Was I bought off by the White Sox?

Perhaps I have a disclosure to make – I attended Chicago White Sox Opening Days of 1998 and 1999 courtesy of the ball club.

This particular game view from the 2016 season I paid for all by myself

My brother and I went with tickets that were provided by the team as part of an effort to try to build up more good will amongst the local news media. We sat in one of those private suites whose very existence offends some sports fans, had food and beverages brought to our seats, and to his dying day my brother, Chris, thought that the dessert cart wheeled around in the seventh inning was about the most incredible thing he ever saw in a ballpark.

I BRING THIS up because I’m still not sure what to make of the Chicago Sun-Times report Wednesday about the City Council’s board of ethics, which has made it be known that aldermen will be in big trouble if they accept freebie tickets the team was willing to provide them for Opening Day this season.

It seems that while the price of the ticket is considered minimal, when mixed in with all the luxury amenities that the team was going to provide for the aldermen, it pushes the total value above the $50 standard that they’re not supposed to accept.

I kind of like the idea that the board of ethics is trying to do something to put restrictions on all the freebies and perks that pols are offered. But this is a case where I wonder if it goes too far.

Because I’d hate to think anybody could truly be “bought off” for the price of a ballgame ticket.

ALTHOUGH I’M MORE bothered by the fear that the board of ethics is going to find a lot of chicken-little perks to complain about, while doing nothing to penalize pols who take some more serious payoffs that truly influence their government activity.

Besides, I can’t help but wonder how little good will the White Sox would be obtaining in exchange for letting a few aldermen into the ballpark on Opening Day (April 3 against the Detroit Tigers).

I certainly don’t think they gained much from letting a few reporter-types into the ballpark all those years ago. In fact, I remember the dominant theme of the stories that resulted from those Opening Days was how they had less-than-capacity crowds in attendance.

They let us in for free, and we still wound up finding ways to ding them.

IN MY CASE, I was working for United Press International back then. My then-editor and I actually wrote a column of trivial and gossipy tidbits that caught somebody’s eye.

Hence, our invitation, which my editor had no interest in using. Which is how I wound up getting both of the freebie tickets and taking my brother along.

He wasn’t a White Sox fan, but enjoyed baseball enough that the thought of a live game wasn’t repulsive to him. Particularly since he got to experience the more luxurious amenities of the ballpark now known as Guaranteed Rate Field.

But did I really do something unethical by taking a freebie pair of tickets from the team? I’m sure the board of ethics would argue I’m not an elected official, but might claim the act itself is unproper.

I JUST CAN’T help but think somebody is overthinking this issue way too much.

Although I do admire those aldermen who said they turned down a political perk and went ahead and bought their own tickets for the games on Opening Day.

Actually, the whole situation reminds me of that wisecracking joke reporter-type people often tell about bribes and people trying to influence our news coverage with little gifts.

The mark of a truly professional reporter, we’d joke, is that we take their payoff, then still manage to write something critical.

  -30-

Governing by executive order; does it mean ‘Shut up and do what you’re told’

How far removed are we from the old days when we had government officials who seriously tried to reach a consensus amongst the electorate on the great issues of our day?

It seems that everybody is choosing to govern these days by executive order, as in permitting the chief executive to issue orders that impose one’s will – regardless of whether there is a serious opposition to that stance.

NOW I KNOW the ideologues who are conservatively motivated amongst us will claim the chief practitioner of this style is President Barack Obama himself – what with the way he’s trying to force something to be done to address the bureaucratic mess that is our nation’s immigration policy.

He has had to use such powers because the Republican political people in Congress have made it clear they are determined to do nothing on this issue.

But while we technically now have an immigration policy that tries to acknowledge that we shouldn’t be thinking in terms of deporting the roughly 11 million individuals now suspected of living in this country without either citizenship or a valid visa, we need to realize it is fleeting.

As is evidenced by the recent activity in Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback issued a pair of executive orders for that state – one of which was solely to rescind the executive order that was imposed eight years ago by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

THAT WAS THE order extending civil rights protections to state government employees based on sexual orientation. Sebelius wanted to ensure that state employees would not be discriminated against if they were gay.

