Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Cellini sentencing delayed *** Ata gets four years probation
Next Post: National Journal ranks Illinois races
Posted in:
* House Speaker Michael Madigan has taken the unusual step of responding point by point to a highly critical series of stories published by the Chicago Tribune last month. He prefaced his detailed attempt at refutation with an open letter to the General Assembly, which was forwarded to me this morning by a Republican legislative employee…
As you know, the Chicago Tribune published several articles that implied conflicts of interest between my law practice and my position as Speaker. These articles provided ample speculation, but few facts. I have come to learn from individuals interviewed by the Tribune that the authors were provided information that directly contradicted the reporters’ conclusions-but that information appears nowhere in the articles.
Despite the implications, it is clear that the reporters have failed to uncover any evidence of conflicts of interest or quid pro quo between my legislative acts and the interests of my law firm, or of any other unethical conduct on my part. They have failed to find any evidence because it does not exist. Yet they insist on publishing articles that imply, if not outright state, that I have engaged in inappropriate conduct.
None of my actions as Speaker or as an attorney have been inappropriate or violative of any applicable law or ethical rule, I have imposed requirements on my law firm and myself, beyond what is required by the law, to ensure ethical conduct, and I go to great lengths to make certain there is a clear division between my law practice and my actions as a public official. Any potential law firm client who seeks a State benefit is not accepted. If a client requests my intercession with a State agency, I refuse. If a client expresses an interest in legislation, I recuse myself from consideration of the bill.
Even though the Tribune consistently ignores information that might cast their stories in a considerably different light, I am grateful to share such information with you. Enclosed you will find information relevant to the implications, as well as several inaccuracies found in the articles.
With kindest personal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,MICHAEL J. MADIGAN
Speaker of the House
* You should really read the whole thing. But here are some excerpts. First up, “Whether legislation that transformed the supportive living facilities pilot project into a permanent program was the result of Pathway Senior Living hiring my law firm”…
On June 2,2012, the Chicago Tribune published an article entitled “Favorable legislation flows to private clients of House Speaker Madigan.” The article implied that the passage of Senate Bill 1651 of the 94th General Assembly - which was unanimously approved by the General Assembly and became law July 26, 2005 - was somehow attributable to the relationship between my law firm and Pathway Senior Living, LLC (”Pathway”). It is true that my firm represents one of Pathway’s twelve properties, and it is presumably true that Pathway benefited from the State’s decision to make the program permanent. But neither Pathway nor I initiated the legislation. In fact, if the Tribune had researched this issue at all, they would have discovered that the legislation was the direct result of actions taken by Governor Blagojevich - who has never been mistaken for an ally of mine - and a gubernatorial agency. The legislation implemented a rule proposed by the Department of Public Aid and approved by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (”JCAR”) that ensured that the Department had sufficient statutory authority to operate the supportive living facilities program, which had proven to result in significant savings to the State of Illinois. […]
At no time did any person in my firm or I discuss this pending legislation, or any pending or proposed legislation related to Pathway’s properties or senior living facilities in general, with any officer or representative of Pathway. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I have met with representatives of Pathway on only one occasion. My law partner, Bud Getzendanner, and I met with James Kaledjian, President of Pathway, on October 24,2004, to discuss the firm assisting with property tax issues with a senior living facility Pathway intended to build at l05th and Michigan Avenue in Chicago, now known as Victory Center of Roseland, Mr. Kaledjian’s statements in the article confirm my recollection. Additionally, I believe he made it clear that we never discussed legislative issues and that Pathway’s decision to hire my firm had nothing to do with their legislative interests.
ccordingly, it is undisputed (but barely mentioned in the June 2nd article) that this legislation (i) was initiated by a governor who by no means was an ally of mine; (ii) received unanimous legislative support; (iii) resulted in significant savings yo the State by providing a lower-cost method of care; and (iv) benefits countless poor and elderly citizens in Illinois, The Tribune reporters would ignore virtually all of this relevant information and focus, instead, on that the fact that one of the companies that owned these facilities utilized the services of my law firm for one legal project months after that legislation passed. I believe it would be clear to any reasonable person - armed with all of the relevant information, not just that cherry-picked by the reporters - that there is no connection between my firm’s representation of Pathway and the passage of that legislation.
* Another topic…
The Tribune article published on June 2,2012, implied that the passage of Senate Bill 2185 of the 94th General Assembly, which became law on January 19,2007, somehow demonstrated a conflict of interest between my firm and my public acts. Given that I voted “present” on the legislation and recused myself from consideration of the matter, I am at a loss to understand why the Tribune believes that I had a conflict of interest. I voted “present,” as I usually do on property tax issues, as an act of caution. In light of the Tribune’ s strained attempts to link my legislative actions to clients of the firm who might “benefit” from such actions, my caution appears to be well-founded. […]
Senate and House records indicate that the Illinois Equity Fund, Developer Services Group, and Illinois Health Care Association supported the legislation. Again, there is no record indicating that Pathway was a proponent of the bill. Senate Bill 2185 was approved unanimously by the General Assembly with one exception - I voted present.
