Archive for May, 2008
May 31st, 2008
In my Saturday column, I looked at how prosecutors are concerned about what they view as an effort by powerful Democrats to make the state’s parole board more liberal.
The fate of local cop-killer Theodore Bacino met brass-knuckles Illinois politics this week, leaving Capitol insiders wondering why powerful Democrats want to remove a tough-on-crime former cop from the state’s parole board.
It’s not entirely clear why Sen. Rickey Hendon, a top lieutenant of Senate President Emil Jones Jr., led the fight Thursday to block Salvador Diaz from another term on the Prisoner Review Board.
What is clear is that Hendon reignited concern among prosecutors that he and fellow Democrats are attempting to push the board to the left by removing members viewed as unsympathetic to the pleas of prisoners seeking freedom.
On June 19, the board is expected to vote on Bacino’s latest request for parole.
I also reported on this stunning claim:
The prosecutors who challenged Hendon — and by extension, Senate President Jones, a fellow Chicago Democrat — reportedly paid dearly.
After the vote, Jones ordered $3 million removed from the state budget for the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, according to John Gorman, a spokesman for that office.
This money is intended to help Cook County prosecutors cover the cost of videotaping interrogations in murder investigations, Gorman said. He said the cut appeared to be in retaliation for his office’s lobbying effort to keep Diaz on the board. […]
Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer disputed Gorman’s account.
“The budget that passed the Senate a week ago did not include that money,” she said Friday. “Secondly, the budget is not even final yet. It’s still being negotiated.”
Davidsmeyer also made this comment, which did not appear in the column: “In the previous year and years before, we have sent the funding over to the House and it’s been cut over there. So this year when we sent our budget over last week, we did not include it. That’s the history.”
For more background on the effort to oust Diaz, just weeks before the parole board’s Bacino vote, go here. (This story is slightly dated. The Register Star supposedly ran an updated version of this news story today, but I can’t find it on the Web site.)
Now, let’s look at some of the politics I couldn’t squeeze into today’s column.
Salvador Diaz is a former Chicago police officer allied with U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a prominent Chicago Democrat. Gutierrez, in turn, is a close ally of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Blagojevich, of course, has long been in lockstep with Senate President Emil Jones Jr. And Jones, in turn, is Hendon’s boss in the Senate.
So, why were Hendon and Jones working to oust a Gutierrez ally whom Blagojevich nominated for another term on the parole board? As I indicated in my column, it’s not entirely clear. However, Capitol insiders posed lots of questions and I did my best to get some answers.
Let’s begin with the Senate’s four Latinos — the “Latino Caucus,” as they call themselves. They are Sens. Willie Delgado, Tony Munoz and Iris Martinez of Chicago, and Marty Sandoval of Cicero.
On Thursday, Delgado and Martinez voted to keep Diaz on the parole board, while Munoz and Sandoval voted to reject him.
I asked Delgado whether a division within the Latino Caucus informed the vote on Diaz.
“Once upon a time when the Latino Caucus was created and Rod Blagojevich gets elected, he felt that the only one he had to be accountable to in the Latino community was his good friend and congressman Luis Gutierrez,” Delgado said. “So therefore, anything that we submitted that we thought were good recommendations for government, he ignored. He took Luis Gutierrez’s recommendations, and Sal Diaz was one of them.
“I’ve known Sal 20 years. He’s a personal friend of mine and a former police officer. So then of course he works all those year uninterrupted by me or anyone else. I want justice. I back issues, not individuals. But in retrospect over the years, keeping in mind there’s two other vacancies (on the Prisoner Review Board), (Senate) leadership had knowledge, or I guess Emil or someone else had knowledge, that this guy was pretty biased as an officer on this PRB.”
Delgado added, “There are some politics in there, but I don’t play that here. Quite the contrary. I’m a policy builder.”
Delgado also said he would like to fill one of the parole board’s two vacancies with former Sen. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, another Latino and liberal Democrat from Chicago.
But while Martinez supported Diaz on Thurday, she subsequently filed a motion for the Senate to reconsider the vote. She therefore attempted to enable the Senate to vote again — and to possibly reject Diaz. On Friday, she said she withdrew her motion to reconsider the vote, though she refused to label her retreat as a surrender to pro-Diaz forces.
“They voted me ‘yes,’” Martinez said, though it’s not clear who “they” was. “I voted opposite of Hendon, but that was because that was a mistake because I intended … my intent was to vote ‘no.’”
Martinez is a member of Jones’ leadership team and therefore is under pressure to do his bidding. I suspect her vote for Diaz — a vote against Hendon and, by extension, Jones — didn’t go over so well.
She echoed Hendon’s postion that Diaz should have been rejected because he violated Senate protocol when he failed to personally ask Hendon for his blessing. “It’s about the procedure,” she said.
Munoz told me he was not in the Senate at the time of the vote, and that somebody else voted for him. Had he been in the chamber, he told me, he would have supported Diaz. Munoz is a Chicago police officer; Diaz is a former Chicago cop.
Sandoval told me he too would vote “differently” if he had another chance.
Even as I explored any connection between the anti-Diaz push and the parole board’s upcoming vote on Bacino, I learned of another case pending before the board that arguably is closer to the Senate’s beating heart.
Like Bacino, Joseph Bigsby is a cop-killer. Bigsby murdered a Chicago police officer in 1973. His public defenders at the time were John Cullerton, now a state senator, and Larry Suffredin, now a Cook County board commissioner and Statehouse lobbyist.
