Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s official: Rosenthal appointed to top IDNR job
Next Post: Whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on?
Posted in:
* I had a brief post yesterday about Treasurer Mike Frerichs refusing FOIA requests for his predecessor’s internal investigation. Erickson has some background and more info…
Rutherford commissioned an internal investigation of the claims and said he would make the probe public when it was complete.
His attorney later said the report must stay under wraps because the former worker, Ed Michalowski, filed a federal lawsuit claiming Rutherford subjected him to a “longstanding pattern of discrimination based upon his sex” from April 2011 to December 2013.
Tuesday’s decision, said Frerichs’ office, came at the request of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is defending Rutherford in the lawsuit.
“(T)he office of the attorney general has instructed the office of the Illinois state treasurer to not release the investigative report because of the ongoing litigation,” noted Allen Mayer, deputy general counsel for the treasurer’s office.
* AP…
In a letter to the AP, FOIA officer G. Allen Mayer said Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, had “instructed” the treasurer not to disclose the findings because Madigan’s office is defending Rutherford against a former employee’s federal lawsuit. […]
Frerichs spokeswoman Paris Ervin pledged that, when court action concludes, Frerichs will work to “quickly get the investigative report released.”
“Releasing the Braver report is important. It must be done,” Ervin said. “Treasurer Frerichs remains committed to transparency and delivering on his promise to release the report but respects the attorney general’s need to handle the litigation appropriately.” […]
Frerichs also released a letter Tuesday from Madigan’s public access counselor, who is supposed to review appeals of FOIA requests denied by public bodies. It stated that Rutherford had properly withheld the report under exemptions to the public access law. The letter was written in response to appeals from WBBM-TV in Chicago, the Chicago Sun-Times and a citizen.
* Tribune…
Madigan’s office has ruled that the Rutherford report does not have to be released because it is a “confidential attorney-client work product” and falls under an exemption in state law that prevents the release of “materials prepared or compiled by or for a public body in anticipation of a criminal, civil or administrative proceeding upon the request of an attorney advising the public body.” […]
But even if the case is eventually resolved, the attorney general’s office stopped short of saying that would clear the way for the report to be released.
“Once the litigation is resolved, we will work with the treasurer’s office to conduct the necessary legal research to assess whether the attorney-client privilege can be waived,” Madigan spokeswoman Natalie Bauer Luce said.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 12:42 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s official: Rosenthal appointed to top IDNR job
Next Post: Whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well, that sounds like “a definite maybe” to me. It also sounds like a “transparent” statement crafted by a current politician or by an aspiring future politician.
Comment by Rowdy Yates Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 12:51 pm
Someone please explain to me why the AG’s office feels research is necessary to determine whether privilege can be waived, and why the state’s largest law
Firm can’t start “researching” that question now.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 12:56 pm
Dude. It’s not the State’s largest law firm. It is the second most political.
Comment by Raymond Burr Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:03 pm
The Roger Bickel/George Ryan case established that the privilege belongs to the office, and can be waived. The U.S. district court ruled that Jesse White, as the successor in office, could waive attorney-client privilege claimed by Ryan. (The 7th Circuit affirmed on other grounds.)
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:07 pm
This seems to be one of those “Boy o boy, if I could, man, I would!” knowing the intention will not be fulfilled.
Until proven otherwise, the history of Frerichs is that of a glommer, making even @RutherfordDan seem modest and meek.
The guy had a 2nd rollout of his campaign that turned out to be more about back-pedaling than reinforcing a positive image.
Lest we forget during all the Rauner EOs, Frerichs talked about employee rights and signing and posturing. Can’t be left out, right Mr. Frerichs?
If we do see the report, it won’t be for the good of Illinois, it will be at the time best to maximize @FakeMikeFrerichs.
It’s who he is. It’s how he ran, it’s how he is starting off…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:11 pm
Burr-
That was meant with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
The AG repeatedly referred to herself as the head of the state’s largest law firm in the campaign.
Quite a shift from being the “people’s lawyer” in 2002.
Look, it is what it is. Their is a motion to dismiss the suit pending in federal court right now. I know we are all anxious to read the salacious details, but isn’t the anticipation only making it better?
Or, like the long-awaited fourth installment in Star Wars, will we be left only bitter and disappointed when the report finally arrives?
