Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: No commission for you
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Interesting…
Despite no charges yet filed, a federal probe into alleged hiring fraud under impeached ex-Gov. Blagojevich remains active, Gov. Quinn’s office confirmed Monday.
This is the statement released by Quinn’s office late yesterday…
“There is an ongoing federal criminal investigation into unlawful acts by persons associated with the Blagojevich administration. The U.S. Attorney’s office asked the state not to do anything that might interfere with the investigation, and the state continues to honor that request.”
Quinn was reacting to a press release yesterday by Dan Hynes…
Last week, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that at least 70 Blagojevich appointees were holding onto their jobs despite Pat Quinn’s pledge to fumigate state government, including George Rada and Surami Garcia, who got their well-paying jobs by sidestepping veterans preference laws and then lying about it to investigators.
The report prompted the paper to editorialize “Why are we still paying their salaries?” It’s a fair question, and today Illinois Comptroller and Democratic candidate for governor Dan Hynes challenged Pat Quinn to answer it directly. Hynes further called on Quinn to fire Rada and Garcia immediately, and to give a full accounting of the status of the 70 or so Blagojevich appointees whose hiring has been called into question by federal prosecutors.
“I cannot fathom for the life of me why these two people, who managed to leapfrog 17 veterans for jobs at a time our nation is at war, no less – and then lied about it to investigators – continue to draw state paychecks and benefits at taxpayer expense,” Hynes said. “Pat Quinn owes the people of Illinois an explanation.”
The lawyer for those two employees, Rada and Garcia, was not pleased with Hynes’ statement…
Representing both Garcia and Rada, Draper called Hynes’ demand that the pair be fired a “cheap shot” and said neither should be penalized for possible wrongdoing under Blagojevich when they had no knowledge of it as job applicants
Draper said that Garcia was actually fired, but got her job back when she appealed the case to the state’s civil service commission.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has been silent about the probe into Blagojevich’s hiring practices since he asked Attorney General Lisa Madigan to give him her files and stop her own investigation…
That had led to speculation the case has taken a backseat to the more sensational allegations lodged last December against Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell Illinois’ then-vacant U.S. Senate seat, among other corruption charges.
It’s possible that with the US Supreme Court taking a close look at the alleged over-use by federal prosecutors of the “honest-services fraud” law, the feds may end up charging Blagojevich or people around him with more stuff soon to buttress their case against the former governor.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* Illinois Continuing Legal Education Discusses Recent Media Events And Legal Professionalism: Illinois CLE presents a topical CLE event titled Tales from the Media II: Blagojevich, Interrogation Memos & More. The program is scheduled for Thursday, January 21, at the UBS Tower & Conference Center, One North Wacker Drive, Chicago. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn at 12:45 p.m.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: No commission for you
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The use by prosecutors of the “denial of honest services” charge in political corruption cases should be found unconstitutional by the SSupreme Court this term. It is undefinable and is a compilation of other real crimes and just coincidences and bad judgments. It relies on juries to vent their dislike of politicians by entering guilty verdicts in cases which cannot be prosecuted under other criminal laws.
I am no Blago fan, but there are plenty of actual crimes he could be charged with if “dishonest services” are thrown out.
Comment by Nick Adams Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 9:48 am
So, let’s see, if one of the state employees under investigation by the feds since the Blago days commits a really serious infraction, Quinn can’t get rid of them because of the “ongoing investigation.” And, regardless of their industry or competence, Quinn has to keep them in their (very) high-paid state jobs until the fed tells him it’s ok to discharge them–if then. Please.
Quinn doesn’t want to fire anybody because he is afraid of the impact on his gubernatorial campaign. Nearly all of these folks were either hired by Blagojevich or re-appointed to four year terms by Blago. Many are at will, and the others could be got rid of by not renewing their terms.
They are not protected by the civil service, they are protected by the Chicago Machine, whose support Quinn needs in the primary and the general. The fed doesn’t care if he fires them.
Quinn is keeping these hacks, all of whom could be easily replaced, because he fears the political repercussions of firing them. And hiding behind the feds to do it.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:07 am
It must be nice to be at the place in life where you can get a job through actions that lead to a federal investigation and even if you’re known to be under investigation by the FBI, you not only get to keep your job, but you can’t be fired.