To this day, Cullerton and Suffredin closely follow Bigsby’s case. They show up at his parole hearings to express their support for his plea for freedom. They argue the time Bigsby has already served in prison is greater than sentences served by other individuals who committed similar crimes.
On May 15, the Prisoner Review Board voted 8-5 to keep Bigsby in prison. Diaz was among the eight members voting to reject Bigsby’s request for parole.
On Thursday, Cullerton voted to reject Diaz. I asked him whether the push to oust Diaz was motivated by his desire to see Bigsby free.
“It’s not,” Cullerton said. “Absolutely not. I made that very clear. Absolutely not. I think that would be improper. I care about Bigsby, but from what I understand, (Diaz) is a decent guy and he’s voting his conscience.”
Cullerton added, “I perceive this as being a political issue — not for any of his votes but rather, you know, the political supporter. It could be a number of things. Maybe Gutierrez didn’t properly communicate his concern. Maybe he didn’t call the (Senate) president. Politics, you know. I don’t think it has anything to do with the guy’s qualifications.”
UPDATE 1
Jorge Montes, the Prisoner Review Board’s chairman, told me Diaz is not the board’s most conservative member.
“We deem him to be an extremely moderate, conservative board member. As far as I’m concerned, he has been nothing but fair and balanced, not to sound like Fox news — ‘fair and balanced.’ He is a former law enforcement officer who certainly brings his own perspective to the board and is valuable to the board. The board has historically been an extremely conservative board and it continues to be an extremely conservative board. And Mr. Diaz represents probably a very moderate force on the board. If anything, he would be a moderate force.”
Montes added, “Historically, as far back as I can remember, and I’ve been on the board almost 15 years, politics has never, believe it or not, has never played a role in our deliberations. And we’ve never made any effort to engineer any political shift. All I can say at this juncture is I am delighted that we will get the opportunity to continue to work with Sal Diaz, who was reappointed by Gov. Blagojevich, and that we have nothing but excellent things to say about Mr. Diaz and his performance on the board. He is an extremely fair individual. And all these conjectures about any connection to a particular case are very strange.”
State law does not require the board to include a police officer as a member.
The Board shall consist of 15 persons appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. One member of the Board shall be designated by the Governor to be Chairman and shall serve as Chairman at the pleasure of the Governor. The members of the Board shall have had at least 5 years of actual experience in the fields of penology, corrections work, law enforcement, sociology, law, education, social work, medicine, psychology, other behavioral sciences, or a combination thereof. At least 6 members so appointed must have had at least 3 years experience in the field of juvenile matters. No more than 8 Board members may be members of the same political party.
However, Montes said having a police officer on board is valuable.
“There’s no question that having a former police officer on the board adds a lot of important intelligence, or ability to understand intelligence, for the board,” he said. “There’s no question they make an important contribution to the board.”
May 31st, 2008
The powers that be of Illinois government do little in moderation, especially when it really counts.
Today, on the last day of spring session, they’re poised to do it all. They’re gearing up to pass not only a spending plan of roughly $60 billion for the next fiscal year, but also a $31 billion multi-year capital construction program.
Oh, and to help raise money to cover that spending, they may also approve a massive expansion of gambling and agree to lease the Illinois lottery to private investors.
The last day of session is a long, long day. Negotiations continue behind closed doors as lawmakers dart from committee to floor debate and back. Staff rush to put into writing conceptual agreements brokered by legislative leaders. Then they rush those budget plans back to rank-and-file lawmakers, who vote on them even as they attempt to read and understand them.
When voting is over — often just minutes before midnight — they party. They head to a nightclub near the Capitol, and dance, drink and eat until sunrise. Then they say goodbye and head home for the summer.
Or not.
The larger a budget agreement, the more complication it can be to move – with all its parts — through the Legislature in a way that satisfies lawmakers highly suspicious of each other.
If they can’t pull it off by midnight, the beast implodes. They need only a simple majority — 50 percent plus one vote — to approve most of the package by midnight. Democrats, who control both chambers of the Legislature, can advance their plan largely without a single Republican vote.
Once midnight strikes, they need a three-fifths majority. The Democrats can’t get that without the help of Republicans — the same Republicans they have, until this point, kept in the dark.
May 29th, 2008
With each report released by the state’s chief auditor, it becomes clearer that Illinois government under the administration of Gov. Rod Blagojevich is unravelling.
On Tuesday, it was the governor’s budget office and the Illinois Department of Central Management Services — the state’s central purchasing agency — under scrutiny. And it wasn’t pretty.
First, there’s the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, or GOMB (pronounced GUM-by by Capitol cynics). According to Auditor General Bill Holland’s report, the office with “management” in its name failed to manage on multiple levels. From the audit summary, here are the highlights:
 |
| Bozo the Clown |
The Office did not exercise adequate controls over contractual agreements.
The Office did not exercise adequate control over its interagency agreements and related travel expenditures.
The Office did not exercise adequate control over its travel functions.
The Office personnel files did not contain all required information.
The Office did not maintain sufficient controls over the recording and reporting of State property.
The Office did not fully comply with annual financial reporting requirements set forth by continuing disclosure undertakings.
The Office did not comply with provisions of the Accountability for the Investment of Public Funds Act.
The Office did not exercise adequate control over its Cash Management Improvement Act Annual Report.
One might say GOMB failed to “exercise adequate control.”
From the Tribune, here’s a closer look at some of the details:
The audit found 12 significant lapses of adequate controls over such things as contracts with other state agencies, travel expenditures, salary adjustments and the recording and reporting of state property.