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:11 pm
There is no advantage to Frerichs to hang onto the report. His hands are tied. The mistake he made was promising to release something that he did not have the authority to release.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:23 pm
Natalie rocking the new last name.
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:24 pm
I predict we won’t see it. It won’t have any material effect on outcomes already reached. Should we be able to? sure. Must we? Not me.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:27 pm
I’m torn on this one. Would it be nice to know what’s in it? Sure. But I don’t think I’m that upset that the document isn’t being released. Exemptions are there for a reason. Legal reasons are one of them.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:36 pm
It’s interesting they released the list of people interviewed. I’m curious how many of those people are also on the list of people the SJR put out that Rutherford took care of.
Comment by Downstate GOP Faithless Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:36 pm
Sounds like it will come out. Frerichs could buck the AG now, but there’s no good reason to do that.
Guy, it’s hardly a surprise that you don’t wish to be bothered with relevant information before reaching a conclusion.
But I hope you can see how some citizens might want to know what the heck was going on in a Constitutional office on their dime.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:37 pm
If it’s paid for with tax dollars, it should be made public. The “exemption” LM cites could cover almost anything.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:47 pm
We should see it and probably will. I’m more interested in what comes out at trial, if it ever gets that far.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Why should it come out before Rutherford comes out?
As of now, Frerichs can swing both ways!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:54 pm
Dan Rutherford was a Student Advisor on my dorm floor in college. I hope I don’t get a subpoena!
Comment by Peoria Guy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:59 pm
=== Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 1:37 pm:
Guy, it’s hardly a surprise that you don’t wish to be bothered with relevant information before reaching a conclusion.
But I hope you can see how some citizens might want to know what the heck was going on in a Constitutional office on their dime.====
Sling, already stipulated to. It should be public and anyone who wants to should be able to read it. I read a lot about what was being investigated when this was still a hot issue. So did you I’m certain. If anything conclusive comes of this, I believe it will be news. Don’t you? If it boils down to salacious “he said, he said”, I’m just not terribly anxious to read that.
That OK with you?
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:02 pm
This stinks to the heavens if that never comes out.
There is nothing wrong with protecting attorney client privilege during trial preparations. The report should come out during trial regardless, as it logically contains statements and evidence material to both sides. Unless they seal the record, that will become public.
But for Rutherford to pull a 180 after puffing his chest out and promising for weeks to release the publicly funded report that was supposedly going to clear his name, something still does not add up. According to the Sun Times and AP, he canceled that press conference pretty suddenly following receipt of the report. iirc, they actually cancelled the press conference the same day he received the report, and less than 24 hours before he was supposed to publicly trumpet his ==exoneration== before the cameras.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:08 pm
This is classic example of the media wants everything now no matter what and lawyers don’t want to disclose anything so long as a case is pending. Trying to turn it into a hack on Ferichs is just something to write about when there is nothing else.
Comment by D.P.Gumby Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:09 pm
I’ve heard that about Frerichs … swinging both ways.
Comment by SuzieD Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:19 pm
VMan, wasn’t it just yesterday that you were down on the gay innuendo directed at Schock?
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:20 pm
Suzie - really?!
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:24 pm
Of course, privilege can be waived. I’ve done so many times when reports have nothing of use to the other side.
That seems to indicate that the AG seems to think the report can help the other side.
Comment by Gooner Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:25 pm
Gooner - perhaps, but at this point what does it matter? This whole thing will be a distant memory in 2018 (unless Dan Rutherford runs for another office between now and then) and we are going to have a Comptroller election in 2016 (which would likely favor a Democratic candidate).
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:36 pm
What gay innuendo?
I’m just saying that as soon as Rutherford comes out as a candidate for another office, I suspect this report will come out as well. Until then, Frerichs can have handle it as is his pleasure.
I think you have a very dirty mind, mister!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 2:49 pm
VMan, what a dazzling wit you have, or at least half a one. Hypocrisy comes easy to you.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 3:05 pm
Sling, substitute the word “charm” for “wit” and say it to yourself.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 3:15 pm
Alright, gentlemen, start acting like gentlemen.
Live and let live.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 3:16 pm
VMan, you have had better days.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 3:16 pm
Confirming receipt of admonishment, offering apology, and working on the skill being reprimanded for. (I’ll be really embarrassed if your message was meant for someone else)
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jan 21, 15 @ 3:25 pm