Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - State pols all talk, no action on reform
copyright by THe Chicago Sun-Times
May 22, 2009
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1586269,CST-EDT-edit22a.article
Only in Illinois would politicians talk about reform and do the exact opposite.
Springfield politicians talk about putting limits on what fat-cat contributors can donate to them.
But in the process they craft a proposal that only increases the big-money power of legislative leaders.
Springfield politicians talk about beefing up the state's woefully weak law that is supposed to give voters access to information their governments would rather keep hidden.
In reality, they only want to water down real reform.
And amid all this so-called reform, how do they plan to pay for many state construction projects?
By making video poker machines legal across the state.
That move would put hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's pocket, sure, but it would also enrich the gangsters who control many of those machines in the Chicago area.
You can't make this stuff up.
• • Consider campaign contribution limits. Right now, Illinois has no contribution limits for state politicians, but Gov. Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission has suggested limits in line with established federal campaign donation limits.
The commission also has recommended capping the amount the state's top political leaders can donate from their huge war chests to local races. Those big donations from the top pols -- and here we're talking about House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton -- create a legion of legislators beholden to them.
So, what happened?
Madigan, Cullerton, et al, have decided they might be willing to enact campaign contribution limits on individuals, businesses and unions -- but limits that are so high and generous they would be virtually meaningless. And, of course, Madigan, Cullerton, et al, show absolutely no willingness to limit their own ability to shower money on their fellow politicians.
In short, under the ruse of reform, our state's political leaders -- especially Madigan and Cullerton -- would effectively increase their own power by marginally reining in campaign contributions by everybody else, except themselves.
Nifty trick, no?
• • If you wonder why we need a better law to force local governments to release public information, consider a court case decided Thursday.
In 2006, a Wheaton resident submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of his local school superintendent's employment contract, just the kind of document the Freedom of Information Act, known as FOIA, is supposed to cover. The school district told the citizen, Mark Stern, to take a hike.
Stern sought an opinion from the Illinois attorney general's office, which ruled the document should be released. The district still brushed him off. Stern sued, and the school district fought him in court for three years.
On Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court stated the obvious: The contract needs to be released.
Stern's legal battle shows the problem with the law. Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office is free to issue decisions on FOIA battles to help ordinary citizens, but unless those decisions are binding, government agencies can blow them off.
Making those decisions legally binding is a key reform. Any FOIA "improvement" without it is no reform at all, no matter what the politicians try to sell you.
• • Speaking of goofy claims, consider the argument being made by some supporters of legalizing video poker. Once the machines are ringing and rattling in corner bars across the state, they say, the machines' operators and distributors will be required to pass criminal background checks -- and that will regulate the mob right out of the business.
Last time we checked, though, mobsters don't apply for licenses in their own names. They use front people with clean records.
Why do politicians think they can get away with this nonsense?
Because in Illinois they always have -- and will again, unless you get good and steamed.
Here's what you need to do:
Call House Speaker Mike Madigan at (217) 782-5350 and Senate President John Cullerton at (217) 782-2728.
Tell their folks that come election time, you'll work against them and the local candidates they support, unless you get real reform.
It's now or never.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - You call this reform?
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit1may22,0,3468772.story
"Dear Good Government Supporter," begins the letter from Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. "On Wednesday, the Illinois House passed another in a series of bills that will comprise the most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years."
The bill Madigan refers to would eliminate the legal mechanism that awards automatic pay raises to lawmakers unless both houses vote to reject them, something they rarely get around to doing. Only in Illinois can you pass a law that holds lawmakers accountable for giving themselves a raise and call it reform. But we'll take it.
Elsewhere on Wednesday, we got a good look at what the rest of this "significant and far-reaching reform package" might look like. It is, in a word, appalling.
House and Senate leaders began circulating a draft rewrite of the state's toothless Freedom of Information Act. The current law, among the worst in the nation, provides government officials with a mother lode of legal excuses to withhold information from the public. The version drafted by legislative staffers may be even worse. Don Craven, acting director of the Illinois Press Association, says that given a choice between current law and the new-and-improved version he saw Wednesday, he'll take the old one. We're with him.
In between those versions was a good bill, drafted by staffers for Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan. With input from the Illinois Reform Commission, the press association, law-enforcement agencies, municipalities and government watchdog groups, the attorney general's office negotiated a compromise that nobody loved but most could support. That goes for us too.