When the rest of us cause problems at work, we’re walked out the door. Heck, if we’re laid off, we find out in the morning when our badge doesn’t let us in the front door. These guys are protected even when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Any wonder why people have no faith in government any more?
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:10 am
===even if you’re known to be under investigation by the FBI, you not only get to keep your job, but you can’t be fired.===
That’s probably inaccurate. If the employee didn’t do anything illegal - if, for instance, the illegality was perpetrated by a superior - why should the employee be fired?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:14 am
Why is there a veteran’s preference law anyway? I’m thankful for their service just as much as anyone else but I’m a firm believer that you give the job to the best qualified applicant.
Comment by ahoy Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:14 am
===I’m thankful for their service just as much as anyone else===
Maybe, but some might argue that you’re not if you don’t support preference.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:15 am
@ Cassandra - How exactly do you propose that Quinn gets rid of these folks? If they are protected by the civil service code, they cannot be fired without cause.
Mind you I’m not arguing that these people actually deserve their jobs (though argubaly some do). In particular I know Rada to be a hack of the highest order. However, he’s a well-connected hack. Perhaps Quinn should have a long talk with his political sponsors.
Comment by Anon and on... Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:15 am
Rich-
In a private job, even the appearance of impropriety is enough. You can do plenty that’s perfectly legal and be fired. They very well may be innocent of any crime, that doesn’t mean they acted ethically. And it’s not just this case.
There are hundreds of teachers in CPS that sit in an empty office with no duties after being accused of any number of things. They get paid for years. Name a company that would investigate for years while paying someone to do nothing. Doesn’t happen.
And it isn’t CPS either. It’s long known that in government it’s easier to promote someone than fire them.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:28 am
Anon, you can fire whomever you want. The civil service commission may require them to be reinstated or not, if the employee even appeals it. I think most of them, by the definition of their appointment, cannot appeal.
Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:30 am
Are at-will employees subject to veterans preference? I didn’t think so. I thought Blagojevich went to such elaborate lengths to work around the vets preference because these were NOT at-will jobs. Which means that, once installed, these folks are protected by the state personnel code. So if Quinn fires them, we can expect 70 expensive lawsuits.
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:31 am
Bambenek, what you are arguing for, then, is repeal of civil service? Am I getting that right? I’m sure MJM et al would love you for that
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:34 am
@ Reality is — Sure you can fire them…and then have to reinstate them when they appeal to the Civil Service Commission. That’s what happened to Surami Garcia and Dawn DeFraites (Blago scapegoat) and Michael Casey (Blago scapegoat) and…
You don’t get rid of a problem long-term unless you have the goods on the employee. Conjecture and speculation alone is not enough.
Comment by Anon and on... Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:36 am
@ soccermom — you’re dead-on. If the jobs were exempt from the code and from Rutan requirements, there would be no need to run from veteran’s preference.
Of course, the most interesting aspect of this story is learning that the investigation is still ongoing. I wonder who they are targeting besides Blago. In general I thought they targeted the little guys first and then the big boss (so that they’d turn on him/her), not vice versa.
Comment by Anon and on... Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:41 am
Anon, it can be if they are “at will”.
Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:41 am
=== In general I thought they targeted the little guys first and then the big boss (so that they’d turn on him/her), not vice versa. ===
Not if they’re still lining up witnesses.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:49 am
Anon-
I’m not talking about the ones with civil service protection (and that’s over 95% of the work force). Actually, they can be got rid of, but
it is extremely difficult if they challenge it. Years of appeals, lawsuits, etc. In practical terms, a job in Illinois state civil service is a job for life, unless you decide to leave on your own. And who would give up lifetime job security,
great raises (16 percent over the life of the current 4 yr contract) cheap health insurance, a defined benefit pension that goes up 3 percent a year regardless of inflation and other perks in these recession days.
Quinn has control over at-will hires and can fire them at any time. Four year term appointees have
civil service level protection during their terms
but when their terms are up they have no rights to re-appointment. That’s why it would be interesting to know how many Blago appointees Quinn has reappointed when their terms came up.
