Harassment enough to Dump Madigan?

There are political watchers eager to see Michael Madigan dumped from his many positions of political power who would be overjoyed if all the allegations of sexual harassment were to build up into something that gave the all-powerful “Mr. Speaker” the nudge out the door.

MADIGAN: Ultimate target of harassment

Yet a part of me is skeptical that such a tactic will achieve any success.

IN FACT, EVEN if it turned out to be that Madigan was somehow dumped from his Democratic Party chairmanship and his House speaker role, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that the ultimate victors were the kind of people who think too much is being made of the harassment issue.

The activists who think they’ll achieve some level of success with a “Dump Madigan” type of campaign could find themselves (and all the rest of us) with someone more repulsive (and blatantly sexist) in a position of powerful.

The issue of political people behaving in a harassing manner toward women gained a bit more attention this week when it became known that Madigan’s long-time chief of staff in the Illinois Legislature was facing allegations of harassment.

Allegations were made Tuesday morning, and within a few hours, Madigan demanded the resignation of Timothy Mapes from all the political posts he held that made him a top-level aide to the House speaker.

MAPES: Out of a job for misbehavior

SOME WANT TO see this as another blow to Madigan, who earlier this year had to terminate the political party employment of the brother of the alderman from the ward Madigan lives in – on account of the fact he couldn’t take “no” for an answer to his repeated advances towards a woman who worked on Madigan’s Democratic Party staff.

Some might be willing to see these incidents as ones in which Madigan “handled” problematic situations by firing individuals who misbehaved towards women. Others want to say Madigan only acted because he faced public scrutiny and would have preferred to have done nothing.

QUINN: His brother lost Madigan job

In fact, just this week, attorneys for Madigan filed a legal motion seeking to have dismissed the lawsuit that was filed earlier this year by the woman who was harassed by the aldermanic brother.

I don’t doubt that Madigan – who doesn’t, as of yet, have anybody making misbehavior allegations against himself – wishes this issue would go away, and probably is hoping that public interest in such gauche behavior eventually will die down.

DUNKIN: Facing his own allegations

BUT I ALSO can see where the “other side” of this issue isn’t people who oppose harassment but is actually people who think there is NO harassment and would openly try to fight off all these allegations being made instead of trying to address the issue.

I can’t help but notice the case of Ken Dunkin. He’s the former Illinois House member who managed to tick off Madigan and other Democrats that they, in a sense, fired him. They ran Juliana Stratton to run against him in 2016 and she won – giving her the kind of public attention that now makes her the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor come the Nov. 6 election.

Gov. Bruce Rauner tried to score some political points for himself by picking Dunkin to serve on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District board – a post he began serving in Thursday.

Yet now there are allegations of Dunkin himself behaving like a cad during his legislative days, meaning the guy whom Republicans were supposed to use to take pot-shots at Dems will now wind up reflecting badly upon themselves.

WHEN IT SEEMS Rauner tried asking for Dunkin’s resignation, Dunkin’s response was as blunt and rude a “no way” as he ever gave to Madigan.

RAUNER: Will he get tagged w/ charges?

Could it be that Madigan has the influence to get misbehavers out of office? Whereas Rauner doesn’t. And others of an ideological leaning that makes them believe sexual harassment is a non-issue also aren’t going to side up on this issue?

I’m not saying Madigan is politically safe, nor am I necessarily defending his behavior – which borders on apathy toward the issue rather than any real sense of wrongdoing.

All I know is that I suspect this is an issue where many people are going to go out of their way to cover their own behinds. And the big losers, most likely, will be those individuals most likely to face harassing behavior!

  -30-

Not a surprise Dunkin in target sights of his would-be Democratic allies

There’s something people ought to keep in mind – Democrats often are a cantankerous sort who can’t agree on much. They’re not of the single-mindset that Republicans are capable of being ideologically when it comes to uniting on issues.

OBAMA: Reminding us he's a Chicagoan?

So anyone who is surprised that the president of the United States would get himself involved in a state senate campaign from a district representing the part of Chicago that Barack Obama himself used to live and work in doesn’t comprehend the ways of partisan politics – particularly locally.

I’M SURE THE fact that Obama is publicly supporting Juliana Stratton for the Illinois House seat now held by Ken Dunkin is merely the president’s way of saying he hasn’t forgotten his long-time home city – and still has interests there.