Brownback wants to ensure to the ideologues who support him politically that they don’t have to take any such attitude into consideration when they act on behalf of state government.

As has been pointed out by some observers, a state university professor who was gay woke up one day with certain legal protections, and by the time he went home from work that day, the protections were gone!

Brownback, in his statement, made a point of saying only the Legislature should be able to enact such changes, similar to the ideologues who are claiming only the now-Republican Congress can act in a lasting manner on immigration matters.

WHICH IS VERY realistic to say. Because the reality is that political partisanship is a cyclical matter. It is only a matter of time before a different president comes into power and decides to instantly eliminate the immigration protections that Obama has provided for certain newcomers to our country.

Because the Senate currently is stuck in a mode by which certain members of the GOP majority there are determined to make a stink about immigration. Protections provided by executive order are just too insufficient to amount to anything.

What gay people in Kansas now are going through is going to be the status of immigration across the country if lasting change isn’t made.

All of this is relevant in Illinois as well, because of the way in which new Gov. Bruce Rauner has issued several executive orders this week to impose many ideas he knows are going to be politically unpopular.

MOST RECENTLY, THERE was his desire for government “consolidation” that he says is inspired by DuPage County Chairman Dan Cronin – as in cutting government agencies and positions currently filled by people who might be politically opposed to his ideas – much of which are meant to bolster the interests of big business over those of the people.


He also is trying to use executive order powers to inhibit the finances of labor unions representing state employees, although the people who oppose that concept surely are happy that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has already said the governor can't tamper with the union dues withheld from worker salaries and state Comptroller Leslie Munger has said she will follow Madigan's legal advice.


These are two of among 15 orders he’s already managed to issue during his month in office. It will be intriguing to see how the Democratic-controlled General Assembly responds, and if we get the same type of tactics that Congress is usingto try to undo Obama’s immigration desires. Or will there simply be a waiting game for a future date when a new governor can instantly erase everything Rauner is doing now with a few swipes of the “executive order” pen?

Regardless of how one views the issues, you have to admit that this level of instability and lack of any lasting public policy IS the real problem our governments face today!

  -30-

A fight ‘to the death’ for Illinois General Assembly’s tuition waiver perk?

It seems that the Illinois Legislature’s perk allowing its members to grant full tuition waivers to college students as it sees fit will go the way of 0.10 – a concept whose time to disappear finally came after years of seeing lawmakers fighting fiercely to preserve it.

The Statehouse remains as secretive a place -- despite the vote to do away with tuition waiver perks -- as it was in the days of this early 20th /Century postcard image.

I still recall back to 1997 when the General Assembly gave its approval for a measure reducing the legal standard for intoxication from a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.08.

THERE WERE POLITICAL people who fought for it for years, believing that it imposed too harsh of a standard and would wind up criminalizing people who had just stopped at a bar after work for a couple of drinks.

Yet year after year of continually coming up for a vote wore down the opposition, ultimately resulting in its approval. Outspoken critic (and then-Senate President) James “Pate” Philip even wound up backing it in the end – infamously telling reporter-types, “Sometimes, you have to do what the people want.”

Gee, thanks Pate!

Somehow, I can’t help but think the mood is the same these days in the Illinois state Senate, which this week gave final approval to a bill that will eliminate the perk that has existed for more than a century – allowing legislators to give tuition waivers that they insisted on calling “scholarships” even though no money actually changed hands (recipients receive letters telling the university officials they cannot charge that particular student any tuition).

THE STATE SENATE gave an overwhelming vote of support for the measure, although it seems there are some hard-liners who are feeling like they are being forced to go along with this.

In fact, I’m curious to see if those hard-liners will remain stubborn to the end when the concept comes up before the Illinois House of Representatives.

The House has passed the idea before. But now they are going to consider the Senate’s version of a waiver elimination bill. So that vote has yet to come up before Gov. Pat Quinn can show us whether he intends to fulfill his own promises to eliminate the waivers.

I suspect the Illinois House will ultimately vote to eliminate the perk – going along with the mood that doing so will be perceived as a vote for good government.

EVEN THOUGH I’D wonder if giving up this perk is a mere pitiance compared to some of the truly sordid things that have been done by legislators to enrich themselves while performing what they refer, sometimes mockingly, to as, “the people’s business.”

