Posts filed under 'Emil Jones'
August 18th, 2008
Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who tried to antagonize Sen. Dave Syverson during Syverson’s 2006 re-election bid by asking “Where’s Rockford?”, reportedly will soon announce his retirement.
Powerful Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. is expected to announce Monday that he soon will retire, sources close to him said Sunday night, which will leave Gov. Rod Blagojevich without one of his closest allies.
Jones, who turns 73 in October, long championed more money for schools and education funding reform and made them his top priority as Senate president, a post he has held since 2003. He also has been a major voice for social justice.
His decision, not officially confirmed, likely opens a free-for-all to succeed him. Possible candidates to succeed Jones, a Chicago Democrat, as president include Sens. James Clayborne of Belleville, Jeff Schoenberg of Evanston; John Cullerton, Rickey Hendon and Donne Trotter of Chicago; and Terry Link of Waukegan, who doubles as Lake County Democratic chairman.
Jones is a staunch ally of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, serving as Blagojevich’s right hook in the governor’s feud with House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Jones used his control over the Senate to advance Blagojevich initiatives to the House and to block Madigan-backed initiatives from clearing the Senate. If Jones departs, Blagojevich must reinvent his strategy for fighting Madigan.
In 2006, Jones backed Rockford Democrat Dan Lewandowski in a race against Syverson, R-Rockford. In the months leading up the election, Jones repeatedly wondered aloud “Where’s Rockford?” when the Register Star asked him questions about Rockford’s place in certain legislation.
During a visit to Rockford before the election, Jones acknowledged that he was indeed familiar with Rockford — but that he was trying to highlight what he viewed as Syverson poor representation.
Syverson beat the socks off Lewandowski in that race, winning by more than 10 percentage points.
August 15th, 2008
Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, buckled to mounting political pressure Tuesday and allowed senators to vote on whether to reject pay raises for themselves, House members, constitutional officers and agency directors.
The Senate rejected that pay raise, but not before Jones lashed out at critics for suggesting he had attempted to put the vote off until after the Nov. 4 general election. You see, the Senate had to vote on the pay raises by 30 days from the time an obscure panel recommended it or the raises would have gone into effect automatically.
Jones himself had this to say in May when asked whether he would allow a vote: “I need a pay raise.”
Wednesday was the 30th session day since the panel issued its report. But Jones said that special session days held during the summer don’t count. Only regular session days count, he insisted.
(It’s true that action during special session generally must be confined to the terms of the governor’s order — education funding, for instance. But it’s also true that the Senate may meet in regular session when it happens to be in Springfield for special session. On Tuesday when the Senate was in town for special session, in fact, it convened in regular session to reject the pay raises.)
“To say, ‘The Clock is running. If you don’t act this week, the pay raises will go into effect.’ Biggest lie ever told,” Jones said.
Really? The biggest lie ever told? In the history of the world?
August 12th, 2008
This is a big surprise …
Senate President Emil Jones has promised that he will allow an up-or-down vote on legislative pay raises this week, a spokeswoman confirmed Monday.
Jones, a Chicago Democrat, told Sen. Susan Garrett, D-Lake Forest, Friday that he will give the chamber a chance to accept or reject the raises when senators meet Tuesday and Wednesday in special sessions called by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
“He made a commitment to call the pay raise for an up or down vote,” Garrett said. “I take him at his word on that.”
The decision represents a change for Jones who didn’t want the Senate to have to deal with the pay raise issue until after the November election. Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer said she didn’t know why Jones had a change of heart.
However, she said it wasn’t because of speculation that the pay raises will automatically go into effect Wednesday unless the Senate rejects them. Senate Democrat researchers have determined that Wednesday is not a deadline for the Senate to act, she said.
Jones has refused to allow a vote up to this point. And if the Senate doesn’t vote on whether to accept the raise, then the raise goes into place automatically. Jones had this to say during the spring session when the issue first popped up: “I need a pay raise.”
