Metra Governance

[trainman8119]

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.

Question is, do they really want to hide it this time ? And if Clifford were to talk, would anybody really believe him anyway. I think his cred, if he really had any, has taken a beating in all of this, especially with the fare hikes. And if someone has a hard on for Mikey, what better way to attack. If Mikey wants something real bad, say pension reform, what better way to get it than to trade for a crummy Metra investigation which, I don't think would harm him one bit.

[Busjack]

The Daily Herald has a list of stuff fairly obviously wrong about Metra that could have led to the rift with Clifford, although I'll bet probably did not. It also has the cover about the "inspector general is going to look into the hiring improprieties."

Update: Since there is all the talk in the article about "avoiding an expensive lawsuit became part of the rationale for the golden parachute" one has to wonder what Clifford had on them. As various legislators have pointed out, if it was just over his job performance, the board could have just paid him to sit until Feb. 2014, which might have cost them maybe $170K, not potentially over $700K.

[Busjack]

...

Update: Since there is all the talk in the article about "avoiding an expensive lawsuit became part of the rationale for the golden parachute" one has to wonder what Clifford had on them. As various legislators have pointed out, if it was just over his job performance, the board could have just paid him to sit until Feb. 2014, which might have cost them maybe $170K, not potentially over $700K.

Again, the Daily Herald is the only source with some inkling of what really happened.

As far as paying off to avoid a potential lawsuit, today's article says:

O'Halloran told the Daily Herald Tuesday that Clifford accused officials of retaliating against him for refusing to make political hires by not renewing his three-year contract, which expires February 2014.

In short, while he wouldn't have any right to more than his contract if the board just let it run out, in effect he is raising a Shakman decree* argument that they refused to renew him in retaliation for not going along with patronage. So, to avoid that litigation, Metra paid him off.

The article also mentioned controversy between Clifford and the board on negotiating with minority groups over the Englewood flyover.

The facts might trickle out at a rate comparable to Chinese water torture, but I still think with little effect. Also, the Tribune seems to get diverted on such things as abolishing the discount on 10 ride tickets, but as apparently the Metra and CTA boards don't realize, it is the board's responsibility to vote on that, instead of rubber stamping staff and then, in Metra's case, blaming staff.

______

*If anyone is interested in legal background, start here. While Shakman technically only applies to the City of Chicago, the general principle that public employment, except for confidential assistants to elected officials, must be free of political considerations applies throughout the U.S., not that one can usually tell in this region.

Today's Mr. Boffo may also be of interest. Maybe Mr. Boffo is portraying one of sw's "favorite" politicians.

[trainman8119]

The Trib was basically stating O'Halloran's comments on why they let Clifford go. O'Halloran was giving reasons

on "why his (Clifford) performance" was being reviewed. It is beginning to look like the rumor swirling about

Clifford's alleged conversations with Madigan and Durbin might have some teeth. I still don't think when this

is over, we will really know what is going on. I still don't understand the lawsuit mumbo jumbo they claim

Clifford was hanging over their head. I agree that the board had power to overrule all of Clifford's decisions,

so he can't be totally to blame for those things happening. His contract wasn't going to be renewed, I don't

see where he had much reason to sue. I think the potential interesting hearing will be tomorrow. Will Mell and Franks have the cahones to really dig into this ?

[Busjack]

.. I still don't understand the lawsuit mumbo jumbo they claim Clifford was hanging over their head. ..

My Shakman reference sums it up. Maybe to dissect, he was alleging that his continued employment was conditioned on granting political favors, which essentially violates his First Amendment rights. Then he was alleging retaliation for asserting that someone was exerting political influence, which is as bad as discrimination. For instance, if you are a white male fired for standing up for black females, that's retaliation and a violation of the civil rights laws.

Thus, while he didn't have a right to have the contract renewed, he does have a right not to be discriminated against on this basis.

However, by signing a settlement agreement for consideration* (in this case apparently 3 times more than to which he was entitled under the original contract), both parties are now barred from bringing this up in court. Thus, the issue whether anyone did in fact exert political influence on him won't be litigated, although there are claims that Metra turned them over to the Executive Inspector General.

While the agreement doesn't prevent them from being subpoenaed by the RTA or the legislative committee, it appears that neither O'Halloran or Clifford is being very forthcoming.

_____________

*Undoubtedly the spur for this severance agreement is that there has to be consideration (i.e. mutual give and take) for a contract, and a past obligation is not consideration for a future promise. Thus, in the normal employment context, severance is not of right, so payment of severance in the case of a layoff may be conditioned on not suing the employer. However, the reports in this case indicate that Clifford's existing contract already provided for severance, so the Board had to give additional consideration, although $1 would have been sufficient. This is similar to the theory that athletes' contracts may be extended, but Scottie Pippen just couldn't simply get a raise.

Too much legal theory for one post.

