’t serve the voters.

Comment by carbon deforestation Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:24 pm
Appointment to a spouse is ok in the case of death if they are caucused like anyone else in a transparent process.

However, where the legislator remains on the state payroll, at a pretty hefty raise I suspect, the spouse should be out.

This is black letter political corruption and shows where Pat Quinn really is on reform. What a joke. I will say this one more time. If you vote for a democrat in the next election you are a moron. I can’t vouch for many republicans, but considering what we have gone through for Madigan and Quinn to orchestrate this is offensive. This does not even pass the smell test.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:32 pm
Yes. My ancestors did not fight in the Revolution so that we could end up with hereditary monarchy over 200 years later. The way Stroger and Lipinski got into office makes me sick. It’s not enough to say that the voters get to decide at the next election because the spouse/son/daughter being the incumbent before that election gives him/her a tremendous advantage in name recognition and fundraising.

Comment by LouisXIV Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:47 pm
to COPN - good point. I think the displeasure with the elected ones will show up in the elections. The parties may try to force feed the voters, I’m just not so sure they’ll get them to swallow now. Not even the most loyal party-bot has an excuse not to look harder at any and all comers and where they are coming from.

Comment by Belle Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 3:29 pm
The pragmatist in me says that it doesn’t matter what should or shouldn’t happen in this case. It won’t happen, simple as that. The Speaker would never let such a bill out of rules to ever see the light of day.

Comment by Duffman80 Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:17 pm
[…] If you read Capitol Fax, you would have known this for several days now: It’s virtually certain that a Hannig will continue to represent the 98th House District in the Illinois General Assembly. […]

Pingback by ALL AROUND TROY » Blog Archive » 98th District Update Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:57 pm
The special election by mail is a fine idea that would prevent the hacks from controlling all political positions. Appointments lead to nepotism, favoritism and corruption. Look what happened in the 5th, a reformer was elected that actually earned his stripes.

Voting by mail can be secured and it would make special elections affordable. It should probably be done for all elections so voters would have time to look into candidates positions before voting, especially judges and other far down the ballot names.

Comment by Cut the Crooks Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 5:22 pm
Such a law would obviously unconstitutional. But YDD, Cardiss Collins? Really?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 6:30 pm
Oh, cmon people. Mrs. Hannig is legally quailified to succeed Gary. last time I checked we
had a constitution!!

Comment by polwatcher Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 7:00 pm
Capt. Fax’s proposed ban would also dump
Joann Osmond
Mike McAuliffe
and isn’t Bill Brady Dan Brady’s son or something?

Comment by EmptySuitParade Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 7:09 pm
The GA is filled with relatives and people who used t work for the Speaker. Some competent others…well. Anyway, to answer your question it really doesn’t matter what we all think, it works for the insiders so a bill would simply not see the light of day!

Comment by 'round the rail Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:05 pm
A ban would be silly. You don’t like an appointment? Run against them or support an opposition candidate of your choice.I know several people who were appointed and who have become tremendous legislators.

Somewhere, Dick Mautino and Roger McAuliffe are smiling with pride at the legislators (and men) their sons have become.

Comment by Nick Naylor Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:08 pm
This case; as in many others has little to do with the elected office and a lot to do with the pension benefits that come with it. This legacy appointment is all about rewarding Mr. H; through Mrs. H, who will now roll here SERS, or STRS pension into the GARS, and likely vastly increase her pension benefits.

At the same time Mr. H’s pension benefit will be calculated off of the $150K he is earning now, rather than the $80K he earned last week.

The rest of us will pick up the grossly inflated tab for both of them for the rest of their lives when they pull the plug on state government.

If they’re smart they’ll retire to a state which is better positioned financially, and stretch their money out even further than it will go here in the bankrupt Land of Lincoln.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:11 pm
A vacant electable seat should always be filled via election. What is this, a Soviet Republic?

Comment by Captain Flume Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:19 pm