The state’s comptroller says there’s no money in the budget for pay raises, even if the Senate refuses to vote — or if senators vote to approve the raise, in which case it would go into effect.
Even if the raises are approved, there is no money to give lawmakers, top agency officials and the statewide elected officials a bigger paycheck, said Comptroller Dan Hynes.
Hynes said the legislature didn’t include money for the raises in the budget approved in May.
That may be true, but as the SJ-R story notes it’s not really the point. Though there’s no money in the state budget at this time, if lawmakers decide to vote themselves a pay raise then the raise would be retroactive whenever they get around to making the appropriation — presumably after the November election.
That’s your state government at work: Lawmakers would all get lump-sum checks if they approve (don’t reject) the raise now and then approve the appropriate some time down the road.
July 17th, 2008
State lawmakers are back home today and are not scheduled to return to Springfield until after the Nov. 4 general election.
 |
| Dog in Pajamas, complements of spoilurpets.com |
It’s just me, a couple dozen other reporters, some legislative staff, secretaries and a bunch of security guards remaining at the Capitol. Once again, I can show up to work in my pajamas.
But my bliss in puffy slippers may not last long. With Gov. Rod “Madman” Blagojevich, House Speaker Michael “King of the Mountain” Madigan and Senate President Emil “I’m Powerful Too” Jones running the state government, it’s a safe bet we won’t have to wait long for the next drama in Springfield.
Just when you think you’ve seen it all with these characters, it gets even goofier. Yesterday, Blagojevich declared that he might send state troopers or even the National Guard into the neighborhoods of Chicago to help stem “out of control” violence. Only, Blagojevich hadn’t bothered to mention this to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley before mentioning it to rolling television cameras. As CapFax Blog noted, Blagojevich apparently just “blurted” it out.
By the time the House completed work Wednesday, its members had restored to the state budget more than $400 million in spending Blagojevich had cut. Only, Blagojevich said he cut that spending because there was inadequate revenue in the budget to support it, and the House didn’t bother voting for any additional revenue-raising plan to back up the additional spending.
Blagojevich’s people were quick to say the House had acted irresponsibly. Then again, Blagojevich cut just $1.4 billion from the budget after insisting it had a $2.1 billion hole. How did the governor plan to manage that other $700 million in spending for which he claimed there was no revenue? Who knows.
And in any case, Blagojevich has long lacked any credibility regarding budget numbers. It’s prudent to take everything the man says about the budget with a huge — I mean huge — grain of salt. Even as the state faced the worst general-fund deficit in the nation near the end of his first term, Blagojevich insisted it wasn’t possible for the state to have a deficit.
Oh, and remember how the governor tried to cut state funding for 4-H and other agricultural programs from the budget that ended June 30 because he claimed it had a $750 million hole? The governor agreed to restore funding for those programs when fellow Democrats in the Senate agreed to defeat a plan that would have allowed voters to recall Blagojevich from office. And though Blagojevich’s people had threatened to withhold nearly $400 million in payments for schools during the month of June to help close that budget gap, they released that money too.
How did the governor patch that $750 million hole? Who knows. Did such a hole even exist? Who knows.
If there’s another thing Blagojevich does not do well, it’s sit still with his mouth shut. Though Madigan engineered the defeat of the governor’s $34 billion capital plan by out-foxing him on the last day of spring session, Blagojevich is working feverishly to build public pressure to topple Madigan and push the plan through.
Blagojevich seldom misses an opportunity to promote his plan. Yesterday, when he offered to send troopers or troops into Chicago yesterday, he clumsily painted his capital plan as a means to quell violence in Chicago.
“The mayor can be a great help in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big capital program,” [Blagojevich] said.
That capital program would funnel millions into communities he says need money to fight crime in a comprehensive way.
It’s safe to assume Blagojevich will continue beating that drum. Perhaps he’ll go so far as to call lawmakers into special session. Who knows.
In the meantime, I’m getting cozy with flannel.
June 17th, 2008
I recently told you about a major political fight over the re-appointment of former Chicago cop Salvador Diaz to the Prisoner Review Board, just as the board prepares to vote on whether to parole local cop killer Ted Bacino.
