CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Criminal Enterprise Called Ill — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 02:45:40 -0000

For the Minion: What you say is true, but does not contradict what I said. Yes, the Blago Bunch brought in out-of-state Keystone Cops. I know from whence I speak. If you did, you'd understand my post. Trust me...its worse than you know.

Re: Question of the day

Minion — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:06:21 -0000

Another myth with the above poster. There were plenty of experienced Dems who knew state government who this administration could have hired. Sadly, Blago went with people from New York and Washington who had no clue about Illinois government.

Re: Question of the day

Criminal Enterprise Called Ill — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 03:16:25 -0000

True be told, most state of Illinois workers couldn't get a job at their salaries and work level anywhere else in the private sector. That's why these jobs are so coveted...they are mostly gravy. A huge overhaul needs to be done, but the Blago Bunch is not the group to do so. They have made an even bigger mess of a rotten system. Patronage sucks when it elevates the mediocre to important positions for which they are imminently unqualified. These people have distorted visions of themselves and the world. If the people of Illinois only knew how bad it was, there would be revolts in the streets. Illinois is a sinking ship on so many levels. A broken system has only been worsened by the goofs in power now. Go Fitzgerald go! Dig deeper!

Re: Question of the day

Disgusted — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:07:08 -0000

I was hired for a state position because I passed the tests, I have a good deal of education and I can handle just about any job given to me. I try to do the best job I can every time. But I'm not getting ahead because there is no place to promote into. The higher positions are held by political friends of the governor who are inexperienced with state government rules and regulations and who have to be trained by their own staff. My agency is divided into two distinct camps. Those, like myself, who try to do their best and those who were hired through the political patronage system in both the Republican and Democratic camps and who don't feel the need to work. I see people who take days off each week, spend most of their time, when there, in the smoking lounge and who "disappear" for part of the day. But when there is a supervisor around, they whine and moan about how over-worked they are and the supervisors sometimes even help them with their work, most of which the real workers in the place could do in an hour. Add to that the fact that we must worry about the pension money being there when we retire and that we are falling behind monetarily. This is just the reverse of what we should be doing as we near retirement and it all makes for a very disheartening work life.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:56:21 -0000

Mmph,

Some degree of patronage is allowed at the federal, state and local level. Usually, the top management positions are explicitly exempt from patronage restrictions.

I don't think most registered voters in Illinois approve of the "vote for the leaders, vote for the patronage army" scenario you describe. Rather, they resign themselves to the "fact" that unseemly patronage is fundamental to Illinois politics. Not a ringing endorsement, rather a disprited acceptance of status quo.

Maybe if Daley, Stroger, Blagojevich et al. join the ranks with George Ryan the scales will be lifted from the voters eyes and they realize that a better, not perfect, but better future is actually obtainable.

Or, we can keep Pat Fitzgerald and Pat Collins busy for the forseeable future.

Re: Question of the day

mmph — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:14:33 -0000

I have always argued that patronage is a good thing, it helps promote folks to get involved in the political system, if you want to become a political hack get involved and pick a winner!
In Illinois an informed voter knows that when they vote for a candidate for Gov., Co. Chairman, SOS or other "leader" type position they are also voting in this persons group of patronage friends.
As a D I felt this way under the Thompson, Edgar and Ryan administrations the Blago administration was at a huge disavantage since it had been so long since a D had been Gov. they had no experienced pool of state workers to choose from to place in the Rutan exempt positions, this came about because there were few D's hired for 26 years. Of course that makes the arguement that it is a good idea to change party's in control every 12 years or so.

Re: Question of the day

Walking Wounded — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:14:07 -0000

I have to disagree with Lt. Guv. Myself and many other State employees were hired under civil service rules, which included various tests and even background checks to obtain our positions. Most of us try to work hard to keep a good reputation. The problem begins when an administration (Blago's not the only one) hires unqualified patronage supervisors, who don't have a clue what they're doing. It makes those who have actually passed the tests and gone up the ranks feel resentful, as we see the bloated waste of money. In over 20 years of State employment, I have seen abundantly more failures and abuse of the patronage system than in the civil service system. Patronage has its place, but not as often as the politicos would like to have it.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:44:49 -0000

Lt. Guv 4:20 p.m.,

You must be the 1983-1991 Lt. Govenor, not the current one.

Re: Question of the day

Team Sleep — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:43:15 -0000

Hey, Lt. Guv, I have voted R in the last four primaries and graduated college with honors. For some reason, Blago won't give me a job. I must be unqualified to sit behind a desk, answer phones and open mail.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:41:32 -0000

Big Mike,

The feds have alleged Sorich & co. were conspiring and acting to undermine Shakman beginning at least in 1993, years before any questions were asked by the feds.

In order the implement their conspiracy to undermine Shakman, they undertook certain actions, such as altering official government records which is specificially forbidden under the City Code and every public official's favorite felony, mail fraud (depriving the pubic of their intagible right to honest and faithful services). The conspiracy and the actions to implement and cover it up are crimes.

I'd find it pretty odd that if someone sets up an illegal scheme, engages in the scheme for years, and the feds subsequently uncover the scheme set up by the defendants then it is entrapment on the part of the feds.

