Metra Governance

[MetroShadow]

Seems like Clifford is fighting with the board to retain him. Thoughts?

[Busjack]

Seems like Clifford is fighting with the board to retain him. Thoughts?

Your link requires cookies, but this has been publicized enough.

This gets back to the lack of governance at most of the 4 boards. At least the Pace board appears to exercise oversight at its board meetings and posts minutes, and apparently has no problem with T.J. Ross.

Then you have the other extreme of the CTA Board completely abdicating its responsibilities and rubber stamping a political appointee who does not meet statutory qualifications and apparently (from the lack of President's Reports, or even any mention in the skeleton minutes now being posted) does not even report to the board. The board is supposed to be in charge of the operation, but clearly is not here.

That puts Metra in the middle, and of course one has Metra's history of running the finest commuter railroad of the 19th century and embezzlement by its suicide by Metra executive director. Hence the current board realizes that it has to exercise oversight.

As far as requiring a performance review, including input from subordinates and peers, that is common practice in private industry, although too many CEOs have been given a pass by their rubber stamp corporate boards. The only difference with regard to a corporate board is that it could be sued by its stockholders if it does not meet its obligations to review the performance of its CEO. Hence, why the CEO of J.C. Penney is out.

So, the Metra board is at least going through the motions of doing the right thing. Zeus did not come down from Mt. Olympus to give Clifford a lifetime job. Somebody better tell the CTA Board the same for Claypool, who would not have passed any real performance review.

[Busjack]

Just saw an ABC7Chicago headline that Clifford is out. Headline says "resigns," but story says it wasn't said whether voluntarily for forced out.

Update: From the Tribune story, he must have been forced out, as one doesn't get that much severance for resigning on one's own volition.

[ctrabs74]

Sounds like the "Chicago Way" rears it's ugly head ... again. From the last paragraphs of the Trib article:

During an April interview with the Tribune, Clifford said he had rejected pressure to hire employees based on patronage.

“I've said 'no' more than one time,” he said, adding that patronage “is not going to happen under my watch. It hasn't happened once, and it won't happen.”

[sw4400]

Just saw an ABC7Chicago headline that Clifford is out. Headline says "resigns," but story says it wasn't said whether voluntarily for forced out.

Update: From the Tribune story, he must have been forced out, as one doesn't get that much severance for resigning on one's own volition.

I don't know about that... if he was forced out and given $442,337 for salary on the remainder of his contract plus an additional $300,000 if he can't find a job within 13 months, thats nearly $750,000 he would get to sit on his behind and do nothing.

If I was forced out and got a severance package like that, I'd make minimal effort on my part to find another job until after I get that $300,000 just so I can stick it to Metra and get money for nothing, essentially.

[artthouwill]

Sounds like the "Chicago Way" rears it's ugly head ... again. From the last paragraphs of the Trib article:

During an April interview with the Tribune, Clifford said he had rejected pressure to hire employees based on patronage.

“I've said 'no' more than one time,” he said, adding that patronage “is not going to happen under my watch. It hasn't happened once, and it won't happen.”

It won't happen under his watch. But now it appears his watch is over. Patronage is only bad when the other political party is benefitting from it. Republicans don't like Democrates benefitting from it and vice versa. Talk of reform is just empty rhetoric that sounds good. A.C. was an outsider who concentrated on trying to run a business responsibly as possible. He doesn't have to answer to voters. However most of the Metra board (suburban appointees) have to answer to a mayor, or village president, trustee, etc, who in turn has to answer to a voting constituency. If losing the discounts on ten ride tickets and passes causes voter angst, then you have to get rid of the guy who instituted it, otherwise you appear to be on his side and are vulnerable at the next election. Not transferring money from capital budget to operations budget is sound business, but no one wants to payhigher fares. No one told these customers to live out in God's country, that was their choice. There is plenty of cheap land in the city near the south side Green Line and you can pay a very cheap fare to get downtown everyday. Once you buy that property, and enough of those people buy it, you will have gentrification, the value of those properties rise and the gang bangers and poor people leave. Otherwise, bite the bullet, buy a used Mercedes instead of a new one. End of rant.