That would be another indicator of his dedication (or not) to keeping Blago hires.
If Garcia was in a civil service position, then
I can see why they couldn’t discharge her. It’s almost impossible, unless the individual is convicted of a serious crime.
And that’s what we’re paying for in Illinois state government.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:00 am
Just to add to the at will discussion. You can also have exempt positions that have been unionized, so those employees can only be fired for cause as well.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:01 am
Rich Miller asked, If the employee didn’t do anything illegal - if, for instance, the illegality was perpetrated by a superior - why should the employee be fired?
To me that’s a big “if,” considering the people we’re talking about, but okay, let’s accept it for sake of argument. It’s still a good guess that, knowing or not, these people got assistance in bypassing proper hiring because of their utility and/or loyalty to the thieves and it’s a fair inference that the candidate who would best serve the interests of the State of Illinois was passed over. At minimum, these improper hires should have to reapply for the job and go through the legitimate process today, the same one they should have gone through before.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:18 am
I may be parsing the words a bit too thoroughly here, but I don’t know that the Quinners’ “statement” says anything new. The odd use of the word “state” as opposed to “Governor”, “counsel”, or “Administration,” says to old AA that the G hasn’t told Pat & Co. squat about what they are working on and Quinn had to trot out a generic, technically correct but meaningless paragraph. But, I could be wrong.
Oh well, at least he didn’t create another blue-ribbon commission to investigate the investigation.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:18 am
Oh, and I’m ecstatic to hear that the federal probe is ongoing. Because I don’t believe for a second that all of these improper hires were innocent - Why would you hire an angelic bystander when you can install a hard-core political criminal, deeply loyal to your machine above and beyond any interest in the law or the people’s interest in good government? This may not be true of every appointee, but these jobs are routinely used as rewards for fixing votes, so I am hoping to see some more political button men from the Mell-Blagojevich Family hauled into federal court.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:24 am
Intresting, Rich?
Yeah and convenient too.
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:24 am
@WCW
If you don’t believe the feds asked Quinn to step back, call the U.S. Attorney’s office and ask for yourself.
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:38 am
Rich-
I wasn’t making a policy argument, just a political one. To the Joe Taxpayer, the fact that these guys can be caught, be under investigation and be paid for YEARS is maddening.
And you can certainly make changes to the Civil Service code to allow for a little bit less rigorous standard to fire someone. Heck, if I were civil service, I could walk into the office with a bat and club a manager and still be put on paid leave while they “investigate”. Surely you can see there are shades of grey there.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 11:53 am
This provides good soundbite cover for Quinn.
But if you think about it, I doubt the US attorneys office implied or intended that people who have engaged in wong doing should be left on the payroll. The evidence of what has already transpired is already in existance whether these folks remain employed or not. The only use to keeping them in play, if there is actual demonstrale wrongdoing to warrant termination, is if they are being wire tapped. But I doubt they would be so foolish to get caught with that today.
I remeber when they fired the lincoln library guy over allegations of wrongdoing; a lot of people decried taking away his job based on unproven allegations. Same should apply here. If Quinn can show somone is not comptent to do their job, or enagged in proveable wrongdoing, he should follow the process to eliminate them. otherwise we are acting like a mob hunting wiches. Perhaps we could toss all these employees into a pond. Ay that float are guilty and will be fired, any that sink and stay under for more then 10 min will be deemed innocent.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 12:00 pm
With the State budget in such bad shape, just lay them off as a cost-cutting reduction in workforce. Simple.
Comment by 10:15 a.m. Response Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 12:23 pm
Ghost, thank you.
Soccermom, please.
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 12:24 pm
@WCW if this is a request by the Feds, why should Pat go against it? I read that the Supreme Court may revisit the anti corruption burden of proof and that may impact the Blago trial…the Feds are trying to keep as many balls in the air as they can…anyways, patronage is a fact of political life folks, it aint going away…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 1:15 pm
It does the state no good to fire emplyees and then have the civil serive board reinstate them. I imagine it leaves the taxpayers open to punitive damages if their is no just cause for the termination.
I know the media and Hynes like blood in the water but a more methodical and thorough examination is required when firing folks.