* Medicaid funding spared…
The Tribune article published on June 2, 2072, states that certain Medicaid providers, such as nursing homes, pharmacies, and supportive living facilities, received favorable treatment, and they imply that this supposed preferential treatment was due to my relationship to certain facilities via my law practice. As I will explain below, their premise is incorrect - there was no favorable treatment - and, in any event, I exerted absolutely no influence to benefit any of them. […]
Despite what the Tribune perceives as my many conflicts of interest, however, I stood alone among the legislative leaders in refusing to agree to these inflated figures and by insisting that the Medicaid problem would not be resolved solely on the backs of the poor and needy, without the providers sharing in the pain. I very easily could have agreed to these higher savings estimates and, by doing so, could have spared the nursing homes, supportive living facilities, and pharmacies from any cut to their rates whatsoever. This indisputable fact, which appears nowhere in the Tribune article, belies any notion that my public positions are dictated by my law practice. […]
…the full $700 million did not need to be cut from the providers (as originally proposed by Governor Quinn) was due to several factors, namely (i) the enhanced eligibility verification; (ii) the new hospital assessment, which generated an additional $100 million for Medicaid expenses; and (iii) the use of the FY12 surplus money. […]
The Tribune makes much of the fact that the Governor’s proposal called for the elimination of funding for supportive living facilities, a proposal that the legislature rejected. According to Representative Sara Feigenholtz, the lead negotiator for the House Democrats, LMAC concluded that it was unwise to eliminate supportive living facilities, as they were more cost effective than other Medicaid providers, and resulted in substantial savings for the State, Representative Feigenholtz explained this to one of the Tribune reporters during an interview, She also stated that the decision to preserve the supportive living facilities was made in the early stages of LMAC’s work - long before one of my attorneys, David Ellis, began attending meetings. Furthermore, Representative Feigenholtz was specifically asked if I requested that these facilities be protected or that my clients receive some sort of preferential treatment, and she stated that I had never discussed this issue with her. But, again, none of this information was included in the article.
With respect to the article’s inferences that supportive living facilities received preferential treatment, let me be clear - I disagree with that premise, but regardless, I did not exert any influence or direct any outcome with respect to the supportive living facilities. […]
To any knowledgeable observer of the Medicaid negotiations, the notion that pharmacies received preferential treatment is not only false but laughable. Pharmacies, like almost every other Medicaid provider, received a rate cut of approximately 3 percent in the Medicaid legislation. Moreover, the pharmacy community - represented by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (”IRMA”), Illinois Pharmacists Association, Association of Indian Pharmacists in America, and Illinois Council of Health System Pharmacists - had agreed in February to a significant rate cut of 5.9% in fees, and to move to performance based contracting (which could also result in a significant cut), When the across-the-board Medicaid rate cuts were announced this year, which included pharmacies, representatives of the pharmacy community furiously objected that it was unfair to subject pharmacies to a second rate cut. They lobbied one legislator after another about the unfair treatment of pharmacies. For newspaper reporters, purporting to comprehensively research a topic, to fail to capture these easily-ascertainable facts is negligent at best.
What is even worse, however, is that I am told that David Vite, president of IRMA, explained this background to one of the Tribune reporters in each of two interviews. He explained that pharmacies had agreed to rate cuts and performance based contracting earlier in the year, and that now they were subjected to an additional 3 percent cut, in addition to the fact that approximately $18 million in prescription revenues would no longer be made available because of other cuts made by LMAC. Mr. Vite explained to the reporter how pharmacies were being treated much worse than other Medicaid providers. Yet these facts did not appear anywhere in the Tribune series. Instead, the Tribune reporters skillfully avoided these inconvenient details; rather than focusing on pharmacies in particular, they simply made the global claim that pharmacies and other providers “avoided the worst of the proposals” made during the Medicaid negotiations. That claim is only technically true and, particularly in the case of the pharmacies, is incredibly incomplete and misleading
* Foreclosure legislation…
On June 4,2072, the Tribune published an article entitled, “Michael Madigan tax clients unscathed in foreclosure debate, ” Given that I have been a leading voice in combating predatory lending practices of Illinois financial institutions for more than a decade, I am offended by the Tribune’s insinuation that I would place personal gain ahead of the families that have been impacted by this crisis and the decimation of communities that has occurred as a result of thousands of boarded-up houses in my neighborhood and throughout the State. I can only assume that the reporters did not contact those who represent the financial industries in Springfield, Had they taken the time to do so, they would have learned that the industry does not view me as an ally. Joyce Nardulli, Vice President of Government Relations for the Illinois Bankers Association, has said that she disagreed with the Tribune ’s inferences, mainly because I have been anything but helpful to the banking industry.