Now, you may be of the view that the intentional and elaborate scheme to evade Shakman is not illegal in a criminal sense. I'd simply point out that Judge Coar threw out Sorich's motion to dismiss the charges despite his argument that no criminal acts occurred. Coar found that if Sorich and the others are shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have engaged in the conduct they are accused of, then they committed crimes.

Re: Question of the day

Team Sleep — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:39:40 -0000

Jobs that are politically specific, such as working for a Congressman or (directly) working for the Governor, should be based on party affiliation. After all, hiring a liberal college grad to staff a conservative Senator is a bad idea. But jobs such as Secretary of State license clerk, prison guard, DCFS caseworker or IDOT road crewman should be open to everyone. The fact that patronage is involved in those jobs does, in my opinion, contribute to the lacksidaisical (sp?), arrogant attitude that many bureaucrats and government workers have. Why should a 20 year old kid have to be so-and-so's son to get a job with a road crew? Why should you have to be a Democratic precinct committeeman have to get a job with Jesse White's office? It's maddening. It's also frustrating that you can't fire a bureaucrat for poor performance, but that's another discussion for another day.

In all honesty, patronage hiring is unfair. We the taxpaying public pay into a corrupt government and then most of us (or our friends and family members) have no chance at getting those state jobs. So not only do we get poor service, we also have no hope of landing a cushy gig with decent pay and incredible insurance. There are reasons why the populous dislikes its government, and this is one of those reasons.

Re: Question of the day

Lt. Guv — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:20:19 -0000

Patronage gets a bad name from those who don't understand it and those who abuse it.

The worst abuse by government is those employees who "go along to get along" because they're safely covered by civil service and basically accountable to no one. That creates situations of non-responsive governement and just plain crabby and unconcerned employees. That bothers me a hell of a lot more than patronage.

I like the idea of employees having some loyalty to their employer. What's wrong though is when someone is hired without being qualified for the job or when they take their loyalty to their patron too far and ignore violations of the law. The last bit (ignoring violations of the law) occurs in every hiring scheme, not just patronage.

The fact that a qualified person who does a good job is hired from within a patronage system should never be a crime - despite the fact that some would make it exactly that. Instead, those who abuse the system and put unqualified people into positions and those who fail to perform their job with due dilegence should be held accountable.

Every system will have failures and abuse. I prefer those of the patronage system to the civil service system.

Re: Question of the day

Carl Nyberg — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:18:09 -0000

My chief insight is that until we agree on objective standards for determining who is more and less qualified for a job, it's almost impossible to due away with patronage.

If the employer can identify a wide field of candidates that are theoretically qualified for a position then the employer gets to pick the person he likes.

Re: Question of the day

Swami — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:14:18 -0000

This current administration is making a mockery of the civil service and Rutan court decision. Positions that are borderline clerical in nature are being made Rutan exempted and filled with political friends. You simply have to include reference in the job description that the position may be exposed to confidential information or is a public spokesperson. The fact that true spokepersons have all be reassigned to CMS or that true confidential information of a political nature is rarely released outside of an extremely small circle seems irrelevant. The Civil Service Commission is charged with assuring that these positions are properly classified. Unfortunately it appears that the present reality is that the commission rubber stamps anything approved by the Governor's Office.

It appears to me that the need exists for checks and balances to assure that only those true upper level policy making positions receive the Rutan exempted status. It further appears that the Civil Service Commission has been too politicized to perform this function. I encourage the establishment of some kind of non-partisan committee to review the determination of Rutan exempted positions.

While I do not really have an overall issue with patronage, provided the employee is qualified, I question the long term impact of the state's workforce when patronage is used for termination as well as hiring. I fear that the anger being generated by many of the Governor's personnel decisions will result in retaliation upon the next administration change. It is my belief that competent, hard working employees should be retained within the state regardless of their political beliefs, provided they are not obstructionists to the implementation of policy estblished by the Governor. It seems foolish to set up a system in which anybody quasi-associated with the Governor will either be released or "re-organized" when parties change again simply because the posiitions and hiring were initially established as a sham.

Re: Question of the day

Big Mike — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:56:50 -0000

Navin,
Maybe I am wrong but it seems many of these people are being brought up on charges directly related to their interviews with the feds (obstruction, ect). What I am saying is that if the charges were a result of the government going after them on Shackman then you must at least look at the question of entrapment. I hope it ends up that way because I would like to see how they rule.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:44:01 -0000

Big Mike,

The feds allege that that fraudulent hiring scheme goes back to at least 1993. Hard to argue entrapment when the illegal conduct started years before any investigation by the feds began.

Maybe, just maybe, there really are crimes being committed in City Hall. I thought the Licenses for Bribes investigation and the resulting guilty pleas/convictions would put to rest the view that corruption isn't all that widespread, but from the postings on this thread it looks like that is not the case.