Who knows, Blago might have made a mistake or two and actually hired someone good.
Comment by Big Timber Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 1:33 pm
Loop, please.
the feds will neither confirm nor deny that there is an actual ongoing investigation currently, right? if it can confirmed from the feds that there is an actual ongoing confirmation, then fine. btw…how are things going with Governor Quinn’s legal wrangling with the the AFSCME union?
oh, nevermind. I know how you don’t answer questions that are actually posed to you. so go ahead and just false dichotomy etc. away like you always do, my friend.
take care & happy holidays!
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 1:50 pm
===the feds will neither confirm nor deny that there is an actual ongoing investigation currently, right?===
To you, maybe.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 1:54 pm
I think the answer to the union question is nowhere. Quinn got to pretend that he was cutting
personnel and the personnel budget (while hiring away at another door) and the union cooperated
by filing a lawsuit which they (and our Pat) hope will drag on until Quinn gets his big middle class tax cutpassed in the spring.
Then he’ll write out a blank check to employee unions. Happy feasting for all at the trough.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:02 pm
The question of the employees participation in a bypass veterans hiring scheme is a good one. Generally, at least in the past, my experience with civil service hearing officers was that they will not let you much less force you to punish an innocent person to rectify or correct the harm done the veteran.
It made sense to me. The vet was given the next available job, or a different job, perhaps at an increased salary or whatever in an effort to make him/her whole while not punishing the innocent party.
For the hiree to be free of blame, I think it would need to happen this way. Can’t hire the guy you want in Sangamon because a qualified vet is on the list. OK, friend, on your app put Calhoun as your county of choice. Now the reality is that you are going to have to report to work in Calhoun until you are certified, but we will hold the Sangamon position open and transfer you into it as soon as you are certified. Probably not a violation of civil service.
In these cases, though, if I recall correctly the person hired never reported to work in their county where they were hired. They would at least be complicit in listing as a county preference a county where they never intended to work, unless they didn’t fill out the app, it was filled out for them, and they never knew they had actually been hired to work in some other county.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:07 pm
I have a few comments regarding the veterans preference.
As background the veteran’s preference was just intended to be an addition point or two in the candidate’s scoring. But because the legislation was written incorrectly, it is an absolute preference that the veteran gets the job even if significantly more qualified people are available. But it is now politically impossible to change the law.
Then there is the reality of the preference. I have heard horror stories of state agencies being forced to hire veterans as statisticians even though they didn’t know the difference between a median, mode and mean because the position was a Public Service Administrator and they met the minimum qualifications. Yes it is possible to write separate job descriptions, but the amount of time needed to write and update non-generic positions would be tremendous. I think it is better to have generic positions like Public Service Administrator to save time and build in flexibility.
My other major concern is I find the preference discriminatory. If you are openly gay or disabled you cannot join the military. Additionally until recently, women were not welcomed in the military. If you are a pacifist you will not join the military for religious reasons (Quakers need not apply.) If you have numerous other good reasons for not joining as a young adult (say needing to care for a parent or children) you are just out of luck when you apply for a state job. So much for a meritocracy.
My sense is the preference distorts the culture of the state government. First the military is known to have a mindset and culture which is bureaucratic and hierarchical (which I thought we wanted to get away from). And I know this is not going to go over, but for a time period in the post Vietnam era, the military did not attract the best and brightest. I knew people who were given the choice of jail or military. I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of great candidates who are veterans, but just that an absolute preference doesn’t make sense.
Then down to the implementation level. It sounds the IG, the media, and others want to fire people who were hired in a manner that did not fully utilize the veterans preference. It doesn’t matter if you can prove that they did or didn’t know the hiring process. This is a significant expansion of the veterans preference to internships and other jobs.
Comment by Chicago Guy Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:22 pm
@ Chicago Guy - Very interesting take on veteran’s preference and certainly food for thought.
Comment by Anon and on... Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:27 pm
If Quinn wants to really fumigate, he should start over at McPier and dump all the 19th ward hacks that have made a shambles of that former economic engine, McCormick Place. They have been milking the place for decades and it’s finally gone dry.
