Here is how efforts to impose good government standards in Illinois usually work:

1)  Changes to ethics laws, campaign finance laws, transparency laws, etc. are proposed by good government groups and a few brave legislators;

2)  Powers that be stifle any fundamental reform, usually arguing since there is no major crisis there is no need to change the law.

3)  Well known problems that good government groups and the few brave legislators have been warning about finally explode in spectacular fashion via federal indictment;

4)  Everyone, including the powers that be, get mad at the individual named in the indictment;

5)  Powers that be then madly scramble to argue there are no systemic problems, just a few bad apples.

6)  Any reforms passed are watered down to the maximum extent possible, especially anything dealing with campaign finance reform.

Let's hope this time around the response is different.  Not every reform that has been or will be put forward will be adopted, the legislative process simply doesn't work that way.  However, I'd hope our leaders would take note of what happened in Connecticut a few years ago.  Connecticut was rocked by a scandal that ultimately resulted in their Governor going to jail on public corruption charges.   

Of greater interest is what happened next, the entire political establishment of Connecticut realized that their existing ethics and good government laws were inadequate and enacted wholesale reforms.  Although the reforms, including campaign finance reform and strengthening ethics laws, did require negotiations and hard bargaining, nobody bought for a moment the argument that minor reforms and tiresome refrains to enforce the laws already on the books would suffice.

I hope that the politicians of our state, rather than seeing the coming reform push as a threat, see it as an opportunity to fundamentally rethink our state's good government laws in a fashion that benefits the public and helps rebuild state government's tattered reputation and integrity.

The six step process outlined above will simply pave the way for the next Rod Blagojevich or George Ryan.

Posted on: 1/12/2009 at 9:08 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

As I write this post the House of the General Assembly is debating a resolution to impeach Governor Blagojevich.  It is crystal clear that they will vote to impeach.

The House is on the verge of doing its part in ridding our state of Rod Blagojevich.  It is imperative that the Senate finish the task.

The Senate should move forward in a fair and reasonable manner.  However, every day that Rod Blagojevich remains Governor is another day for him to disgrace that office and our state.

Senate, everyone knows what the right thing to do is in this situation.  End the farce known as Governor Blagojevich and allow Illinois to move on without him.

Posted on: 1/9/2009 at 4:16 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

With all the outlandish statements and actions coming from Governor Blagojevich, it takes a lot to make us shake our head in disbelief.  In another example of his ability to confound, Governor Blagojevich has risen to the challenge yet again.

Faced with political death, the Governor and his minions are striving to take his critics down with them.  Accordingly, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fair game because he opposes the seating of any Blagojevich appointee, including Roland Burris, in the U.S. Senate to fill out the rest of President-Elect Obama's senatorial term.

Today the Sun-Times is reporting that Senator Reid called Governor Blagojevich before he was arrested and discussed possible appointments to the Senate.  Roland Burris was not among Reid's suggested candidates.  In the article the Governor's spokesman Lucio Guerrero suggests the call may constitute a conflict of interest, "The governor thinks it does show that Reid has candidates in mind and Burris wasn't one of them, which may cause a conflict."  The article doesn't indicate how many times it took Lucio to make the statement without laughing.

So, Team Blagojevich thinks Reid may have a conflict of interest because Reid failed to include Roland Burris on his list of suggested candidates.  However, I haven't heard Lucio or anyone else who works for the Governor suggest the Governor may have a conflict of interest because HE WAS ARRESTED IN PART FOR TRYING TO SELL THE SENATE SEAT. 

If you really think Reid's call rises to a conflict of interest but the Governor's conduct is unremarkable, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Posted on: 1/4/2009 at 3:48 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

Normally, during the holiday season things slow down on the scandal front.  Once again Governor Blagojevich has shown us that we are not living in normal times.

Arrest, impeachment proceedings, Senate appointment, Jesse White and Harry Reid refusing to play along, Fitzgerald seeking an extension, Burris going to court, etc.  Just when you think things can't get any stranger they do.

The sobering reality is that once the soap opera known as Rod Blagojevich as Governor is over, the State of Illinois is facing a serious budgetary and financial crisis.   With Blagojevich holding office those problems won't even begin to be dealt with.  However, when Lt. Governor Pat Quinn becomes Governor those problems will not magically disappear with Blagojevich's exit from the scene.

The coming crisis in state government won't have the same outlandish aspects of Governor Blagojevich's travails, but the impact it will have on the public will be severe and long lasting.  Already the state is well behind in paying its bills.