Although some people are acting all shocked and appalled (and the Chicago Tribune itself took an editorial stance almost tsk-tsking Obama) at the fact that the president produced campaign ads praising the merits of Stratton.

I haven’t seen any spots where Obama trashes Dunkin – although the implication is that the president’s refusal to give a knee-jerk endorsement to the incumbent is, in and of itself, a trashing.

One more public than that moment a month ago when Obama publicly singled out Dunkin during his address to the Legislature in a moment interpreted by many as the president publicly holding Dunkin up to ridicule.

DUNKIN: Spanked publicly by president

NEWS REPORTS INDICATE that Obama got involved in the campaign at the request of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, who hasn’t been the least bashful about bashing Dunkin – particularly since Dunkin hasn’t hesitated to publicly criticize Madigan on so many issues.

All of which has resulted in the desire to dump Dunkin from the Democratic caucus in exchange for someone who will be more supportive of the caucus’ larger goals.

Admittedly, the president usually doesn’t get this involved. Usually, his endorsement for a local post goes as low as the governor (Obama backed Pat Quinn in 2010 and ’14) and the mayor (letting it be known in 2011 and ’15 that we should back his one-time chief of staff).

Now I’m sure Dunkin is telling himself the voters won’t be swayed. They’re local people who will see this as some sort of meddling, and perhaps they will turn on Obama himself.

GARCIA: Got similar treatment as a senator

BUT DUNKIN WOULD have to be kidding himself if he doesn’t think this could have some harm.

Because it reminds me of the 1998 election cycle when Jesus Garcia sought re-election to a third term in the Illinois Senate. Only to lose the Democratic primary to Antonio Muñoz – who took a solid 54 percent of the vote.

In that case, it was then-Mayor Richard M. Daley who decided he’d rather have a more compliant individual in the state Senate than Garcia – who established back when he was an alderman that he wasn’t going to be a Daley lackey.

The then-existing Hispanic Democratic Organization (a group of Latinos that did Daley’s political bidding) would up working the legislative district so intensely that they turned out the vote for Muñoz, leading Garcia to a loss and his period out of electoral politics until he won his current Cook County Board post back in 2010.

NOW I’M SURE some will point out the fact that several HDO officials were later indicted, convicted and did prison time for some of their political activities. To my knowledge, there’s nothing as sinister involved with Obama’s willingness to back Dunkin.

STRATTON: A presidential beneficiary

Although some of the intimidation tactics being employed in that South Side legislative race aren’t the sorts of things people like to talk about in polite company.

But as author Finley Peter Dunne’s bartender character Mr. Dooley oft said, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Perhaps the outspoken Dunkin shouldn’t be surprised that the president himself would feel compelled to give him the back of the hand in response.

And as for the president getting himself involved? There’s always the words of “wisdom” of one-time House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who informed us that, “All politics is local.”

  -30-

Should we care about ’17 budget when we still don’t have one for ’16?

Gov. Bruce Rauner gave us his budget proposal for state government’s 2017 fiscal year (which begins July 1), yet I have to confess to not caring in the least about the specifics of what he put forth.

These two still can't ...

For we’re now in month eight of a 12-month year of Fiscal ’16 without a balanced budget for our state government.

WE SEE THE ineptitude of our government officials to do the one basic duty that underlies the entire operation of our state. Why should we think the upcoming fiscal year will be any different than the current one?

... see eye to eye on budget issues

We also have to see now that the totally absurd, ridiculous conspiracy theory based in paranoia that some predicted early on has a very real chance of coming true.

Illinois Fiscal 2016 (which ends June 30) likely will become the year that Illinois government went without a budget. Which resulted in serious catastrophe for certain state agencies and programs.

While some functions of state government have court mandates to keep operating regardless of the state Constitution’s requirement that a balanced budget be in place before any money can be spent, there also are those that do not.

OF COURSE, MANY of those are the social service programs and the funding for higher education that enables colleges and universities to operate (no, the tuition charged to students is not the primary funding source that keeps those institutions alive, no matter what some students think).

DUNKIN: Dared to challenge the Speaker

The programs that some people of a certain ideological bent want to believe are a drain on government funding are the ones that are going down the drain. I don’t doubt some people are hard-hearted enough to think we’re better off without them.

I, however, am of the belief that our governments (at all levels) have certain obligations that must be fulfilled. Doing nothing amounts to failure.