In reviewing 21 contracts worth nearly $7.3 million, auditors found that the office failed to bid competitively for legal and other services, did not properly maintain documents and awarded contracts to bidders that did not receive the highest scores under bidding criteria.
For example, two legal services contracts to major law firms were not competitively bid. Freeborn & Peters was awarded a $50,000 contract in September 2005, while Barnes & Thornburg received a $40,000 contract in August 2005. By law, the state must bid all such professional service contracts that cost more than $20,000.
More here from the AP:
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Office of Management and Budget improperly awarded state contracts and had difficulty monitoring others, a state audit said today.
The review by Auditor General William Holland found that the budget office did not issue contracts based on required competitive bidding procedures. It also wrongly paid employees for travel expenses and failed to document workers’ pay raises.
“As the management agency of state government, they’re setting a poor example,” Holland said.
Now, on to CMS.
From the summary of Holland’s audit, here’s my personal favorite, which concerns a deal between CMS and the Department of Healthcare and Family Services
In April 2007 an interagency agreement was transacted between the Department and HFS which essentially authorized the Department to expend funds (up to $20 million) from HFS’ appropriation from the Health Insurance Reserve Fund for the payment of medical expenses under the Workers’ Compensation program. During fiscal year 2007, the Department processed $19,998,199 from HFS’ appropriation for State Employees Group Insurance to pay for claims and services related to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
In other words, CMS and HFS — the agency responsible for managing the state’s health care programs — forged an agreement under which CMS raided nearly $20 million set aside for state worker health insurance to pay costs associated with worker’s comp. This is the “health care governor,” after all.
CMS also had trouble keeping its fiscal years straight, Holland’s audit found.
In the fiscal year 2007 lapse period, the Department accepted payments from the Department of Revenue (IDOR), totaling $2,825,621, that were not associated with any billings for services rendered. The Department did apply $614,957 of these payments toward outstanding balances owed by IDOR. IDOR reported expenditure against its current fiscal year appropriations, while the Department was recognizing the receipt as an advance payment against fiscal year 2008 services. This is a violation of the Advance Billings Rules. Although the Department did not specifically issue a billing, the Department did accept and process payments which allowed the IDOR to expend remaining appropriations.
Applying payments toward a wrong fiscal year is a recurring theme. In his recent audit of the state Department of Revenue, Holland cited that agency for this — and for creating “falsified” documents to support its flawed accounting.
The Department paid $1,592,300 out of FY06 appropriations (10 separate invoices) towards the FY07 Department of Central Management Services (DCMS) Internal Service Fund billings.
The Department paid $2,825,621 out of FY07 appropriations (8 separate invoices) towards the FY08 DCMS Internal Service Fund billings.
In FY07, the Department created or falsified six invoices with DCMS headings as supporting documentation in order to make these prepayments. Of these invoices, 1 of the 6 invoices stated it was for FY07 charges or leases when, in fact, it was to prepay FY08 costs. The remaining five invoices stated they were prepayments. All six invoice vouchers (Form C-13) submitted to the State Comptroller stated they were “FY2007 Contracted Prior to July 1.”
 |
| The Three Stooges |
In FY07, the Department created two invoices on Department of Revenue letterhead, in essence charging itself, in order to prepay two invoices to DCMS. Both invoices appeared to be for FY07 charges and did not clearly state they were prepayments for FY08. Both invoice vouchers (Form C-13) submitted to the State Comptroller stated they were “FY2007 Contracted Prior to July 1.”
What was going on over there? This is the agency responsible for collecting — and keeping track of — your tax dollars.
Then there was that doozy of an audit a couple weeks ago of HFS, the health care agency formerly known as the Illinois Department of Public Aid.
From the Register Star:
The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services has carried an average of $1.5 billion in unpaid medical bills over from one fiscal year to the next since fiscal 2005, the audit found. And while the agency generally took less than a week to process claims for payment, it took an average of 57 days to submit those claims to Comptroller Dan Hynes, who distributes the payments, according to the audit.
The agency’s failure to pay bills on time means it owes providers upwards of $81 million in interest for in late-payments, the audit found.
Again, this is the state agency in charge of administering health care — the governor’s longstanding chief policy focus.
When the agency fails to pay doctors and other health care providers on time, state law requires it pay those providers interest — hence the potentially $81 million in interest owed. Yet, Holland reported that HFS “did not have a system in place to pay automatically owed interest (interest greater than $50) to providers until May 2007 – almost eight years after the inclusion of Medicaid claims” in the state law mandating interest payments.
Holland also noted HFS required health care “providers to follow a cumbersome process to request interest” and that it had been “excluding certain claims from interest payments, some of which are not supported by Administrative Rule.”
And when providers asked the agency to reimburse them for their costs, HFS routinely rejected their claims by citing “error codes” that providers may not have recognized since HFS didn’t include those codes in its provider handbook, Holland reported.
We identified 123 error codes HFS used for rejected services that were reported to providers in 2006 that were not on the list of error codes found in HFS’ provider handbook. These error codes are used by providers to determine why a service was rejected so they can make the appropriate corrections in order to resubmit the rejected services within the required 12 month period.
Then again, some providers just had to ask when they needed some cash. HFS doled out at least $5.7 million in “one-time drop payments” to providers who called up to “declare their emergency,” even though auditors could not substantiate how exactly the agency determined whether to make such payments.
No policies or procedures exist to delineate the process for providers requesting or HFS’ review and approval of the need for a one-time drop payment. HFS does not require providers to submit a written request documenting their need or keep a log of one-time drop payment requests. According to HFS officials, these providers usually contact HFS by phone and declare their emergency need to be paid.
