By Ray Long and Rick Pearson, Tribune reporters
Only a month before Gov. Pat Quinn rewrote legislation to help the Teamsters at the McCormick Place convention center, the labor group gave the Democratic governor $75,000 in political donations, his campaign acknowledged Thursday.
Quinn's campaign said the donations were part of the union's longstanding support for the governor and unrelated to his proposed changes in a reform bill aimed at making Chicago more competitive for trade-show business. The governor asserted his amendatory veto would have strengthened the bill, but lawmakers quickly rejected his changes Thursday in Springfield.
Still, the proximity of the donations to Quinn's actions prompted comparisons to the "pay-to-play" culture in state government that he vowed to reform when he replaced the disgraced Rod Blagojevich last year. It was the second fundraising controversy in a year for Quinn, who is seeking election to a full term as his former running mate, Blagojevich, faces trial on corruption charges.
In this case, it was legislation designed to make McCormick Place more hospitable to trade shows by reorganizing its governance and changing union work rules at the convention center. Quinn received donations of $50,000 and $25,000 from the Teamsters on April 23, his campaign said, two weeks before lawmakers sent the legislation to the governor.
For weeks, Quinn deliberated over the measure before using his amendatory veto power Wednesday to rewrite the legislation. His changes would have cleared the way for the Teamsters to absorb a smaller union at the convention center. The carpenters union, the other powerhouse at McCormick Place, also would have been able to absorb a smaller union.
Quinn has said reducing the number of unions that exhibitors have to deal with would make McCormick Place more competitive with rivals such as Las Vegas and Orlando. His campaign also noted his rewrite of the legislation kept intact work-rule changes that the Teamsters and other leading unions at McCormick Place opposed.
"I do want to stress over and over again: I've made this bill stronger, better. I've reformed it completely — not halfway," Quinn told reporters about his rewrite.
Quinn campaign spokeswoman Mica Matsoff said any assertion that there was a connection between the money and Quinn's action on the bill was "completely offensive."
"The Teamsters have a longstanding history with the governor" and it was the first labor group to endorse him in the Feb. 2 Democratic primary, she said.
Of the $127,612 Quinn had raised previously from various Teamsters locals, only $15,000 was donated before he became governor at the end of January 2009, state records show. Donations of $50,000 were made in October and in January of this year by the Teamsters Volunteers in Politics, the political arm of Joint Council 25, an umbrella group of Teamster locals.
The president of Joint Council 25, John Coli, found himself embroiled in a previous fundraising controversy when he was named in 2003 by Blagojevich to the Illinois tollway board. After reports of Teamster donations of $100,000 and a potential conflict with union workers at the tollway, Coli withdrew his name.
Teamsters officials did not return calls for comment.
During last year's spring legislative session, Quinn blamed a "naive" aide for trying to sell interest groups "face time" with him in exchange for hosting $15,000 fundraising events.
Quinn's Republican opponent, state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, quickly sought to make the Teamsters' donations a campaign issue.
"I think it takes us back, unfortunately, to a day of the pay-to-play policies of Gov. Blagojevich and Gov. Quinn, and I think it's disturbing, not only to me, but to the people of Illinois," Brady said.
Tribune reporters Kathy Bergen and David Kidwell contributed to this report.
rlong@tribune.com
rap30@aol.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-quinn-teamster-donations-20100527,0,7335564,full.story
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Quinn campaign cash, Madigan allies fueled McPier fight
Posted by Greg H. at 5/27/2010 11:36 AM CDT on Chicago Business
As the General Assembly moves toward final action on legislation to revive Chicago's convention business — look for the Senate to override Gov. Pat Quinn's amendatory veto later today — some of the lesser-noticed political aspects of the story deserve airing.
Like how one of the unions that would gain from the veto is pumping big cash into Mr. Quinn's campaign — $75,000 just a month ago, with lots more reportedly on the way.
And how two other labor units continue to be protected by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Why?
Or why GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady doesn't have much to say except to deplore the influence of unmentioned "insiders."
Let me start with Mr. Quinn.
Now, the guv is right that the bill sent to him by Mr. Madigan and the Senate is not perfect. The bill does include a higher new tax on taxi cabs at the airport, and arguably doesn't do enough to rein in markups by GES and Freeman, the two big companies that actually run shows at McCormick Place.
But what caught my eye was a change Mr. Quinn included in his veto message to reduce the number of unions with jurisdiction at McCormick Place. The change almost certainly would lead to the demise of the small but influential decorators and riggers unions, which would be merged into the bigger and deeper-pocketed Teamsters and carpenters unions.
As a matter of public policy, Mr. Quinn probably is right that conventions would function better here with fewer unions to deal with. Chicago's big competitors — Orlando and Las Vegas — have fewer than we do.
But Mr. Quinn dilutes his argument when one of the unions involved — the Teamsters — continues to give him huge campaign funding.
Quinn campaign aides confirm that the Teamsters on April 23 sent him checks for $50,000 and $25,000. And buzz is that local Teamsters chief John Coli has sent or is about to send another $100,000.
Mr. Coli failed to return phone calls seeking comment. Team Quinn notes that the Teamsters has been an early and regular financial contributor, and the guv's spokesman says his "only" intent in the veto is to "improve" McPier, the nickname for the agency that runs McCormick Place.
I wish I could believe that.
Once upon a time, Pat Quinn built a name as a reformer by pointing the finger at politicians who took big money from those who wanted something from government. Sure looks like he ought to point a finger at himself on this one.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the question is why Mr. Madigan protected the riggers and decorators on this bill, and why he has done so on no other occasions in the past, according to Springfield insiders.
