Chicago Inspector General Under attack by Daley's Sheep

David Hoffman must be doing something correct, because Daley is doing everything he can to undermine the office of the Chicago Inspector General. Daley, do you want ole Alex back again to attack your political enemies? The Alderman need to crack down on the corruption. Patrick McDonough.

]]>The Chicago City Sheep
September 7, 2007
Remember that newly emboldened, courageous and independent Chicago City Council? The one that emerged from the municipal election earlier this year, ready to show Mayor Richard Daley who’s boss? Well, forget it. The sheep — some old ewes and rams, some fledgling lambs — are bleating in near-perfect harmony with the mayor.

If you listened Wednesday, you could hear Daley above the barnyard stampede in which aldermen voted 43-6 to give him what he desires: an Office of Compliance that is separate from the city inspector general he can’t control.

Daley said his newly approved office “demonstrates the commitment to better manage government.” He said this with a straight face.
In truth, the 43-6 vote demonstrates the City Council’s commitment to (a) giving the mayor what he wants, lest he start punishing aldermen who don’t play along, and (b) having someone other than Inspector General David Hoffman police the illicit exercise of clout at City Hall.

Context is everything: Team Daley wants U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen to name anyone but Hoffman to monitor city adherence to a court settlement that prohibits most political hiring and promotions.

City attorneys spent years telling Andersen that City Hall was a clout-free zone — until the conviction of former Daley patronage chief Robert Sorich and three other former officials made all those years of attorneys’ claims look like poorly crafted lies.

Any reasonable person would conclude from that tawdry history that whoever monitors City Hall in the future shouldn’t be from City Hall. But this Office of Compliance is from City Hall. “I don’t believe the federal judge is going to approve this,” Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) said Wednesday, and we all can hope he’s correct.

If and when Andersen assigns the monitoring job to the inspector general, he could use as his reasoning the statement of Ald. Joe Moore (49th) that Daley’s new Office of Compliance “undermines whatever public confidence is left in the ability of this city government to police itself in respect to hiring.”

Fioretti, Moore and four other aldermen — Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Leslie Hairston (5th), Sandi Jackson (7th) and Ricardo Munoz (22nd) — stood alone against Daley’s 43 timid sheep. Good for them.

Aldermen, of course, share Daley’s interest in having City Hall monitor itself. Think about all those departments, all those offices, all those sinecures that for eons have asked “How high?” when an alderman says “Jump.” Why would the sheep want someone as independent as Hoffman asking questions about how all those official conduits of clout hire and promote workers?

Sure, some aldermen will buck the mayor on an occasional safe issue. (Think “big-box” ordinance, with unions threatening to unseat aldermen who supported the mayor.)

But when there’s no outside pressure and the mayor needs something — something as crucial as a fig leaf over City Hall’s frantic desire to keep the inspector general’s office at bay — that’s when the sheep paw the line and say “Baaa.”
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

One Reply to “Chicago Inspector General Under attack by Daley's Sheep”

  1. “Complicity
    September 8th – 1:14 a.m.

    Thanks to Andy Shaw and the rest of the press who are complicit with the mayor in covering up this sham of reform by once again bringing the focus back to such trivial issues like taking your dog to a restaurant or serving foie gras.

    The press seems to have no interest in exposing what a sham our civic ‘leadership’ is. Despite the objections of the IG, the Feds, and Mr. Shackman, those morons on the city council once again punt. And Huberman and the rest of the cronies and apologist for the machine have the balls to call this a meritocracy. Give me a break.

    The Office of Compliance and all the other Orwellian institutions created by this mayor and his council (it’s not ours) and designed with one thing in mind only. Avoid the will of the people they are supposed to serve, and the intent of the law. I only wish I had faith in our judicial system, but sadly, they have been corrupted by politics as well.

    Shame on Mick for including that moron Andy Shaw’s comment which serve only to muddy the waters and distract all of us from the real issue at stake here. Government hiring of civil servants based on merit alone, regardless of their relationship with any local political figure. As witnessed in New Orleans and at Stroger hospital, when you put incompetent folks like Brown or relatives and cronies from the 8th ward whom have no business running a disaster response or qualifications in medical practice, the taxpayers of this country and this county suffer. What the city council did was to attempt to perpetuate a system that a jury of our neighbors described as simply disgusting.

    Congrats to the mayor, those cowardly alderman, and the press for their complicity.”

    “an End Run for the People
    September 8th – 2:26 a.m.

    Are ‘the people’ so truly dim-witted and so easily distracted?

    The histories of our city, county and state elections seem to indicate they are.

    The triple plays of:

    the makers-of-law, (legislators),

    the adjudicators of law, (the courts),

    and the administrators of policies, (executive branch),

    combined with the dismal failures of the ‘voices of the people’, the journalists, both print and broadcast,

    have been extremely effective in convincing the majority of citizens that the will of the people is irrelevant.

    This is evidenced by the fact that, of the total number of citizens ‘qualified’ to vote, at any given point in time, less than 50% are even registered to do so.

    Of those eligible and registered to vote, less than 50% usually show up to cast their votes.

    Thus, about 25%, (of the total number of citizens who could be voting in any given election), actually vote.

    Simple math then tells us that, at most, a mere 12.6%, (of the total number of citizens that could vote), are needed for a candidate to win any given election.

    And this, only in a one-on-one race.

    Call it as it is:

    Our elected officials are being determined by the votes cast by, at most, 1 out of every 5 citizens who could vote.

    What the hell are the other 4 out of 5 citizens doing?

    Answer: nothing.

    What the hell are the other 4 out of 5 citizens thinking?

    Answer: nothing.

    What are the other 4 out of 5 citizens feeling?

    Answer: the pains in their asses from being shafted Daley.

    What will these 4 out of 5 citizens do next?

    Answer: continue to bleed out their asses, complaining about the pain and loss of economic blood, but doing NOTHING to effectively remove those wielding the shafts.


    Answer: because they, the 4 out of 5 citizens who fail in their responsibilities to exercise their Right to Vote, believe in their own impotence.



    A beginning:


    2) Make a list, prior to EVERY election, of the INCUMBENTS.

    3) Bring this list with you when you GO TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.

    4) With few exceptions, DO NOT VOTE for ANY of the names on your list of INCUMBENTS.

    5) When there is only one challenger, VOTE FOR THE CHALLENGER.

    6) When there are 2 or more challengers, then:

    If the INCUMBENT’s name is listed 1st, vote for the CHALLENGER who is listed LAST.

    If the INCUMBENT’s name is NOT listed 1st, vote for the CHALLENGER who IS LISTED FIRST.

    7) Focus on casting your votes with the sole purpose of OUSTING every INCUMBENT.

    8) Make exceptions to this rule sparingly, and with the knowledge in mind that the INCUMBENTS are the people who hold the shaft that has been so deeply thrust up your ass.

    EVERY citizen who has ever thought of running for public office, but has been discouraged by the myriad of ways and means that obstruct free, fair and open elections, should take this opportunity to both run for public office and to encourage the application of the above strategies by each and every one of those 4 out of 5 citizens who have, so far, done NOTHING to help honest people represent them honestly.


Comments are closed.