Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: How are we going to pay for this?
Next Post: Push is on for Springfield casino
Posted in:
* Sun-Times editorial…
At a time when Illinois is sitting on $14.3 billion in unpaid bills, it’s dismaying to learn that the state rented a warehouse for $2.4 million that it could have bought outright for $750,000.
Yes, $2.4 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to state spending, but such wastefulness begs the question of how well — or, rather, how poorly — the rest of our tax money is being spent. And it’s a miserable sales pitch for an income tax hike that both Democrats and Republics know is coming sooner or later.
Two suburban Chicago legislators — state Sen. Tom Cullerton, D-Villa Park, and state Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills — have called for an Illinois Legislative Audit Commission investigation into the warehouse’s five-year lease.
This being Illinois, home to sweetheart deals, the leasing arrangement involves a secretive newly formed corporation with links to a onetime political powerhouse, William Cellini. According to WCIA-TV in Downstate Champaign, three business people in the single-bid lease had ties to Cellini, who was the onetime “king of clout” and friend of many governors before he was convicted in 2011 of trying to shake down a movie producer for Rod Blagojevich campaign cash. Those with ties to Cellini include the leasing agent, one of the three warehouse owners and the chairman of the Procurement Policy Board, which signed off on the deal. […]
Mike Hoffman, director of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services told the Springfield Journal-Register the lease was in accordance with the state’s standard approval process.
Which just means the state’s standard approval process is a joke.
* Champaign News-Gazette…
Democratic state Controller Susana Mendoza has stopped payments for the building’s lease, at best a temporary move if this deal passes legal muster. Further, some Democrats seeking to score political points are trying to wrap the deal around Gov. Bruce Rauner’s neck. It’s hard to imagine he played any role in making the deal.
But Rauner’s office can play a key role in reviewing the matter and mandating a change of approach. If this is the way state bureaucrats think business should be done, they need to be set straight.
McSweeney’s point about digitization also deserves scrutiny. How much paper is the state storing and at what cost? Is there an opportunity here to reduce the cost of doing business?
The big issue, of course, is how the deal went down. Is this the case of a group of sharp businessmen legally taking advantage of disinterested bureaucrats foolishly doing business the way it’s always been done. Or were other influences in play?
* Chicago Tribune editorial board and Illinois Policy Institute…
*crickets*
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 22, 17 @ 9:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: How are we going to pay for this?
Next Post: Push is on for Springfield casino
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
To expect the Tribune Editorial Board, or the IPI, to be thoughtful in having criticism here is pure folly.
They are not advocates for honesty in government, but cheerleaders for those willing to be hypocrites.
It’s who they are.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 22, 17 @ 9:39 am
===*crickets*===
Nary an MLB open thread for months… Luis Robert, two awesome weekend games (with Wimpy in the booth!), Avi Garcia doing his best Mike Trout impersonation. And you call yourself a White Sox fan. Crickets indeed…. /s
To the post… It’s about time.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, May 22, 17 @ 9:51 am
Chicago Tribune editorial board and Illinois Policy Institute…
C’mon Rich. It’s only corruption when the other side does it.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:03 am
Waste fraud and abuse Rauner style.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:05 am
“It’s hard to imagine he played any role in making the deal.” Right, it is just those dumb bureaucrats. It couldn’t possibly the Governor’s Office finding ways to reward political cronies. That would never happen /sn.
Comment by kimocat Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:08 am
A realistic suggestion is to put a provision in the DHS budget that no amount of appropriation shall be paid for that lease.
The Lease surely includes language that it is “subject to appropriation” and that would put an end to it legally.
Comment by Anon One Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:15 am
Trib and Policy Institute implicate the Rauner Administration of doing something wrong?
C’mon Rich no way that happens.
Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:24 am
Shock shock there is gambling going on here. Cancel the lease and invite the US Attorney to investigate what was possibly mail fraud
Comment by Sue Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:26 am
Let’s face it these folks have made money off the State of Illinois no matter who is in the governors seat. Cellini’s, Mapes, and Vala regularly get together. Oh Btw Mapes wife works for DHS as well. Weird I know. Nothing changes in Illinois.
Comment by Funny Monday, May 22, 17 @ 10:59 am
If Rauner’s number one priority is looking out for taxpayers, as he continually claims, you’d think he’d be the one out in front on this demanding an investigation and firing those responsible.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, May 22, 17 @ 11:00 am
The only place where you might see the Tribune, the Illinois “Policy” “Institute” and Rauner diverge is just how awesome they believe he is- Super awesome, or super-duper awesome?
Comment by Albany Park Patriot Monday, May 22, 17 @ 11:26 am
Has anybody looked into the lease details compared to other leases? I believe the standard in all theses leases is a 90 day notice for cancellation. Is this 90 day notice only for the non-politically connected?
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, May 22, 17 @ 11:27 am
This one doesn’t pass the smell test.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, May 22, 17 @ 12:11 pm
Ahoy, the standard 90 day cancellation plan ain’t standard any more.Thank Rod for that.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, May 22, 17 @ 1:04 pm
If Rauner hasn’t bricked this yet he’s as culpable as anyone.
Comment by Daniel Plainview Monday, May 22, 17 @ 1:24 pm
AA:
As far as I know leases have a “Termination for Convenience” clause which pretty much means you can cancel the lease for any reason so long as you give 120 days notice.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 22, 17 @ 1:37 pm
For the record, I think the termination clause is a bad idea. It does not give land owners certainty to make needed improvements into a building and that clause is still in a lot of leases in Springfield and it causing deterioration of a lot of buildings.
Of course CMS needs to obviously do a lot better job managing these leases and not giving away sweet heart deals. As noted in the article, “the state’s standard approval process is a joke.”
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, May 22, 17 @ 1:43 pm
Demo, I can tell you with high confidence that the number of State Leases now in force with convenience termination clauses in favor of the State is less than 10 percent and falling. Nothing’s cheap any more and especially empty space.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, May 22, 17 @ 4:12 pm
AA:
You probably know more than me. I know ours has the clause and I assumed it was a standard lease agreement. But then again we’re talking about CMS and there’s never anything “standard” about them.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 22, 17 @ 4:32 pm
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is the usual operations of our exceptionally honest, transparent and ethical government leaders. Nothing to see here, just keep paying your taxes(subject to increase). I want to have confidence that my elected officials are smart and honest and really care about making things better. Wish I had gotten in on the great deals they are dishing out, take the money and run…
Comment by Slyjocko Tuesday, May 23, 17 @ 8:03 am
== A realistic suggestion is to put a provision in the DHS budget that no amount of appropriation shall be paid for that lease.
The Lease surely includes language that it is “subject to appropriation” and that would put an end to it legally. ==
Before you can line item non-appropriate something, you have to have a budget with a line item in it.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, May 23, 17 @ 8:10 am