Mr. Madigan's spokesman says no one asked to reduce the number of unions when the House was considering the McPier bill in recent weeks. But others offer another explanation: state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, a Rosemont Republican with whom Mr. Madigan has had a close relationship through the years.
Mr. Saviano says the new trustee in charge of McPier will have the power to pretty much strip both the decorators and the riggers of work, should he choose. In theory, that's right, though I've seen no sign that the designated trustee, Jim Reilly, is prepared to actually do so.
Perhaps more on point, Mr. Saviano concedes that he indeed is and has been closer to the riggers for many years. "Their office used to be right across the street from mine," he notes.
And perhaps even more on point, Mr. Madigan and Rosemont Republicans like the late Mayor Don Stephens have been tight as ticks for decades. After all, Mr. Madigan is one of those who pushed through legislation steering a new casino to Rosemont — until regulators objected to alleged mob influence in the town, that is.
Anyhow, all of this should provide plenty of ammunition for state Sen. Brady — the GOP guv candidate — to comment. And, indeed, he put out a statement accusing Mr. Quinn of "working to cut a deal to support the same insiders who led us into this mess in the first place and who he is courting to help his own political career."
But, despite several efforts by me to get the Brady campaign to specify who those "insiders" are, he won't. "Pat Quinn knows what insiders he's been dealing with," is all his spokeswoman will say.
My translation: Bill Brady in his day job is a homebuilder. And it probably would not be a very shrewd political move for a builder to rip the carpenters union over the McPier bill.
Just a shot in the dark on my part. If Mr. Brady wants to get specific on who he thinks the bad guys are, I'll be happy to listen.
1:50 p.m. update: The House just followed the Senate in override the bill, which is now law. The trailer bill that invokes some of Mr. Quinn's changes should win final approval later today.
As the General Assembly moves toward final action on legislation to revive Chicago's convention business — look for the Senate to override Gov. Pat Quinn's amendatory veto later today — some of the lesser-noticed political aspects of the story deserve airing.
Like how one of the unions that would gain from the veto is pumping big cash into Mr. Quinn's campaign — $75,000 just a month ago, with lots more reportedly on the way.
And how two other labor units continue to be protected by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Why?
Or why GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady doesn't have much to say except to deplore the influence of unmentioned "insiders."
Let me start with Mr. Quinn.
Now, the guv is right that the bill sent to him by Mr. Madigan and the Senate is not perfect. The bill does include a higher new tax on taxi cabs at the airport, and arguably doesn't do enough to rein in markups by GES and Freeman, the two big companies that actually run shows at McCormick Place.
But what caught my eye was a change Mr. Quinn included in his veto message to reduce the number of unions with jurisdiction at McCormick Place. The change almost certainly would lead to the demise of the small but influential decorators and riggers unions, which would be merged into the bigger and deeper-pocketed Teamsters and carpenters unions.
As a matter of public policy, Mr. Quinn probably is right that conventions would function better here with fewer unions to deal with. Chicago's big competitors — Orlando and Las Vegas — have fewer than we do.
But Mr. Quinn dilutes his argument when one of the unions involved — the Teamsters — continues to give him huge campaign funding.
Quinn campaign aides confirm that the Teamsters on April 23 sent him checks for $50,000 and $25,000. And buzz is that local Teamsters chief John Coli has sent or is about to send another $100,000.
Mr. Coli failed to return phone calls seeking comment. Team Quinn notes that the Teamsters has been an early and regular financial contributor, and the guv's spokesman says his "only" intent in the veto is to "improve" McPier, the nickname for the agency that runs McCormick Place.
I wish I could believe that.
Once upon a time, Pat Quinn built a name as a reformer by pointing the finger at politicians who took big money from those who wanted something from government. Sure looks like he ought to point a finger at himself on this one.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the question is why Mr. Madigan protected the riggers and decorators on this bill, and why he has done so on no other occasions in the past, according to Springfield insiders.
Mr. Madigan's spokesman says no one asked to reduce the number of unions when the House was considering the McPier bill in recent weeks. But others offer another explanation: state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, a Rosemont Republican with whom Mr. Madigan has had a close relationship through the years.
Mr. Saviano says the new trustee in charge of McPier will have the power to pretty much strip both the decorators and the riggers of work, should he choose. In theory, that's right, though I've seen no sign that the designated trustee, Jim Reilly, is prepared to actually do so.
Perhaps more on point, Mr. Saviano concedes that he indeed is and has been closer to the riggers for many years. "Their office used to be right across the street from mine," he notes.
And perhaps even more on point, Mr. Madigan and Rosemont Republicans like the late Mayor Don Stephens have been tight as ticks for decades. After all, Mr. Madigan is one of those who pushed through legislation steering a new casino to Rosemont — until regulators objected to alleged mob influence in the town, that is.
Anyhow, all of this should provide plenty of ammunition for state Sen. Brady — the GOP guv candidate — to comment. And, indeed, he put out a statement accusing Mr. Quinn of "working to cut a deal to support the same insiders who led us into this mess in the first place and who he is courting to help his own political career."
But, despite several efforts by me to get the Brady campaign to specify who those "insiders" are, he won't. "Pat Quinn knows what insiders he's been dealing with," is all his spokeswoman will say.
My translation: Bill Brady in his day job is a homebuilder. And it probably would not be a very shrewd political move for a builder to rip the carpenters union over the McPier bill.
Just a shot in the dark on my part. If Mr. Brady wants to get specific on who he thinks the bad guys are, I'll be happy to listen.