That package would remove roadblocks and close loopholes now invoked to withhold public records. It includes penalties for governments that ignore the law. It would establish a "public access counselor" to issue binding opinions in records disputes between citizens and governments. It wasn't perfect, but it was significantly better than the status quo -- until the legislative staff got ahold of it.
Out came the criminal penalties. Back in went the long laundry list of technical exemptions. Out came the language meant to put some teeth in the deadlines that public officials routinely ignore when dealing with records requests.
Out came this sentence: "Disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy." If a cop cracks up the cruiser, in other words, it's none of your business.
The working bill also would allow -- some would say encourage -- a public body that keeps records electronically to release them as printouts, even if the requester asks for an electronic copy instead. Why would they want to? Because paper documents can't be searched electronically, are harder to share and can be prohibitively costly because the requester must pay by the page. This provision is a blatant attempt to thwart transparency, not to foster it. This is not our idea of reform.
Perhaps the most nakedly self-serving change: In the version of the bill circulating Wednesday, the language had been tweaked to give the public access counselor authority to resolve complaints involving the executive branch only.
That sort of chutzpah has Mike Madigan written all over it. The surprise is that he would torpedo a bill in which his daughter, the attorney general, had invested so much time and political capital. It seems clear, though, where the speaker stands: He's no champion of government transparency.
We could go on and on, Dear Good Government Supporter, but you get the picture. "The most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years" is a pretty low bar, when you think about it. There are a lot of excellent reform proposals in the hopper, but the session is winding down and most of them seem to be getting worse instead of better.
So when lawmakers boast about passing a law to end passive pay raises, it's important to recognize the gesture for what it is: They're throwing you a bone. Make sure you let them know you want more, much more, or you won't get it.
They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - How it works
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit2may22,0,3861989.story
It's crunch time in Springfield, that special season when good intentions fall by the wayside and late starters burst onto the scene and streak across the finish line. Anything can happen.
Those ethics proposals drafted by the Illinois Reform Commission? Gov. Pat Quinn expects they'll be voted on at "15 minutes to midnight" on adjournment day, and we don't doubt it. As you can see from the editorial above, lawmakers' vows to clean up state government are fading to hems and haws as the deadline nears. Watch closely.
A $29 billion program to build and rebuild roads, schools, bridges and transit projects, though, suddenly sprouted legs. The House and Senate this week approved a bunch of taxes -- plus legalized video gambling -- to finance it.
Video gambling was a non-starter for years. But last week, a bill to make it legal suddenly came steaming out of a House committee. The plan is to allow video games like poker and blackjack in bars, restaurants, truck stops and fraternal lodges and tax the proceeds. That would raise $200 million or $375 million or even $600 million a year, depending on whose rosy projection you like.
This plan has been panned in years past. Critics call video poker "the crack cocaine of gambling," and even people who think casinos are a fine idea don't necessarily want gaming stations sprinkled throughout their neighborhoods. Illegal video gambling is already a thriving mob enterprise. Lawmakers have been smart to steer clear of it.
But now it's video poker to the rescue. Where the heck did that come from? It's "another one of those remarkable Springfield coincidences," Greg Hinz at Crain's Chicago Business recently wrote.
Joe Berrios is the chief lobbyist for the video poker industry. He's also one of three members of the Cook County property tax appeals board.
House Speaker Michael Madigan's law firm specializes in property tax appeals.
Senate President John Cullerton is also an attorney. He specializes in tax appeals too.
The fate of video poker largely rested in their hands.
Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
Not Berrios: The proposal has been "out there for years;" he's lobbied "everyone" in Springfield and the video poker industry pays him only about $25,000 to $30,000 a year, he told Hinz.
Oh, one other thing that comes from Hinz's very productive blog. Madigan has bottled up a bill that would reduce the number of votes needed to override a veto by the president of the Cook County Board. The bill passed the Senate 57-0. Yes, it would allow the County Board to top Todd Stroger and kill the egregious county sales tax increase.
But it can't even get to a vote in the House.
Now what's going on there? Why would Madigan keep this from a vote?
"If you look through Mr. Madigan's financial disclosure reports, the contributions from county employees almost leap off the page," Hinz writes.
This is how things work, and how people think, in Springfield. Which is why we're pushing so hard to pass meaningful ethics reform.
The smart money says video poker is coming. Ethics reform, though, is a much longer shot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment