DPI Supports the Incumbent in the 22nd House District (who also chairs DPI)

Cross posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Speaker Michael J. Madigan wears many hats, including Mr. Chairman. As head of the Democratic Party of Illinois, he plays a key role in doling out state party funds to assist candidates around Illinois. This year, he's spent a goodly amount of DPI funds on his own race for re-election.

According to reports filed with the State Board of Elections, the Democratic Party of Illinois has spent $87K on Madigan's 22nd District re-election effort, including $40K on printing, $41K on postage, and $5K on polling.

That's more than DPI has ever spent on Madigan's races before (we found $5K in DPI spending on Madigan's re-election in 2002, and another $5K in 2004). And it's more than DPI spent on some of this year's high profile races, including Careen Gordon's re-election race in the 75th District and Dennis Ahern's efforts to hold the Mike Boland's 71st District seat.

And maybe it goes without saying, it's more than DPI has spent helping Jay Hoffman in his million-dollar race to hold the 112th District. Of course, DPI hasn't spent a dime on Hoffman. Which is probably telling in another way.

To comment, please visit ICPR's blog.

Read more...

Procurement, ethics, employee reforms sail to Senate

By Bethany Jaeger
The House overwhelmingly approved three measures to shield state contracts from political influence, to shine a light on the secretive process of investigating ethical violations and to “fumigate” the state of political appointees of former Govs. George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich.

The measures, all sponsored by House Speaker Michael Madigan, now head to the Senate, where more government reforms are expected to be debated tomorrow.



Madigan focused on procurement, employee ethics and political appointees. They received near-unanimous support. Republican Rep. Bill Black of Danville said, “These bills are some of the most important bills we’ve discussed in a long, long time.”

Procurement, SB 51
The speaker’s proposal would not go as far as preferred by Gov. Pat Quinn’s Illinois Reform Commission when changing the way the state purchases products and services. But Madigan’s goal mirrors that of the commission’s. “This was designed to shut the door on misuse of procurement and to isolate the procurement process and the procurement people from undue influence, especially from the office of the governor,” Madigan said on the House floor.

Rather than create one “procurement czar” in a new state procurement agency, as the commission wanted, Madigan proposed hiring a series of independent procurement officials in a "six-level system" of oversight:

• Chief procurement officers would oversee procurement for the Capital Development Board, the Illinois Department of Transportation and higher education. The rest would be placed with the state’s main purchasing arm, Central Management Services.
• Procurement compliance monitors would oversee the procurement process in real time and be able to recommend changes or expose abuses.
• Independent internal auditors would be placed in their respective agencies, reversing a Blagojevich decision to consolidate them all into Central Management Services.
• One executive procurement officer in the governor’s office would advise the governor and the procurement officers. The position would end in January 2011, either when Quinn started his first full term as governor or when a new governor took office.
• The Procurement Policy Board would be strengthened so it could review contracts or bidder information and make recommendations for the chief procurement officers regarding conflicts of interest.

Each procurement officer, compliance monitor and internal auditor would serve a five-year term, pending Senate confirmation. And they couldn’t be fired without a public hearing that determined cause for removal.

The use of sub-contractors would have to be disclosed, CORRECTION: but a provision that would have strengthened the so-called pay-to-play ban so that businesses holding state contracts of $25,000 (instead of the current $50,000) would be banned from donating to the officeholders' political campaign didn't make it into the final version. The $50,000 threshold remains.

“The bill is laced with transparency requirements,” Madigan said. “Our whole intent was two-fold: open up the process — make it more transparent — and insulate the process from undue influence, especially coming out of the governor’s office.”

Employee ethics, SB 54
Blagojevich enacted a law in 2003 that created inspectors to root out corruption or improper political donations from state contractors. But the process of investigating allegations lacked teeth and was cloaked in secrecy, with no way for the general public or legislators to know whether a corruption allegation was investigated or addressed.

“In the past, a lot of this work has been done in the dark,” Madigan said.

So his measure would allow reports of the inspectors to be public record if they found wrongdoing and either suspended or terminated an employee. Some of the information could be blacked out if it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation. And it would change the law so the inspectors could start an investigation based on anonymous tips.

