Gimme a break
Wednesday, Apr 2, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Right up front let me say that I don’t approve of forcing public employees to work campaigns in order to get promotions, or to get hired in the first place. But this is just goofy…
Chicago aldermen ridiculed and condemned a federal hiring monitor on Friday for awarding $75,000 to the son of the City Council’s elder statesman as compensation for a 2003 aldermanic election that was stacked against him.
Jay Stone, son of Ald. Bernard Stone (50th), got one of the biggest chunks of a $12 million fund created to compensate victims of City Hall’s rigged hiring system.
Federal monitor Noelle Brennan believed Stone’s claim that he didn’t stand a chance against then-Ald. Ted Matlak (32nd) because Matlak had the support of a political army of city workers commanded on city time by now-convicted former First Deputy Water Commissioner Donald Tomczak.
* Sure the odds were stacked against him, but Jay Stone raised just $14,501.40 for that campaign. Did the fact that he was running against the Machine hurt his fundraising? Most probably. But his father is an alderman, for crying out loud, and he couldn’t even get the old man’s support.
Matlak won that 2003 race with 74 percent of the vote. It was hardly competitive. In contrast, four years earlier Matlak only took 54 percent against a much better candidate, Lorna Brett. And, remember, Matlak lost last year, despite bigtime backing from Mayor Daley’s organization.
Yet, Jay Stone gets 75 large. Go figure.
* Here’s Stone’s react…
“It’s not about compensating me for losing an election,” Stone said. “It’s compensating me for political discrimination.”
Cry me a river. I’d rather see employees who were forced to work for Matlak get those cash awards than worthless candidates like Stone. I mean, his daddy is an alderman, so he’s grown up with Chicago politics and that’s the best he can do? C’mon.
* Here’s Brennan’s response to the uproar…
“The compensation isn’t addressing the purported injury that [Stone] should have won. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not there were patronage practices in use against him….He submitted persuasive evidence that there were,” Brennan said.
If that’s the case, then a whole lot of other candidates should be getting checks. Where would that end?
* All that being said, Mayor Daley’s comments were just plain ridiculous…
“I guess all the candidates that lost will blame the unions and file a complaint against the unions for stacking it against them, taking political money and taking people off of jobs, so I think it’s silly to tell you the truth.”
* SEIU responds…
“It shows you the level of corruption that has existed in this city that people can’t tell the difference between a campaign volunteer and a political worker,” Morrison said. “Patronage workers are not volunteers—it is a requisite of their public job to do political work.”
Morrison said the only things SEIU offered as inducement for campaign help were “better government, a T-shirt and some pizza.”
Exactly.
But Brennan needs to find another line of work if this is the way she’s gonna run things.
- I'm A Loser - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 8:03 am:
Kevin commented effectively on this last week.
How does losing an election qualify you for taxpayer dollars?
I am surprised (or not surprised) that the MSM has not picked up on the absurdity of this entire concept.
Forget about 75 Large. 75 cents would be too much.
I actually WILL run for office (no matter which one) every election cycle in Chicago just for this kind of money, if this is now guaranteed.
And I will do my best to lose every election so I can collect this amount of money. Talk about a return on investment.
This is the most corrupt thing I have seen in my life, and it has the impramatur of the Federal Court.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 8:37 am:
lawsuit was filed, an attorney mad big buck, everyone else got a feel good dealwhich rained money on the streets so they would not look at the lawyer stuffing his pockets.
- irs - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 8:50 am:
how much has noelle billed the city for?
- Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 8:52 am:
About $12 million
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 8:59 am:
I lived in the 32nd Ward at the time of Jay’s election. I voted for Jay, even though I thought he was a bit a of a goof. I guess the fact that he pledged (in his campaign literature) to ride his bicycle up and down every east/west street and every north/south street in the ward every three months was not persuasive enough to the voters. BTW… I can’t make this stuff up… he really did pledge to that in his campaign lit.