1:50 p.m. update: The House just followed the Senate in override the bill, which is now law. The trailer bill that invokes some of Mr. Quinn's changes should win final approval later today.
80-year old Army vet shoots, kills home invader
'He saved our lives,' says wife of the shooting of a gunman who intruded into the couple's bedroom on West Side
Duaa Eldeib and Liam Ford, Tribune reporters
As an 80-year-old Army veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their Humboldt Park home just before dawn Wednesday, a would-be burglar busted a basement window, crawled over discarded bikes and paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.
The intruder — who police said wore stockings over his hands to keep from leaving prints — wiggled the brass doorknob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment, but it didn't open, the family said. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and shot, police and family said.
But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder, a police source said.
"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs in the two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue.
The shooting comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared almost certain to strike down the city ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home.
Chicago police have long aggressively been trying to remove guns from the public, saying they are the principal weapons used in murders and employed by gangs to enforce turf through violence.
Handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States but more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. A gun in a home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, the council said.
But many in Chicago echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the frightening encounter could have ended in their deaths.
"He saved our lives," said the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the noise of shattered glass startled the family from its sleep about 5:20 a.m.
Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because he appeared to act in self-defense, according to police sources.
The homeowner bought his handgun after being robbed just six months ago, having vowed not to be a victim again, his family said.
In an interview at the home, the wife said her first thoughts were of her 12-year-old great-grandson asleep in the next room. She rushed to wake him up and led him to the front living room, away from the gunfire.
"The only thing I could think is 'God, please save my husband, myself and my grandbaby,'" she said.
The wife's hands continued to tremble hours after the shooting.
"I was scared to death," she said. "You're in your bed asleep, and somebody shoots a gun in your home. I'm still shook up."
Neighbors and family heralded the actions of the homeowner.
"He just protected his family," Gant, 57, said. "That's the most important thing to do, protect your family."
The intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony Nelson, 29, who was on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction, according to county and state records.
He was pronounced dead at the scene, his blood splattered just feet away from the couple's bedroom window.
Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from the home he broke into. Neighbors recognized him from his mug shot as a man they had seen at the corner liquor store who went by the name "Big Ant."
"I just don't want to believe it's true," said his mother, Lenora Nelson, who said her son earned his GED while in custody and had just signed up for an online carpentry program. "He could fix almost anything," she said. Nelson was supposed to begin a job next week for a company that cleans out homes before they're remodeled, she said.
The last time she saw her son was Tuesday night, when they had his favorite meal — steak burritos — for dinner, she said. When he left around 9 p.m., he didn't tell her where he was going, she said.
Since being freed on parole, Nelson began working with an organization that helps former inmates find jobs once they're released from prison, his mother said.
Police declined to identify the 80-year-old shooter, saying he was a victim of a crime and it was against department policy to name him.
The homeowner met his wife while working as a presser at a dry cleaners. His wife, a retired nurse, also worked as a monitor on a bus for disabled children. Next month they will celebrate their 60th anniversary. The couple have lived in the same house for more than 40 years, but the wife is thinking about moving.
"How much can you take?" she said.
In the West Side neighborhood where the home invasion occurred, longtime homeowners have created a relatively stable community on their street — an oasis from shootings. Neighbors said their stretch of North Sawyer Avenue had been a good place for families to raise their children a generation ago, but as the aging population dies, new residents move in and a heightened sense of danger grows.
Some residents choose different forms of protection. Audrey Williams, 75, said she keeps five dogs on her property to guard her home, but "this is the first time that we've had an incident like this, on this street, and I've lived here for 43 years," she said.
"They did the right thing. If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing," said Williams, who has described the family as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."
One neighbor used to help the couple carry in groceries because they both walk with canes.
"Everyone around here looks around for each other and watches each other's homes," said Jose Perez, who has lived in the area about five years.
Throughout the day Wednesday, a family friend worked to board up the two broken windows. The son said the shooting demonstrates why Chicago's handgun must be repealed.
"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" the son said. "That gun law should be abolished. You don't need guns on the street, but you need them in the home for protection."
Tribune reporters Annie Sweeney, Jeremy Gorner and Kristen Mack contributed to this report.
deldeib@tribune.com
lford@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526,0,4477212,full.story
Duaa Eldeib and Liam Ford, Tribune reporters
As an 80-year-old Army veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their Humboldt Park home just before dawn Wednesday, a would-be burglar busted a basement window, crawled over discarded bikes and paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.
The intruder — who police said wore stockings over his hands to keep from leaving prints — wiggled the brass doorknob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment, but it didn't open, the family said. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and shot, police and family said.
But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder, a police source said.
"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs in the two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue.
The shooting comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared almost certain to strike down the city ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home.
Chicago police have long aggressively been trying to remove guns from the public, saying they are the principal weapons used in murders and employed by gangs to enforce turf through violence.
Handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States but more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. A gun in a home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, the council said.
But many in Chicago echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the frightening encounter could have ended in their deaths.
"He saved our lives," said the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the noise of shattered glass startled the family from its sleep about 5:20 a.m.
Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because he appeared to act in self-defense, according to police sources.
The homeowner bought his handgun after being robbed just six months ago, having vowed not to be a victim again, his family said.
In an interview at the home, the wife said her first thoughts were of her 12-year-old great-grandson asleep in the next room. She rushed to wake him up and led him to the front living room, away from the gunfire.
"The only thing I could think is 'God, please save my husband, myself and my grandbaby,'" she said.
The wife's hands continued to tremble hours after the shooting.