Perhaps letting up to eight people have a free year of tuition at a public university is one of the least corrupt things they do!

I’m being somewhat sarcastic here, but not really.

Because a part of me wonders if perhaps the Black Caucuses in the Senate and House are on to something when they argue against these bans by saying they will deprive some people of a chance to attend college.

BECAUSE THEY COME at a time when financial aid is less and less available – while the cost of college tuition continues to go up and up.

That is what current Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is getting at when he says that eliminating the tuition waiver perks is something, “you wouldn’t think we’d take relish in eliminating… “

I write these sentences knowing of all the stories that have cropped up in recent years about legislators who gave the perks to college students who were related to people with political connections.

I also realize that the truly sad part of these stories is that they aren’t really new. Such antics have been taking place for decades.

IN LARGE PARK because this was a perk that was created at the very beginning of the 20^th Century with next to no rules about how it was to be administered.

Which means that the legislators who gave out such questionable perks aren’t really in trouble. They can’t have broken a rule if there are next to no rules to be followed!

Does this mean that taking the time to create rules and ensure they would be followed would have been too difficult? That’s the impression I really get from the Illinois Legislature this week.

So I’m not about to question the motives of the five senators who this week voted “no,” or the five others who couldn’t bring themselves to vote “yes” and wound up punching the “present” button instead when the vote was cast.

I’M JUST CURIOUS to see how many more members of the Illinois House will express similar sentiments when this matter comes up for a final vote there sometime in the coming weeks.

Because it will pass. Gov. Pat Quinn will hold an elaborate ceremony to sign the bill into law. People will make grand pronouncements about how they have “cleaned up” Illinois government.

While all they really will have done is wiped away the stain caused by swatting one fly against the Statehouse wall while termites continue to eat away at the foundation of state government.

We’re far from having a “clean” government.

  -30-

Pols can be such jock-sniffers

It never fails to amuse me the way political people who derive such pleasure from making other people quiver and quake in their presence turn to mush whenever a professional athlete comes into their presence – even indirectly.

That was the case with the Cook County Board on Tuesday, which included among its business for the day a measure praising Philip Humber.

HE, OF COURSE, is the Chicago White Sox pitcher who recently threw a perfect game (as in he got everybody out, which isn’t as easy as it sounds) against the Seattle Mariners.

Which gave the political people who prevail at the County Building a chance to relish in the aura of baseball. Even those who don’t usually think of themselves as fans of the White Sox.

“As a North Sider, I reluctantly support this,” said county board member John Fritchey of the Lincoln Square neighborhood. “But as a Chicagoan, I wholeheartedly support this.”

Which may be the one time that baseball brings Chicago together. It usually is the force that splits the city into two – while we wait for the coming of summer training camp and the Chicago Bears to get us all rooting for the same side.

OF COURSE, THERE also were some gags by the political people, with board member Jeff Tobolski of suburban McCook claiming that board member John Daley “made me” co-sponsor a resolution supporting a White Sox player (a testament to the influence the Daley name will still carry in political circles).

Then, there was board member Peter Silvestri of suburban Elmwood Park, who says that if Daley really wants to get on his good side, he’ll give him the Daley family season tickets at U.S. Cellular Field so he can see a ballgame.

In short, it was a lot of love for a ballclub that is struggling to keep its record somewhere around a .500 winning percentage. Then again, the Chicago Cubs are struggling to avoid embarrassing themselves every time they take the field this season – so anything is an improvement.

What amuses me about this resolution is that it really is evidence that the Cook County Board is lagging behind in throwing its love behind Humber.

ON THE DAY that he pitched the best ballgame of his professional career (and possibly the only thing he’ll be remembered for as a ballplayer), Humber got a congratulatory telephone call from Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Which is unique in that Emanuel is one of the few political people who’s willing to admit he personally could care less about the game.

The following day, Humber got “the call” from President Barack Obama, whom the White Sox like to refer to as their “first fan” on account of the fact he adopted the ball club when he moved to Chicago and adopted the Hyde Park neighborhood as his “home.”