Re: Question of the day

Jimbo — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:27:12 -0000

VanillaMan:
Are you joking or are you really trying to argue that we had the same quality of life and government servies that we had 80 years ago? I mean I guess you are right, we had a vast interstate system, social security, water and sewage systems throughout the nation...oh wait, we had NONE of those things.
Moving on, I guess it may be cheaper to not have social security, medicare, medicaid, ect? We could just let the people who cant afford healthcare be sick and die. Seems like a great country you want for yourself. Oh, and by the way, not that you should know this, but we are one of the lowest taxed developed nations in the world.

Re: Question of the day

riot queen — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:17:02 -0000

My state agency is in shambles, thanks to the alien invasion we've endured since Hairdo took office. We've even got the former limo driver to an alderman acting as CFO. Yes, one might expect some degree of patronage in state government, but this has been unreal.

Re: Question of the day

Big Mike — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:14:49 -0000

I agree lying ect is a crime, no doubt about that. The interesting question I think this raises is the ability for the government to charge someone with anything while "invetigating" something that is not itself criminal. I can see an interesting argument of entrapment. In any case, its interesting.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:09:15 -0000

Truth,

Mr. Sorich's attorney's tried a slightly higher minded argument in their motion to dismiss the charges. Judge Coar threw out their motion and the case is proceeding to trial.

The question is not are these acts a crime? The question is can the feds prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sorich and others committed those acts?

Recommendations are not prohibited. What is prohibited is restricting civil service employment solely on the basis of political activity/affiliation.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states in part "The president shall ... nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ... judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States." I don't see anything in that section about merit selection.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:01:27 -0000

I was waiting for someone to challenge that amount. It is $400 in today's money. Plus, the costs of modern society you mention undervalues the existing infrastructure that existed pre-1920. Maybe where your family lived in a cave 80 years ago, but the vast majority of Americans had the full modern societal conveniences you described. We're getting screwed with taxes, but you're just too comfortable since you don't get a giant bill annually. Since we pay taxes throughout our day, we are kept from fully understanding how much of our income goes to wasted government programs.

Be an adult and stop being snippy about it. We're getting gouged with taxes and we should always be alert to the chump social programs we have been snookered into. It's not being hysterical, it's understanding basic freedoms and the importance of allowing people the income they earn without burdening them.

Patronage, nepotism, and graft in governments are the ways of the world. If we didn't sell out of freedoms to lying politicians and bureaucrats promising eternal life, we would have far less government scandal to deal with. It is time we grew up and took responsibility for our own actions, instead of looking to governments for answers. There are never solutions found in government programs, and the whole charade of 20th Century Industrial Thought is obsolete in today's world.

You are starting to sound French.

Re: Question of the day

Big Mike — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:36:33 -0000

Well said Truth Squad.

Re: Question of the day

Navin Johnson — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:35:46 -0000

Big Mike,

In 1883 the U.S. Congress passed the Pendelton Civil Service Reform Act. It established the principle of merit selection for federal employment. The last major revision was the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Sure sounds like a law to me.

In any event, the heart of the case against Sorich is not merely that there was an inadvertent violation of Shakman, rather they are alleging that Sorich and the others conspired to undermine it wholesale, including lying under oath, altering government records and destroying government records, mail fraud, obstructing justice, all of which are illegal under federal law, Illinois law and/or the Chicago Municipal Code.

To the extent there has been an inadvertent violation of Shakman, absent the conspiracy, document destruction, lying and obstruction of justice, etc., it just a civil matter. However, destroying documents, obstructing justice, etc. are still crimes even in the absence of Shakman.

Re: Question of the day

The Truth — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:33:15 -0000

The political hiring case in Chicago is such b.s. Maybe the feds should look at their own shop before they try to put guys in jail for hiring people who have an affilation with a politician. Did you know that in order to fill out an application with the U.S. Attorneys Office, you have to provide 3 letters of recommendation? What is the purpose of a letter of recommendation if the recommedation is not considered in hiring? The feds are doing the same thing as Sorich was doing - considering a recommendation of another in the hiring process. How many U.S. Attorneys are friends or relatives of Federal Judges? There are a few. Do you think that relationship was not considered in hiring? How is that any different from what Sorich was doing? Moreover, how do Federal Judges get their jobs. They are annointed by the President. They are not hired on merit. They certainly are not the most qualified lawyers. Maybe the feds should divert the millions of dollars they are wasting on this and spend it on chasing terrorist.

Re: Question of the day

truth squad — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:23:29 -0000

We have been told a crock of lies for over 80 years and went from under $400 per year in taxes to all forms of govenment per person to over $10,000.

VanillaMan, assuming your dollar amounts are correct (source, please?), you still should pay a visit to an inflation calculator.

$1 in 1926 dollars = $11.29 in 2006 dollars
$400 in 1926 dollars = $4,515.25 in 2006 dollars

Given the huge expansion in the federal military and security apparatus since 1926, as well as the establishment of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, modern water supply and sewage/stormwater treatment facilities, food and drug safety, the Interstate Highway System, etc. etc. etc., it doesn't surprise or bother me that taxes are twice what they were in 1926. Claims that taxes have gone up by a factor of 25 over the last 80 years are hysterical and false. And if you're suggesting most Americans would choose to return to the standard of living in 1926, you are seriously mistaken.