During testing, auditors found that generally the only documentation to support one-time drop payments were the e-mails between HFS employees changing the payment parameters for these providers and an internal HFS spreadsheet which tracked the one-time drop payment requests. There was no log or consistent documentation showing who outside HFS requested the payment or whether HFS determined that an emergency need existed.
UPDATE 1
Blago’s administration has been marked by such audits since shortly after taking office in 2003. In 2005, Holland cited CMS for wasteful spending and widespread contract irregularities.
State auditors Tuesday accused the Illinois Department of Central Management Services of wasteful spending, skirting its own rules when awarding contracts and failing to document claims that it had saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
Auditor General William Holland did not allege any criminal wrongdoing at the giant administrative services agency, but he did forward his report to Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s inspector general. […]
“There clearly was some inappropriate activity,” he said.
Asked if CMS oversight was sloppy, Holland said, “Sloppy is a very kind word. It’s above sloppy. I don’t know that it’s sinister, but I don’t know that it’s not.”
During the audit, CMS staff launched their own “audit” of Holland’s office — an apparent attempt by CMS to somehow retaliate or pre-empt the force of Holland’s investigation.
When Holland released his audit, CMS staff worked feverishly to undermine its credibility.
Holland responded by defending his audit in a Capitol news conference — a highly unusual move for a guy who does remarkable well at staying out of the political limelight.
The audit covered the two years ending June 30, 2004, which included the administration’s first 18 months. The CMS director, Michael Rumman, resigned at the time. Blago brushed off the audit as a fight between “bean counters.”
May 28th, 2008
Lawmakers have already authorized red-light cameras in Chicago, one of the nation’s hotbeds for the technology. But they drew the line last night at authorizing them in Rockford and other communities around Illinois.
SPRINGFIELD — Lawmakers on Tuesday rejected Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s plan for red-light cameras at intersections after several senators from both parties and from around Illinois derided what they called a government money grab and “Big Brother” intrusion.
“It’s anti-American,” said Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago. “It’s against our rights as American citizens to live free. It’s against the Constitution of the United States.”
Just 26 senators supported the plan — four fewer votes than necessary for passage — while 24 opposed it. Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the plan, said he was weighing whether to ask later this week for another vote.
Eight senators did not vote on the bill, and another voted “present.” The roll call is here.
Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, and Sen. Brad Burzynski, R-Clare, are longstanding opponents of the plan.
“For people to say that this isn’t about revenue, I think, is being disingenuous,” said Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford. “This is about revenue.”
Sen. Brad Burzynski, a Clare Republican who represents the far east edge of Rockford, added in a statement, “It’s more about issuing citations and bringing in money than public safety.”
Syverson filed an amendment to the bill to make it more difficult for cities such as Rockford to implement red light cameras. Syverson stood on the Senate floor and criticized the plan, then voted for it. Burzynski voted against it.
Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the plan, saw fit to mention during debate that Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, had not contacted him regarding the bill. Jefferson did his job in the House by shepherding the bill through his chamber.
But it’s also common for lawmakers with a strong interest in their legislation — this was one of Morrissey’s chief priorities, after all — to reach across the Capitol rotunda and lobby members of the opposite chamber. One wouldn’t expect Syverson and Burzynski to promote the bill in the Senate; they said they were opposed.
May 27th, 2008
This is the last week of the formal spring session.
After May 31, it requires a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an immediate effective date – i.e., the state budget. Therefore, lawmakers generally work to dispose of the budget and other legislative matters by May 31, then head home for the summer.
Among the local matters we’ll be watching closely this week are Morrissey’s red-light camera plan and his plan to combat truancy by gaining more information from the School District.
It’s not clear, however, whether lawmakers will in fact approve a budget by Saturday. The Senate and House have advanced competing budget plans, and the governor – while generally assumed to be in line with the Senate’s plans – has been MIA for most of the spring session. Actually, he’s been MIA for most of the last two years.
If they don’t agree on a budget by Saturday, lawmakers may be here much if not all of the summer, just like last year. Morrissey may have plenty of time to build support for his initiatives.
Meawhile, the Rezko jury continues its deliberations this week. A guilty verdict against Rezko could certainly make Gov. Blagojevich much more interested in a speedy end of session; he will not want to be hanging around Springfield, where the press, public and rank-and-file lawmakers may reach him. An acquittal, on the other hand, may only embolden him.
Then again, it’s never wise to bet on Blagojevich’s next move . The man is not rational.
UPDATE 1
House Speaker Mike Madigan said the governor may be “delusional.”
May 16th, 2008
Illinois judges are on a roll:
Almost without exception, any Illinois judge arrested for DUI refuses to take a breath test. Many also refuse the field sobriety test.
From the AP, via the Daily Chronicle:
TINLEY PARK, Ill. - A Cook County judge is expected to appear in court next month on drunken driving charges filed last week in the southern Chicago suburb of Tinley Park.
Tinley Park Police Commander Rick Bruno said Thursday that 47-year-old Judge Sheila McGinnis of Chicago was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence after she struck another vehicle stopped at a traffic light on the evening of May 8.
Bruno said it appeared McGinnis was not traveling at a high speed, and neither she nor the five occupants of the minivan she struck were injured.
Officers said that when police arrived, McGinnis appeared intoxicated and smelled strongly of alcohol, but she refused to submit to a field sobriety test or a breath analysis.
Since covering appellate courts for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in 1999 and 2000, I’ve been intrigued by the uncanny consistency with which judges handle DUI arrests.
Who knows the law better than a judge?