It also would strengthen the so-called revolving door ban to prevent high-ranking officials from accepting jobs with private companies that received significant state contracts from the agency where the official worked. Agencies would have to list all of the employees who would be affected by the ban.

Stricter lobbying regulations would require people who lobby state boards, commissions or retirement boards to register as lobbyists, and all lobbyists would have to abide by stricter disclosure requirements. They’d also pay a higher fee of $1,000, as opposed to the current $350, which is how the state would pay for two inspectors to oversee lobbying activities. Madigan said he would consider reducing the fees for smaller nonprofit lobbying groups down the road.

Employee “fumigation,” SB 1333
At the request of the governor, Madigan reduced his original attempt to force Quinn to fire up to 3,000 employees or commissioners appointed by Ryan or Blagojevich. His measure now would apply to about 750 agency directors and their assistants, who can be hired or fired based on their political affiliations. He also would give the governor 90 days instead of 60 to review each of those employees before they would automatically be terminated.

Also at Quinn’s request “on a very personal level,” Madigan removed a provision that would have fired one of the governor’s longtime friends, John Filan. But that’s with the understanding the Filan would resign as the executive director of the Illinois Finance Authority July 1. “I took the governor at his word,” Madigan said. Filan was Blagojevich’s first-term budget director and former chief operating officer who played an integral role in several of Blagojevich’s controversial budget proposals, including floating $10 billion in pension obligation bonds and skipping $2.3 billion in state contributions in fiscal years ’06 and ’07.

Even without the provision to fire Filan, the bill drew concerns about the separation of powers because the legislature would fire people appointed by the executive branch. “We are, if not blurring those lines, we may actually be crossing those lines,” Black said.

Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted present on the measure, said: “If [Quinn] wants to fire employees, he should do that and not come to the General Assembly to ask us to do that for him. … It certainly appears like maybe they’re doing him a favor.”

Madigan said the legislature has changed boards and commissions that were appointed by the executive branch before, including when the legislature twice revamped the Illinois State Board of Education and the Health Facilities Planning Board. Madigan added that Quinn “agreed to the bill.”

Read more...

3,000 jobs at stake

By Bethany Jaeger, with Jamey Dunn contributing
House Speaker Michael Madigan wants the “fumigation” of state government to move faster than it has since Gov. Pat Quinn replaced impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The speaker introduced legislation that would force Quinn to assess about 3,000 high-level state employees that had been hired or appointed by Blagojevich and his predecessor, imprisoned Gov. George Ryan.

“I’m not satisfied with the pace of change,” Madigan said during a Statehouse news conference today. “I think that we have to move faster, we have to move more dramatically.”




The concept has support from Quinn and Senate President John Cullerton, according to his spokeswoman, Rikeesha Phelon.

In fact, Quinn said he thinks it’s a good idea and that he expects it to pass. “It actually helps the process. I think it helps us to take boards and commissions where individuals are appointed to set terms that may not expire for years to come and give me an opportunity to evaluate those people who are appointed either by Rod Blagojevich or George Ryan, both of whom are under clouds of doubt.”

Quinn would have 60 days to reevaluate whether he wanted to retain state agency directors, their top assistants or board members or commissioners appointed by Ryan or Blagojevich. Quinn would be able to reappoint people he thought were doing a good job, but they would have to win Senate confirmation again. Employees also would be able to reapply for their positions.

Madigan said the action is not intended to impugn the integrity or the work habits of people who are doing a good job, but it is intended to be “rather dramatic.” “It clearly will be the type of fumigation of the Ryan and Blagojevich appointments that I think the people of the state of Illinois are demanding so that we can move away from the scandals of the past.”

About 90 of about 276 of the state’s boards and commissions would be affected. They include everything from the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum to universities' boards of trustees. Those not affected would include state employees who cannot be fired because of their political affiliations (based on the so-called Rutan provision from a 1990 Illinois Supreme Court decision).

A high-profile position affected by the proposal would include Ginger Ostro, director of the governor’s budget office under Blagojevich and, now, Quinn. Someone not affected would be Jack Lavin, Blagojevich’s director of the economic development agency, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Quinn appointed Lavin his chief operating officer, responsible for coordinating the state’s capture and use of federal stimulus funds. Also not affected by the legislation for now would be John Filan, Blagojevich’s former budget director and former chief operating officer. He currently serves as executive director the Illinois Finance Authority, created in 2004 by Blagojevich.

