The mayor is kicking around the idea that the city’s aldermen should be forbidden to do anything but be aldermen. No other job, no other business.
Daley doesn’t really like this idea, but he might well buy into it now as a way to speed his recovery from the embarrassment of the Patrick Huels scandal.
Huels, who was Daley’s floor leader in the council, bailed out his private security firm with a $1.25 million loan from a company that he helped to get a city subsidy. Huels’ firm also got hired by others who appreciated his influence in the city.
If the aldermen could be nothing but aldermen, they presumably would spend all their waking hours on honest endeavors like getting alleys paved, instead of scheming up ways to get rich with their side gigs.
But as some of the aldermen have figured out, there are a few ready examples of why it would be futile to demand that they serve full-time.
– Ambrosio Medrano, full-time alderman. Sentenced last summer to 30 months in prison for taking bribes.
– Jesse Evans, full-time alderman. Sentenced this month to 41 months in prison for taking bribes.
– Allan Streeter, full-time alderman. Convicted last year of taking bribes and waiting to be sentenced.
– Rafael “Ray” Frias, full-time alderman. Indicted on bribe-taking charges and waiting for his trial.
– Then there’s my favorite, state Rep. Miguel Santiago, who boasted that he was a full-time legislator while he was quietly pulling down $54,000 a year at the Cook County Treasurer’s office. The funny thing is, Santiago probably was a full-time legislator. Some federal prosecutors would vouch for that. They’ve indicted Santiago on charges that he was a ghost-payroller at the treasurer’s office, all pay and no work.
Unlike these fellows, Patrick Huels has not been charged or convicted of anything. Maybe the U.S. attorney’s office will come sniffing around, and maybe it won’t.
The mayor has been put in a tight spot this year by the Huels scandal and by stories about Ald. Ed Burke’s mingling of legal and political business. And so, there might be an inclination to put the Huelses and the Burkes out of business, along with everybody else in the council whether their outside interests are legitimate or not.
More Top Picks Wakeboards
That’s exactly what Daley’s weighing now.
Does he need a big splash to recover from these scandals? That’s what he’d get if he demanded that aldermen give up their outside jobs.
But if he does that, he risks a council insurrection at the worst possible time, when his enforcer, Huels, has been forced out the door. Daley risks losing the aldermen’s love and affection to Burke, who would lead the fight against an employment ban.
So, does Daley settle for less? I think so, for political and practical reasons.
A ban on outside work would stir up a great fuss in the council and achieve next to nothing.
If you have a modicum of power in government and you desire to sell that power, you will find a way. It helps to have a front, like a law firm or a security business, but it’s not necessary. An employment ban would not create a clean city council.
But there’s a flip side. When the law takes away the honest ways to make a buck, the law can invite corruption.
There’s no better example than Operation Greylord, which sent 15 judges to prison on various bribery and corruption charges in the 1980s. Why’d they do it? One reason was, they knew the lawyers saying “yes, your honor” in their courtrooms were pulling down six- and seven-figure incomes, while the judges’ salaries were chump change by comparison. The judges couldn’t practice law on the side. They reasoned that their magnificent legal minds deserved something more. So they took it under the table.
Presumably some of the temptation for graft has been lifted from the judges, who now are paid much better, $111,000 a year. Presumably, watching 15 of their compatriots go to jail had a salutary effect, too.
Then there are members of Congress, who are prohibited from having outside income. Find the evidence that this has reduced influence peddling in Washington.
So Daley can make a very good argument that it would be pointless to push the aldermen to ban themselves from outside jobs.
But if he doesn’t do that, what does he do?
He could push for a flat ban on aldermen doing business with any company that has a contract with the city. That’s a good idea.
There actually are a few aldermen who scrupulously avoid mixing business and politics. I talked to one of them this week, but he doesn’t want to be quoted in the paper about it. If he talked, everybody else would be mad at him. When you’re honest in Chicago, it’s best to keep it to yourself.
Imagine that, being embarrassed about being honest. It would seem the embarrassment ought to work in the other direction.
That’s something Daley could still do.
The new city ethics ordinance says that if an alderman has a business deal with anyone who has a matter coming before the council, the alderman has to disclose the nature of the business.
That’s the right idea, but it’s a little vague. Daley ought to tweak the ordinance so it is very explicit, so aldermen would have to stand at a council meeting and lay out the details of every deal they get from anyone who has gotten business with the city in, say, the last year. Call it the truth hour.
Imagine if Patrick Huels had been required to get up before the council and say: I took a $1.25 million loan from this company because the Internal Revenue Service was on my back. And six months ago I pushed you to give this company a $1 million subsidy. Trust me, there’s no connection.
I’d venture that Pat Huels would have decided it was a better idea not to take the loan in the first place. And if he had done that, he wouldn’t be out of a job today.