Last spring, I authored an overview on this topic for the Register Star:
Cases filed by the state’s Judicial Inquiry Board, which prosecutes judicial misconduct, read like a playbook for limiting your culpability during a DUI stop. […]
John Karns, an appellate court justice from southern Illinois, refused to blow when he was arrested for DUI in 1978. He threatened to fight police officers and “challenged one or more of the police personnel to engage in such fighting,” the JIB said.
The next morning, Karns and his lawyer seized all police documents pertaining to his arrest. The JIB said he and his lawyer destroyed or suppressed them, and that he was never prosecuted.
The JIB prosecuted two other judges arrested for DUI in the 1970s, but its complaints in those cases make no mention of breath or field sobriety tests. In that decade, breath tests were not yet widely used.
George Ray, a trial judge in central Illinois, refused field sobriety and breath tests during his DUI stop in 1989. A sheriff’s deputy stopped him for swerving in and out of his lane 20 minutes after seeing the judge sleeping in his vehicle outside a tavern.
Ray was convicted of improper lane usage but the DUI charge was dropped.
Edwin Gausselin, a Cook County judge, was stopped in 1998 for DUI in Michigan City, Ind. He refused field sobriety and breath tests, and officers later found an open bottle of whiskey in his vehicle. An Indiana judge dismissed a drunken driving and two other criminal charges, according to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.
The same year, a sheriff’s deputy arrested LaSalle County Judge Cynthia Raccuglia for DUI. The deputy discovered her vehicle in the middle of a street after another motorist towed it from a ditch. As the deputy followed her from the scene, the judge steered her vehicle off the road and attempted to drive down railroad tracks.
Raccuglia submitted to field sobriety tests but refused to take a breath test. She pleaded guilty to reckless driving.
Then in late April, there was this:
Lake County Chief Judge David Hall refused to take Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests Saturday morning when he was pulled over for allegedly weaving across the center lane, according to Lake County court documents.
May 12th, 2008
The New York Times today covered Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the Rezko cloud over his career in a story it called “Corruption Case Taints Rising Political Star”:
 |
| Blagojevich at the U of I in 2006 |
When the trial began two months ago, national attention focused on how Senator Barack Obama of Illinois might suffer because of his connection to Mr. Rezko, a former patron who made a fortune on fast food and real estate.
But it is Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, an ambitious chief executive who has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing, who is left flailing in the wake of weeks of testimony. His name and administration have surfaced repeatedly, described as a participant in the kickback schemes of which Mr. Rezko is accused.
It’s been a couple years since any Illinois political insider, perhaps other than the governor himself, truly thought of Blago as a “rising political star.” His presidential hopes were long ago dashed against the rocks.
The Times story reports that Blagojevich “has been so badly wounded by association with the case that he may not be able to recover.” But the fact is that the governor had big, big problems well before this trial began.
His relations with many other Democrats were in tatters. The state’s budget problems worsened under his reign, even as he insisted that everything was going swimmingly. The state’s auditor general was having a field day documenting widespread mismanagement of executive agencies.
And federal investigators were probing the governor’s hiring, contracting and fundraising practices. The Rezko trial appears to be an outgrowth of that probe, and it may be the political death knell for Blago.
Closing arguments in the Rezko trial are supposed to begin today. Jury deliberations will follow.
UPDATE 1
Speaking of the Blagojevich administration’s trouble with management, Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland today ripped the state agency administering the state’s health care programs. From the AP:
A new audit confirms Illinois has a severe backlog of overdue health care bills, but problems with the Medicaid system go much deeper.
Auditor General William Holland found that Illinois ended each of the last three years with an average of $1.5 billion in unpaid bills.
He also found the Department of Healthcare and Family Services did a poor job of handling the bills it did manage to pay.
There was no clear system for deciding who got paid first. The state held bills for nearly two months before even starting the process of paying them.
Illinois could owe up to $81 million dollars in interest on overdue bills.
The department says it will make improvements but defends many of its procedures.
The full report is here.
UPDATE 2
Dan “Seeking Higher Office” Hynes issued a news release saying today’s audit shows the “administration’s hyprocrisy“:
“This audit provides more evidence that the administration has been mismanaging the Medicaid system and has been manipulating the payment process,” Hynes said. “By doing so, they are not helping people as they claim. Rather, they are harming some of the most vulnerable Illinoisans and the dedicated healthcare professionals who are trying to provide those citizens with critical services.”
May 9th, 2008
Rep. Dave Winters, R-Shirland, recently made what struck me as a remarkable observation about the politics of race and leadership in the General Assembly. In response, Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, provided some insight into how he sees those powerful, yet delicate, dynamics.
 |
| Jefferson |
I was talking to Winters about the status of Rockford Mayor Larry Morrissey’s truancy agenda — sponsored by Jefferson — and he said he was confident that Jefferson could garner Senate President Emil Jones Jr.’s support for Morrissey’s plan once it clears the House and lands in the Senate.
I’m no expert on Jefferson’s relationship with Jones, I told Winters, but I wouldn’t think Jefferson would necessarily have the inside track to Jones. Last spring, Jefferson joined House Speaker Michael Madigan’s leadership team. Jones and Madigan, both Chicago Democrats, are feuding. So my first assumption would be that Jones would view Jefferson as a Madigan surrogate and would therefore be hostile toward him, I told Winters.
 |
| Winters |
“I would assume that he is not seen as Madigan’s guy as much as he is the Black Caucus guy,” Winters responded. “Emil probably has very good relations with the Black Caucus.”
Members of the House Black Caucus — the collection of African-American state representatives, all Democrats — pick three members of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team. Last spring, they picked Jefferson for one of those three seats.