There’s lots more. So, again, go read the whole thing.
Also, this was copied and pasted from a pdf file, so there may be some typos that I missed.
…Adding… The Tribune series is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Cellini sentencing delayed *** Ata gets four years probation
Next Post: National Journal ranks Illinois races
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===With kindest personal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,
MICHAEL J. MADIGAN
Speaker of the House===
You get a letter signed like that … be careful!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:20 am
Actually, it is not unusual at all. The same approach was taken in 2010 during the first tortured and failed effort.
Members received a detailed review of the reporting including factual errors,
Comment by Steve Brown Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:36 am
Anyone who read the Tribune series got a headache trying to find the payoffs in the long-winded articles to their sensational headlines.
All sizzle, no steak.
But once the Trib committed the time and resources to Madigan for their annual Pulitzer-push, they had to feed the elephant.
Madigan’s response is comprehensive, detailed and convincing.
Somehow, I think it will get short-shrift by Kass when he re-writes the top two paragraphs to the generic column he’s been publishing for years.
I wonder how he squares in his mind that the Tribbie reporters uncovered all this alleged wrongdoing, but Super-Fitz never laid a glove on Madigan?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:46 am
Steve, this morning I sent a note to Tiger Beat to let them know that I am the official head of your Fan Club.
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 11:46 am
I like that he is fighting back.
Comment by Humble Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:13 pm
SM
Thanx for your support.
Gotta enjoy a blog that spans the ’sphere from the unquestioned quality of Tiger Beat to the ho hum of National Journal.
BTW today is a favorite time of year because in certain markets AM radio just pre-empted Rush for Cardinals baseball !
Comment by Steve Brown Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:22 pm
Last week John Kass was guest co-hosting on WLS with Dan Proft, the guy who knowingly worked for and elected the outfit connected mayor in Cicero, and then cashed in. Was a 2 hour love fest between Kass and Proft.
The Tribune can just come down off its high horse.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:27 pm
I am obviously from the other party, but I respect the Speaker for standing up to the Tribune. They latch onto something and then try to make the facts fit the story they want to write. This whole series was clearly retribution for pension reform not moving. They were going to find a way to try to humiliate and bring heat on Madigan as a payback. I think there is an abuse of power here…and its the Tribune’s.
Comment by Raising Kane Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:32 pm
:) They’re all just coincidences!
Comment by Air-Is-Total Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 12:35 pm
Michael may be the King,and will have his speaker spot as long as he wants. But we don’t get to vote for him. But what you have to remember is every voter in Illinois will have a vote for or against Lisa. So in two years, voters may have had enough!
Comment by two years Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:02 pm
#7 - He uses the word occasionally when the more accurate word would be routinely. Staffers don’t occasionally go on and off the state payroll to do political work, they do it routinely, every election cycle like clockwork. Timesheets? Lets see them instead of denying all FOIA requests for them, IF you want to use that as an excuse.
State grants are being abused right and left with almost daily arrests and indictments surrounding the Billion plus they hand out each year. Madigan lets his staff take time off to go kick people off the ballot, while Madigan does nothing to ensure those grants he hands out are worthwhile before they are given, or were used properly and show positive results after they are received.
Its nice he has some free time right now while all those staffers are working in overdrive trying to kick political competition off the ballot. Election laws that violate the US Constitution while keeping independents off the ballot for 25 years is disgraceful for Michael Madigan and everyone else in the GA who has ignored the principles of democracy that our voters deserve.
If you are afraid of political competition on the ballot, and will implement election laws that violate our US Constitution in order to keep competition off the ballot, you don’t deserve to be the Speaker or have any elected power. The next time one of our ballot access laws in ruled unconstitutional, Michael Madigan should resign, or something better. We deserve democracy, NOT Madigan’s corrupt election law games.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:03 pm
I for one would like to thank said Republican legislative employee for passing this along to Mr. Miller so we can all see the Speaker’s detailed response to the Trib’s rubbish and ongoing witch hunt. I’m sure it was a difficult decision for said employee, but I honor your courage in making sure your mortal enemy’s side of the story is told. Well done and godspeed.
Comment by Professor X Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:18 pm
@Professor X -
This seems like a good time to point out that Madigan was elected Speaker 117-1. No one on the Republican side of the aisle truly views Madigan as a “mortal enemy,” despite what the campaign mail and ads say.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:39 pm
@Oswego Willy -
I believe that’s how the Speaker closes all of his letters, for what its worth.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 1:45 pm
YDD, I think you missed the point. I’m sure someone thought he/she was being clever by sending this to Mr. Miller, but I would argue it had the opposite effect.