"I was scared to death," she said. "You're in your bed asleep, and somebody shoots a gun in your home. I'm still shook up."
Neighbors and family heralded the actions of the homeowner.
"He just protected his family," Gant, 57, said. "That's the most important thing to do, protect your family."
The intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony Nelson, 29, who was on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction, according to county and state records.
He was pronounced dead at the scene, his blood splattered just feet away from the couple's bedroom window.
Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from the home he broke into. Neighbors recognized him from his mug shot as a man they had seen at the corner liquor store who went by the name "Big Ant."
"I just don't want to believe it's true," said his mother, Lenora Nelson, who said her son earned his GED while in custody and had just signed up for an online carpentry program. "He could fix almost anything," she said. Nelson was supposed to begin a job next week for a company that cleans out homes before they're remodeled, she said.
The last time she saw her son was Tuesday night, when they had his favorite meal — steak burritos — for dinner, she said. When he left around 9 p.m., he didn't tell her where he was going, she said.
Since being freed on parole, Nelson began working with an organization that helps former inmates find jobs once they're released from prison, his mother said.
Police declined to identify the 80-year-old shooter, saying he was a victim of a crime and it was against department policy to name him.
The homeowner met his wife while working as a presser at a dry cleaners. His wife, a retired nurse, also worked as a monitor on a bus for disabled children. Next month they will celebrate their 60th anniversary. The couple have lived in the same house for more than 40 years, but the wife is thinking about moving.
"How much can you take?" she said.
In the West Side neighborhood where the home invasion occurred, longtime homeowners have created a relatively stable community on their street — an oasis from shootings. Neighbors said their stretch of North Sawyer Avenue had been a good place for families to raise their children a generation ago, but as the aging population dies, new residents move in and a heightened sense of danger grows.
Some residents choose different forms of protection. Audrey Williams, 75, said she keeps five dogs on her property to guard her home, but "this is the first time that we've had an incident like this, on this street, and I've lived here for 43 years," she said.
"They did the right thing. If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing," said Williams, who has described the family as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."
One neighbor used to help the couple carry in groceries because they both walk with canes.
"Everyone around here looks around for each other and watches each other's homes," said Jose Perez, who has lived in the area about five years.
Throughout the day Wednesday, a family friend worked to board up the two broken windows. The son said the shooting demonstrates why Chicago's handgun must be repealed.
"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" the son said. "That gun law should be abolished. You don't need guns on the street, but you need them in the home for protection."
Tribune reporters Annie Sweeney, Jeremy Gorner and Kristen Mack contributed to this report.
deldeib@tribune.com
lford@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526,0,4477212,full.story
Biggins breaks with GOP votes to pass Quinn borrowing plan
Rick Pearson Chicago Tribune
For 17 years, Elmhurst's Bob Biggins has been a reliable House Republican vote, but his decision Tuesday to join Democrats in favor of a $4 billion pension borrowing plan is earning the lame-duck lawmaker some blowback from GOP officials.
Biggins, who decided not to seek re-election this fall, was called out by state Republican Chairman Pat Brady today as having “some explaining to do.” Brady contends there are questions of whether Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn made an “offer in exchange” for Biggins’ vote.
Biggins did not attend a closed-door caucus of House Republicans prior to the vote, but instead was in the governor’s office. Biggins, however, has denied being offered anything in return for his vote.
But colleagues, who had locked themselves in opposition to the pension borrowing plan, weren’t happy with Biggins, long a protégé of former House Republican leader Lee Daniels of Elmhurst. State Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, saw Biggins being interviewed by reporters in Springfield following Tuesday's vote and said loudly and angrily, “Two-faced son of a (expletive).”
Biggins was not the only retiring Republican House member to vote for the plan, which passed with a bare majority of 71 votes. Rep. Bill Black of Danville, a 24-year state lawmaker and member of the House GOP leadership, also voted for the measure.
Brady, the state GOP chairman, said Black was not singled out for criticism because he attended the House GOP caucus while Biggins skipped it for a meeting in Quinn’s office.
“That’s what raises questions,” Brady said. “I think questions have been raised. We just want to know.”
Biggins said Brady should call him for his reasons for voting instead of issuing critical news releases.
"When the GOP has the guts to call me and ask me why I voted for it, I'll provide them with the answer for this fiscally responsible vote," Biggins said. "The Republican position was fiscally unsound."
Biggins said he was asked to meet with Quinn chief of staff Jerry Stermer during the House GOP caucus and did so. "Nothing was offered and he didn't even try to talk me into" voting for it, Biggins said.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/05/suburban-lawmaker-facing-republican-backlash-for-pension-borrowing-vote.html
For 17 years, Elmhurst's Bob Biggins has been a reliable House Republican vote, but his decision Tuesday to join Democrats in favor of a $4 billion pension borrowing plan is earning the lame-duck lawmaker some blowback from GOP officials.
Biggins, who decided not to seek re-election this fall, was called out by state Republican Chairman Pat Brady today as having “some explaining to do.” Brady contends there are questions of whether Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn made an “offer in exchange” for Biggins’ vote.
Biggins did not attend a closed-door caucus of House Republicans prior to the vote, but instead was in the governor’s office. Biggins, however, has denied being offered anything in return for his vote.
But colleagues, who had locked themselves in opposition to the pension borrowing plan, weren’t happy with Biggins, long a protégé of former House Republican leader Lee Daniels of Elmhurst. State Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, saw Biggins being interviewed by reporters in Springfield following Tuesday's vote and said loudly and angrily, “Two-faced son of a (expletive).”