The State Journal-Register has much, much more today:
A collection of law enforcement and victims’ rights groups is decrying what they view as an effort to make the Illinois Prisoner Review Board more lenient.
In a letter sent to state senators and Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the organizations say the “recent debacle” over reappointing a former Chicago police officer to the 15-member board shows that the process is becoming politicized.
“The incident was an absolutely unacceptable act of political manipulation and patronage that endangers the Illinois public and the political reputations of those pressured into supporting such an effort,” says the letter signed by 12 groups. “We ask your most sincere efforts to prevent patronage and political deal making from being used when it comes to the Prisoner Review Board.”
Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat who led the fight to oust Diaz repeated his stock explanation that Diaz violated protocol by failing to ask Hendon for his blessing. He said his determination to remove Diaz from the parole board was not part of an effort on his part to steer the board leftward.
Hendon gave a similar explanation in 2005 when he worked to reject the nomination of consumer advocate Marty Cohen to the Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulates utilities. Hendon said Gov. Rod Blagojevich violated protocol by by not seeking his blessing for the Cohen appointment.
“Marty Cohen is not the only talent in this town,” bellowed Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat who chairs a committee that, earlier Thursday, voted 7-0 against the nomination.
Hendon said his opposition was meant as a message to Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat who failed to consult with him before advancing Cohen’s name.
“Rod Blagojevich,” Hendon shouted on the Senate floor, “get your act together!”
Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a Chicago Democrat who teamed with Hendon to reject Cohen, said their effort had nothing to do with trying to protect ComEd by preventing one of the utility’s adversaries from joining the ICC — one of the greatest donors to Jones’ campaign fund.
Utilities contributed more than $1.3 million to the campaign funds of Illinois policymakers and candidates since the beginning of 2003, according to a report published in October by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a nonpartisan government watchdog.
The report said Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, took $219,400 of that money, making him the top recipient. It said ComEd parent company Exelon, together with its subsidiaries, lead the donors with $535,400 in contributions.
“No contributions that I receive impact the decisions that I make here,” Jones said after the Senate panel rejected Cohen.
More background on the Cohen fight is here and here.
After the Senate rejected Cohen, Blagojevich appointed former Rockford Mayor Charles Box to head the ICC, and the Senate confirmed him. Box promptly voted to rubber-stamp ComEd’s plan to procure power through reverse auctions — a plan that consumer advocates opposed. (The Legislature later abolished reverse auctions.)
Anyway, back the parole board.
Republicans, like prosecutors, believe Hendon and Jones are in fact trying to make the parole board more sensitive to the calls of prisoners seeking freedom.
“There’s no doubt the Senate Democrats want to remove law enforcement personnel (from the board),” said Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale. “They’re seen as too strict when it comes to parole.”
“I’ve heard that they are trying to remove all of the law enforcement people from the Prisoner Review Board,” said Sen. John Millner, R-Carol Stream. “From behind the scenes and people talking in back rooms, there’s (supposedly) not enough prisoners being released.”
Millner said he thought it inappropriate to oust the last former law enforcer from the board. At one time, there were three: Diaz, former Tazewell County Sheriff James Donahue and ex-Peoria Police Chief John Stenson.
Blagojevich didn’t reappoint Donahue, and Stenson’s reappointment was rejected by the Senate in 2007.
The Prisoner Review Board is expected to vote Thursday on Bacino’s request for parole.
June 11th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich will try once again today to kickstart talk about correcting a budget plan that he says is $2.1 billion out of balance. At 10:30 a.m., Blagojevich plans to meet with legislative leaders in his Chicago office, just as he did in the first such meeting last week.
But just as he did last week, House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is expected to skip today’s meeting and instead send a surrogate. So when Blagojevich takes he seat this morning at a table with legislative leaders, he won’t see the face of one man whose support probably is necessary to win approval of any budget change — a tax or fee increase, perhaps, or an expansion of gambling — that the others all may agree on.
For his part, Madigan is busy promoting the notion that lawmakers ought to consider impeaching Blagojevich. A memo Madigan sent to House Democratic candidates says, “Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer
theoretical - it is proven.”
It also says, “Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances,” and that, “One thing we learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do further harm.”
You read that right. The governor has now, in the eyes of the House speaker, been relegated to “a tumor.”
As governor, Blagojevich has the power to veto the budget and send it back to lawmakers for their reconsideration. But as I noted in a previous post, Blagojevich has not mustered the courage to so much as threaten to veto the budget or, for that matter, call lawmakers back to Springfield in special session. By calling a series of meetings with legislative leaders, Blagojevich may look as if he is pursuing solutions, but without actually using — or even threatening to use — the actual tools at his disposal as governor.
Then again, Blagojevich could not veto the out-of-balance budget plan even if he wanted to do so. Though the Senate and House both approved that budget, the presiding officers of those chambers — Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, and Madigan — have not yet transmitted that budget to the governor. The governor cannot act on bills that lawmakers have not sent to him for his formal consideration.
As the CapFax Blog noted on Tuesday, this conundrum puts Blagojevich squarely at odds with Jones, his chief ally in the Legislature. The budget consists of multiple bills. And because most of those bills originated in the Senate, Senate President Jones therefore is the first to decide when to release those bills to the governor. (Both Jones and Madigan ultimately must sign off on each bill.) Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer did not respond to my requests for comment on Tuesday.
Under the state Constitution, the Legislature has 30 days to transmit the budget to the governor. Since the core of the budget did not pass until May 31 — the last day of spring session — the Legislature may wait until June 30 to send Blagojevich the budget. That’s the last day of this fiscal year. If Blagojevich does not act on the budget by the following day, then this state will enter its new fiscal year without a budget. If there still is no budget a couple weeks later, state workers will start missing their paychecks. Schools could miss out on their state money. And so on.
If the Legislature waits until late June to send Blagojevich the budget, he will face tremendous political pressure to approve it in full or make only limited cuts, rather than vetoing it in full. If vetoes the entire budget anyway, there is no telling when the state might have something resembling another budget. The political complications would be numerous.
For starters, lawmakers need a three-fifths majority to approve any budget at this point. That requires Republican votes — the same Republicans shut out of negotiations leading to the budget that passed May 31. Republicans would have lots of catching up to do, to say the least.
Jones may have another reason to avoid a summer session: If the Senate is in session for just a few days this summer, then pay raises will automatically kick in for Jones and other senators because Jones and fellow Democratic leaders refused to allow senators to vote on whether to reject that pay raise.
Lawmakers have just 30 days to act on the pay raise recommended by an obscure commission, or it automatically becomes law. The House has already voted to reject the raise; now it’s up to the Senate. Jones may prefer for the pay raise to kick in after the Nov. 4 general election. But to suspend the 30-day clock until then, the Senate must avoid session days.
For his part, Blagojevich also has reason to avoid a summertime session. The longer lawmakers are sitting idle in Springfield, as they did for much of last summer, the more likely they are to talk about impeaching the embattled Blagojevich.
Madigan is doing his part to fuel talk of impeachment. He said recently that his legal counsel had already researched the law on impeachment and he noted it takes just 60 votes in the House, a 118-member chamber, to impeach the governor. He also distributed a 14-page memo with talking points on impeachment to House Democratic candidates, according to news reports published Tuesday.
A Madigan aide said the document is not necessarily reflective of the speaker’s personal views but was prepared by House Democratic campaign staff.
“Candidates get incessant questions from the media about the impeachment process. Some asked staff if they could have background and information,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said.
Blagojevich responded:
“This is another example of the pettiness, silliness and backroom games that Speaker Madigan has been playing for months to prevent progress,” Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said. “We wish he would drop his behind-the-scenes maneuvering and come to the [legislative] leaders’ meetings.”
The full memo is here. If you’ve got 10 minutes, it’s well worth a read:
The list of Blagojevich’s malfeasance and inability to govern grows with every passing
day. It is not simply his legal problems that brought him to where he is today. These are
not stray, isolated incidents, but rather taken together they represent a clear pattern of
behavior and demonstrate Blagojevich’s consistently poor judgment and third-class
temperament. Time and again Blagojevich has been tested and found wanting.
From there, the memo lists precisely 30 examples of Blagojevich’s alleged “malfeasance and inability to govern.”
More to the point, it lists three reasons for the House to launch an impeachment investigation:
1. The ongoing federal criminal investigations of his administration,
including his role as Public Official A, have significantly impaired his
ability to do his job as governor. With Ali Atta’s guilty plea, the governor
has been directly implicated in a bribes-for-jobs scheme - the latest
revelation of malfeasance in the governor’s office. The conviction of Tony
Rezko on 16 or 24 federal corruption counts related to Blagojevich
administration activities also suggests something is seriously amiss. Using
common sense, and the totality of what has been learned so far about these
investigations, prudence demands that lawmakers act. Already, six
individuals associated with his administration have pled or been found
guilty of federal criminal charges in connection with their roles in corrupt
activities. Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer
theoretical - it is proven.
Blagojevich is clearly not an innocent victim of circumstances.
Legislators have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the
state and not depend on the federal government to save us. One thing we
learned from the George Ryan case is that we should excise a tumor when
it is first discovered; not leave it in the body to continue to spread and do
further harm.
2. Blagojevich’s violation of his oath of office by repeatedly attempting to
operate outside of the Illinois constitution and state law - expanding
FamilyCare beyond the limit authorized by the General Assembly,
spending money absent express statutory authority, failing to comply with
AG ruling that federal subpoenas are subject to FOIA, and a gross abuse
of the constitution’s special session power - using special session as a
blunt force instrument for dealing with the General Assembly and
attempting to force it to submit to his will - rather than for deal with
emergency situations.
3. Finally, Blagojevich’s legal problems have clearly become a distraction
for the governor. He is largely withdrawn from the legislative process spending
most of his time hunkered down at home or in a political
campaign office in Ravenswood hiding from the public and refusing to
answer the media’s questions. Aside from an occasional meeting or event
appearance, he is not faithfully executing the duties of his office.
Blagojevich acts like an absentee governor - content to let his underlings
do as they wish. That’s not acceptable. We need an engaged governor
who wants to be the governor.
Governor Blagojevich’s inability to govern is the principal reason that the
state is in its current predicament and that stalemate is the order of the day
in Springfield. The first step to cleaning up the mess and getting the state
back on track may be to remove the governor from office. If the evidence
warrants it, we cannot afford to wait until 2010. That will be too late and
he will have had two-and-a-half years to do even more damage to the
state.
Yowsers.
June 5th, 2008
Gov. Blagojevich insists there’s a $2.1 billion hole in the budget lawmakers approved on Saturday.
Yet, he has not vetoed — or even threatened to veto — that spending plan. Nor has he called — or threatened to call — lawmakers back to Springfield in special session, as he did repeatedly last year. Remember that circus?
So what gives?
First and foremost, Blagojevich is far more politically vulnerable this summer than he was last summer (if you can imagine that). The trial of Tony Rezko, Blagojevich’s former fundraiser and adviser, is now complete, with Rezko found guilty on 16 of 24 counts.
The feds clearly signaled during that trial, which lasted most of the spring, their keen interest in Blagojevich’s activities. Witness after witness testified about Rezko’s extraordinary influence over Blagojevich’s administration. Rezko hand-picked workers and advisers for the governor. Lon Monk, the governor’s former-chief-of-staff-turned-lobbyist, allegedly checked with Rezko before the governor’s office made decisions.
Oh yeah, and there was that pair of $25,000 donationsAli Ata made to Blagojevich just as Blagojevich gave Ata a high-ranking state post.