I don't claim to know what will happen, but the days of incremental change are behind us.  To borrow a phrase from Rod Blagojevich, the crisis is going to "rock the system."

Posted on: 1/2/2009 at 5:27 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

Well, my concern about Speaker Madigan being too cautious to move forward with impeachment hearings is gone.  The House authorized a Special Investigative Committee to look at whether there are grounds for impeachment. 

The BGA was asked to testify before the Committee and we did so on December 18.  The BGA has been involved in a myriad of matters over the years, but has never before participated in an impeachment proceeding.  The Governor's conduct is deeply disturbing and has lead Illinois into uncharted territory, a sitting Governor arrested, the Attorney General's unsuccessful attempt to ask the Supreme Court to remove the Governor and now impeachment proceedings.  The voluntary resignation of the Governor would allow our state to move forward, which it cannot do while he remains in office, but at this point voluntary departure doesn't appear to be in Blagojevich's game plan.

Below is the BGA's testimony.  The Committee was interested in our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Governor so that is what we focused on.  I've tried to include hyperlinks to exhibits that are online.  The hyperlink to most of the correspondence exhibits is to our amended complaint which contained most of relevant correspondence as exhibits.  In the physical version of our submitted testimony the correspondence exhibits were the letters themselves, not the entire amended complaint.

Testimony of Better Government Association Executive Director Jay Stewart Before the Special Investigative CommitteeDecember 18, 2008            

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify today.             

The events of last week are deeply troubling and as a result the functioning of state government has been seriously impaired and will remain so as long as Rod Blagojevich remains Governor.             

Our state is in crisis and the Better Government Association (“BGA”) supports the action taken by the General Assembly by initiating these impeachment hearings.  The removal of an elected official is an extraordinary event, but we are not living in ordinary times.  These hearings must proceed in a manner that promotes public confidence in our government.  It is imperative that the people have confidence in our rule of law, as embodied in our Constitution, and in our elected officials.  Therefore, all interested parties to these hearings must be provided with an opportunity to be heard and due process must be preserved.  To the extent that my testimony can assist the General Assembly in these important proceedings, I am pleased to be a part of the process and look forward to answering any questions that you may have.             

It is my understanding that the Committee is interested in the BGA’s successful litigation with Governor Blagojevich over his refusal to produce federal grand jury subpoenas we have requested under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  I will try to summarize events surrounding the litigation.  In addition, I am submitting exhibits connected to the litigation, including a transcript of the trial court’s ruling and the written opinion of the 4^th District Court of Appeals to supplement my testimony.             

The BGA is a nonprofit civic watchdog group based in Chicago.  Since 1923 the BGA has been dedicated to combating waste, corruption and inefficiency in state and local government.               

In order to achieve our goal of improving the operation of state and local government, the BGA has traditionally relied on the tools of investigative journalism to expose wrongdoing in government and working with mass media to educate the public on our findings.  Accordingly, the BGA uses FOIA on a regular basis.            

During the summer of 2006 the BGA, along with many others, read news reports that Governor Blagojevich’s office had recently been subpoenaed by federal investigators.  At least one such news report in the July 21, 2006 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times stated that the Governor’s Office refused to discuss the subpoenas.  (Attached as Exhibit A). 

Shortly after reading the Sun-Times article, on July 24, 2006 the BGA sent in a FOIA request to the Office of the Governor asking for copies of federal grand jury subpoenas issued to that office.  (Attached as Exhibit B).  The request was copied to the Public Access Counselor in Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office.  (Exhibit B).           

On August 7, 2006, counsel from the Governor’s Office responded with a denial.  (Attached as Exhibit C).  The letter stated “[a]s you know, this Office cannot confirm or deny the existence of the documents requested.”  Never in my experience with a FOIA request have I ever received such a bizarre response.  The letter went on to state that “even if this Office were to have documents responsive to your request, such documents would be exempt from release under Section 7(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act.”  Section 7(1)(a) of the Act prohibits the disclosure of information if such disclosure is prohibited by federal or state law, rule or regulation.           

On August 31, 2006, the BGA appealed the denial to Governor Blagojevich.  (Attached as Exhibit D).  The appeal contested the denial as improper, in part because hypotheticals are not grounds for denial and in asserting the exemption in Section 7(1)(a) the Governor’s Office failed to specify which federal or state law, rule or regulation prohibited disclosure.  (Exhibit D).  The appeal was copied to General Madigan and the Public Access Counselor among others.  (Exhibit D).           