Biggins was not the only retiring Republican House member to vote for the plan, which passed with a bare majority of 71 votes. Rep. Bill Black of Danville, a 24-year state lawmaker and member of the House GOP leadership, also voted for the measure.
Brady, the state GOP chairman, said Black was not singled out for criticism because he attended the House GOP caucus while Biggins skipped it for a meeting in Quinn’s office.
“That’s what raises questions,” Brady said. “I think questions have been raised. We just want to know.”
Biggins said Brady should call him for his reasons for voting instead of issuing critical news releases.
"When the GOP has the guts to call me and ask me why I voted for it, I'll provide them with the answer for this fiscally responsible vote," Biggins said. "The Republican position was fiscally unsound."
Biggins said he was asked to meet with Quinn chief of staff Jerry Stermer during the House GOP caucus and did so. "Nothing was offered and he didn't even try to talk me into" voting for it, Biggins said.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/05/suburban-lawmaker-facing-republican-backlash-for-pension-borrowing-vote.html
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Gov. Quinn not living in mansion as promised
By Monique Garcia, Tribune reporter
9:08 p.m. CDT, May 25, 2010
Gov. Pat Quinn had been in office only a few hours last year when he vowed to do something his impeached predecessor did not — live in the Executive Mansion in Springfield.
"It's going to get a good workout this year," Quinn told reporters at his first news conference as governor, dubbing the 155-year-old mansion "the people's house."
But a Tribune analysis of his official travel schedule shows that Quinn stays at the ornate, taxpayer-funded house only sporadically. During his first year in office, Quinn slept there 55 nights, mostly while lawmakers were in session. He didn't spend more than three consecutive nights in the executive mansion.
On a handful of occasions, Quinn took a state plane to Springfield during the day, only to fly back to Chicago the same night. Among these cases were trips to attend a campaign fundraiser and his aunt's funeral. Quinn defended the funeral round trip as an appropriate use of taxpayer money because he was honoring a woman who was a "citizen of Illinois for eight decades."
Quinn's use of the state plane for day trips to Springfield pales in comparison to ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who detested the Capitol and used the plane as a commuter perk. But as Quinn runs for election, his decision not to live in the mansion belies the populist image that he's made one of his top political selling points.
"It's a symbolic thing, and for Quinn, a public pronouncement thing," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois- Springfield. "There's some financial aspect, but it's small. It's mostly symbolic of the extent to which a governor is embracing state government."
Blagojevich's failure to live in the mansion rankled taxpayers who expect their governor to live in the house they pay around $500,000 a year to keep open. Now more than a year into his tenure, Quinn has added a caveat when discussing where he lives.
"The governor lives in the mansion in my opinion," Quinn told the Tribune in a recent interview. "I'm the governor, it's the seat of our government, and whenever I'm in Springfield, that's where I live. If I have to be somewhere else to do something for the people, then I've got to live elsewhere."
That comment would explain why at some appearances in Chicago, Quinn tells the crowd he lives on Chicago's West Side, "the best side." When he's been in Springfield, he has called the capital home.
Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican running for governor against Quinn, has said he and his wife, Nancy, would live in the mansion full time if he's elected.
"The business of the state is rooted in Springfield. In order to effectively manage the affairs of the state of Illinois, the governor must have a strong presence in the capital city," said Brady spokeswoman Jaime Elich.
Quinn is not alone in using the governor's mansion as more of a hotel than a home. In the last quarter century, Republican Jim Edgar is the lone chief executive who lived there full time. Republicans Jim Thompson and George Ryan split their time between the mansion and their respective homes in Chicago and Kankakee. Blagojevich wanted to raise his daughters on the North Side, and then-first lady Patti Blagojevich complained about being allergic to the mansion's carpeted floors.
That led to Blagojevich racking up tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money making same-day round trips between Chicago and the capital. Quinn hasn't made as many day trips, but he's had some notable ones.
On June 29, Quinn met with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago before flying to Springfield to huddle with Democratic legislative leaders. Quinn was there for just over two hours before flying back to Chicago, where he hosted an evening campaign fundraiser at the downtown Hyatt.
Quinn said his use of the plane was appropriate and he did not make the round trip because of the fundraiser, but because he planned to attend the annual Rainbow/PUSH meeting in Chicago the following morning.
"I had an event, but I had already scheduled Rainbow/PUSH the next morning," Quinn said.
On Oct. 10, Quinn flew from Chicago in the afternoon to host a Springfield reception for his former Northwestern University law classmates, then flew back to Chicago about five hours later. On Dec. 19, Quinn flew to Springfield to host a holiday open house and staff party before returning to Chicago a few hours later.
Quinn said hosting receptions and open houses is part of his effort "to have an open government" by welcoming citizens to the mansion. He said he flew to Chicago after the reception with his classmates to attend a charity event that was not listed on his schedule.
"My view is the governor's got to go where the people need him," Quinn said.
Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the trips show the need for clear guidelines on what constitutes appropriate use of state planes. On one hand, she said, Illinois is a very large state and the governor will need to travel. "The real question is, is this above and beyond what's necessary?" Canary said.
Quinn defends his use of the plane and the mansion. He said he has unpacked clothing and family photos. He frequently holds breakfast and dinner meetings there with lawmakers. And he has hosted an Easter egg hunt, handed out Halloween candy to children and had his family over for Thanksgiving.
"My extended family, we added to the tourism of Springfield a great deal," Quinn said. "In all my time as governor, I respect the house. We've had many events to bring people into the mansion."
mcgarcia@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-governors-mansion-20100525,0,4429014.story
9:08 p.m. CDT, May 25, 2010
Gov. Pat Quinn had been in office only a few hours last year when he vowed to do something his impeached predecessor did not — live in the Executive Mansion in Springfield.