Meanwhile, certain House Democrats are clamoring to begin impeachmentproceedings against the wounded governor. House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, coyly acknowledged Saturday night that his legal counsel had already researched the law on impeachment. Madigan added that “60 votes” in the House is all it requires to impeach the governor.
It just so happens that the Illinois Constitution says lawmakers may consider three matters during a special session called by the governor — the subject of the governor’s order, “impeachments” and confirmation of appointments.
The Governor may convene the General Assembly or the
Senate alone in special session by a proclamation stating the
purpose of the session; and only business encompassed by such
purpose, together with any impeachments or confirmation of
appointments shall be transacted.
Throw into that mix the fact that lawmakers now need a three-fifthsmajority to modify their existing budget plan or approve a new one, making any budget deal far more complicated than it would have been prior to May 31. If Blagojevich vetoes the budget, it could take weeks or months for lawmakers to put that budget back together. And if lawmakers spend weeks of months wrestling through another summertime session, chances are good that they will talk seriously about impeachment.
Blagojevich, at least at this juncture, does not appear willing to go there.
And then there’s the political interest of Blagojevich’s ally, Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago.
Salary increases recommended by an independent board automatically take effect unless they’re voted down by both houses of the General Assembly, which didn’t happen before legislators adjourned for the spring Saturday night. […]
Those increases would raise the basic salary of a state representative and senator more than $7,000 a year to nearly $73,000. Legislative leaders’ compensation would top $100,000, and the governor’s salary would rise $20,000 to $190,000.
The House voted to reject the raises. The Senate never acted, and Senate President Emil Jones has made remarks supporting the additional money. […]
There’s still time for senators to reject the newest recommendation. Lawmakers have 30 session days to act, and four days remain before that deadline.
In other words, senators may need to spend just four more days in Springfield, and their raise automatically goes into effect. (I must note that there is considerable debate about when this 30-day clock expires; there’s even debate over when the clock started ticking. The AP’s “four days” conclusion is just one interpretation I encountered.)
Jones and his Senate Dems likely do not want to be hanging around in Springfield, fighting their way through another budget that they failed to balance during the regular spring session, even as their pay raise becomes effective simply because they refused to vote on whether to reject the raise.
By refusing to call special sessions, Blago can help Jones by pre-empting such a political pickle. If there are no special sessions this summer, the raise won’t go into effect until after the Nov. 4 general election.
You might say Blago is in a bind.
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 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.”
April 14th, 2008
It’s the greatest of perennial questions at the Illinois Capitol: What’s Mike Madigan Up To?
He is the Capitol sage, a man widely regarded for political acumen but difficult if not impossible to read. So it goes that last week when Madigan antagonized House Republicans, Capitol insiders found themselves again asking themselves and each other this question.
The speaker’s strategy over the last week doesn’t make sense on the surface. It doesn’t seem rational. Here we are, less than two months from the formal May 31 end of session, and Madigan and other state leaders have not even a basic framework for the next state budget. Yet Madigan acts to divide the parties in his own chamber — thereby making the prospect of a budget deal even more elusive.
He is already facing off with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones Jr., his fellow Chicago Democrats, and now he is poised to fight House Republicans too. Is he yearning for a long, ugly summertime session — just like the one last year, only worse? It’s one thing to relish a good fight. It’s quite another to invite additional opponents into the fight against yourself.
Theories on Madigan’s motives abound among political insiders: Perhaps he is trying to supercharge the Democratic base in advance on the Nov. 4 general election. Perhaps he is trying to whip the House Republicans into line. Perhaps, amid a toxic political climate, he is getting paranoid.
It’s not clear when we’ll know what Madigan is up to, or when the mess is Springfield might work itself out. But I’ll do my best to sort through some of the variables at play, and maybe, just maybe, I can put some of this chaos into order:
- The Obama factor. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama may appear light years away from his days in the Illinois Senate, but as a candidate for president he may do much to shape the politics of Illinois this year. If the ultra-popular Obama leads the Democratic ticket in the November general election, he could pull other Democratic candidates upward. In other words, Democratic and independent Illinois voters likely will turn out in droves to vote for Obama, if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, and in doing so they are more likely to support other Dems on the ballot. And that means the Dems controlling Springfield may have substantial wiggle room this year. They may be able to take risks — such as a brutal, intra-party, summer-long fight over the budget — and not suffer losses in the November general election.