[Busjack]

The one truism from today's Tribune:

"I'm satisfied with what I heard," Director John Frega said, adding that he believed the RTA was limited in what it could demand. "The RTA has oversight authority, but it's a toothless authority."

Also, as usual, the headline on the Tribune home page implied that the Tribune had something new, but appaently there hasn't been any new revelations since about noon yesterday. It least it is now up to speed compared to the Daily Herald yesterday.

I certainly wonder with all the stink in this state, when the government entities are going to implode.

[Busjack]

A new goodie from the Sun-Times:

The legal underpinning of that action would have been a “whistleblower” complaint, one of Clifford’s attorneys, Michael Shakman, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Remember, I mentioned the Shakman decree, above. Same Shakman.

[trainman8119]

A new goodie from the Sun-Times:

The legal underpinning of that action would have been a “whistleblower” complaint, one of Clifford’s attorneys, Michael Shakman, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Remember, I mentioned the Shakman decree, above. Same Shakman.

Help me out a little bit here. Why would the Attorney General not be investigating any of this as a shakedown on the part of Clifford. One thing that has been pretty clear is that he demanded payment (ie, new contract OR buyout) or he was going to talk, and he wanted more than he got. Sounds like HE was shaking down the board...the board turned over his complaint to the Inspector General (whatever that really means). So what if he talked...that is what we still don't know, if it was poilitics, in this town, I don't think it would have made a bit of difference...but as usual, the board has no balls to call the bluff.

[Busjack]

Help me out a little bit here. Why would the Attorney General not be investigating any of this as a shakedown on the part of Clifford. ....

1. There is nothing illegal in threatening litigation. From even what O'Halloran said, such litigation would have had a basis.

2. Let's see: the Attorney General is named Madigan, and a person [who you identified as the subject of one of the rumors] who reportedly used his influence to attempt to get a friend a raise is named Madigan. And unless it is a corporation accused of violating the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, Lisa really isn't interested in law enforcement. Usually, if it is just a criminal matter (such as a corrupt member of a south suburban school board) she says only the State's Attorney of the county has jurisdiction.

3. Apparently the Metra board is easy to intimidate by threatening litigation, as indicated by stories that offshore "patent assertion entities" are using nuisance litigation to clean up, including $50,000 from Metra.

[trainman8119]

Got it, I think. Should be ol Anita Alvarez. Basis or not, still sounds like a shakedown to me...but our useless laws are just that way sometimes.

Thanks

[Busjack]

...Basis or not, still sounds like a shakedown to me...but our useless laws are just that way sometimes.

Thanks

This is common in the private sector. Some employee's review comes up and she is put on double secret probation with another review in two months. Everyone but the employee knows she is going to be fired after the second review, but then she mouths off about some kind of discrimination (probably disability) so suddenly the manager calls her in and says "we'll pay you 3 weeks per year if you sign this in a week and get out; otherwise take your chances on the review." Employee eventually signs. Employee then says that the settlement proves her point, and then gripes that former employer has breached the contract, but the statute of limitations passes (6 years) and that's the end of it.

This isn't any different (other than Clifford was better lawyered up). It won't be determined in a court whether Clifford's claims have a factual basis, but given that Metra's attorney has admitted enough that the dispute could have gone to trial if Clifford didn't sign, that's called an accord and satisfaction, perfectly legal. If one couldn't settle potential or existing litigation, CTA v. NABI would still be going on, and instead of 5% of the jurors called each day to the Daley Center being sent to a courtroom, 100% would be. That isn't extortion.

[Busjack]

In related news, the Tribune indicated that there was more heat at the legislative hearing, but the questions still are whether the legislature is going to subpoena anyone or anything, and, of course, whether the legislators are really interested in exposing the political influence question, including Madigan's so called disclosure, when, for instance, Mell seems more interested in her hereditary dukedom, but she first has to be dubbed by Sir Rahm.

To get back to trainman's point, Kass has a sarcastic column about "Oh Lisa, Save Us." However, it sounded more like the Yom Kippur concluding prayer than his Greek heritage. Will probably do as much good. And, of course, the point is investigating Daddy and O'Halloran, not Clifford.

[Busjack]

Just heard on the radio a reference to this Sun-Times article that the Madigan doo doo gets deeper, in that the memo indicates that Madigan asked that Clifford give someone a job and then O’Halloran and board member Larry Huggins were concerned that failure to comply with Madigan’s requests would “result in Metra losing future funding.”

Hence, the story gets much closer to the rumor trainman reported, although at the moment only involving Madigan, not Durbin. But there may be a certain connect between this story and the initial report that O'Halloran was interested in someone who was better at getting funding.

[busfan2847]

Read the Clifford Memo at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-read-alex-cliffords-memo-to-the-metra-board-20130712,0,3542927.htmlpage

It is pretty damming!

[Busjack]

Read the Clifford Memo at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-read-alex-cliffords-memo-to-the-metra-board-20130712,0,3542927.htmlpage

It is pretty damming!