"It's going to get a good workout this year," Quinn told reporters at his first news conference as governor, dubbing the 155-year-old mansion "the people's house."
But a Tribune analysis of his official travel schedule shows that Quinn stays at the ornate, taxpayer-funded house only sporadically. During his first year in office, Quinn slept there 55 nights, mostly while lawmakers were in session. He didn't spend more than three consecutive nights in the executive mansion.
On a handful of occasions, Quinn took a state plane to Springfield during the day, only to fly back to Chicago the same night. Among these cases were trips to attend a campaign fundraiser and his aunt's funeral. Quinn defended the funeral round trip as an appropriate use of taxpayer money because he was honoring a woman who was a "citizen of Illinois for eight decades."
Quinn's use of the state plane for day trips to Springfield pales in comparison to ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who detested the Capitol and used the plane as a commuter perk. But as Quinn runs for election, his decision not to live in the mansion belies the populist image that he's made one of his top political selling points.
"It's a symbolic thing, and for Quinn, a public pronouncement thing," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois- Springfield. "There's some financial aspect, but it's small. It's mostly symbolic of the extent to which a governor is embracing state government."
Blagojevich's failure to live in the mansion rankled taxpayers who expect their governor to live in the house they pay around $500,000 a year to keep open. Now more than a year into his tenure, Quinn has added a caveat when discussing where he lives.
"The governor lives in the mansion in my opinion," Quinn told the Tribune in a recent interview. "I'm the governor, it's the seat of our government, and whenever I'm in Springfield, that's where I live. If I have to be somewhere else to do something for the people, then I've got to live elsewhere."
That comment would explain why at some appearances in Chicago, Quinn tells the crowd he lives on Chicago's West Side, "the best side." When he's been in Springfield, he has called the capital home.
Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican running for governor against Quinn, has said he and his wife, Nancy, would live in the mansion full time if he's elected.
"The business of the state is rooted in Springfield. In order to effectively manage the affairs of the state of Illinois, the governor must have a strong presence in the capital city," said Brady spokeswoman Jaime Elich.
Quinn is not alone in using the governor's mansion as more of a hotel than a home. In the last quarter century, Republican Jim Edgar is the lone chief executive who lived there full time. Republicans Jim Thompson and George Ryan split their time between the mansion and their respective homes in Chicago and Kankakee. Blagojevich wanted to raise his daughters on the North Side, and then-first lady Patti Blagojevich complained about being allergic to the mansion's carpeted floors.
That led to Blagojevich racking up tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money making same-day round trips between Chicago and the capital. Quinn hasn't made as many day trips, but he's had some notable ones.
On June 29, Quinn met with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago before flying to Springfield to huddle with Democratic legislative leaders. Quinn was there for just over two hours before flying back to Chicago, where he hosted an evening campaign fundraiser at the downtown Hyatt.
Quinn said his use of the plane was appropriate and he did not make the round trip because of the fundraiser, but because he planned to attend the annual Rainbow/PUSH meeting in Chicago the following morning.
"I had an event, but I had already scheduled Rainbow/PUSH the next morning," Quinn said.
On Oct. 10, Quinn flew from Chicago in the afternoon to host a Springfield reception for his former Northwestern University law classmates, then flew back to Chicago about five hours later. On Dec. 19, Quinn flew to Springfield to host a holiday open house and staff party before returning to Chicago a few hours later.
Quinn said hosting receptions and open houses is part of his effort "to have an open government" by welcoming citizens to the mansion. He said he flew to Chicago after the reception with his classmates to attend a charity event that was not listed on his schedule.
"My view is the governor's got to go where the people need him," Quinn said.
Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the trips show the need for clear guidelines on what constitutes appropriate use of state planes. On one hand, she said, Illinois is a very large state and the governor will need to travel. "The real question is, is this above and beyond what's necessary?" Canary said.
Quinn defends his use of the plane and the mansion. He said he has unpacked clothing and family photos. He frequently holds breakfast and dinner meetings there with lawmakers. And he has hosted an Easter egg hunt, handed out Halloween candy to children and had his family over for Thanksgiving.
"My extended family, we added to the tourism of Springfield a great deal," Quinn said. "In all my time as governor, I respect the house. We've had many events to bring people into the mansion."
mcgarcia@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-governors-mansion-20100525,0,4429014.story
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tue, May 18, 2010 2:22:33 PMGiannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
For Immediate Release - May 18, 2010
Contact 312-201-9000 info@ilgop.org
Alexi Giannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
False Giannoulias Claim: “There was never any risky lending or any reckless lending practices.”- Alexi Giannoulias, NBC 5 Chicago, May 18, 2010
What the State of Illinois Said: “Upon due consideration of the evidence presented to me, and pursuant to my statutory duties and powers as Director of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking, I find that Broadway Bank, Chicago, Illinois (the "Bank") is conducting its business in an unsafe and unsound manner.” (Jorge Solis, Director, Illinois Division of Banking)
What the Experts Said: "The real question is why it wasn't closed a long time ago," says Washington, D.C.-area banking consultant Bert Ely. "It was a badly run bank." (Chicago Tribune Editorial, April 26, 2010, “Who killed Broadway Bank?”)
What the FDIC Said: “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $394.3 million.”