State government went another step further in that Gov. Pat Quinn went so far as to declare that last Saturday (April 28, to be exact) was Philip Humber Day across Illinois – even in those parts of the state that are deluded enough to care about the St. Louis Cardinals.

SO IN A sense, where has the county been? Some of us were starting to think they were being “un-American” in not getting behind Humber with a superficial gesture meant to make it look as though they actually care much about the sport – even though a part of me suspects that most of them wouldn’t go to a ballgame unless someone gives them complimentary tickets.

Well, maybe Daley would go, as we’ll have to see whether his desire that Humber, “pitches like that the rest of the year” actually comes true.

And for what it’s worth, the answer is “no.” Humber himself didn’t show up at the Cook County Board meeting on Tuesday to get a copy of the “resolution suitable for framing” that pays tribute to himself.

I suspect that, being he works at a “job” that involves night games and odd hours, Humber was sleeping in late to be ready for what turned out to be the White Sox victory over the Cleveland Indians.

  -30-

Legislature to give up college tuition waiver perk? Who’s kidding whom?

It seems that an increasing number of state legislators are going out of their way to distance themselves from a perk that has been a part of their job for more than a century – the ability to send someone to college tuition-free.

Some state legislators are so eager to avoid the headaches that have come to be associated with the measure that they go out of their way to avoid using it.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, has even concocted a bill that would do away with it – and the appearance of bipartisanship could be provided because of the fact that Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign it into law if it were ever approved by the General Assembly and sent to him for consideration.

Yet nobody thinks this perk is in any serious danger of disappearing, because too many legislators (including the ones who are actually in control at the ‘Statehouse in Springpatch’) think they are doing a public good with their perk.

That, and they like the ability to ‘play God,’ so to speak, with the ability to help someone who might be in need to be able to attend a public university and work toward a college degree of some sort.

That is the reason why the Legislature’s black caucus members are particularly big fans of the perk – which has been in place since 1905.

SO PEOPLE LIKE state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, and state Rep. Jason Barickman, R-Champaign, can rant all they want about misuse of the perk for political purposes, or how it deprives the state of money that can desperately be used right about now.

The only people who are going to be listening are their hometown reporter-type people who will latch onto the related quotes because it gives the impression that their local official is someone relevant on statewide issues – rather than just a local politico who is asked to vote on issues (usually in accordance with how their leader tells them to).

What motivates me to write this latest commentary on the issue is that I have noticed several reports in places like the Joliet Herald-News or WJBC-AM radio of Bloomington with these legislators shouting and screaming for the need to do away with the tuition waiver perk.

But I don’t sense any movement from the people who might be able to push the measure through. Which means this will be nothing but a lot of ‘hot air.’ Cheap rhetoric fills space, and I have written my share of stories throughout the years that were based on nothing but some political person’s ‘hot air’ talk.

BUT THAT DOESN’T mean we should get our hopes up that any action will occur. We have a better chance of a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance this year than we do of seeing the tuition waiver perk disappearing.

Note that I keep using the phrase “tuition waiver” to describe this action – rather than the politician-preferred phrase of “legislative scholarship.”

The people who back this seem to like the image being created that what they’re doing is controlling a pool of money that is distributed to the public universities across Illinois to pay for the tuition of those students who receive the waivers.

The problem is that there never was, never has been and never will be, any real money associated with this perk. It is a tuition waiver. The people who get chosen by individual legislators to receive the perk get nothing more than an official letter on the legislator’s state stationery.

THE LETTER IS addressed to the bursar of whichever state college the recipient attends, and it informs them that the student in question is NOT to be charged any tuition for the courses they take during that academic year.

Since the colleges in question already realize that they are going to have a certain number of people not paying tuition for political purposes, they react in the obvious manner. Every year when tuition rates are set for the following year, they are boosted ever so slightly higher than otherwise necessary to cover the costs of the freebies they’re forced to give out.

In short, the rest of the student bodies are paying just a little bit higher in tuition rates to cover the costs of the people who get to pay no tuition for the year because it suited the political needs of a state legislator.

To me, the part of this perk that is troublesome is not that it exists. But it is that each legislator is allowed to set his (or her) own terms for who gets it – and for what qualifications.

