Exclusive: Van der Hooning, and Illinois vets, get a hearing at the Court of Claims

Cases involving employees of the state of Illinois often end up in the Court of Claims, and in Chicago that means heading to the massive Helmut Jahn-designed James R. Thomspon Center in the city's Loop.

The building, pictured above, has many distinguishing characteristics, but its most prominent one is its enormous atrium in the center of the roundish building. Many of the offices in the building don't have doors--the inspiration behind that was Jahn's belief that government should be open and accessible to the people it serves.

My alma mater, the University of Illinois, has been less than open in its handling of the scandal involving rescinded military scholarships for its Chicago Executive MBA program.

The state, on the other hand, was great today. They let me into the hearing, which fits Jahn's inspiration.

Here are my key posts on that topic:

Broken promises: How "jarheads" got shunted aside at the University of Illinois: A Marathon Pundit series

Marathon Pundit Exclusive: What happened behind the scenes of the University of Illinois veteran scholarship scandal

University of Illinois: "Hookers are Praised as Soldiers" –Marathon Pundit's Third Investigative Report

University of Illinois military scholarships scandal update

I'm going to do a second post as soon as some of that I observed is digested, particularly the legal terms

Each side got twenty minutes to present their case. Lindsay Jones, with a booming southern accent stated the U of I's case with well-timed cadence, which in one sentance was: This case should be dismissed.

Then Robert van der Hooning's side got its turn. Van der Hooning has two lawyers fighting for him--and the veterans. Legendary Chicago attorney Michael Shakman, the inspiration behind the anti-political patronage legal decision known as the Shakman Decree, and Jennifer Smiley are in van der Hooning's corner.

Smiley's presentation was measured and deliberate, which to me--keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer--was the best way to convince the six judges the merits of van der Hooning's case.

Forty-five minutes after it began, the hearing was over. Van der Hooning thanked me repeatedly for showing up. Shakman and Smiley didn't seem to know what to make of "this blogger person," but I'm used to that. Neither did Tom Klocek's attorneys John Mauck and Andy Norman when they met me for the first time when their battle with DePaul began in 2005. They're big fans of the blog now.

I asked Shakman when he thought a decision would be reached. "Weeks," he replied. "Or months," Smiley added.

To reply to this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.