What Demetris Giannoulias Said: Demetris Giannoulias said the bank learned of Giorango's bookmaking and prostitution promotion convictions from a spring 2004 Tribune report detailing those cases. "But we're a relationship bank," he said. "So somebody comes in and in all his dealings with the bank seem to be on the level, everything makes sense, nothing seems illicit or untoward. Just because somebody gets a bad article written about them there's no reason to say, 'Hey, listen, I'm going to kick you out the door because you don't win a popularity contest.' We didn't think he was doing anything illegal." (Chicago Tribune, “Giannoulias family bank made $20 million in loans to felons,” April 2, 2010)
What the Chicago Tribune said: “Giannoulias' claim smacks of desperation. Anyone truly looking for culprits would start with the people who ran Broadway. Most banks have been able to weather the recession. This one failed mostly because of its own mistakes.”
What the Chicago Sun-Times Said: “Valid questions remain about whether Broadway Bank, before and after Giannoulias worked there, took imprudently high risks with both deposits and loans. And a certain vagueness remains as to why the family withdrew tens of millions of dollars in dividends in 2007 and 2008…Either way, fairly or not, he doesn't come out of this looking good.” (March 4, 2010)
What the New York Times Said: “The move into real estate coincided with a headlong push into brokered deposits. This is quintessential hot money — large amounts that jump from bank to bank, each bank offering the lure of high interest , which the banks then must fund by making ever-riskier loans.”
What Crain’s Chicago Business Said: “But [Alexi] did not dispute that the small Chicago community bank effectively changed its business model during his tenure, sharply ramping up its exposure to oft-risky real estate loans to nearly half of its portfolio, and relying for deposits not on local savings accounts but brokered, relatively high-interest deposits from all over the county.”
# # #
Contact 312-201-9000 info@ilgop.org
Alexi Giannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
False Giannoulias Claim: “There was never any risky lending or any reckless lending practices.”- Alexi Giannoulias, NBC 5 Chicago, May 18, 2010
What the State of Illinois Said: “Upon due consideration of the evidence presented to me, and pursuant to my statutory duties and powers as Director of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking, I find that Broadway Bank, Chicago, Illinois (the "Bank") is conducting its business in an unsafe and unsound manner.” (Jorge Solis, Director, Illinois Division of Banking)
What the Experts Said: "The real question is why it wasn't closed a long time ago," says Washington, D.C.-area banking consultant Bert Ely. "It was a badly run bank." (Chicago Tribune Editorial, April 26, 2010, “Who killed Broadway Bank?”)
What the FDIC Said: “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $394.3 million.”
What Demetris Giannoulias Said: Demetris Giannoulias said the bank learned of Giorango's bookmaking and prostitution promotion convictions from a spring 2004 Tribune report detailing those cases. "But we're a relationship bank," he said. "So somebody comes in and in all his dealings with the bank seem to be on the level, everything makes sense, nothing seems illicit or untoward. Just because somebody gets a bad article written about them there's no reason to say, 'Hey, listen, I'm going to kick you out the door because you don't win a popularity contest.' We didn't think he was doing anything illegal." (Chicago Tribune, “Giannoulias family bank made $20 million in loans to felons,” April 2, 2010)
What the Chicago Tribune said: “Giannoulias' claim smacks of desperation. Anyone truly looking for culprits would start with the people who ran Broadway. Most banks have been able to weather the recession. This one failed mostly because of its own mistakes.”
What the Chicago Sun-Times Said: “Valid questions remain about whether Broadway Bank, before and after Giannoulias worked there, took imprudently high risks with both deposits and loans. And a certain vagueness remains as to why the family withdrew tens of millions of dollars in dividends in 2007 and 2008…Either way, fairly or not, he doesn't come out of this looking good.” (March 4, 2010)
What the New York Times Said: “The move into real estate coincided with a headlong push into brokered deposits. This is quintessential hot money — large amounts that jump from bank to bank, each bank offering the lure of high interest , which the banks then must fund by making ever-riskier loans.”
What Crain’s Chicago Business Said: “But [Alexi] did not dispute that the small Chicago community bank effectively changed its business model during his tenure, sharply ramping up its exposure to oft-risky real estate loans to nearly half of its portfolio, and relying for deposits not on local savings accounts but brokered, relatively high-interest deposits from all over the county.”
# # #
Unintended Consequences? 75% of All Kids Enrollee’s Are Illegal Immigrants
Dennis Byrne 25 May 2010 Chicago Daily Observer
Who in his right mind would be against health insurance for every child in Illinois?
Certainly none of the politicians, health care providers, labor unions and special interests that in 2005 so enthusiastically bought into then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s All Kids program. Certainly not tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, the major beneficiaries of the program. From Citizen Action/Illinois to the Illinois Hospital Association, from the Chicago Teachers Union to the Peruvian Cultural Center, they all hailed it as some kind of nirvana.
They were wrong. Now, five years later, All Kids has turned into just another government botch of a program that has failed to meet expectations. Except for its costs. Those, of course, wildly exceeded expectations. And helped state finances circle the drain.
At least that’s one way to view a recent, but insufficiently noticed, audit of All Kids by Illinois Auditor General William G. Holland. Compare the reality with what was promised when Blagojevich signed the law.
We were told All Kids would:
•Provide comprehensive health coverage for 253,000 uninsured Illinois children. In fact, in fiscal 2009 it covered 94,525.
•Protect working and middle-class families, as Blagojevich put it: "... who are doing everything they're supposed to do -- working hard, paying their taxes," but can't afford health insurance. Well yes, but the vast majority are illegal immigrants, who aren't doing at least one thing they're supposed to do -- obey the law.
•Cost $45 million "in the first year." In 2009 its gross cost reached about $79 million.