I’m not sure if even a Hynes win can save their jobs after the deficits they have run up. Blago wasn’t the only one loading up the payroll.
Comment by Garp Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:31 pm
yeah Cass: I have had two 3% raises since joining the State six years ago, have had to pay more of my health insurance premiums, contribute a higher portion of my wages to a retirement plan that probably won’t be there when I retire, and let’s not leave out taking twelve unpaid furlough days, five before the end of the year …I am really feasting at the trough!
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 2:48 pm
Loop Lady
You must be in the 3 percent of state employees not in the bargaining unit, then.
I don’t believe that bargaining unit employees are required to take furlough days. That would have to be negotiated.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 3:19 pm
Only 3 percent of state employees are NOT union? I’m one of them and I find it hard to believe the number is THAT small.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 3:40 pm
I’ll have to back up Chicago Guy on this. When I was “hiring” in state government (We were looking for qualified technical people), we repeatedly interviewed pretty the same guys off of the vet’s list. How they qualified for the list I don’t know, but most of them had dismal job histories with long lists of employers who somehow didn’t keep them very long. Our attitude was that we were better off short-staffed than hire these guys, because once they are into the state government system and the union, it was virtually impossible to be rid of them. Fortunately, there was for many years enough lee-way in the interpretation of the law that we could avoid hiring these not-so-attractive folks. Unfortunately, that “lee-way” was shamelessly exploited by the Governor’s office who always had us interview the vets plus one other person who was not a vet. That one other person always got the job even if there actually was a vet that we preferred to hire, and we had no real say in the matter. Fortunately, someone in the Gov’s office seemed to be checking these people out before they were sent to us and they were for the most part good people. That is how the system worked, presumably still works, and probably will always work in the anything-goes environment of Illinois government.
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 4:31 pm
Whats the differance this Govenors office is doing the same thing telling agencies who to hire and bringing in outsiders- LOOK AT DOC and who they just brought in as a CHief
Comment by Sick and tired Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 6:34 pm
wrong again Cass…what a shock…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 6:43 pm
@ Chicago Guy, thanks for the background. Interesting, thoughtful comment.
I remember having to call CMS and speak w/ an arrogant individual who did the actual scoring of my 100. He sneered at me about the veteran’s preference. I am not a veteran but I had the feeling he had gotten his job that way.
Comment by Emily Booth Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 8:28 pm
SS over the last couple of years as non-union employees have had their pay cut, while the union employees got 4.5 percent step increases plus 4 colas…. well wouldnt you join the union?
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:12 pm
Chicago guy got it right. The veteran’s preference was supposed to mean that if all things were equal the veteran got the job. A judge’s interpretation changed it to mean that if the veteran met the minimal requirements, they got the job. The legislators were/are afraid to change the law, because they don’t want to appear anti-veteran.
Chicago guy actually minimized the discriminatory aspects of the veteran’s preference. There are numerous “conditions” that keeps one out of the military from high blood pressure, weight issues, asthma, etc. It makes sense why the military has these rules, but it does not make sense to use these conditions to limit job opportunities in civilian life.
My college roommate was convicted of statutory rape and the judge gave him a choice of the military or jail. The military straightened him up. But if we were up for the same state job, he would have preference.
Comment by Downstate guy Tuesday, Dec 1, 09 @ 10:43 pm
G, it appears to me the 2 most recent administrations have done all they can to encourage merit comps to join the unions.
Comment by steve schnorf Wednesday, Dec 2, 09 @ 12:07 am
Regarding federal corruption probes in the Northern District of Illinois, and their priority, Steve Huntley had an interesting column in yesterdays Sun-Times. An excerpt:
–Eleven prosecutors are assigned to tackle corruption and 43 to gang prosecutions and an anti-violence program called Project Safe Neighborhoods. Others among the 165-plus prosecutors also work some in the two areas.–
In other words, four times as many prosecutors are assigned to take down domestic terrorists like the Latin Kings and Black P Stone Nation. And rightly so.
Who gives a hoot about clout jobs when you have heavily armed thugs running the streets?
By the way, what does the U.S. Attorney out of Springfield do? Is he still on the milk carton?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 2, 09 @ 8:30 am