Now Metra can go back to its old habits.

[Busjack]

From the Tribune stories, art is probably on the right track.

The reason I say that is besides the patronage comment, there were allusions to the "political board" and essentially "Clifford had the largest fare increase, and the board wanted someone to get federal and state funding."

In short, somebody on the board wanted to have a Kruesi style campaign for a tax increase.

The chairman (who reportedly didn't want Clifford) was appointed by the suburban members of the Cook County Board, so while it wasn't Chicago politics, it was one removed.

Personally, I don't think that there was ever any issue of Metra riders (other than the ME in the city, and other than Ravenswood and Hyde Park there aren't enough of them) paying the fares. O'Halloran is from Orland Park, which isn't poverty territory, and got the benefit of the rebuilding of the Southwest Service.

[trainman8119]

Here is the dope as I understand it. First, apparently Mike Madigan called Clifford about hiring or rehiring someone. Clifford allegedly told him to f&*%# off. Shortly thereafter, Dick Durbin called and told him how things work and if you want money for Metra, play ball. Clifford told him fu*% you. You can believe that or not, however, I find it interesting that about two days after this rumor surfaced, Clifford was suddenly "under performance review" everyone heard about. Also, the raises you may have or have not heard about for management (which is deserved, by the way) were championed by O'Halloran, who supposedly promised some said raises. Clifford let it sit on his desk and would not approve them, further infurorating O'Halloran who then led the charge to oust him. As for those who believe that Clifford did well in his reform, think again. His reform was bringing in overpriced consultants to do the job he was hired to do (many from California, no doubt), hiring more college kids from the outside who have no common sense clue on what they are doing, and walking around like the pompus ass he is. Many, many are ecstatic he is gone, but like many taxpayers aren't too happy with the $$$ involved. Most would have been satisfied giving him his contract, and maybe a couple of bucks for his trouble. However, most are incensed about the $300,000 no job find clause.

I do find it interesting how close to the money Pagano allegedly stole is the amount settled on ($400,000 plus). I guess there are different ways to steal money...in some cases it is unacceptable and others it is championed.

[artthouwill]

So Clifford has to hire a friend/relative of a pol so that his agency can get funding? Like I said earlier,.patronage is not okay if the other guys -(and not me/us) benefit from it.

[Busjack]

...

I do find it interesting how close to the money Pagano allegedly stole is the amount settled on ($400,000 plus). I guess there are different ways to steal money...in some cases it is unacceptable and others it is championed.

I guess the difference is that Clifford didn't forge O'Halloran's signature. Sounds like a good chunk of the money was hush money, and not just settling the contract. Update: Tribune editorial has it at least $475K and maybe up to $750K, and implies that a bus person shouldn't have run a railroad.

But let's see if Metra is like CTA and hires some political hack to replace Clifford.

[trainman8119]

Rumor mill has some guy who was Pagano's lawyer is O'Halloran's choice. I'll take that with a grain of salt right now, but who ever it is you can bet the house there will be high level politics involved.

The Trib doesn't imply it, they come right out and say it.

[Busjack]

Rumor mill has some guy who was Pagano's lawyer is O'Halloran's choice. I'll take that with a grain of salt right now, but who ever it is you can bet the house there will be high level politics involved.

The Trib doesn't imply it, they come right out and say it.

Both of which get to the same question whether it takes a train guy to run Metra or it is going to be a political hack. Some lawyer who tried to grease the rails for Pagano's family (presumably) isn't a train guy, unless because he rode the 7:54.

Of course, the MTA Act says that the Executive Director of the CTA is supposed to have experience in the transit industry, but apparently the last one was Alf Savage. Claypool is nothing but a political hack, but not from the Stroger machine.

[Busjack]

Today, Metra can't get equipment out on the Pacific North Line (apparently formerly the Union Pacific) or manpower out on the BNSF (but that's apparently employees of BNSF).

Didn't take long for things to go into the toilet in the odd cars.

[Busjack]

I guess the difference is that Clifford didn't forge O'Halloran's signature. Sounds like a good chunk of the money was hush money, and not just settling the contract....