Although Filan would not be affected by his bill, Madigan said, “I’d like to come back at a later date on that.”

The bill would potentially fire two senior staff members of the Health Facilities Planning Board, Jeffrey Mark and David Carvalho, whom we wrote about earlier this week. Democrats defended the two employees, while House Minority Leader Tom Cross urged the need to fire them because they served before, during and after Blagojevich insiders corrupted the board. Cross tried in vain yesterday to advance his own legislation that would fire them.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno added, “It makes sense to take a look at people that were here during the times when we have had unprecedented problems.”

Madigan said he intends to advance the legislation next week. Lawmakers return May 12, which starts the end-of-session rush to approve major budget and ethics initiatives by May 31.

Read more...

Turning The Page on WhatsHisName

State Senator Ricky Hendon said something remarkable during the impeachment trial yesterday, and I'm paraphrasing here:

"Congratulations to the press. You have reestablished your power. Use it wisely."

Its going to take ALL of us to "turn the page", move beyond our former governor, and move Illinois forward.

And just as even the lowliest fungus needs a ray of light to survive, our former governor needs media attention.

Bloggers, t.v. reporters, newspaper editors: You want to stick it to our former governor? Stop covering him.


I realize this can't happen immediately. There will be the necessary stories today, the editorials this weekend.

But starting Monday, can we declare an end to his 15 minutes of fame?

1. Just because WhatsHisName has a press conference, doesn't mean we need to show up. We know it'll be the same-old circus, hardly newsworthy.

2. Just because the U.S. Attorney has a press conference, doesn't mean we have to seek a comment from WhatsHisName or his attorneys. Why should we aid them in their defense?

3. Just because the legislature advances campaign reform or ethics reform legislation, doesn't mean we have to mention WhatsHisName by name. Reform is needed, no matter who the governor was or his party.

4. Just because WhatsHisName says or does something outrageously stupid, we don't have to write about it. Again, nothing "new" there.

In keeping with that spirit, this is the last time I'll be blogging about WhatsHisName.

Here are my final thoughts on WhatsHisName's final chapter:

Even if we are to give him the benefit of the doubt in every instance, even if we are to believe the point-of-view he articulated in his closing statement, the best thing I can say about WhatsHisName is that he was a Dictator, not a Governor.

WhatsHisName can argue that he was elected by the people. Even if you ignore the fact that his election had more to do with the lack of leadership from the GOP, or that he got less than 50% of the vote in his last election, or that his popularity now is at historic lows for any governor ever. There have been lots of popular dictators who've won elections overwhelmingly. Fidel Castro comes to mind.

WhatsHisName can argue that he was trying to what was right for the people. Even if you believe that his heart was in the right place, trying to expand health care, create jobs, increase education funding. Despite the evidence from his trial that he was willing to thwart health care programs, hold up jobs projects, and run our state finances to advance his own personal interests, you can believe those things. But nearly every dictator has used populist ends to justify breaking the law as a means.

At the end of the day, WhatsHisName believed and acted as though he was Above The Law. Violating the Constitutional separation of power. Breaking state and federal laws. Using his office for his own personal, financial and political gain. Dictator, dictator, dictator.

Finally, in response to some of the pundits and reporters out there who want to give U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald ALL the credit and the Illinois General Assembly NONE of the credit for yesterday's turn-of-events.

Its certainly true that WhatsHisName's arrest and revelations about efforts to auction off a U.S. Senate seat crystallized public opinion, making impeachment a slam-dunk.

Its also true that many of the allegations included in the impeachment indictment happened during WhatsHisName's first term, and so he surely could have been impeached sooner.

Why then, did it take so long?

First, when lawmakers, led by Speaker Madigan, complained about WhatsHisName's efforts to subvert the General Assembly, ignore the Constitution, violate state laws like those granting JCAR rulemaking authority, what did the pundits and reporters do? They covered it as a battle of personalities and personal intrigue, instead of advancing public discussion of the fundamental legal questions at the core of Madigan's arguments.