•Be partially funded by low monthly premiums charged to families. In fact, premiums paid in fiscal 2009 totaled less than $9 million, leaving the state's net cost at $70 million. None of it qualifies for federal reimbursement (because the family income is more than 200 percent of poverty), so Illinois taxpayers pick up the entire net cost.
That's just the start of the problems.
The audit also found: Coverage is not always terminated when premiums are not paid, as required by the state administration code. The state Department of Human Services does not properly calculate family income to determine if the family is eligible for coverage. Annual reviews of family eligibility are inadequate. Other possible sources of family income were not checked. Controls were lacking to keep out-of-state children off the rolls and to ensure that children were not enrolled more than once. Marketing to gin up enrollees was originally expected to cost $3 million, but payments, based on questionable billing, ballooned to more than $8 million. The beneficiary was the Democrat-connected firm GMMB. Record keeping was so messy that the Department of Healthcare and Family Services needed 11 days to answer a simple yes or no question: Had it submitted copies of its contracts to the General Assembly as required by law?
In sum, All Kids is serving only about a third of its intended beneficiaries at about twice the estimated cost. Because of these and other failures, Holland said the audit did not attempt to determine what the real costs would be if All Kids had been run properly.
Beyond the bureaucratic muddle, blame Blagojevich and the Democratic-controlled legislature for perhaps the biggest problem with the law: Its cheap, comprehensive health care is a magnet for illegal immigrants to come to Illinois. According to the audit, about 75 percent of All Kids enrollees are classified as illegal immigrants. The cost of covering them comes to almost $55 million. This, it will be pointed out, is a drop in the bucket in a state budget that is running up an astonishing $13 billion deficit.
But, this is how huge deficits are run up. Promising all comers benefits that can't be delivered. Making a hash out of government programs that never should have been established in the first place. Exaggerating needs for political gain. Letting emotions dictate public policy. Letting ideology obscure reality.
By everything rational, the state ought to be taking a critical look at All Kids, re-evaluating its premises, workability and costs. But little about Illinois and its budget is rational. More so, when it comes to anything involving illegal immigration.
This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/05/illegal-immigrants-big-winners-from-botched-illinois-health-insurance-program.html
Who in his right mind would be against health insurance for every child in Illinois?
Certainly none of the politicians, health care providers, labor unions and special interests that in 2005 so enthusiastically bought into then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s All Kids program. Certainly not tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, the major beneficiaries of the program. From Citizen Action/Illinois to the Illinois Hospital Association, from the Chicago Teachers Union to the Peruvian Cultural Center, they all hailed it as some kind of nirvana.
They were wrong. Now, five years later, All Kids has turned into just another government botch of a program that has failed to meet expectations. Except for its costs. Those, of course, wildly exceeded expectations. And helped state finances circle the drain.
At least that’s one way to view a recent, but insufficiently noticed, audit of All Kids by Illinois Auditor General William G. Holland. Compare the reality with what was promised when Blagojevich signed the law.
We were told All Kids would:
•Provide comprehensive health coverage for 253,000 uninsured Illinois children. In fact, in fiscal 2009 it covered 94,525.
•Protect working and middle-class families, as Blagojevich put it: "... who are doing everything they're supposed to do -- working hard, paying their taxes," but can't afford health insurance. Well yes, but the vast majority are illegal immigrants, who aren't doing at least one thing they're supposed to do -- obey the law.
•Cost $45 million "in the first year." In 2009 its gross cost reached about $79 million.
•Be partially funded by low monthly premiums charged to families. In fact, premiums paid in fiscal 2009 totaled less than $9 million, leaving the state's net cost at $70 million. None of it qualifies for federal reimbursement (because the family income is more than 200 percent of poverty), so Illinois taxpayers pick up the entire net cost.
That's just the start of the problems.
The audit also found: Coverage is not always terminated when premiums are not paid, as required by the state administration code. The state Department of Human Services does not properly calculate family income to determine if the family is eligible for coverage. Annual reviews of family eligibility are inadequate. Other possible sources of family income were not checked. Controls were lacking to keep out-of-state children off the rolls and to ensure that children were not enrolled more than once. Marketing to gin up enrollees was originally expected to cost $3 million, but payments, based on questionable billing, ballooned to more than $8 million. The beneficiary was the Democrat-connected firm GMMB. Record keeping was so messy that the Department of Healthcare and Family Services needed 11 days to answer a simple yes or no question: Had it submitted copies of its contracts to the General Assembly as required by law?
In sum, All Kids is serving only about a third of its intended beneficiaries at about twice the estimated cost. Because of these and other failures, Holland said the audit did not attempt to determine what the real costs would be if All Kids had been run properly.
Beyond the bureaucratic muddle, blame Blagojevich and the Democratic-controlled legislature for perhaps the biggest problem with the law: Its cheap, comprehensive health care is a magnet for illegal immigrants to come to Illinois. According to the audit, about 75 percent of All Kids enrollees are classified as illegal immigrants. The cost of covering them comes to almost $55 million. This, it will be pointed out, is a drop in the bucket in a state budget that is running up an astonishing $13 billion deficit.
But, this is how huge deficits are run up. Promising all comers benefits that can't be delivered. Making a hash out of government programs that never should have been established in the first place. Exaggerating needs for political gain. Letting emotions dictate public policy. Letting ideology obscure reality.
By everything rational, the state ought to be taking a critical look at All Kids, re-evaluating its premises, workability and costs. But little about Illinois and its budget is rational. More so, when it comes to anything involving illegal immigration.
This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/05/illegal-immigrants-big-winners-from-botched-illinois-health-insurance-program.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)