Like Jefferson, Jones also is black.
“Blood is stronger than water,” Winters said.
Jefferson disagreed with Winters’ interpretation. In fact, Jefferson suggested the sentiment may be just the opposite of what Winters suggested — that perhaps Jones is disappointed in black House members for following Madigan’s lead.
“Jones has some animosity toward the House members as it relates to the Black Caucus because we are under Mike Madigan’s reign,” Jefferson said.
“Well, he’s the speaker of the House. That’s who we supposedly follow. (Jones is) upset sometimes that maybe we don’t follow his lead the way he feels we should. And that’s OK. That’s his perception of the situation. Just like Emil holds his members accountable, we’re accountable to Mike Madigan. And because we’re accountable to Mike Madigan, it doesn’t get us favoritism with the president of the Senate.”
Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer declined to comment.
 |
| Jones |
“(Jones) views that sometimes it’s maybe not (the House Black Caucus) being in his corner as it relates to a lot of things. Well, that’s not the case,” Jefferson said.
“If we’ve got to pick an issue, we’re probably going to be more supportive of the House issue, under Mike Madigan’s reign, than we would under his leadership as president of the Senate. I don’t think we’re enemies. But I don’t think that I can get anything done (in the Senate) any sooner than (Sen.) Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) in the Senate. If anyone is going to champion a bill, I’d certainly want to go and talk to President Jones about the bill. But I think that we need to pick it up on that side with Sen. Syverson to make sure he’s doing everything.”
Jefferson concluded, “We need to be able to cut across party lines. And the fact that I’m black and Emil is black, I don’t think carries a lot of weight with Emil at this point in time.”
May 7th, 2008
What is it with some men in politics and their fixation on testes?
First it was Gov. Rod Blagojevich saying he had the “testicular virility”to fend off the influence of his father-in-law, a ward boss from Chicago’s North Side who was Blagojevich’s political mentor.
“This is the kind of thing that I think separates the men from the boys in leadership. Do you have the testicular virility to make a decision like that, knowing what’s coming your way?” Blagojevich said. “I say I do.”
This is the same man who in 2004 accused Attorney General Lisa Madigan of doing her father’s bidding when she effectively quashed his plan to mortgage Chicago’s Thompson Center for $200 million. Her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is Blagojevich’s political nemesis.
“It’s her father. You know, I can’t fault her,” Blagojevich told reporters in Chicago. “I don’t want to get involved in a family deal here but, you know, it’s her father. I’ve got two daughters. I hope they back me on stuff that I do.”
Blagojevich got back on the side of working women in 2006, when he dismissed a reporter’s questions about his wife’s questionable real estate deals as “Neanderthal and sexist.”
Now back to testes. Last week, it was labor leader Paul Gibson projecting big, powerful testes onto none other than Hillary Clinton:
“If you’re thinking the next President of the United States should address and amend and convince people that here are the flaws with that law, and here’s what we’re supposed to do and it shouldn’t cause harm to either border,” said Gibson. “Well, you know what, then I truly believe that that is going to take an individual that has testicular fortitude, that’s exactly right, that’s what we got to have.”
I am a man. But I cannot imagine seriously and publicly equating mental and intellectual prowess and stamina with the presence of testicles. I’d go with a metaphor just a touch more sophisticated than Fonzie, Andrew Dice Clay and Chris Farley.
Then again, perhaps there is a constituency of dullards out there with whom pointed references to testicles resonate well. Our dear governor and one of organized labor’s finest appear to think so.
UPDATE 1
There evidently is a constituency among us with whom talk of testes rings home. Politico. com has the story of Hillary Clinton, the “ballsy fighter”:
Clinton may not like the story, but her supporters love it: The sheet metal workers union official in Portage, Indiana cited by Bayh had praised her “testicular fortitude” before lighting into unnamed “Gucci wearing, latte-drinking” opponents.
Also last week, a New York Post columnist wrote that she’d won the “cojones primary.”
And James Carville, the Clintons’ ubiquitous former aide, booster, and informal adviser made the point even more vividly, giving Clinton a two-gonad edge on her primary rival, Senator Barack Obama.
“If she gave him one of her cojones, they’d both have two,” Carville said.
The ballsy fighter is the newest persona for a woman whom public life has taken from a liberal policy wonk to a devoted wife, from a wronged woman to a cerebral senator.
This is too much.
May 7th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s determination to unilaterally expand state-subsidized health care, despite the fact that lawmakers repeatedly rejected his plan and refused to provide funding for it, has prompted quite the debacle.
His administration claims it can’t easily differentiate between costs associated with his unilateral expansion of FamilyCare — a move recently blocked by Cook County Judge James Epstein — and those costs associated with the state’s previously existing, core health care programs including Medicaid.
And because the administration cannot distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate payments, state Comptroller Dan Hynes is withholding payments for legitimate health care expenses as well as payments associated with the governor’s blocked expansion, according to Larry Blust, an attorney for the administration.
Hynes did “not receive from (the administration) any information from which (he) could independently determine which invoice vouchers relate to services provided under the old eligibility guidelines and which vouchers relate to services provided under the new guidelines at issue in this case,” Hynes’ attorneys said recently in a court brief.
Hynes therefore “would be unable to determine on a day-to-day basis whether (his office) was or was not complying with any (temporary restraining order) or preliminary injunction that might be entered by this court,” they said.
If Hynes withheld health care payments across the board for fear of violating the judge’s order by inadvertently making payments associated with the governor’s now-blocked health care expansion, then doctors and health care providers who provided services under the state’s legitimate health care program are not getting paid.