Secondly, while there were certainly enough Representatives to indict WhatsHisName, and probably enough Senators willing to convict last Spring, no one who pays close attention can honestly believe that House prosecutors would have gotten a fair hearing as long as Emil Jones was President of the Senate, or even be certain that a trial would have taken place.

Personally, I think WhatsHisName would have been impeached this year even without the U.S. Attorney's actions. owing to the change in leadership in the Senate. And Senate President John Cullerton, and the members of the Senate who elected him, deserve as much if not more of the credit than the U.S. Attorney.

Sine die.

Read more...

Understanding Speaker Madigan

Contrary to bored now's essay below, neither Attorney General Madigan nor House Speaker Madigan are holding up impeachment of Rod Blagojevich.

In fact, at her press conference today after filing a motion in the Illinois Supreme Court, Attorney General Madigan called on the Legislature to move forward with impeachment.

I know that in today's world of ATM's and instant news, some folks are a little impatient that its been three full days since Rod Blagojevich was taken into custody and he still hasn't been lynched in the town square...


...and that three days seems like a long time. But there are sound reasons for taking just a little bit of time to get impeachment right. If not in this case, then for future cases, and because in a democracy overturning the results of an election and removing a statewide elected official from public office should be done soberly.

Its the same reason we have cooling off periods for buying guns or getting a divorce.

Many folks have a pretty cynical view of Michael Madigan and his motivations. In today's environment, its tough to trust any elected official in Illinois, and "shrewd" is one word which aptly describes him.

But so is "principled", and one of the principles to which Madigan holds himself as Speaker of the Illinois House is that he has a responsibility to be a good steward of both the Illinois House and the Legislative Branch as institutions.

Consider, he has already distinguished himself as the longest-serving legislative leader in Illinois history, and unless someone corrects me I believe he is currently the longest-serving legislative leader in the country. While he owes his longevity to his shrewdness, I think he also feels an unquestioned responsibility.

It was with that sense of responsibility that he dedicated himself in 1997 to try to reduce some of the partisan rancor in the Illinois House: naming Republicans to committee chairmanships, ending much of the partisan gamesmanship that killed minority bills out of spite or just for kicks, and trying to instill the chamber with a renewed sense of cooperation.

Its with that sense of responsibility that he has fought so tirelessly to defend the Legislature from attempts by Governor Blagojevich to expand his Executive Powers, especially where they encroached on the Legislature's Constitutional authorities.

I think that off the record, most House Republicans would tell you that they'd rather have Michael Madigan as Speaker than their own leader, Tom Cross; after all, it was Cross who was so eager to cut deals with Rod Blagojevich while Madigan stood his ground, often alone and often in the face of public criticism.

I think we all can see now why Michael Madigan wasn't to eager to cut a deal with Rod Blagojevich.

Don't get me wrong...I want to see Blagojevich impeached, and I'd like them to start on Monday.

But I also know that for the last five years, the press has been feeding the public a Rod Blagojevich v. Michael Madigan story that casts it as a battle of personalities, where everything Madigan does is personally motivated. And the public has been eating it up.

And I feel certain that if Speaker Madigan had led the impeachment charge, or said or did anything that made it appear that he was too eager to remove Blagojevich from office, Blagojevich or the press would have tried to return us to that old personal narrative, which would taint the process and the legislature.

I mean, despite the public outrage, despite Rod Blagojevich's obvious incapacity to continue to carry out the duties of his office, our state's Attorney General was asked atleast three times about her personal political ambitions at her press conference today. What do you think would have happened if Speaker Madigan had held a press conference Tuesday or Wednesday calling for Rod's impeachment?

Michael Madigan's been leading the Illinois House for 23 of the last 25 years, and doing a pretty good job by my account. Unlike Rod Blagojevich, he doesn't govern by press conference or press release, but then counting ledes is not the best way to measure leadership. Let the guy do his job.

Read more...

Michael J. Madigan for the US Senate

...a thought that crossed my mind a few days ago in the car listening to the Gov respond to questions on who he would appoint. Promoting MJM out of Illinois might solve some problems for RB.

Just a thought....

Read more...