SO WHILE SOME legislators go out of their ways to create committees that judge students on their academic merits or financial need, others literally are giving them to the children of their political allies.

The way the law is now written, there’s nothing wrong with that. Except that there really is.

As for the people who just want to do a knee-jerk elimination of the perk, I’m not sure what to think. Because as much as I’m sure they want to think they’re being heroic and noble, a part of me believes they, too, are looking for an easy way out by wanting to do nothing at all.

  -30-

Speaker won’t be silenced. Should he?

I remember a moment from the mid-1990s in the Illinois House of Representatives when that chamber wound up dumping all over a measure desired by then-Mayor Richard M. Daley and then-Gov. Jim Edgar.

If memory serves, it related to Meigs Field. But it really doesn’t matter. Because what is memorable is the little speech that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, gave to justify his actions.

HE WAS UPSET that he and his staff were not included in the negotiation process. “It is not wise to exclude the speaker of the House,” in such circumstances, he said back then.

Now, a decade-and-a-half later, we have evidence that some things don’t really change.

For Madigan is threatening strong-arm tactics to thwart Gov. Pat Quinn’s attempt to end the long-time legislative perk that allows General Assembly members to grant full tuition waivers to prospective college students as they see fit.

The General Assembly this spring passed a bill meant to give the impression of reforming that perk – legislators would no longer be able to grant tuition waivers to relatives.

BUT QUINN, IN considering that bill, used his amendatory veto power that allows him to make some alterations to a measure.

He altered the bill to turn it into a flat-out ban on the perk. No more waivers. We’ve had too many tales of legislators giving them to kids of politically-connected people or for reasons that were totally meant to benefit the political standing of the government official – rather than the high-minded rhetoric of helping young people be able to attend college.

That has Madigan upset. He says it oversteps the boundaries of what is an amendatory veto. He also claims he’s not going to dignify Quinn’s action with a legislative response.

Which is a problem.

BECAUSE THE GENERAL Assembly is supposed to react to every single bill that Quinn either vetoed or amendatorily vetoed during the summer months.

If they can get a 60 percent majority in both the Illinois House and state Senate, they can override the governor and make the bill law in the form they approved it. If they can’t, they accept the governor’s changes (or rejection, in the case of a veto).

But if nothing happens? Then it is one of those quirks. Since nothing happens, nothing will happen. The bill will just wither away and die like it never occurred.

And the legislative perk will remain in place just as it has every year since 1905.

I MUST ADMIT to siding with Quinn on this particular issue, although I don’t expect him to prevail in this particular political fight and will be shocked if there ever is any significant change in the tuition waiver perk.

Madigan aides are telling reporter types that that Illinois Constitution very strictly limits what kinds of changes can be made with the amendatory veto power. It usually gets defined as that a governor can delete things from a bill, but cannot add them.

So Madigan is portraying himself as the man who is standing up for the letter of the law in that document that ought to be most sacred to us, the state Constitution (which Madigan himself helped to craft as he was a part of that last Constitutional Convention back in 1970).

I suppose one could argue that Quinn did exactly that. He took a bill related to the legislative tuition perk and deleted something – he deleted the perk altogether.

WHICH MAY SOUND like a sarcastic way of viewing the issue. But when one considers the convoluted lines of logic that political people often use to justify their actions, this one comes across as one of the most straight-forward you’ll ever hear.

I remember back to the mid-1990s again, when one year a bill was pending that included provisions related to sex offenders having to report their whereabouts and money for a special state fund that helped to repair leaking underground storage tanks.

How do those two issues possibly qualify to be in one bill, since bills are supposed to be about a single issue? They said with a straight face that both issues were about “protecting public safety.”

Which is what led to a springtime’s worth of bad jokes about sex offenders and the LUST fund bill. Even all these years later, I still think, “Ugh!” in response.

NOW, THE BIG fight come the fall veto session (Oct. 25-27 and Nov. 8-10) will be over the tuition waiver perk. Or, whether there will be a fight at all.

Because I’m pretty sure Quinn can’t force Madigan to call this measure up for a vote – which would let the legislators decide for themselves what should happen. Not that I would expect them to take a noble act – I’m sure many of them don’t want this perk tampered with, no matter how much bad press their colleagues create because of it.