According to Blust, Hynes withheld at least $72 million in payments. Hynes spokeswoman Carol Knowles declined to answer questions concerning the comptroller’s policy on these payments, instead referring me to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which administers the state’s health care programs.
The Department’s Response
I approached the agency with a series of questions by phone and e-mail on Friday. Agency spokeswoman Annie Thompson finally responded by e-mail Tuesday night, and here is her entire statement:
We have halted enrollment for the Family Care expansion while issues are worked out in court. The approximately 30,000 existing enrollees are still covered under the permanent rule. While those who intervened in the lawsuit - Mr. Gidwitz, Mr. Baise, and the Attorney General - are aiming to take coverage away from working parents in the expansion group, we have not removed anyone from the program.
My questions on Friday were aimed at gaining a response for a news story and related column I authored for Saturday’s Register Star. The news story concerned the agency’s decision to cease enrollment in the governor’s expansion. The column concerned a group of 25,000 people who belonged to FamilyCare before the governor’s expansion, and whose health care now appears to be at risk.
In her Tuesday night response to my Friday questions, it’s worth noting that Thompson did not provide a more detailed response to our Saturday coverage.
It’s also worth noting that Thompson did make a point of attacking individuals who joined Richard Caro’s lawsuit against the governor’s health care expansion.
Also, when she referred to “30,000 existing enrollees,” I presume she was referring to the class of individuals previously enrolled in FamilyCare; my sources told me there were 25,000 people in this class. But when she said they are “still covered under the permanent rule,” I have no idea what she was referring to. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a special panel of lawmakers that reviews the administration’s rules, rejected both an emergency and permanent rule that her agency filed to implement the governor’s expansion. The judge’s order blocking the governor’s program backed JCAR’s decisions.
As I reported in the Saturday column, the agency used those same rules to advance a rule change necessary to continue providing coverage to this class of 25,000/30,000 people. Again, the rules were rejected both by JCAR and Judge Epstein. The state now appears to have no authority, under it rules, to cover the cost of health care for these people and to call on the federal government to reimburse at least half of that cost. So, like I said, I have no idea what Thompson is talking about.
The Comptroller’s Role
The comptroller is responsible for paying the state’s bills. He acts in response to vouchers — requests for payment — presented to him by the administration. His attorneys argue it’s not up to his staff to sort through thousands of vouchers to determine which ones ought to be paid versus those that should not be paid.
“Even if the Comptroller’s Office received data from which it might conceivably be able to distinguish between vouchers for services provided under the expanded guidelines as opposed to the services provided under the old guidelines, the sheer volume of vouchers processed by the Office would make it a practical impossibility for the Office to exercise any role in preventing payment of services that would qualify under the new eligibility guidelines,” Hynes’ attorneys said.
“Each year the Office processes approximately 16 million voucher transactions, or more than 300,000 every week. Any injunction requiring the agency heads to provide additional information to the Comptroller’s office so that the Office could make an independent determination as to whether payments were being made according to the old guidelines or the new guidelines would require a complete overhaul of the SAMS computer system and would likely require that the Office hire significantly more auditors.”
For more background on the comptroller’s view of the conundrum the administration placed him in, see this brief that his attorneys filed in support of his motion to get out from under the judge’s injunction.
Deflecting Blame
Following are remarks made by attorneys for the administration and the comptroller in a hearing before Judge Epstein on April 23, according to a transcript of the hearing provided by Richard Caro, a west suburban attorney who filed the lawsuit against the governor’s expansion. At issue in the hearing is Epstein’s decision to stay his preliminary injunction as it pertains to Hynes but to leave the injunction intact as it pertains to the administration.
The administration sought during the hearing to also get out from under the injunction, though the judge refused.
(It’s not clear why Blust refers to Medicare in the transcript. Medicare is a federal program that is not at issue in the case. Medicaid, the state’s core program, is at issue in the case. Blust may have mistakenly referred to Medicare, or the court reporter may have mistakenly reported that he said Medicare when he said Medicaid.
A “stay” is a suspension of the judge’s order blocking the administration from carrying out, or making payments for, the governor’s expansion. The administration is appealing the judge’s order.)
We begin with Blust explaining the administration’s pickle in complying with the injunction. This gets to the heart of health care providers not getting paid:
MR. BLUST: We intend to comply with
the order unless the relief is granted on stay. We
did ask Your Honor in another motion we did file
today for a stay.
The main reason for that is because of
the stranded provider problem. Neither we nor the
controller — and I’ve tried to say this a couple
times, and I know Your Honor doesn’t like to hear it
– neither we nor the controller have the full
information apart from each other to do what’s
necessary in regard to providers if they’re not going
to be paid.
We have spent what I would call almost
an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out
what it would take to go in and find out who the
payors out there are who gave services during the
emergency rule and who haven’t been paid yet.
First of all, we don’t know who the
controller has and hasn’t paid.
Second, they don’t know — as Your
Honor may remember, the budget line here is by
service. Most of the people in FamilyCare also have
family members in other programs. So they have one
provider number, one authorization number.
So someone has to go in manually and
determine who has to be dealt with there and who
doesn’t, what the services are that were rendered
that can’t be paid if Your Honor is correct, which we
obviously don’t think you are or we wouldn’t have
appealed it, but who, in fact, has to do this.
What we’re proposing to stay, I think,
would — well, it would allow — that payment would
ameliorate the situation for people who acted in good
faith and rendered services based on provider
numbers.