Maintaining a government that does nothing serves no purpose – unless we really feel the need to puff up the egos of those officials by giving them titles and letting them run around thinking they’re all important.

SO OUR SITUATION is that the governor is presenting a budget plan for this year, when his plan for last year went over so badly that nothing happened. Even Rauner himself conceded the irony of the situation prior to giving his budget address.

STRATTON: Is her campaign political payback?

I really don’t know how this situation is going to resolve itself. Will we have some sort of break that causes our government officials to work together – regardless of political party?

Fat chance! No matter what President Barack Obama said to the Illinois Legislature during his address to them in Springfield earlier this month, we have partisan beasts at the Illinois Statehouse.

We’re at the point where our political people are locked into their positions so tightly that there’s no way either side can alter its stance without looking foolish. Also, I suspect that by this time it is important for both sides not just to win, but that they be able to crush their opponent and dance around their rotting corpse while singing out, “I win, I win, I win!”

IT’S BEING REFLECTED in the local elections this year. State Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, the legislator who dared to thwart Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s legislative control, is facing a serious challenge in the Democratic primary by Juliana Stratton – director of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Center for Public Safety and Justice.

GONZALES: Can he dump almighty speaker?

While Rauner’s financial influence is bolstering the campaign of Jason Gonzales – who is showing the unmitigated gall to run against Madigan himself in the Legislature’s 22^nd district on the Southwest Side and nearby suburbs.

Personally, I think both incumbents will wind up prevailing – particularly in the Illinois House 22^nd, where the locals think it gives them more influence to have Madigan himself as their local representative. Even though the speaker is so absorbed with larger issues, I suspect he doesn’t give much thought to those local concerns.

And in the end, we may wind up moving into Fiscal ’17 without a budget. If we let our political paranoia run amok, we may also get budget-less fiscals ’18 and ’19. Now that’s a real nightmare.

  -30-

‘Queen’ Dunkin trash talk not all that surprising, nor is his opposition

I’ve been trying to ignore the rants and rages that have taken place in recent days against state Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago; mainly because many of them seem to be coming from political people who are jealous that they didn’t have the initiative to grab at a piece of political power like he did.

DUNKIN: Inspiring political jealousy?

Dunkin, of course, is the representative who earlier this week refused to vote in accordance with the other Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives on a measure that wound up giving Gov. Bruce Rauner a political victory in the ongoing spat with the Democrat-led Legislature.

IT SEEMS THERE already are two Democrats willing to publicly say they’re challenging Dunkin for his legislative post in the March primary elections.

Supposedly, one legislator took Dunkin’s nameplate on the Illinois House floor and tossed it over to the Republican side of the chamber – saying they could have him now.

I’ve lost track of the number of attacks I have read that make reference to “Queen Dunkin” serving at the beck and call of “King Rauner.” I’m sure someone thinks that making a borderline homophobic putdown of Dunkin is oh so clever.

It strikes me as being more of a lame joke. But I do comprehend the fact that Dunkin, who in the past has offended his alleged Democratic allies by deciding not to show up for certain key votes, think that he is selling them out.

BECAUSE IT IS only with their collective unity that the 71 Democrats in the 118-member Legislature have that “veto proof” majority that enables them to thumb their collective nose at the governor and his talk of “turnabout agendas” and government reforms that really are nothing more than telling labor unions to “stuff it!”

MEEKS: Can Dunkin advance this far?

Dunkin all by himself can refuse to support them, making it possible for there to be movement on an issue.

That’s a lot of power, similar to the thrill that James Meeks used to feel back during his decade in the Illinois Senate whenever he would refuse to support the party line of the Democrats who voted to send him to Springfield in the first place.

Meeks, of course, also has been a Rauner backer, and it got him a state cabinet post – Illinois State Board of Education president, to be exact.

I DON’T KNOW if Dunkin expects some sort of similar appointment in the future should one of the challenging Democrats (one of whom has ties to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle) actually manage to win the primary.

RAUNER: The short-term winner?

But I would sense that Dunkin is now the lone member of the Legislature’s black caucus whom the general public (or at least those who are political geeks who follow this sort of minutia) actually pays attention to. It must be quite an ago boost to shoot above the general anonymity level of a state legislator from Chicago.

So do I view Dunkin as a political sell-out? Or more just as a guy who’s taking advantage of a political opportunity to advance himself?