- Jake from Elwood - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:22 am:
I would advise Jim Oberweis to start running for elections in the City of Chicago. At least he could recoup some of his misspent fortune from the pen of Ms. Brennan.
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:22 am:
If this is the case (Noelle Brennan’s comments that this is related to patronage practices used in an election)… the money ought to come from various campaign coffers, not taxpayers.
- jerry 101 - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:39 am:
Wait, I could have gotten a t-shirt?
What an idiot. how about saving the shakman settlement money for people truly aggrieved, not for some moron. I’d rather have ted matlak as alderman than this idiot. And, given how low my regard for Ted Matlak is, that’s saying something.
- Sacks Romana - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:46 am:
I think employees doing political work when they’re supposed to be doing their jobs is a HUGE problem in Chicago, Illinois, and a lot of other places. That said, that payout does nothing to resolve that issue, and as pointed out, creates a dangerous precedent. Not only are we using taxpayer funded employees for political purposes, but because we’re sorry we did that, we’re going to make it all better by using taxpayer money to stop the loser from complaining. Yeah, that makes sense.
Of course the guiltiest party that campaigns instead of works, are our elected officials themselves. Most of them are campaigning about 50% of the time they’re in office instead of doing any work, and most people expect that of them. Another built-in advantage of encumbency.
- Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:51 am:
That was a ridiculous award. If you were to take this seriously, the city would have to pay a similar amount to every candidate who lost to the machine over the past 80 years. An award like that isn’t going to deter the machine from continuing to use city workers for campaign work (that’s what patronage is all about, and they want to remain in office to hand it down to their kids, as is the recent trend). Ok, so taxpayer money has to go to Stone’s kid; what do they care?
I think there needs to be some serious investigation with the intent and result of not being satisfied with the minnows (the patronage workers and low level supervisors), but the big marlin who put and keep these people in their jobs in order to keep themselves in office.
No, you’re never going to find a piece of paper that says “Put John Doe in as a Streets and San worker at $50 per hour, and make sure he works 40 hours a week doing political work for me; if he doesn’t, fire him and find somebody else who will.” But really, when EVERYBODY knows what’s going on, I’d say that’s pretty strong circumstantial evidence to base a case on. At least give it a try. This city is a national laughingstock.
Pingback Stone’s Throw « Division Street - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:51 am:
[…] But reading commentary like this has made me see the error of my ways. It’s not the federal monitor’s job to assess the chances of a challenger to the mayor’s patronage system in deciding if a financial settlement is in order. I was guilty of reacting to the Stone settlement because Stone had little chance to win even if City Hall wasn’t arrayed against him. But so what? At what point do you decide he had a chance, and then would qualify for money? That’s not really the point. […]
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 9:57 am:
$12 million? Pinstripe patronage always pays best.
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 10:15 am:
Utterly ridiculous. Anyone know how they arrived at 75K? I mean, what was the actual damage? I’m praying that it’s not actually ‘compensation for political discrimination,’ as that is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Seriously, if he didn’t spend 75K on his campaign, he found a job or maintained a job after his campaign, and didn’t suffer from PTSD or some illness as a result of his loss, what are they compensating him for? Lost opportunity? In which case Snidely is right and ever candidate who has lost to the machine should receive the same award. Unbelievable.
- Garp - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 10:38 am:
It is appalling to misplace the outrage that has forced the Chicago taxpayers to fund the measures necessary to clean up the mess perpetrated on its citizens. Mayor Richard M. Daley is responsible for the hiring fraud and should be paying for the fallout from his own money or his campaign fund. The civil lawsuits should be brought against him, even if criminal charges are not going to be. I imagine the hiring fraud, waste and corruption add up to billions paid by the taxpayers since his 1987 election.
To cast aspirations toward an individual,the federal monitor, attempting to make whole an entire city full of people illegally discriminated against by systemic corruption by picking one person who may or may not have received a greater share than other victims appears to be an attempt to derail a process that has succeeded in curtailing previous rampant abuse.