It’s just kind of sad that the highlight (lowlight?) of the veto session is going to be for something where the General Assembly does nothing.

  -30-

Will Quinn develop enough backbone to fight to abolish tuition waiver perk

The “scary” aspect of Bob Molaro is that the former legislator from the Southwest Side isn’t the least bit surprising, or unusual.

MOLARO: No rules to follow?



Federal prosecutors are investigating Molaro’s conduct as a legislator with regards to the “legislative scholarship” program – which allowed him to give tuition waivers to students attending public universities at his own discretion.

ALL STATE LEGISLATORS have had this perk since 1905. The Chicago Sun-Times earlier this week reported that Molaro may have granted his waivers to students who lived outside of his district – as a way of rewarding their parents, who were prominent campaign contributors.

Prosecutors are trying to figure out if such behavior can be construed as a violation of federal law so that they could justify criminal charges against Molaro – who left the Legislature after 2008.

Because if they can’t get federal charges against him, there’s no way to really punish Molaro. Because the rules governing the tuition waiver perk are so lax that Molaro’s conduct is not the least bit wrong.

In fact, it’s not even original.

GOING THROUGHOUT THE years, one can find many cases where legislators used their tuition waiver perk to reward their friends. Or in some cases, to do a favor for another legislator – who then owes the original legislator some sort of massive favor as payback.

About the only “rule” concerning these tuition waivers is that half of them are to go to students attending the University of Illinois, and the other half to students attending a public college other than the University of Illinois (such as Illinois State, Chicago State or Governor’s State universities – just to name a few).

Now I must admit that many legislators these days make an effort to use the tuition waiver perk in a responsible manner. They create committees of educators in their districts to pick from applicants based on academic credentials.

QUINN: Lack of backbone?



They try to award their tuition waivers in ways that ensure people with a financial need wind up getting the waivers – which, since they cover the full cost of tuition – are a significant financial benefit.

BUT THERE ARE always going to be those legislators who either don’t see the point of granting their waivers in near anonymity or just see the whole point of having a perk as being something to benefit from.

That is why Gov. Pat Quinn is getting so anxious about the program. He’d like to be the governor who abolishes the legislative perk. It was just this week that he used his amendatory veto powers to alter a bill so that the perk would disappear.

The problem with that particular strategy is that any bill with an amendatory veto goes back to the General Assembly for consideration. Legislators – if they can get a 60 percent level of support – can have the bill become law in its original form.

I’d be willing to bet any amount of money that the Legislature won’t hesitate in the least to override Quinn’s amendatory veto. Come late October (when the veto session is scheduled to occur), they’re going to overrule Quinn’s desires.

I’M SURE QUINN realizes this. My guess is that what he really wants to do is provoke some sort of discussion on the merits of the tuition waiver perk, perhaps to the point where a full-fledged separate bill on the issue can be contemplated when the General Assembly reconvenes in the spring of 2012.

Which makes it sound way too similar to the casino expansion measure that now is pending, but likely will have more rounds of discussion before any kind of final action is taken.

But this is going to be a tough sell because the legislators who are inclined to use their perk in ways to benefit themselves politically are going to seriously believe they haven’t done anything wrong.

They will cite the fact that the rules governing the perk are lax, which means they didn’t violate them.

AND THE LEGISLATORS who go out of their way to keep a certain distance between themselves and the tuition waiver recipients (I know one legislator who this year told me the first time he ever heard of any of his recipients was at a reception he sponsored to honor them) are going to resent the fact that they should lose a political perk when they didn’t do anything wrong. Everybody thinks they’re innocent, and that they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s sins – which I’m sure some don’t think are sins at all.

It means that Quinn’s chances of success ultimately are going to be determined on how much of his own muscle he’s willing to throw into this political fight, and how much respect the state Legislature is willing to give him.

Which means this could be where past political fights come back to haunt him, since this is a governor who is developing a reputation as someone who will back down from a political fight.

If that happens again, we’re stuck with our legislators having their tuition waiver perk to use and abuse to their satisfaction for a long, long time.

  -30-