Perhaps the real question is to wonder why more legislators haven’t done the same.

AS FOR WHETHER Dunkin can be defeated, it will be tough. Too many legislators are able to benefit from knee-jerk reactions amongst voters to keep sending them back. It won’t help the cause for removal if Dunkin continues to have multiple challengers – they could wind up undercutting the effort of those people absolutely determined to “Dump Dunkin” at all costs.

Besides, let’s be honest and concede that organized labor doesn’t have the best of histories when it comes to African-American people. All too often, the unions were more interested in protecting their established interests to bother including them.

So the idea that some black voters might have a touch of respect for someone who’d be willing to tell labor unions to “stuff it?” Anything is possible.

  -30-

Will political retribution be swift and merciless? Or long and drawn-out!

It wasn’t a surprise that Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives failed to override the veto by Gov. Bruce Rauner – they have a veto-proof majority when EVERYBODY shows up and votes in unison.

DRURY: Dem with nerve to vote 'no'

But the absence of state Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, when the Illinois House met on Wednesday literally left them short.

SO WHY WOULD Democrats and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, even bother with a vote?

There was a Friday deadline for action. But the vote is more about putting people on the record – legislators were forced to take a stand “aye” or “nea” with some wimpier-types deciding to vote “present” instead.

Democrats who want to continue to have the financial support of Madigan and the Illinois Democratic Party’s electoral apparatus had to vote for an override, while Republicans who want to have a chance at getting campaign cash from Rauner knew better than to vote against it.

The bill in question was a measure that would allow for labor disputes involving state government employees to be resolved by an arbitrator. Rauner hates that idea because he claims those arbitrators are not elected officials themselves.

HE’S RIGHT. THEY’RE not. They are experts in labor law who by not being beholden to electoral interests are capable of putting the issues of any particular labor dispute into their proper legal context.

FRANKS: A usual Madigan thorn

Which might not be something that Rauner would want because one of his priorities is undermining the authority of labor unions within state government. To the point where Rauner made it known prior to the vote that he was watching the votes of eight non-Chicago Democrats to see if they would stick with Madigan (five of them did, so now they’ll get GOP abuse).

Anyway, 68 legislators wound up voting “yea” – three short of the 71 needed to override Rauner’s objections. Dunkin, in his absence, was one of three Dems who didn’t back Madigan, as were Jack Franks, D-Marengo, and Scott Drury, D-Highwood.


Springfield-based legislators Poe ...

Franks voted “present” (he’s always a thorn  in Madigan's heel; it’s a wonder at times he doesn’t just become a Republican), while Drury actually had the nerve to vote “no.” He told reporter-types at the Statehouse he objects to the fact that the measure would prevent state workers from being able to go on strike – a right he called “sacrosanct.”

WHILE THE TWO representatives from Springfield – Tim Butler and Raymond Poe – both were the Republicans who didn’t back Rauner by voting “present.” Although that was more of a stance than that of state Rep. Terri Bryant of Murphysboro in Southern Illinois.


... and Butler didn't back Rauner

The Capitol Fax newsletter reported that she was in the House chambers at the time of the vote, but somehow didn’t hit the proper button that would have cast a stance.

Bryant herself is a former state employee and member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, while Butler and Poe both have many, many members of that union who live in their district.

Voting for a measure that would be perceived as anti-union could wind up harming them when they have to seek re-election in the future. Not even Rauner’s campaign contributions might not be enough to help them prevail against a well-funded Democrat – which is something that Madigan might be able to find.

THEN AGAIN, WHAT will happen to the Democrats who didn’t back Madigan? The speaker himself refused to say this week that Dunkin was on his private “list” of persona non grata because he didn’t show up (Dunkin’s Facebook page had pictures of him in New York City).

DUNKIN: The 'no-show'

Although it was interesting to hear the boasts that if Dunkin had shown up, he could have twisted the arms of everybody in his caucus and got the 71 votes! From anybody but Madigan, I wouldn’t believe it. From “Mr. Speaker,” anything is possible.

So this issue moves forward, sort of. Because the end result is that the attempt by Democrats to claim they were making a concession to Rauner’s union opposition (the bill would have prevented strikes in the future) goes nowhere.

Which means nothing changes. Except that now, Madigan and Rauner can start punishing those people who wouldn't align with their view. Which means that we, the public, wind up losing!

  -30-