And “no one”? Really? If you don’t think a few GOP members, and dare I say most staff, hate Madigan, the guy who kicks their tails every two years, you’re nuts.
Comment by Professor X Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 2:01 pm
Whatever…….
Comment by ruetheday Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 2:10 pm
@Professor X -
If there’s anyone on the GOP side of the aisle who “hates” Madigan, they are in the wrong line of work.
Madigan doesn’t beat the Republicans. They beat themselves.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
- Sun Tzu
All the Illinois House Republicans need to do is abandon the losing legislative and political strategy and tactics they’ve clung to for the last 20 years.
Kirk, Rutherford and Topinka are proof that Republicans can win in Illinois if they are willing to let go of their extremist ideology.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 2:17 pm
And by “wrong line of work,” I mean that when you lose - especially so consistently - you don’t blame your opponent. You look in the mirror.
Frankly, I’m not sure what line of work you’d belong in.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 2:41 pm
I guess the Speaker wants us to believe that by voting no or present he has no influence on what bills pass or don’t pass. How about making party caucuses subject to the open meeting acat?
Comment by Rocky 7 Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:08 pm
@Professor X - glad to have another nerd here. If we find ourselves a Banshee and a Storm, we’ll be halfway towards a Giant Size #1 worth of commentary!
Comment by Colossus Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:09 pm
==
I guess the Speaker wants us to believe that by voting no or present he has no influence on what bills pass or don’t pass. How about making party caucuses subject to the open meeting acat?
==
Ditto. Although I don’t think it’s reasonable to make caucus meetings subject to the open meetings act, I think it’s silly that just because MJM isn’t voting–or is voting “present” on an issue–that somehow his influence isn’t being wielded. I’m not a Springfield guy, but I’ve got to assume that every day or each week MJM has a strategy session w/ his top staff & legislative floor leaders. His people know how he WANTS it to go, and I’m sure they communicate that to the rest of the caucus. And even if MJM doesn’t literally spell it out to his staffers, I’ve got to assume at this point in his career he’s basically mind-melded with a few of his most trusted people and they can basically run the joint on auto-pilot according to MJM’s wishes in most circumstances.
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:25 pm
Oh, and as for the 117-1 votes: how much of that is theatrics and how much of that is also fear-based? As I said, I’m not a Springfield guy, but once the hard count is done, I’m assuming the rest is just Kaubuki theatre….
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:27 pm
sounds to me with all the federal indictments, he might be trying to cover his butt. he is the speaker, no bill gets called if he says NO. Plus he is the party chairman with all the money. Nice try but I am not buying it….
Comment by Just Because Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:28 pm
==Staffers don’t occasionally go on and off the state payroll to do political work, they do it routinely, every election cycle like clockwork. ==
I see this as efficient and something that probably saves the state money while keeping experienced staff from flying to another state. The GSA is in session from Jan-May. Then what? The work for staff drops off a cliff. No bills, no committee hears, etc. They move onto the campaign side, off the state payroll and continue to work develop policy, etc. When campaign season is over, veto session starts and they go back to GA staff. The alternative would be to pay them and give them make-work stuff for 5-6 months; which would be a waste of taxpayer money.
I have no problem with staff going back and forth. It’s two sides of the same job.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 3:41 pm
===@Oswego Willy -
I believe that’s how the Speaker closes all of his letters, for what its worth.===
I think I was just mocking that ANY letter signed by MJM …
with ANY closing from MJM, just be careful.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 4:02 pm
@Oswego Willy -
Funny.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 4:25 pm
Steve Brown wrote-”today is a favorite time of year because in certain markets AM radio just preempted Rush for Cardinals baseball”
Now there is one thing Steve wrote with which I heartily agree. Well said Steve.
Comment by Jon Bauman Wednesday, Jul 18, 12 @ 5:10 pm
I should add that even when Republicans had a huge fundraising advantage during the 90’s, Madigan still won 4 out of 5. On their map.
@Jon - Go Cards!
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 7:12 am
Pot calling kettle - That’s a fair point to make for election years, so why do they all stay on the payroll during non-election years when they are out of session? If they went off payroll every year, instead of every other year, your point might be valid, but they only go off payroll during election seasons every two years. Apparently, there is enough work to keep them on payroll during non-election years, but not enough work during election years? That doesn’t make any sense at all and is why you won’t hear Brown/Madigan make that excuse for this lousy practice.
Also, why are they classified as full-time employees, with pensions/healthcare/vacation/…, if they are actually part-time employees who are only needed when there isn’t an election going on? If you are sincere about wanting to save money, we could save a ton by classifying them as the part-timers they really are during election years.
I get your point, but it looks to me like it is just more evidence that they are giving state job rewards to people who do campaign work for them every two years. Because they don’t go off payroll every year when session is out, your justification of this practice fails.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 4:03 pm