- The Rezko Factor. Tony Rezko, a former top fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich, in on trial for allegedly using his insider clout to shake down firms seeking business with the state. As I noted in my Saturday column, Blagojevich has been MIA for much of the last two years as the feds closed in on his inner circle. (Chris Kelly, another former top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser, also is under indictment on federal tax-related charges.) If Rezko is convicted, pressure will build on Rezko and Kelly to share with the feds any dirt they have on Blagojevich, who has already been named as “Public Official A” in the Rezko case. I would expect Blagojevich to head even deeper underground; he won’t want exposure to rank-and-file lawmakers, the public or the media. If Rezko is acquitted, Blagojevich could feel emboldened and be much more enthusiastic about a high-profile fight at the Capitol.
- Madigan v. Jones. The intensity and sincerity of the animosity between Madigan and Jones cannot be exaggerated. These two men are locked in a political battle of the titans — a brawl dominating state government matters large and small.
- Jones & Blagojevich. At least until further notice, Jones is in lockstep with Blagojevich.
- More cash to spend. If Madigan and Jones agree on anything, it’s that they both have expressed support for income tax hike to generate more state revenue. Jones is a longstanding proponent of a tax hike to help public schools with more state money. Last spring, Madigan kicked off the spring session by saying it was time for the state to take responsibility for its pension debt and other fiscal problems (you can’t pay off this debt without raising more money). Last summer, he went a step further by actually suggesting an income tax hike.
- Blago’s tax-hike pledge. Blagojevich continues to insist he won’t raise taxes on “people.” His no-tax-hike pledge, in fact, is the pledge from his races in 2002 and 2006 that he has most often repeated. Only, he violated that pledge by approving a sales tax hike for the Chicago-area early this spring, as part of an effort to bail out mass transit systems. Will he now support an income tax hike?
- Supermajority after May 31. The formal end of spring session is May 31. After that, lawmakers must produce a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an effective date prior to the following June 1. A budget for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning July 1, obviously must be effective before then. Passing a budget after May 31, therefore requires a three-fifths majority. It is not possible to achieve a supermajority in the House without at least four Republican votes, and that’s assuming every one of the 67 Democrats in the chamber sticks together. Jones does have a supermajority in the Senate, but he failed repeatedly to keep his own members together last year. Even with his supermajority, Jones failed to steamroll Senate Republicans when it really mattered.
Now, back to the question of what Madigan is up to. What if he is three steps ahead of everybody else at the Capitol, as he is so often said to be? What if he is acting in accordance with a rational plan to advance his political objectives?
All of the conventional theories of Madigan’s motives assume he will continue his fight with Blagojevich and Jones. They discount the possibility of the three Democrats making a deal.
Is it possible that Madigan is trying to signal to Jones that he is prepared to make a deal, perhaps on a tax hike, by pushing the Republicans away? It’s a radical theory, but I’ve certainly crazier ones.
Madigan, Jones and Blagojevich could make a budget deal by May 31, and approve it without a single Republican vote. Come June 1, they do need Republican support, and it’s anybody’s guess what that might mean — particularly if the parties are divided in both chambers.
Then again, the lines of communication between Madigan and Jones, just as between Madigan and Blagojevich, and now between Madigan and House GOP Leader Tom Cross, are dead, sources say. Any deal among the Dems appears a long way off, at best.
And the summer fast approaches.
Last summer, work at the Capitol resembled the scene near the end of “Animal House”where frat guy Stork wanders into a parade, shoves aside a drum major, and then leads the marching band into a dead-end alley. The band members, still playing their instruments, march themselves into a wall, crushing each other.
Last summer, Blagojevich and lawmakers repeated this scene twice daily.