On September 15, 2006, counsel from the Governor’s Office responded with a denial to our appeal.  (Attached as Exhibit E).             

On October 26, 2006 the Public Access Counselor copied the BGA on a letter written to the Governor’s General Counsel.  (Attached as Exhibit F).  The Public Access Counselor, aware of the BGA’s dispute with the Governor’s Office, informed the General Counsel that under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, requests for copies of federal grand jury subpoenas must be complied with.  (Exhibit F).  Despite the letter, the Governor’s Office did not produce the subpoenas.           

Before deciding to file suit under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act to compel production of the subpoenas, on November 7, 2006 the BGA wrote the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and asked if such litigation would be opposed by that office.  (Attached as Exhibit G).  We recognized that if the U.S. Attorney objected to the disclosure, the state court might find that release of the subpoenas would interfere with the ongoing investigation into “fraudulent hiring practices” being conducted by the U.S. Attorney.  (Attached as Exhibit H).           

On November 13, 2006 the U.S. Attorney’s office responded and did not encourage or discourage such litigation, but certainly did not assert that our action would interfere with the ongoing investigation.  (Attached as Exhibit I).           

On January 4, 2007 the BGA filed suit in Sangamon County against the Office of the Governor under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act seeking production of the subpoenas.  (Attached as Exhibit J).  Among the documents attached as exhibits was the letter from the Public Access Counselor to the Governor’s General Counsel.  That same day the BGA informed the U.S. Attorney’s Office of our suit.  (Attached as Exhibit K).           

On August 7, 2007 the BGA filed an amended complaint.  (Attached as Exhibit L).  The amended complaint added Governor Blagojevich as a defendant and sought the same records as the original complaint.           

To date, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has never asked the BGA to cease the litigation, and has not filed any pleadings with the state court to indicate that disclosure would interfere with the ongoing investigation.             

The BGA filed suit for two primary reasons.  First, the BGA believes the public has the right to know what is going on with its government. Public officials often seek to limit and control information when things go wrong. As the public pays for government operations regardless of whether they are run well or poorly, we feel the public should have a clear idea of what is happening with their government.           

Second, the BGA believes that the law applies to everyone, even the Governor of Illinois.  He has public records relating to a very important issue, namely that his office has been served federal grand jury subpoenas.  Rather than ignore this unpleasant issue, it should be aired to the fullest extent possible. Simply being Governor does not mean public records laws don’t apply to you or your office.  During a hearing in the trial court, Judge Kelley asked the Governor’s lawyer:

I do have one question for you Mr. Londrigan.  Say a person receives a Federal Grand Jury subpoena from the Northern District of Illinois.  Could that person be subject to either the contempt powers of the Court or criminal prosecution if that person voluntarily discloses that subpoena to somebody else? MR. LONDRIGAN:  No, sir.  (Transcript of the hearing attached as Exhibit M).            

The Governor acknowledged that the law and rule on which he relied on does not prohibit disclosure of the subpoenas, yet he has continued to deny access to the documents, continued to spend public dollars on private lawyers to fight our suit, and continued to defy the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as enacted by the General Assembly.             

On January 9, 2008 Judge Kelley ruled on the Governor’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the BGA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  (Exhibit M).  Judge Kelley ruled in favor of the BGA, finding, in part, that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2) does not prohibit the disclosure of federal grand jury subpoenas due to a request under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.  (Exhibit M).  In ruling in favor of the BGA Judge Kelley relied in part on the language of the Freedom of Information Act, “[p]eople have a right to know the decisions, policies, procedures, rules, standards and other aspects of government activity that affect the conduct of government  and the lives of any or all of the people.”  (Exhibit M).             

On March 3, 2008 Judge Kelley denied the Governor’s motion to reconsider.  (Attached as Exhibit N).             

Subsequently, the Governor appealed Judge Kelley’s decision to the 4^th District Court of Appeals.  After briefs and oral argument the 4^th District Court of Appeals issued its opinion on November 19, 2008.  (Attached as Exhibit O).  The appellate court upheld Judge Kelley’s opinion.  In ruling against the Governor’s argument that Rule 6(e)(2) prohibits disclosure of federal grand jury subpoenas under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act the court wrote:

Our legislature enacted the FOIA in recognition that (1) blanket government secrecy does not serve the public interest and (2) transparency should be the norm, except in rare, specified circumstances.  The legislature has concluded that the sunshine of public scrutiny is the best antidote to public corruption, and Illinois courts are duty-bound to enforce that policy.”  (Emphasis added).            

