Speak no evil

The following Chicago Tribune story describes an almost daily routine for Chicago politicians, granting favors in return for bribes:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-developer-corruption-carothers-19-20100318,0,7896465.story

The story itself is as old as the incorporation of Chicago. An alderman accepts a bribe to rezone property for a developer. This process of aldermanic enrichment is written into the City of Chicago zoning laws. All zoning changes must first be approved by the alderman before it can be considered by the rest of the zoning governing boards.

 

Why should we examine this particular case of a developer who bribed an alderman? I find the details of this trial fascinating. In this trial the developer Calvin Boender was convicted of paying Alderman Isaac "Ike" Carothers a $38,000.00 bribe. Alderman Carothers has already been separately tried and convicted for accepting this bribe. The interesting part of the Boender trial is that the federal prosecutors did not call Alderman Carothers to testify against Calvin Boender. The following is a quote from the news article:

 

• Carothers pleaded guilty to corruption charges last month and resigned as 29th Ward alderman. He has been cooperating with the FBI's investigation for months, working undercover at times. In a surprise, prosecutors decided not to call him as a witness at the trial.

 

Why would the prosecutors choose not to have their star witness testify? The Tribune offers this as an answer:

 

• Veteran lawyers said the decision not to put Carothers on the witness stand may have been a signal that prosecutors were concerned about his credibility, the baggage he brought or what he might say on the stand.

 

In my opinion the concern was not about the alderman’s credibility or any baggage that he would bring. The prosecutors could not allow Alderman Carothers to testify because of what he might say. The following paragraphs from the Tribune story contain the smoldering embers of testimony that could ignite a political firestorm:

 

• In 2008 the Tribune chronicled how Boender eventually got his way on Galewood Yards after enlisting the support of Carothers and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. Gutierrez, who had just received a $200,000 loan from Boender for his own real estate investments, personally lobbied Mayor Richard Daley. The congressman has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

• Daley's and Gutierrez's names came up during the trial when a former city planning commissioner testified about a meeting involving the two and Boender in 2004-05 at which Boender brought a model of his 50-acre project.

• The Tribune reported this week that FBI agents and other federal authorities had secretly interviewed Daley in 2008 at a downtown hotel about the politicians who supported the Galewood Yards project. Daley had no comment Thursday on Boender's conviction.

 

My conclusion is that Alderman Carothers was not called to testify because he has first hand evidence of malfeasance by U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez and possibly by Mayor Daley himself. The question that we now must answer is this:

 

Is the U.S. Attorney’s office holding back on indictment of Gutierrez and possibly Daley because their investigation is ongoing and these indictments will occur at sometime in the future, or have they been called off by someone higher up in Washington?

That's nothing new

The following article is from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-aldermen-payroll19nov19,0,280697.story?page=1

For those of you unfamiliar with the history of Chicago’s hiring practices here is a brief summary:
In 1969 a lawsuit was filed against the Democratic Party of Cook County alleging that government hiring was unduly influenced by political operatives. A 1979 ruling led to a court order in 1983 that made it unlawful to take any political factor into account in hiring public employees. Those decisions along with companion consent judgments—collectively called the Shakman decrees—are binding on more than 40 city and statewide offices. Circumventing these decrees has become a routine way of life for politicians and government employees.

What we have learned from the Tribune article is that the City of Chicago has a payroll account that is used by City Alderman to hire friends and family. This payroll account is not listed in the City budget and until now was not know about by those who oversee the Shakman decrees.

Here are some of the highlights from the Tribune article:

• "All of us (aldermen) have family members on the payroll," said Ald. Isaac Carothers, 29th, who has paid a relative more than $30,000 since January 2008. "That's nothing new."

• Carothers refused to say if the William Carothers on his payroll was his father or brother, who have the same name. Carothers faces federal bribery charges, and his father, a former alderman, went to prison for public corruption.

• City officials said the employees paid through the fund are contract workers because they do not receive a city pension or other city benefits.

• But Shakman questioned that statement, because the city withholds the employees' taxes and sends each one a yearly W-2 tax form. "W-2s are a pretty good indication they are common-law employees," Shakman said.

• On paper, the only oversight of the obscure payroll appears to come from the veteran chairman of the Council's Finance Committee, Ald. Edward Burke, 14th. According to the city budget, payments must be approved in writing by Burke.

• Burke spent the largest chunk of the payroll -- $70,164 -- in 2008, according to city records. That total was higher than any other ward by more than $26,000.

• Nevertheless, Daley and city attorneys said last week the city is in "substantial compliance" with the federal court consent decree. They plan to ask a judge early next year to end the court's supervision of city hiring.

“Never insult me with that question”

Mayor Daley is giving us an insight into the thought process of a successful politician. He has never liked answering questions but he recently explained why:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/08/daley-declines-to-answer-questions-about-insiders-olympics-deal.html

It turns out that Mayor Daley feels personally insulted when asked an uncomfortable question. Here is his quote:

• Daley, however, said he would only be taking questions on the city's construction plans.
  
  "I'm sorry I can't answer questions every day. Every day, I do it enough," Daley said.
  
  Asked by a Tribune reporter when he would be available to talk about Scott's project, Daley said the question insulted him.
  
  "Oh, I do it everyday, you've been with me every day. Never insult me with that question," Daley said. "You're insulting me because every day I'm here, you're never here. And don't print that, so I know you'll print it."
  
  Daley's press staff then ended the news conference.

Keep Mayor Daley’s perspective on answering questions in mind when you scrutinize the responses given by President Obama and his administrators during the debate over health care.

Preferential treatment

The following news article reports on a new policy agenda envisioned by Chicago’s Mayor Richard M. Daley:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/07/daley-backs-business-setasides-for-gayowned-firms.html

The text of this article is as follows:

• 
  Mayor Richard Daley said today he would support an effort to give preferential treatment in city contracting to businesses owned by gays and lesbians.
  The city already sets aside a portion of contracts for businesses owned by blacks, Hispanics, Asians and women. Now Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), the City Council’s openly gay member, wants companies owned by gays and lesbians to enjoy the same consideration in doing business with the city.
  “I think it’s good,” said Daley, who enjoys strong support from gays and lesbians. “It helps small businesses. It helps businesses grow in the city, and that’s what you want.”

How does this help small business?

How will the City Administration verify that the owners of business are gays and lesbians? Will there be a gay and lesbian audit committee? If there will be an audit committee then will the committee have a list of sexual activities that the business owners must perform in order to qualify as gays and lesbians?