More recent Tribune article saying that The 14-page agreement includes a "mutual confidentiality" clause in

which board members and Clifford agree they will not "disclose the terms or any other circumstance relating to the negotiation of this agreement."

Expected, and probably does come within a FOIA exception, but as the article points out, bad use of taxpayer money. It isn't like he founded The Men's Warehouse.

[artthouwill]

When did the UP North become the Pacific North? Metra still shows Union Pacific North on its website.

[Busjack]

When did the UP North become the Pacific North? Metra still shows Union Pacific North on its website.

In yesterday's Chicago Breaking News headlines. Not the body of the story. But seeing the headline on the home page, I wondered why the Trib. had something about delays that would appear to be in California.

[trainman8119]

In yesterday's Chicago Breaking News headlines. Not the body of the story. But seeing the headline on the home page, I wondered why the Trib. had something about delays that would appear to be in California.

Welll ???

[trainman8119]

Where the hell is the Inspector General in all of this and why would he/she allow it ?????

[Busjack]

Where the hell is the Inspector General in all of this and why would he/she allow it ?????

Even if an inspector general has jurisdiction, the ultimate decision is the board's. There may be a whistle for an inspector general to blow, but that would be about the end of it.

Also, from my experience, any inspector general only seems interested in contractors. An inspector general might embarrass a county board member or executive who appointed the Metra board member, but that would be about it.

The only real answer is that this could give the incompetent General Assembly another opportunity to micromanage Metra,* but not cure any inherent problem in the 4 transit agencies. A legislative committee may have the power to ask the question notwithstanding the contract and compel an answer,** but you can't expect anything constructive out of this legislature.

Update: Also note when someone wants the CTA President out, the Mayor (Kruesi/Daley, or Rodriguez/Emanuel) gave him another city job. The Metra board does not have city jobs to give.

______

*As implied (or whatever) from former Sen. Garrett's remarks in the Tribune.

** Based on the theory that Metra and any other state instrumentality is a creation of the legislature.

[Busjack]

....A legislative committee may have the power to ask the question notwithstanding the contract and compel an answer,** but you can't expect anything constructive out of this legislature.

Tribune now states that the House is thinking about such a committee, but would need Mikey's permission.

[Busjack]

Looks like the Tribune editorial board finally figured it out, including the hush money, the political mess that is the 4 transit boards, and the lack of transit expertise. Note that I mentioned hush money about 4 days earlier.

[trainman8119]

Looks like the Tribune editorial board finally figured it out, including the hush money, the political mess that is the 4 transit boards, and the lack of transit expertise. Note that I mentioned hush money about 4 days earlier.

I think the hush money was kind of obvious, but it is nice to see that both the Trib and The Daily Herald are pounding them on this.

Doesn't Clifford look creepy in that picture, or just the pitiful fake slob he really is ?

[Busjack]

I think the hush money was kind of obvious, but it is nice to see that both the Trib and The Daily Herald are pounding them on this.

Doesn't Clifford look creepy in that picture, or just the pitiful fake slob he really is ?

I suppose the Trib could have Photoshopped out the crow's feet.

Basically, any politician looks creepy, and I suggest staying away from CEOs who do not, since they are being sneaky. Again, I know of one, but that was in the private sector.

As I implied before, the real question is whether Deb Mell (and Franks and Harris) are going to do anything about it, especially since the earlier article said they needed Mikey's permission, but you reported the rumor that this started with Mikey wanting patronage.

[trainman8119]

I suppose the Trib could have Photoshopped out the crow's feet.

Basically, any politician looks creepy, and I suggest staying away from CEOs who do not, since they are being sneaky. Again, I know of one, but that was in the private sector.

As I implied before, the real question is whether Deb Mell (and Franks and Harris) are going to do anything about it, especially since the earlier article said they needed Mikey's permission, but you reported the rumor that this started with Mikey wanting patronage.

So if Mikey says no, then I think we'll know, won't we.

[Busjack]

So if Mikey says no, then I think we'll know, won't we.

If Mikey actually comes out and says no publicly. Question is whether the legislature, as it is often want to do, can find a way to shove this under the carpet.