I would urge the Brennan critics to look at the success achieved by the federal monitor in stopping the hiring fraud. The Daley Administration has been forced to run things on a relatively level playing field and it is killing them. The corrupt insiders have gone to their bunkers to wait for the smoke to clear. They are smart enough to know the self righteous do-gooders will eventually get rid of the first real reform ever achieved in city hall hiring and they can go back to loading the payroll with their cronies.
- thomas paine - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 11:32 am:
Brennan is in way over her head…
- irishpirate - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 12:13 pm:
On the face of it the reward does seem “silly, silly silly”.
However, the message it send is important: you can’t force government employees to do political work.
The original Shakman decision came because “Shakman da man” lost an election to the Constitutional Convention because of government workers being forced to campaign against him.
As ridiculous as it seems the message it sends is correct. Politics in this city, county and state are horribly corrupt. Perhaps this is just one small “victory” against it.
Now before anyone suggests I am drinking I AM NOT.
I don’t start for another 2 minutes when the clock strikes 12:15.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 1:21 pm:
Government payout systems are rarely reliable or even fair. This is seen quite frequently in Department of Labor settlement funds.
Mr. Stone should have gotten nothing. To think that he cannot use his dad’s name and connections to help him find a job is silly. And it certainly merits him NOT receiving one penny.
I have long thought that giving out top jobs to campaign staff isn’t always a good idea. Someone’s intelligence (or even just competence) at campaigning doesn’t always translate into being good at government jobs. The mentality is different - especially since some campaign help often don’t understand the nuances of government and sometimes are even callous when it comes to assisting constituents.
- Garp - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 1:41 pm:
When comparing a $75,000 payout by Brennan to Berny’s kid vs. thousands of jobs doled out to Daley cronies in excess of 75 grand, plus health, pension & other benefits, I think the taxpayers might want to stick with Brennan.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 2:15 pm:
Garp, that makes no sense. Tolerating the waste of public money by one person because others have wasted more? Approving of a patornage style payout to support dissaproval of patronage?
Irish the award is silly, in substance. The guys failure to raise more then what? 4k? being a loser is not compensable. Given as pointed out the previous oppoents faced the same hurdles and did substantially better. This is just another patronage payout.
- the ole precinct captain - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 7:39 pm:
Hey civic do gooders. It is far cheaper to have corruption then to pay for its clean up. The cost with awards is over $20,000,000. The bill goes straight to the tax payers. If I was a tax payer (and I am) I would not know who to be made at first the politicians or the bone head monitor who gave out the awards. It looks like the fix is in when the civic do gooders try to make things right. I’ll take the corruption much cheaper.
- Bruno - Wednesday, Apr 2, 08 @ 10:57 pm:
Every story out of every blog and newspaper is more and more evidence of the need for a Constitutional Convention.
The IBRT and the rest of pasty business community must be insane to be against a ConCon.
No Con Con, no improvement. Every headline screams this truth. You can vote “yes” and possibly get improvement, or you can vote “no” and endure another 20 years of this.
- Loyal Whig - Thursday, Apr 3, 08 @ 12:33 am:
Governing is a serious business. The Jay Stone “award” makes government look silly.
- mark - Saturday, Apr 5, 08 @ 9:19 pm:
The idea is that the political process is corrupted when only a one-party can win, The fact that the one-party has been headed by one family for so long/ Remember it was Daley’s daddy that shafted Shakman to begin with. It wasn’t originally about jobs,, it was about fair elections.. Jay Stone had proof. The wrong-doer, Tomczak, in his sworn statement, contrary to his own interest, admitted using city on-duty workers. Other Shakman complainants didn’t have any or very little proof. Jay proved his case. How dare those alderman criticize him after they had already voted unanimously for the payment fund. What other civil rights class action recipient has his name trashed by the mayor and the alderman. Thank you Jay for trying to do right, against all odds.