The news reports later this evening, including the Tribune one to which this was appended, indicated that Metra finally turned it over to the legislative committee, despite prior refusals to do so.

Also, it is pretty clear to my trained eye that Clifford's attorneys edited it before he submitted it to the board.

There seems now to be enough evidence that further hearings aren't necessary, but the question is whether anyone is going to do anything about the Metra board members and (ha ha) Madigan. Maybe Quinn has a way to throw the board members under the proverbial SWS Train 829, but I am not counting on it.

In the meantime, I see that O'Halloran has posted as of Wednesday a Press Release on how he was going to refocus Metra's priorities. Unlike the CTA using this tactic, apparently it did not get any play.

Finally, we have the recurring theme that some board violated the RTA Act. Didn't I frequently mention another board that frequently violates the MTA Act? Some things are too consistent in Illinois.

[trainman8119]

...

In the meantime, I see that O'Halloran has posted as of Wednesday a Press Release on how he was going to refocus Metra's priorities. Unlike the CTA using this tactic, apparently it did not get any play.

What a pile of doggie doo-doo !!

[mkohut]

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

I think this will ruin Daughter Lisa chance of becoming Governor

[Busjack]

I think this will ruin Daughter Lisa chance of becoming Governor

The Sun-Times had a column to that effect.

Probably more telling is that she isn't fit to be Attorney General, given:

“If the inspector general is investigating, the attorney general has indicated he should do it quickly and thoroughly and get it to a law enforcement agency, including the attorney general if that’s the appropriate agency, as soon as possible,” said Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for the attorney general.

As I noted a couple of days ago, no indication from Lisa that the Attorney General's office should be investigating. Or even that Lisa wants to face the press publicly.

In fact, I am surprised that Mikey let a Mell get the document.

[mkohut]

Here is something to think about.If Mell daughter gets his dad seat.

Her seat needs to be replace.Who has the say over her replacement?

[Busjack]

Here is something to think about.If Mell daughter gets his dad seat.

Her seat needs to be replace.Who has the say over her replacement?

That's easy. It is the ward committeemen in the district, most of which is Dick Mell (Tribune).

Supposedly there is deal that some Hispanic gets the House seat if Deb gets the city council seat.

This is opposed to Emanuel going through the paces of having a screening committee and the final say on the city council seat.

However, given that suddenly Deb has the opportunity of being Ms. Clean compared to the Madigans, and also is a vote for her getting married, I'm not sure why she wants to jump, except being a city councilperson for life must be better than being a state rep.

[mkohut]

You also have to think about Deb Mell spot on the committee

[Busjack]

You also have to think about Deb Mell spot on the committee

That doesn't count for much. I bet Jack Franks is the main one behind the committee going forward.

[ctrabs74]

Yikes... And I thought Philadelphia politics was a giant cluster-blank... An outsider needs a map just to figure out who the heck is in line for what in Chicago.

[Busjack]

Yikes... And I thought Philadelphia politics was a giant cluster-blank... An outsider needs a map just to figure out who the heck is in line for what in Chicago.

I don't know if the Machine is still around Philadelphia, but Chicago politics, and as imposed on the rest of Illinois, continues to be a combination of family power combined with corruption of either power or money, reinforced by gerrymandering and resistance to any voting rights reform or term limits. The maybe surprising thing is that unlike partisan gridlock in Congress, the one party machine in Illinois is gridlocked on anything other than screwing the public. Blagojevich (Dick Mell's son-in-law) was different only in that he was stupid enough to dare the feds to listen to his telephone calls, knowing that they already had. Mike Madigan already has the standard defense of "There's nothing wrong with what I did and I didn't personally gain from it," which didn't work for Blago. The only way anybody goes to jail is if the U.S. Attorney brings the case, and in Madigan's case, you know his stepdaughter the Attorney General is not going to prosecute him.

The Mr. Boffo I posted a couple of days ago is an accurate representation of Illinois.

And the "in line" is only a reflection of nepotism and denying the voters a choice. Long history of that with the Lipinskis, the Strogers, etc.

[Busjack]

Back to the news: It appears that disclosing the memorandum Friday night was sufficient to get it out of the Monday news, except the Daily Herald. But beside their point about a Madigan in law being on the RTA staff, it also shows that nothing is going to be done about the underlying problem: The RTA only assesses the claim whether the settlement was cheaper than the threatened lawsuit, which of course it undoubtedly was. Then the article said that "The Illinois Office of the Executive Inspector General is conducting its own probe that will examine if there was any ethical misconduct." The Inspector General hasn't said peep yet, and note above the statement from the AG's spokesperson about if the IG ever refers it to a prosecuting agency.

And, add in the Sun-Times column or blog on "can the gov fire the Metra board?" Today's answer is "not without an IG report and a hearing." That darn pesky IG again.