The BGA has asked the 4^th District to order the Governor to turn over the subpoenas we requested.  The Governor has asked the 4^th District to refrain from ordering production while he decides whether to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.           

According to published reports, the Governor has spent more than $150,000 in legal fees in this matter and a similar suit in Cook County despite the clear provisions of state law.  (Attached as Exhibit P).           

That concludes my summary and I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Posted on: 12/19/2008 at 4:10 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

The General Assembly seems to be rushing to strip the Governor of his power to appoint to someone to President-Elect Obama's vacant Senate seat.  On the other hand, Speaker Madigan is being far more cautious in regard to impeachment, saying he is "prepared to discuss" Leader Cross' call for impeachment hearings.

Here is my concern with that cautious viewpoint: If Governor Blagojevich is unfit to select a U.S. Senator and has to be stripped of his appointment powers post haste, then he is unfit to exercise his other gubernatorial powers and needs to be impeached as soon as possible.  Historically, the Speaker has been a deliberate public servant, however he has to come to terms that the usual cautious approach is not only unwarranted, but actually dangerous. 

Governor Blagojevich is a continuing harm to our state.  The General Assembly needs to act accordingly.

Posted on: 12/10/2008 at 1:10 PM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

Political opposition may never vanquish Mayor Daley, but at some point in the future he will no longer be Mayor.  Frightening though that eventuality may be for Mayoral minions and sycophants, it will happen.

An article by Fran Spielman in the Chicago Sun-Times shows that the next Mayor of the "City That Works" will have a lot less to work with than the current occupant.  To summarize, the article highlights that Mayor Daley has: a) drastically increased the City's debt by 187% in the last decade; b) privatized four of the City's few big ticket assets; and c) created a bewildering number of Tax Increment Financing Districts which divert hundreds of millions of tax revenue away from the City's corporate account (general fund).

An unnamed source spells out the implication for Daley's successor in the article, "He's handcuffing future mayors.  Whoever comes in is going to find an empty cupboard."

I'm sure Angelo Torres will be blamed for emptying the cupboard, but no one will know who authorized him to do so.

Posted on: 12/8/2008 at 3:20 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

It looks like Chicago is on the verge of privatizing yet another City asset, this time it is parking meters.  Previously the City has privatized the Skyway, parking garages and Midway.

The BGA isn't opposed to privatization per se.  However, the BGA does have two concerns. 

First, by privatizing City functions there is a drop in accountability and transparency.  Even as powerful as the Mayor is, he has to face the voters every four years.  Not true of a private vendor who is leasing a City asset.  If they do a poor job a regular citizen has no recourse to punish the vendor via the ballot box.  The traditional remedy of a consumer, going to another company for the good or service doesn't really work too well.  Remember, these assets that have been privatized don't have easy to use substitutes.  You can't take the alternate Skyway, park in the other Grant Park parking lot, fly out of the other South Side airport or park in the other street parking places.  In terms of transparency, the private vendors are not bound by the Freedom of Information Act, the Local Records Act or the Open Meetings Act.  Good luck trying to delve into the internal operations of the vendors.

Second, as the title of this post states, what happens when there is nothing left to privatize?  It isn't as if the City of Chicago has a limitless number of assets that private vendors are willing to spend vast sums of money to lease.  City services that don't generate cash flow are very unlikely candidates for privatization.  Using the proceeds from the sale of capital assets to cover regular operating expenses just puts off hard budget decisions into the future.  Eventually there won't be an asset sale to cover a budgetary hole.  Then what?  To answer my rhetorical question, the answer will likely be yet more tax hikes, layoffs and services cuts, with the caveat that insiders will be spared from the worst aspects of such indignities.

I would rather the City eliminate the corruption that wastes so much of our tax dollars first before selling off assets.  Eliminating the scandalous Hired Truck program alone saved millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.  I am hard pressed to believe that it was the only such corrupt program in the City's budget.  It would be nice if the Daley administration spent half as much of an effort to eliminate pointless spending as it does in selling off capital assets.

Posted on: 12/3/2008 at 5:30 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

Rather than put up a post with the BGA's views on a possible pardon or commutation of sentance of George Ryan I'll just post the views of the Ryan prosecution team and a Chicago Sun-Times letter to the editor by one of the Ryan jurors.  They say it better than I can.