Now, as I understand it, there’s like
$72 million worth of Medicare payments being withheld
at the controller’s office, not because there’s 72-
under this program. There’s probably a million at
most under this program, if that. But because, in
fact, they don’t know whether paying those would
violate Your Honor’s orders, we can’t authorize
vouchers from people either under Your Honor’s court
order.
Our agency approves the services. The
people who do that do not know whether that service
was rendered under Family Care, All Kids, some other
Medicaid/Medicare program.
So the first thing that has to happen,
I believe, after spending a lot of last week
investigating this, and we really need to do some
more, is we would have to write a program to separate
all of that out.
This is like — Medicaid is kind of
like a unitary batch processing program. A little
like the controller described; the same is happening
on our side.
We have two computer programs –
Epstein at this point interrupted Blust, noting the administration created this problem for itself:
THE COURT: The difference is, it was
created by your side, this issue –
MR. BLUST: And I’m not –
THE COURT: — and not by the
controller.
MR. BLUST: I’m not asking him for
sympathy for our creation. I’m just simply saying,
we have an issue here where we need — I don’t
believe it’s possible to say the controller has no
part –
THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a
second, Mr. Blust.
I take it the controller’s office has
no problem cooperating with the executive branch
other defendants in giving any information that is
within the power of the controller to give that would
allow them to comply with my order.
Peter Koch, an assistant attorney general representing Comptroller Hynes, at this point joined the conversation. Koch indicated it’s not clear to Hynes what the administration wanted from Hynes in order to fix its mess:
MR. KOCH: Of course, Your Honor. We
don’t have — they have not identified anything from
us, but there’s no reason why we wouldn’t cooperate.
THE COURT: That’s fine. I’m not
going to stay my order. It’s going to stay in full
force and effect.
And take the steps that are necessary
to promptly comply with the order.
MR. BLUST: Again, Your Honor, as we
said, unless we get a stay from the appeals court or
you, that’s what we’re doing.
THE COURT: Well, it’s down to the
appeals court at this point.
Blust at this point tried to persuade Epstein to stay the injunction as it pertained to the administration, just as the judge stayed the order as it pertains to Hynes, but Epstein wouldn’t do it.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the administration wanted the judge to stay his order as it pertains to the administration, but I suppose the administration would rather not deal with the trouble of separating the legitimate health care bills from the illegitimate ones. If the judge stayed his order as it pertains to the administration, then perhaps the administration believes that it won’t have to bother with this troublesome task.
Judge Epstein alluded to the administration’s demand for information from Hynes:
MR. BLUST: Well, we have to ask you
for a stay, too. I believe you do have the authority
to grant a stay.
THE COURT: And I’m respectfully
denying that.
And I would ask the controller’s
office to please comply with the best — within the
best of your ability to give them the information
which they claim they need to be able to undo that
which they have done.
MR. KOCH: Your Honor, we have no
objection to that. I did file separately today a
motion to modify the –
THE COURT: Which I think I’m barred
from doing –
Koch asked the judge to continue the stay relative to Hynes:
MR. KOCH: Yes, Your Honor.
Previously, last time we were here,
you did grant a stay of the injunction as to the
controller for seven days, and it was the
understanding, I think of all the parties here, that
we try to work something out.
I’d ask that the Court continue that
stay, at least as to the controller.
Epstein agreed to do just that:
THE COURT: I will as to the
controller, with the understanding that I am asking
the controller to please cooperate within the best of
his ability with the other executive branch
defendants to give them the information which they
claim they need to be able to comply with my order.
MR. KOCH: Any letter from Mr. Blust
I’ll forward on to the controller.
THE COURT: But it should be done with
all speed, because I think the longer this goes on,
if I am correct, the more money that would be spent
in violation of the order.
MR. KOCH: We will await questions
from Mr. Blust.
MR. BLUST: We’ve tried to do this
directly with the agencies. I suppose we can do
this through — it’s really hard to encourage the
people in the controller’s office and the department
to work together on this and not have to –
THE COURT: I don’t know that this has
to go through you. You can talk to your respective
clients on that. I don’t suppose I have to encourage
these people or, for that matter, any litigators to
paper what you’re doing so that it can be
demonstrated who, if anyone, is dragging their feet,
because should this be affirmed and should there be a
failure to comply with the order, there will be
sanctions, and that’s all I need to really say on
that.
Let’s recap: The governor’s administration claimed it couldn’t distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate health care bills, and it’s unclear how or when it might sort this out. Meanwhile, the comptroller is withholding payment on both fronts, and is looking to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services to sort it all out. The judge, for his part, is concerned about the state making payments in violation of his order.
A Big, Big Mess
Late Tuesday, Caro added this in an e-mail:
Blust meant all Medicaid payments have been held up
until HFS can determine which ones have been enjoined
from being paid. Under State law it is a serious crime
for HFS to certify to the Comptroller a bill as
lawfully payable. Apparently on April 15 after
issuance of the preliminary injunction HFS sent over a
computer tape asking the Comptroller to pay $72
million in Medicaid charges, which included charges
that were enjoined from being paid. The injunction
effectively voided any prior certification. So now HFS
has to figure out what bills can’t be paid and that is
a tough, tough job, and requires a manual review of
each and every charge. There may be hundreds of
thousands of submissions to review. May 15th is coming
soon and the same problem exists for those payments.
How long will it take HFS to sort what can and can not
be paid, no one knows. The Judge’s position was that
HFS created the problem and it’s up to them to do
whatever it takes to comply asap.
What a mess.
The lawyers are back in court this week Monday.
Previous Posts