Posted on: 12/1/2008 at 7:43 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS

Greg Hinz of Crain's Chicago Business recently wrote a blog post expressing concerns about the impact of our recent court victory in our effort to get copies of federal grand jury subpoenas issued to the Governor.  Greg's post can be read here (registration required) and a post about our suit is right below this posting.  The essence of Greg's concern is that disclosure of subpoenas will greatly harm the reputation of the politician receiving the subpoena despite the fact that a subpoena is not evidence of guilt or illegal behavior.

The following is my response to his post which appears in the comment section of Greg's blog:

First, I agree that readers shouldn’t worry about Greg going soft on Illinois and Chicago politicians.

However, I disagree with just about all the rest of the column.

Greg rhetorically asks if politicians have rights too. They do, but just as with all other citizens, those rights are defined by the law, not by their wishes or preferences.

Greg also asks if politicians deserve the presumption of innocence. Again, the answer is they do, just as does any citizen does. However, the presumption of innocence is a legal standard for legal proceedings, not public opinion. Some may wish that strict standards be imposed upon public opinion, but our Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause to ensure that there was a maximum amount of debate about public issues.

Courts have repeatedly held that speech about public affairs is to be encouraged, even in instances where it may be raucous, inflammatory and less than completely accurate. To choose otherwise is to make the government the referee of what is appropriate for public discussion and history is full of examples why that is not a good idea.

In the case at hand, the BGA did not get a leak or inside information, we asked for the subpoenas in a perfectly legal and transparent fashion, through the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. We did get two subpoenas early in the litigation and we posted them on our website so readers could determine their impact and meaning. I fail to see how this harms the body politic.

In terms of the privacy rights of politicians I think Greg's concerns are not warranted. First of all, the Freedom of Information Act allows for certain narrow categories of public records to be withheld and mandates all others must be released. Among the records that can be withheld are those that “if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Governor claimed that exemption in denying us in our request and the court specifically held the exemption did not apply.

Furthermore, the Act only applies to public records of public agencies. It does not apply to private records or to private individuals. In other words, a politician is under no obligation to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request that deals with their purely private life. For example, if I request the Governor’s personal tax returns or Speaker Madigan’s billing records as a property tax attorney they can tell me to buzz off.

Greg posits that public affairs is already a difficult arena and more transparency will scare off the best and the brightest from serving in public office. I believe the opposite; that more transparency will scare off the bad guys, such as George Ryan. If George Ryan had known that his corrupt deals would have been subjected to public review then I doubt he would have engaged in most of his illegal conduct.

Many don’t wish to serve in government and engage in politics because of its all too frequent sleazy nature, not because it is some mythical “City on a Hill” and mere mortals will fail to measure up to the exacting ethical standards of contemporary politics.

Generally speaking, I don’t believe that we should provide more secrecy to encourage public service. Indeed as the court stated in our case “[t]he legislature has concluded that sunshine of public scrutiny is the best antidote to public corruption.” I think the problem with public office in Illinois is that far too many politicians have been far too comfortable ensconced in the halls of power, not that have been inconvienced by ethical standards. I don’t recall the last indictment and conviction for the politician who was too ethical and transparent.

Lastly, Greg brings up the scenario of the politician who is tarnished by a leak. First of all, 22 months of litigation generated by a Freedom of Information Act request isn’t exactly a leak. Putting that aside, even in Greg’s scenario the politician survived. I can’t think of a situation where a politician has been hounded from office simply by the acknowledgement that they have been subpoenaed.

To be polite, the implication of corruption or unethical conduct hasn’t exactly been a bar to public office in Illinois. Paul Powell, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich all had a fair amount of ethical baggage that was well known and yet they all managed to get elected or reelected to statewide office. The well known problem of corruption at City Hall hasn’t stopped Mayor Daley from winning election after election.

In the end Greg and I just don’t view the implications of our court victory the same way. The fact that it can be publicly debated is a good thing in and of itself as far as I am concerned.

However, when looking at the long and sad history of public corruption in Illinois, much of what predates modern ethics and transparency laws, I simply cannot work up much concern for our political class’ sensitivity to the possibility of poor P.R. based on facts and documents. I am much more worried about the harm they have inflicted upon regular citizens and taxpayers with their actual misdeeds and actions.

Posted on: 11/26/2008 at 9:02 AM
Actions: E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Post Information: Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSS