Chicago Alderman Joe Moore The Non-Reform Reformer

Chicago Alderman Joe Moore The Non-Reform Reformer
Where Are When We Need You Harry Truman?

Apparently Chicago Alderman Joe Moore is the non-reform reformer after a Rogers Park Ward Office worker reported to him via email that she saw an intern labeling political fliers in the alderman's taxpayer-funded office and told him "You don't need a scandal over something so completely avoidable!"

Ironically the one thing that was more than avoidable here was that that ward worker, Anne Sullivan, shouldn't have been fired by Joe Moore for doing her due-diligence and trying to watch his back after he spent an entire career shaping an image of being a political reformer.

But in true Chicago fashion, Alderman Moore denied that it ever happened until City Council Watchdog Faisal Khan released a report and a Chicago Tribune Freedom of Information Act Request left serious doubt as to what was said regarding the matter and when he actually knew about it.

And now Moore says this of Khan “The alleged misconduct he’s uncovered, even if all true, is such penny-ante stuff, it makes you wonder how he justifies his existence.”  So I guess it is no coincidence then that other alderman have now joined in with Moore in voicing their displeasure of Faisal Khan. Hmm..perhaps something of an epidemic among alderman who don't like to being held accountable for their actions?

Man oh man, I just don't know how any Chicago Politician (or politicians statewide for that matter) can stand up and speak with a straight face anymore. It seems they have all decided that the rules and laws governing their actions no longer apply to them. And God forbid should they ever be confronted with evidence to the contrary. Because that is when the real fun begins as the Regular Joe's and Josephine's have to put up with their ridiculous innuendos, political spins and/or temper tantrums about this "penny-ante stuff." Well Mr. Moore, rules whether deemed major or minor - are still the damn rules!

At least that is what I teach my son!

Whatever happened to people owning-up for their actions? Where in the hell is Harry Truman when you really need him eh? At least he was honest enough to say that the buck stops here. And given that history tells us that he took it on the chops plenty of times for failing to be like the legendary and beloved invalid FDR I am beginning to seriously reassess who the real heroes of government have been despite what their political flaws may have allegedly been.

According to the Truman Library Website it says "On more than one occasion President Truman referred to the desk sign in public statements. For example, in an address at the National War College on December 19, 1952 Mr. Truman said, "You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made. In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

And you know what? I think that whether it be the President of the United States or the lowest local government official the time has come for the people of this once Great Nation to reassess what their current crop of officials are giving them and then hold them accountable.

And now that I think about it - when in the hell that ideal change anyway?

Yeah we get it about political machines and their need to get like-minded people elected to further a common political agenda - but the corruption and insane need for greed has got to stop. You know there was once a time when government at least listened to the will of the people and/or were willing to compromise to get essential legislation passed - but no more!

Now it is all about petty party partisanship and pay to play. And nowhere is that more evident than right here in the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois. Sadly too many people have sold out, and in doing so have left the rest of us with frauds and charlatans at the helm. But I have ask them - have their lives gotten any better or is just those lives who are connected to a corrupt machine politics that have gotten better? Now be real honest with yourselves here!

And that especially goes for people like Alderman Joe Moore.

We don't need to hear about how offended you are. How about thinking of putting your constituents first instead? Besides shouldn't they be the ones who should be offended with the twisting of the truth or is that just not part of your reform ethos?

But don't worry Joe, I'm sure there are those who are willing to let you off the hook - but maybe you should reevaluate what reform means?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • What is worse? A phony reform alderman or the dullards and cretins who voted for him? There is no one dumber than the average Chicago voter.

  • In reply to Peter Bella:

    The 49th and 50th wards share something that the rest don't--they can't be reapportioned so the alderman doesn't reside there, especially when Moore has his office on Jarvis. Compare that to the 2nd, which moved from Little Italy to the north side. I also have the feeling that East Rogers Park is becoming another area where the majority is not legally eligible to vote or probably able to work legally in the North Shore. They also get foamed up by such things as Moore sending out a leaflet to flood a CTA planning meeting because "they are going to close the Jarvis stop," even though if CTA ever got the construction money, it would be 10 years down the road.

    As far as "the buck stops here," what I think may be a bigger issue is the lack of Kennedy's "Profiles in Courage," where a politician would do something right rather than pander. Now the only thing is to get reelected by any means possible.

  • In reply to jack:

    As always Jack as blunt as a hand grenade and I couldn't agree more with your assessment. This is all about getting re-elected by any means even if it means violating those "penny-ante" rules Alderman Moore brought up. Maybe he should look at his existence?

  • In reply to Peter Bella:

    For 175 years now, the Chicago "voter" has been complicit in the political corruption we call "the Chicago Way". When my students ask how is it that the Chicago political machine continues to this day, active and spawning new machines, I always remind them that we still have the ballot box should we choose to use it. However, over all of these years we have chosen not to. But let's be clear that it's not just those who vote these crooks into office that should be held accountable, but more importantly the 70-75% who DON'T show up are even MORE responsible!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Don Gordon:

    Don, while you're riding your high horse of government transparency, perhaps it's time you practice a little transparency yourself and disclose to the readers that before Ann Sullivan worked for me, she worked for you as manager of your campaign for 49th Ward alderman. You fired her from your campaign because you knew then what I later discovered--she is a toxic presence in a small office environment, given to wild, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct about her co-workers and supervisors. That is why I let her go, not because of her allegations of supposed political activity in my ward office, but because she didn't get along with anyone.

    During the time she worked for me, she shared numerous stories of your supposed transgressions--allegations I discounted because she offered no corroborating evidence. Why don't you give me the same benefit of the doubt, especially since you know of Ms. Sullivan's shortcomings first hand?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joe Moore:

    Joe Moore is a liar and a bully. The Legislative Inspector General has proof that the "supposed political activity" took place and e-mails from Joe showing that he knew all about it. But please keep bellowing to the press Joe. Maybe, like the intern who surfaced from 10,000 miles away to counter your initial flurry of lies about me, someone will step up to out you as you and Wayne fall back to your old habits in the upcoming election. Those statutes of limitations fall away when it's considered "continued criminal activity"...

  • In reply to Anne Sullivan:

    Ms. Sullivan I am pleased that you took the time to make a comment. Like you, I am appalled by the hypocrisy of our elected officials and your response validates what I thought of the whole situation surrounding your firing (for doing your job no less). As my wife says - "You Go Girl!" and anything you may want to share feel free to friend me on Facebook which contains my email. Again, thanks for taking the time to comment. p.s. I have offered Mr. Moore a full open forum here so let's see what is what shall we?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    To throw a grenade, I am astonished that the participants have participated in your blog, but if Mr. Moore really wants to respond, he will do so directly instead of the usual politician ploy of using a "spokesperson" flack.

    And as you point out, the correct answer should be that "I encourage the IG to investigate that," although I noted in connection with Madigan saying that with regard to Metra (and also the ethics committee he partially appointed) I believe that is a sham.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yeah how do like that? I am surprised and pleased actually. But as you say if Mr. Moore really wants to respond I have offered him an open forum and that is done to give another "the benefit of the doubt" he spoke of. I am, after all, a fair-minded person. But like you I think the best thing that he could of said is "I welcome it" instead of devaluing another human being's existence - that frosted my ass. The IG's job is to investigate allegations of impropriety without a witch hunt being publicly conducted by alderman who are upset that he is actually doing the job he was hired to do.

    But hey, the ball is in his court.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    "... instead of devaluing another human being's existence"

    The other thing I noticed was that after Don Gordon only responded to Peter Bella's "they vote for them" point with "the others don't vote," Moore went ballistic with insults.

    And, of course this is the same person to whom Moore offered a severance agreement, which is what provoked the IG investigation.

    Besides this sounding like another Metra case, I believe that he just violated the terms of the agreement right above, and he didn't even have enough brains to figure out that he doesn't have the power to delete his post (and maybe even the Tribune backs up its server, and I assume someone else was not spoofing Moore's account).

    I guess he can kiss the Obama award goodbye.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Well Mr. Moore, since I authored this piece I just have one thing to say here. I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt but it shall not be based on innuendo.

    So please tell us why did you hire Ms. Sullivan in the first place? Also was her toxicity based upon maybe an office full of co-workers who would gleefully do anything to protect their own existence? Or is this merely about her acting to inform you of a possible rules violation that would have been harmful to you? And if that was the case then what in the hell is the big deal? She should have been commended for trying to protect your integrity if you are indeed the reformer you claim to be.

    So you see there seems to be some confusion and doubt as to what you have said once the Tribune disclosed what they discovered after filing their FOIA and the findings the IG's own investigation. And by the way - why would you question someone's existence when they are just trying to do what they were hired to do? Isn't it the IG's loathsome responsibility to investigate any and all complaints? I mean that is his freaking job isn't it? What is wrong with you officials and Inspector Generals anyhow? They are not there to play by your rules! They are not your puppets! You should welcome them as a reformer!

    So please give the readers here the Full Monty on the truth will you? You have your forum right here and right now and I think the voters would like to know about everyone's transgressions. You see whether it is an elected official, an elected official's employees or anyone else working in government - they have the right to know everything when taxpayer dollars are involved.

    Personally I suspect that all this hub-bub is more about one trying to limit how much proverbial crap hits the fan. But if we are going to fling it - fling it all. Whether it is Ms. Sullivan, Mr. Gordon or you Mr. Moore I would like to see my readers grasp the full dynamics of our little thing called Chicago Ward politics.

    So?

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Joe, you're a phony and you always have been. This time, however, someone exposed you and now you're squirming like the bug you have always been.

    The only thing that keeps hypocrites like you in office is constituents ignorant enough to fall for your bs.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joe Moore:

    The pot calls the kettle black, Joe. The pot calls the kettle black. Regards.

  • In reply to Don Gordon:

    Thank You Mr. Gordon! This a point I have been driving ever since I began this blog; specifically "I don't care what your ideology is - just exercise your right to vote!"

    The fact that our "constitutional democracy" (which has more resembled an oligarchy) can be controlled by a minority of voters is not only sad but disturbing. I have oft said exactly what you are implying - if the people to decide to come out in mass, I see a very different Politik. Apathy is not an excuse to abandon one's greatest right - the vote.

    Thank you for your candor and honesty.

  • In reply to Peter Bella:

    My dear colleague Peter Bella - you couldn't have said it better. As I said it is the people who sold out; unfortunately those people are usually the one's who have a vested interest in retaining this or that Illinois Democrat (you know that political animal that doesn't even adhere to its own party platform of being "of and for the people." Thank for the comment - It was spot on!

  • Maybe on a slightly different track (based on today's headlines), the whole inspector general thing has become a joke. In this case, it was obvious based on the City Council saying that any inspector general had to be under its control (as opposed to being subject to the city inspector general, which now is apparently under the mayor's thumb). Then, after the executive inspector general was given jurisdiction over Metra, the coverup is now justified by "we turned it over to the inspector general," and our vigilant [gross sarcasm] governor and attorney general saying "we can't do anything until the inspector general reports" and probably won't do anything even then.

  • In reply to jack:

    Actually same track and it isn't a joke - it should be fucking criminal. Nothing worse than giving the fox a key to the hen house! This is all about subterfuge.

  • Joe Moore is a corrupt politician who believes the rules do not apply to him. He is currently throwing a ridiculously childish tantrum because he was breaking the rules and lying about it until the facts were made public. His attack on the IG for doing his job is a spineless defense.

    Joe has made it clear that he is willing to lie in order to save his own behind, which means we can't trust anything he says or does.

    Think about it. Why would Joe NOT encourage the IG to complete the investigation unless he is guilty and worried about what other facts might be made public?

    Residents of the 49th ward have had enough of Joe Moore's crooked ways. We are tired of him taking pay offs from big developers in exchange for political favors, and we are tired of his lies.

    And nothing about that is penny ante.

  • In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Mr. Phillip, I couldn't agree with more with your "and nothing about that is penny-ante." And that Joe Moore is building a coalition of alderman to attack IG Khan and questioning his existence has me believe that these alderman want to have their cake and eat it too. Now I do not know of the other allegations you speak of but if you have info or proof by all means friend me on Facebook and snatch my email. I, for one, am tired of the continuous cycle of corruption. And believe me I saw it first-hand when my "Alley Alderman" Laurino was Ghost pay-rolling all those years ago. But hey, when barely 37% of the voters come out and exercise their greatest right it is a tragedy especially when the majority of those 37% have a vested interest in keeping the corruption in place. Thanks for your comment it is appreciated.

  • Joe, I realize you directed that last comment to your former opponent, but come on.

    Did your former opponent use taxpayer money to pay Ms. Sullivan for time when she didn't work for the taxpayers?

    Did your former opponent lie about campaign work being done in a ward office until the corroborating evidence came to light from another source?

    And I realize you're still miffed that the inspector didn't talk to you before filing his report (as his job required); however, you did publicly respond to him in great detail. And you lied.

    How is any of that changed by Ms. Sullivan being released from her position by one of your former opponents?

  • In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Yes I'd like to know that too. I have offered Mr. Moore an open forum here so let's see if he avails himself of that opportunity. Good question Mr. Phillips.

  • Jack your "I guess he can kiss the Obama award goodbye" brought up a good point i.e. the agreement. And NO the email is not a spoof I confirmed it via "whois" and just about an hour ago through his ward office where a staffer actually confirmed it as well. I left my cell phone number and hopefully he will want to talk? So far as pulling back the comment no won't happen as I am the only one who can delete it. And I won't do that as I think it helps validate the point I was trying to make. As for the Obama Award......how ironic given the POTUS's ties (and rise) with Chicago Machine.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    It might be the Chicago Machine, in the fragmented sense of that the Lakefront Liberals were o.k. with such as the Tribune, at least until they took over as part of the Emanuel Administration, or, like Preckwinkle, allied themselves with Barrios. I basically include Rogers Park, Lakeview,. Lincoln Park, and Hyde Park in that group, and, of course, Preckwinkle was Obama's alderman. We previously discussed that Claypool is no longer o.k.

    I don't know if it is so much "Obama's ties with the Chicago Machine," as he should have known better about his colleagues.

    But thanks for confirming what I said about the use of the Tribune server. If his office admits that the post was authentic, his lack of other reply indicates that he stands by the inflammatory comment.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well the Chicago Machine may be different (with different factions now getting a bigger piece of the pie), but the essence is still pretty much the same; i.e. the Political Bluebloods still have great power and are in a position to change the dynamics if someone doesn't want to toe the line.

    Michael Madigan, though, is still the big cheese with Emanuel as his the Underboss. Cullerton/Burke and Berrios/Solis meanwhile are his main Capos . Preckwinkle's allegiance to Berrios for instance, shows that Berrios controls the County, Emanuel the City, Cullerton has some of the "old wards and collar counties." Burke and Solis are pretty much the enforcers, if you will. So in many ways the Machine isn't all that indistinguishable from days of yore. It is just a different set of players below them. And believe me most things have been well thought out as to who gets what and when.

    As for the POTUS, well yeah he should but without them he doesn't have the meteoric rise either It is what it is and was.

    Oh and you're welcome about the server knowledge, lol. Yes been confirmed and no hasn't responded back to me - but he has my number.

  • fb_avatar

    Mr. Ciric,

    I'm sorry I haven't replied sooner, but I've got other things on my plate and don't have the time to constantly monitor your blog. My earlier comment was directed solely to my former opponent, Mr. Gordon, who in his numerous Facebook posts on this topic always seems to leave out the fact that he, too, once hired and fired Ms. Sullivan. Obviously, he encountered difficulties with this employee, as well.

    For the record, I've long publicly advocated giving the City's Inspector General the power to investigate allegations of misconduct against members of the City Council and their staff. The current Inspector General, Joe Ferguson, and his predecessor, David Hoffman, are professionals who conduct their investigations in a fair and impartial manner with the goal of ascertaining the truth. It's been my experience that Mr. Khan falls far short of the kind of professional inspector general we need, starting with the fact that he never once gave my staff and me an opportunity to respond to his charges.

    Regarding your invitation, below is a link to my extensive response to Mr. Khan's allegations, which I published shortly after he disclosed the allegations and leaked my identity to the press:

    http://www.ward49.com/site/epage/145544_322.htm

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    So are you going to break from your colleagues who insisted that having the city inspector general investigating the City Council was a breach of separation of powers, so they appointed their own toothless watchdog?

    And what are you going to do about your apparent breach of the severance agreement, or does it allow you to disparage the former employee? And why was it necessary to give this employee a severance agreement?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    Jack,

    I have always advocated giving the City's Inspector General the power to investigate members of the City Council. This is not a new position for me.

    I gave my employee, Ms. Sullivan, a modest severance when she left my employ, but there never was any "severance agreement" and no one has ever alleged there was such an agreement.

    Finally, I never said anything disparaging publicly about Ms. Sullivan until last July when Mr. Khan and Ms. Sullivan went public with allegations that I fired her because she complained to me about supposed political work in my ward office and that I paid her a severance illegally to keep her quiet about it. Once she and Khan went public with those untrue charges, Ms. Sullivan's job performance became very relevant to the discussion. How can I defend myself against charges that I fired her for political reasons, without referencing the very legitimate reasons my chief-of-staff and I terminated her employment?

    If anything, I've been very restrained in my approach. I haven't divulged the many specific transgressions that supported her termination for cause other than the fact she did not get along with her co-workers and my chief-of-staff.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    I read over your website and also Scott Phillips' comment below.

    This came out in the news media as being similar to the Metra situation, and you had comments on your site that you weren't going to ask Ms. Sullivan to give the money back. Then, if there wasn't any agreement, this was just a gratuity of city money (which you said you had the discretion to give out, but do you have the power to give away city taxpayers' money, even $22,000 of it?), but obviously then Sullivan wouldn't have been under any legal duty to give it back, assuming that ratting to the IG would have been a breach of such an agreement.

    Also, I agree with Scott that you really haven't come out and said that political work wasn't being done on the city dime, but have attacked others. It seems like you main attack on the IG is that he didn't follow procedural prerequisites that the City Council as a whole imposed on him to hamstring any investigation of city council members. So, he went to the press. There doesn't seem to be a court of law where he could prove his case or you could vindicate yourself.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    Jack,

    I'm afraid I'm not quite sure I'm following you, but let me give it a shot. Yes, I believe it was within my discretion as alderman to give the two employees I discharged a modest severance to help them transition to other employment, especially given the long hours they worked without overtime compensation and also given the over $200,000 that I have contributed from my political over the years to run my city office. I fail to see the comparison between the modest severance I gave my employees and the $871,000 severance package that the Metra Board paid to Alex Clifford.

    Yes, I agree Ms. Sullivan is under no legal obligation to pay back the severance. However, I can't help but note the irony of Ms. Sullivan now claiming the severance was illegal but never offering to return to the taxpayers the "illegal" money she received.

    I do not believe I violated any laws, nor to this day has Mr. Khan pointed to any specific law I violated. He claims my payment of severance was illegal, but cites no law that forbade it. He claims I abused my authority, but again cites no statute or code. Though Mr. Khan never alleged the precise nature of political work conducted in my office, Ms. Sullivan alleges it was performed by an unpaid intern while I was out of town. Again, Mr. Khan cites no statute or code that I violated. In fact, the City's Code of Ethics, which forbids political work, applies to paid City employees only, not to volunteers or unpaid interns. Neither Ms. Sullivan nor Mr. Khan have ever claimed that a paid employee of my office ever engaged in political activity on City time.

    As you seem to acknowledge, Mr. Khan in fact failed to follow the procedures laid out by the City ordinance that created his office. Leaving aside whether you think these rules were imposed to "hamstring" Mr. Khan, do you think it should be left up to a prosecutor or an inspector general to decide which laws to follow and which laws to ignore? Last time I looked, adherence to the Rule of Law is sacrosanct in our constitutional democracy, especially as applied to those charged with enforcing the law. And when did giving the accused an opportunity to present their side of the story constitute "hamstringing" an investigation?

    Finally, you correctly note that "[t]there doesn't seem to be a court of law where he could prove his case or you could vindicate yourself." My point exactly. The statue of limitations had expired a year before Ms. Sullivan filed her complaint and yet Mr. Khan spent taxpayer dollars proceeding with an investigation of a case that he knew could not be prosecuted. Mr. Khan himself acknowledged he could not bring my case before the Board of Ethics where I could have received a fair hearing and been given an opportunity to defend myself before an independent tribunal.

    Instead, Mr. Khan leaked the findings of his sham investigation to the news media. In essence, he acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Put yourself in my shoes. You're accused of engaging in improper conduct, you are not told what law you violated and you are not given any opportunity to present your side of the story before the accusations are presented as fact to the news media. Honestly, would you believe you were being treated fairly?

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    1. Apparently you don't have a legal background, and hence don't know the difference between a gift and a contract. I suggest you look it up. You admit you made a gift with city money, unless you can trace that that money came from your personal funds, and I don't mean like the Jacksons or Beavers (i.e. campaign funds on which you did not pay taxes before they became your "personal funds")..

    2. Maybe severances were business as usual before Metra, but they sure aren't now.

    3. Go back to my post on IGs being a joke.

    4. Statute of limitations or no statute of limitations, you don't seem to deny the underlying charge, but want to accuse the accusers.

    5. Maybe the FBI and Zach Fardon would like to look into your case. Have you looked into federal statutes applicable to you more recent activities, or are you waiting for an indictment, where I am sure the U.S. Attorney will be more than happy to cite them?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jack:

    Jack, I received my JD from DePaul School of Law and spent six and a half years practicing law before I was elected alderman. Are you an attorney? If so, perhaps you can do me a favor. Please cite the specific federal, state or city law I violated by providing my two employees a modest severance. I sure can't find it, nor have any of my attorney friends who are experts in labor law been able to find it.

    It's been nearly two months since Mr. Khan issued his report and leaked my name to the press and he has yet to cite any specific statutory provision or city ordinance I violated. It's impossible to "deny the underlying charge" when I don't know what the underlying charge is.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    It is a very simple question: What city law gives you the right to give away taxpayers' money or commingle city, political and personal money?

    And, given such things as the Shakman decree, and other decisions dealing with the First Amendment in the political context: What law authorizes you to let someone do political work on city premises on city time?

    I'm not the prosecutor. You spent the money, why don't you cite the appropriation bill that gives you this authority?

    Let me assure you I have a legal background. If you want me to research that problem, enter into a contract and send me the fee. Apparently you have the money and authority to do that.

    You are engaging in legal sophism in saying, in effect, unethical conduct is o.k,. so long as one can't cite something, including something lax that we, the city council itself passed that makes it criminal.

    But, as I said, maybe you will be telling a federal jury that you did nothing wrong. Did that work for Blago? Did you hear about the honest services law, 18 U.S.C. secs. 1341, 1343, 1346? There are some citations for you.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joe Moore:

    Jack,

    You state below, "Let me assure you I have a legal background." Oh really? What kind of legal background? Because the answer you gave to my question suggests it's not a law degree.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Yes it is a law degree, and not from a law school (DePaul) where its only distinction is a nursery for Chicago Democratic politicians.

    I'm not going to say more here, since cyberstalkers have attacked me on that basis on chicagonow.com.

    But Joe, the issue isn't me, it is you. I see that your JD from DePaul didn't give you the capability to answer my questions above. And I am not an elected official--you are and you can't justify your ethical lapses, just attack anyone who doesn't osculate your gluteus maximus.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joe Moore:

    Wow, Jack, you know how to write in Latin. You must be a lawyer, but perhaps you need a refresher course. You ask what city law gave me the "right" to provide my employee with severance.

    As any first year law school student can tell you, laws serve the dual purpose of reflecting our society's moral code and disclosing the punishment that will ensue if that code is violated. In other words, laws are in place to tell people what they must do or what they cannot do, not what they can do. There is no law on the books that gives you the "right" to put fruit on your breakfast cereal. But that doesn't mean you are prohibited from enjoying bananas with your morning oatmeal.

    Similarly, there is no law on the books that gives you the right to own a dog. Nonetheless, unless the building you live in prohibits pets, you are perfectly within your right to possess a cocker spaniel or any other dog of your choice.

    So, counselor, to my knowledge, there is no statutory provision that gives me the right me as alderman to provide severance to his or her staff. But the more pertinent and is whether there is any statutory provision or rule that prohibits me as alderman from providing severance.

    It's been nearly two months since Khan issued his report. To this day, he has yet to point to a specific rule, code or statutory provision that I violated. If a so-called "Inspector" publishes a report to the world at large that says you did something wrong, doesn't it behoove him to tell you exactly what law you violated?

    As I've stated repeatedly, I believe I was entitled to give my employees severance under the discretion I have with regard to my staff and personnel issues. As an alderman, I can hire, set salaries and work schedules, and terminate my staff as I see fit. These two employees logged long hours in service of the ward. Both regularly worked well in excess of 40 hours per week.

    In my opinion, providing them with severance was the right thing to do and until Khan or someone else in a position of authority can cite the specific rule code or statute I violated, I will continue to believe it was the right thing to do.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Apparently, they didn't teach you in DePaul the difference between criminal law, and civil and governmental law.

    You figure that if something doesn't have a criminal penalty associated with it, it is authorized. That is certainly not the case. For instance, was the state comptroller authorized to issue a check to state legislators when Quinn vetoed the appropriation? Topinka says no.

    Like I said before, the only clear conclusion to your argument is that anything is legal if there isn't a strict criminal prohibition. I guess when you slip and fall in front of my condo, you better not sue, since I'm not under any criminal obligation to wipe up the rain.

    As Mr. Ciric points out, legalisms don't justify the kind of ethical lapses rampant throughout Illinois government, including the city. And, apparently, neither you nor Blago checked out the portions of 18 U.S.C. I cited.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joe Moore:

    Jack, "governmental law?" I give up.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Joe Moore said:

    "Jack, "governmental law?" I give up."

    Maybe they called it "state and municipal law." Illinois Jurisprudence (LexisNexis Publishers) has a unit on "Municipal Law." Illinois Law and Practice (ThomsonReuters/Westlaw) has a topic on "Cities, Villages, and Other Municipal Corporations."

    50 ILCS contains a compilation of state statutes applicable specifically to local government. More fundamentally, Article VII of the Illinois Constitution (1970) establishes the paramount law governing the powers of local government, including section 6 on "Powers of Home Rule Units." Apparently somebody got the word yesterday that as a result of the Home Rule section and provisions of the concealed carry bill, the Chicago gun registration ordinance had to be repealed.

    Maybe the real problem with both the City Council and the General Assembly is that its members (and you admit, you) are ignorant of that body of law, more specifically with respect to overstepping your powers.

    Don't talk law and order, when apparently the only law you know is banning foie gras. Since that ordinance was repealed, I suppose that I have an affirmative obligation to eat some.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Alderman Moore, no need for apologies about the length of time to your response. I am just glad you did respond. Understand my initial reaction when I first read about this via media outlets - I was dumbstruck because of most Chicago Aldermen I felt you were probably one of the guys who were actually okay. And that, more than anything, prompted me to write my commentary. Now I see since my bad back day has kept me from my laptop until now - there have been more responses as well as the link you provided to digest. So I will climb up the wall of your (and other) comments in a chronological order. As for your initial response to Mr. Gordon, I only chimed in as the author in hopes that the discussion would not be driven by innuendo.

    I also had to confirm that your email was not being spoofed by someone masquerading as you so I hope I did not offend you on that score and have even left my cell phone number with your aide so you could verify that it was also I who are communicating with you and not someone else. So I will move on up these comments but I did read your constituent letter several times and will offer my thoughts when I reach the top.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Mr. Moore, stop being a hypocrite. You and the rest of the aldermen did not want and do not want oversight. You guys want to keep operating in the dark, out of sight and mind of the public.

    Even if Ferguson was allowed to investigate the aldermen, you guys would make it virtually impossible for him to do so.

    There are no ethics in the Chicago City Council and as long as there are dumb voters in Chicago there never will be. Not one alderman deserves to be reelected. In an ideal world every single one of you would be thrown out of office.

  • Joe, you took ample opportunity to respond to the inspector. You responded in countless unprofessional, insulting media comments, as well as the lengthy diatribe you clearly created with the help of your attorney.

    And in each of those verbose responses, you lied. The facts have come out, Joe. And you lied.

    So, in all seriousness, what in the hell does it matter whether Mr. Khan interviewed you and your staff since you were just going to lie to him?

    You need to stop pointing fingers at Mr. Khan, Ms. Sullivan and your opponent from TWO ELECTIONS AGO ago and own up the FACTS that you were in the wrong, broke the rules and then lied about it.

    Although I suppose the reality is that it doesn't much matter what you say from now on. You've already proven that you will lie to save your own behind and, therefore, can't be trusted.

    (Fellow readers, this is the point in the discussion where Joe Moore, faced with the facts, typically states: "I believe I have sufficiently addressed the issues at hand and will no longer participate in this discussion.")

  • fb_avatar

    I've known Ald. Moore for the better part of 20 years. While we may not agree on everything, I've always found him to be honest & very hard working for the people in his ward.

    The fact that Ms Sullivan was fired by both Mr. Gordon & Ald Moore tells me she is not to be trusted with these allegations. She needs to stop blaming others and look in the mirror.

  • In reply to Steven Winkler:

    Steven, thank you for your comment and am glad you offer some balance to the discussion. As I said to the Alderman, I have long considered him one of the better guys in government, but that didn't help us understand how it was playing out in the media. Sometimes we just have to ask a question, painful or not, to get an answer. It is part of the process right?

  • Alderman Moore, comments by Jack and Scott raise very good questions. Jack has referred to this being similar to the Metra Scandal, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with that because it involved various Board Members with an entirely different agenda in my opinion. But the one recurring theme among the two commenter's involve your public condemnation of the Inspector General Faisal Khan and then Ms. Sullivan. And I believe that that is what the real issue is here.

    I do however understand your anger, if how you described them in your constituent letter are completely accurate. Your inclusion of the English Star Chamber was interesting and raised another set of questions as to how Mr. Khan went about his investigation.

    Now let me be perfectly clear here - I am not the type of person who would deny anyone their basic right to have their day in court. It is as essential as our right to breathe air. Unfortunately for you, that did not occur except for in the court of public opinion. Exactly why Ms. Sullivan waited to bring her accusations until she did are unknown to me. She did, however, indicate she would be willing to meet for coffee and explain what did or didn't occur. And so far as I concerned isn't a bad idea on my part since I am only concerned with arriving at the truth.

    As for Mr. Khan, the general consensus among most taxpayers is that the City Council (as a whole and not necessarily a particular individual within it) have severely handicapped the IG from doing a proper and unencumbered job. You mention Joe Ferguson whom I have much respect for but I must admit I am confused as hell as to why after months of trepidation by Mayor Emanuel over his job security that it was announced he had a 4 year agreement "but would probably be leaving in a year." I don't know about you but that sounds awfully strange.

    So as you can imagine those of us on the outside looking-in are somewhat skeptical about the sincerity of politicians when they say they welcome the presence of watchdogs. Then again we are also skeptical of some of these Inspectors and watchdogs. In all fairness to Jack on the Metra point - there seems to be too many people involved in that RTA Organizational Chart and one hand doesn't know what the other is doing (nor do they seem to want to).

    Back to your situation, though. Since Khan allegedly said that too much time has "run" in your investigation we are left only with the he said - she said. And since you were one of the very few I thought was doing "right by the people" it still bothered me that your responses sounded eerily all too familiar with the "disgruntled employee" syndrome that so many people of power resort to.

    Now, I used to run a business and whenever we had a problem employee, or an under performing one, that person was gone. And we were not obligated to pay them anything more than what was legally owed them; i.e. vacation time, etc. In Illinois you don't have to offer anyone a reason for their dismissal. But I also understand that it is a business owners prerogative to pay someone whatever they feel like if they choose to do so.

    As such, I can understand your desire to pay a discharged employee who you admitted would often work more hours when needed and accepted the leaner times. But your kindness, it seems, has touched on a gray area especially if you paid them with taxpayer monies. Your Ward Operation, I don't think, falls under the same protocols as that of a private business. And, of course your kindness on the one hand has been now been replaced with disparaging public comments about her and the IG on the other.

    Look I am not saying you aren't telling the truth about holding back your "other reasons" for dismissal - but you have to admit to the average outsider it sound as if they are perhaps missing something in the translation here?

    And I believe that is what has people scratching their heads. As for Mr. Khan, maybe he needs to explain why he embarked on a taxpayer funded investigation knowing "too much time" has passed and would be of no value to determine if you in fact have done anything wrong? And I have to tell you that if I didn't know any better would think there was something else going on here?

    I apologize for the lengthy response here but I figured you were owed an explanation as to why I wrote the post as well as knowing that I am questioning the circumstances surrounding public allegations and the level of vitriol between you and the Inspector General.

    But just so you know that on a personal level, I had always considered you to probably be one of the few good guys in city politics and was bewildered by what took place. But I am glad you chose to comment and am glad that your constituent letter explains your commitment to keep political fund raising and your political work separate. Although I do wonder how often those lines can cross or intersect with each other.

    Now, I am not politically naive and I know that politics can exact a price upon all of us. And usually does, but that is exactly why we must have real rules and ethics in place. You letter, for instance, states that rules apply only to paid staff and not volunteers - so the question is why is that? Shouldn't the same rules apply to everyone working in politics? I mean if there is to be true transparency then I suspect that something we should demand instead of accepting loophole after loophole. Especially right here in Illinois where ethics and rules are not only ineffective - but basically a sham because of those loopholes.

    As to whether you did anything wrong or not, well, my concern was based upon at least the appearance of it. Quite frankly if there was political activity going on, with or without your direct knowledge, it still makes you responsible. But I see you have put in place the appropriate corrective actions and hopefully everyone working for you is abiding by that. However I still think that had you owned up to this situation earlier then I don't think we have the brouhaha we do. The way I see it, most folks are very forgiving when someone admits to a mistake - so even if it were an intern who didn't know any better - you were still the boss and that is where the buck is supposed to stop.

    So, I am glad that you responded directly and I give you much credit for that. But understand why it looks as if your public comments didn't necessarily mesh with what you have built your entire career on. And that was what bothered me enough to write about it.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I want to clarify a couple of points about what you said I said.

    I bring up Metra, not because of the dysfunctional state of its board, but because the severance agreement was a lawyer-brokered deal to shove the real scandal under the rug. Then the manifestly lying O'Halloran said "well I turned it over to the IG" and the IG has said nothing. Again, see my post on IGs becoming part of the coveraup, but apparently not Khan.

    Obviously, from Moore not knowing the difference between a gift and a contract, this wasn't a lawyer brokered deal. However, you are absolutely correct that in Illinois one can hire and fire at will if there isn't a written contract, and even if there is one, as in Clifford's case, Metra could have told him either serve out your contract and that's it, or paid off the balance of the contract and tell him to sit it out (sort of like what happened to Dian Burns at Channel 2). This becomes relevant to whether the severance was a gift or a contract, because the usual severance is an agreement in which the employee gets paid in consideration for a covenant not to sue the employer and mutual promises that they won't give bad references about each other. That even happens in a layoff, because of the possibility of suits for age or disability discrimination. Without that consideration, the severance is not a contract. Hence, Moore made a gift, presumably of city money, unless he can undergo the audit I suggested in my latest response to him.

  • In reply to jack:

    Thanks for clarifying your point and the rationale. And as I said in my lengthy response earlier, I know from experience that in Illinois (at least) we needn't offer an employee a reason for termination and those politically connected guys I worked for made it a point to remind me. Hell they didn't even want me to pay people for legitimate monies owed them but that's another story. But back to the main gist of my original post, there seems to be something missing here and I'll be damned if I could put my finger on it. And part of it concerns Khan's actions unless there is something else we are missing. But I will say this if he did in fact investigate without hopes of ever having a conclusion - then what was that all about? So I have to wonder if there is something Khan is not sharing or admitting?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    That gets answered by Moore's "he didn't cite a statute" and my comments below about ethics. If Moore misused city money, it is an ethical violation, regardless of legislation (including that passed by the city council) as well as possibly a legal violation of the U.S. Attorneys can find something like they did on the Jacksons and Beavers, but in such cases, the feds would have to find something like extortion, bribery, or tax evasion.

    Maybe Khan had an ulterior motive, but as you point out, the city council could have dumped him if that were the case. Despite what Moore says, I have a hard time buying that he is singular in wanting to be subject to the city IG and being persecuted by the council IG.

  • In reply to jack:

    I too find it hard to comprehend too Jack and that is why I took the time to write about it - everything about it just doesn't make sense. Of course the he said she said just complicates it all. But you are right in absence of a specific law or rule, I think politicians need to look at the common sense aspect and if an action (whether well meaning or not) may not in some way seem as being inappropriate or bordering an ethical lapse. Of course not having concrete ethics don't help either as various body's of government always try to add something designed to circumvent the ethics. (Right Mr. Madigan?) So I suppose it is what it is until someone stands up and keeps pounding the message.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Michael, you ask: "You letter, for instance, states that rules apply only to paid staff and not volunteers - so the question is why is that? Shouldn't the same rules apply to everyone working in politics?"

    The City of Chicago Code of Ethics prohibits City employees from engaging in political work on City time. The reason for the rule is obvious. City employees are paid by the taxpayers and the taxpayers should not be subsidizing those workers to perform political tasks. Volunteers, on the other hand, are not City employees and hence are not covered by the City Ethics code. If they do political work, they are doing it on their own dime, not the taxpayers' dime.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Alderman I certainly understand the rationale behind the City Code of Ethics, and are logical on the surface. My only point is that the nature of politics (whether local, state, or national) today requires politicians to employ the use of interns, operatives, statisticians, etc..: so it just seems to me that that in and of itself can open a door for nefarious activities. I suppose it is just the way it is but politics today do not resemble politics of old. It is just my belief that ethical behavior be the rule rather than the exception across the board.

    Political mailings, for instance, are an area that could use some ethical restraint as voters often do not even know who is behind them half the time. And politicians aren't immune or even prevented from setting up their own PACs. But can they not then hide behind them as something of a shield?

    But as I said in an earlier comment to Jack, even you as a "reform" politician would have a hard time changing the status quo here because the system isn't set up to accept change and doubt if it ever will.

    Of course my point was more philosophical, but you have to admit there are too many avenues available for the bending of ethical behavior and without direct accountability. And that is exactly why we have this level of acrimony and distrust of government today.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Last thought of the evening: I also think most people here in Illinois feel that whatever Code of Ethics are in place are, well, laughable. Just the fact that the Illinois Legislature sees nothing wrong with a Joseph Berrios, Michael Madigan or even your Council Colleague Ed Burke operating tax abatement businesses and/or being involved in lobbyist activities should tell us all we need to know about how they feel about Ethics Reform.

    You know it is a real shame that we can't seem to get enough public officials who are actually interested in good governance rather than what they can do for themselves or their cronies by gaming a system beset with a myriad of loopholes and exceptions.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Michael, I agree with you that ethical laws in Illinois certainly could use tightening up, but when one is accused of wrongdoing by a prosecutor or inspector general, it behooves the accuser to cite the specific code or provision that the accused has violated, i.e., the law as it is today, not the law one may wish it to be. To accept otherwise would invite tyranny. That's why we are a nation of laws.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    Alderman Mr. Moore, look, I understand your apprehension given the dilemma of your own alleged interactions (or the lack thereof) with Mr. Faisal Khan and am even sympathetic that the process might not have worked right. But as I told you before, my reason for this post was purely based upon my earlier opinion of you vs the allegations I thought were out of character. And I had to ask why! One thing is certain though, at some point there will be a conclusion to this and life will move for everyone. As for "my last thought" well it really has nothing to do with you per se. Rather it is borne from years of political frustration and telling you what the consensus is among the average voters and taxpayers. And that may, or may not, help you in the future if you have higher aspirations.

    You see "There is a fundamental problem when elected officials can, and do, create law that is designed to insulate their activities from being deemed criminal; i.e. pension loopholes for cronies who may work one day to spike or boost their account? the number of politicians involved in conflicts of interest - especially in property tax appeals and or lobbying? the nepotism? the diversion of state grants (see today's Sun-Times)? Man that list just goes on and on and on! One abuse stacked upon another and this crap has been happening for as long as I can remember. So to say that our ethics need tightening isn't even accurate - it needs a fricking major overhaul!

    Yes thankfully we are a nation of laws and to that I say "Thank God," because as much as elected officials try to pervert those laws the Feds ultimately will have the last say when their indictments are handed down. But does it need to be this way? Evidently because our illustrious leaders sure aren't addressing them or doing anything about it, well except thumbing their noses at us.

    The bottom-line is simple - we want public officials held accountable and we want them to do the bidding of the people. They get paid a good salary, have better benefits than most and have expense accounts to boot. Not bad Full Time Pay and Benefits for largely Part Time work!

    * p.s. this comment has been edited a number of times due to issues with the server acting up. So hopefully the comments are now showing up as intended.

  • The audit point I made above brings me to...

    The easiest way to have answered these charges would have been for Moore to say "I have a verifiable system of assuring that political work isn't being done on city time in my alderman's office."

    Just like I mentioned that the reason Patrick Collins couldn't take the Metra investigator job was apparently a conflict of interest system within the law firm, which all law firms must have as a matter of ethics, there should have been a China Wall between the ward service office and the 49th Ward Democratic Committee office, and no intermingling of city, political, and personal money.

    The existence of any such wall was certainly obfuscated by the "the best defense is offense" strategy at length, and if I were taking bets, they don't exist.

    And these are matters of basic ethics, not citing an ordinance.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well you know my views on the basic ethics in our politics but in case you have forgotten - we don't have real ethics here in Illinois! Just as I brought up about why is it the same rules don't apply to unpaid operatives or interns? But I suppose Illinois isn't the only place where loopholes exist - don't you just hate it when I am facetious? I do have to say this though - even if Moore was the greatest reformer of city politics, one already knows that the system as we know it here won't allow for it. Even he would have to basically accept the way things are on a larger scale. So really about the only place he can ever hope to institute his vision of reform would be right there in his own ward operation. As Paddy Bauler once said "the city ain't ready for reform...yet." And I doubt it ever will either because in my estimation you would almost have to eliminate or at the very least completely overhaul the manner in which Ward Politics is practiced. And no one is going to do that are they?

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    Yep to all of that.

    Again, only slightly off the track, and an area probably closer to your expertise, are reports today that Burke wants to get around limits on city power in the concealed carry bill by saying that liquor licenses could be yanked if the bar owners don't ban it in situations when it is banned by the city.

    City Council and the General Assembly trying to get around paramount limits on their powers in the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions is nothing new. Conditioning liquor licenses on an unconstitutional condition is unconstitutional.

    So, if Joe Moore is as law and order as he claims, is he going to hold a press conference on Monday denouncing the Burke attempt? Or is he going to be the usual city antigun legislator and support it and cry when the courts strike it down? Just ask Bob Fioretti, who did that with respect to Felony Franks and the Congress Hotel.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well I got news for Mr. Burke, the NRA is already gearing up to fight the fact that there is already a conflict of interest with his wife on the State Supreme Court as well as the obvious constitutional infringements trying to be imposed. As you say - conditioning something based upon it being unconstitutional is er unconstitutional. And while we are it, Ed Burke should be required to relinquish his concealed carry privileges given the taxpayers are still paying for his fucking bodyguards. He is such a hypocrite it is unbelievable and why he wants to act as an ass-hat can only be justified with him being a power freak.

    Will Joe Moore defend the citizens right to carry? I highly doubt it as it appears all Democratic alderman are conditioned against by the usual rhetoric. Of course not one of them is smart enough to realize that legal ownership is not the same as illegal possession or the fact that those carrying illegally couldn't give a rats ass about any law prohibiting it. Criminals will always have access period. So no there won't be any press conferences by Moore on this one that I am sure of.

  • fb_avatar

    I hope giving people the right to carry concealed weapons scares the Alderman as much as it scares me. Not a good idea

  • In reply to Steven Winkler:

    Steven, I realize that concealed carry is a very personal issue and a matter of choice. The way I see it people are generally 100% for it or against it. And believe me I know plenty of people on both sides but there is that little thing called the Constitution and Chicago Democrats have gone way, way out of their way to encumber those who believe that their Constitutional Rights have been infringed upon. And bear in mind, all the while this was going on - Chicago had the toughest gun laws in the nation - WITH NO EFFECT. Talk about scary - that should scare people the most.

    But again, this is a personal choice and understand both sides of the argument. But just a little sidebar - every state that passed either open or concealed carry has seen a drop in violent crime. Why? Because the thugs must now consider if the intended victim they are about to bully is carrying. This is about the leveling of the playing field, especially given the fact that criminals have no regard for any laws - including total gun bans.

    As for Burke, well I don't like the hypocrisy that he or other aldermen can carry concealed weapons and DO while the average law-abiding citizen paying his or her salary can't. That is not only un-American but it reeks of a more sinister agenda.

    As for critics of that aldermanic argument - well please look around the City Council and ask yourselves - would you really trust all of those people (or the ones given a Cook County Sheriff's Badge as a political favor) to carry a gun? Hmmm....

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Michael Ciric:

    If surrounding suburbs and states had the same tough gun laws, maybe we wouldn't have these problems.

  • In reply to Steven Winkler:

    I am not so sure of that and quite honestly it has never been an issue of not having enough laws - there are plenty. So it has always been a matter of enforcement. You also forget that until recently some of those surrounding suburbs such as Morton Grove also had repressive gun laws that were struck down. Again plenty of laws and restrictions!

    Now I am in Will County these days and crimes with guns are a fraction of what they are in the city. Same for the other collar counties. You also forget that Illinois was the last state to allow some sort of concealed or right to carry law. That, I think, kept crime higher not lower. Statistics in nearly every instance show a decline in gun violence when citizens are allowed to protect themselves. And that is because thugs must always keep the idea in the back of their minds that do not have the advantage over an intended victim.

    So I respectfully disagree Steven. But again I get it as I have many friends whose wives especially say no to any weapon in the home period. Others not so rigid. There are many reasons too but I have to admit not for the reasons most think - rather it is about safety concerns in the home. Of course there are also those who will never be able to grasp the idea that there is a right way to carry and a wrong way - and that could pose a problem. So really I understand all the dynamics but when it comes to Thug Crime and a citizens right to protect themselves, well I have to stand on the side of the citizen.

    My only hope is that those who are opposed to protecting themselves or their families never meet with tragedy because of that decision.

  • Just a couple of observations:

    1. Joe is telling us that Ms. Sullivan lied...that he never gave her taxpayer money and told her to keep her mouth shut about the illegal practices in his ward offices (as attested by the intern and Ms. Sullivan).

    Well, there is no evidence that Ms. Sullivan lied, but we have confirmed that Joe lied when he said the illegal activity did not take place then backtracked when the facts came to light.

    2. At some point, Joe tells us that giving taxpayer money to a former employee is trivial because he has used money given to him by developers to help run his operation.

    "Well, your honor, I did in fact knock over the liquor store, but don't worry because I helped several old ladies cross the street prior to that."

    Joe's continued defense is simply becoming more and more comical, and there is certainly no reason he can ever again be given the benefit of the doubt. He has proven his willingness to lie.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Scott Phillips:

    News bulletin: "Joe Moore walks on water."

    Scott Phillips responds: "See, I told you, Joe Moore can't swim!"

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Seriously, Scott. What illegal activity are you referring to? Please cite the specific law or ordinance I supposedly violated.

  • Sure, Joe...

    But first, please explain why you lied to all of us about no campaign work being done in your offices only to the recant that lie when the facts came out.

    Also, please provide the names of the paid employees who where supervising the intern while conducting illegal campaign work in your office.

    Please respond to the intern's statement that "it happened all the time," regarding illegal campaign work being done in your offices. Was the intern also lying?

    You might also address why you were investigated for this same violation some years ago. You seem to have been very quiet about that. Please provide the details of that investigation.

    Next, please site the specific law or ordinance that allows you to use taxpayer money to pay tens of thousands of dollars to individuals who are no longer employed nor providing any service to the taxpayers.

    Did you report that money specifically as severance or as payroll?

    Also, would you mind putting me in touch with the former chief of staff to whom you paid a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money after firing him? He has been very quiet through all of this, and I'm guessing he has the ability to quickly clear your good name.

    Also, if Ms. Sullivan was such a horrible person, why did you hire her in the first place?

    Lastly, Ms. Sullivan publicly and repeatedly stated that you gave her the taxpayer money after firing her and specifically told her to keep quiet about the illegal campaign work being done in your offices. Is she telling a lie? Yes or no?

    Thanks, Joe...

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Scott, I can't answer your questions regarding "illegal campaign work" because your predicate is false.

  • In reply to Joe Moore:

    So what campaign work was going on there, since you have a limited definition of "illegal?" Does Scott have to give a citation, first?

  • I think most of us will greatly disagree, Joe; however, instead of you continuing to squirm out of admitting the truth and providing facts, you can just mentally edit my questions to read "allegedly illegal."

    Less complicated for you? I'll look forward to your response.

  • (It's like trying to debate facts with a child.)

  • In reply to Scott Phillips:

    No it is like debating a legal characterization with someone who thinks he is a lawyer.

    No different than Bill Clinton saying there was no sex, even though there was ejaculate, or debating what "is" "is."

    The DePaul graduate is not even close to debating the facts with you.

  • That's because he's told so many lies he can no longer keep them straight. But then again it's only my opinion and that of everyone else paying attention to this circus act.

    Joe will not respond. He will not tell the truth.

  • For those of us who once thought America (and its political system) meant something I believe there is a clear message herein for them and especially Alderman Moore:

  • Isn’t it a fact that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Chicago salaried employees are exempt, thus ineligible for comp time or severance?

    Also, isn’t it a fact that regardless of whether the employee is paid or unpaid (like for example an intern or a volunteer) city property cannot be used for political purposes? Thus, an intern cannot do political mailings on city property.

    And did anyone actually read the LIG report (which I just did) where Khan says he did not do an investigation, but is reported the states investigation? Quote, “[a]s a result of the evidence adduced in the state and federal investigations…” Why does Joe Moore keep accusing the IG?

    Also, isn’t Joe aware of the fact that the statute of limitations for the LIG office is 2 years, but the state is 3 years, and the feds are 5 years?

    Also, isn’t it a fact that that first Joe Moore denied all the allegations, then the intern came forward and the emails came out, and now Joe admits all of it? Which begs the question, why deny and hide it if you thought it was completely legal and proper in the first place?

    And finally, why doesn’t Joe Moore waive the statute of limitations and ask the IG to release all of the evidence? Then let us decide. And then he can get to go to the Board of Ethics and plead his case.

    Credibility time – Anne Sullivan v Joe Moore – looks like Anne in a knockout.

  • In reply to marionruth:

    The Fair Labor Standards Act basically only applies to hours and overtime pay. As the Metra mess indicates, a severance agreement can be made with an exempt person (the Executive Director of Metra was certainly exempt), but here Moore made a gift to a worker.

    As far as the statute of limitations, the only relevant ones would be on the particular crimes, if the IG ever turned it over to a prosecutor. The IG's term is irrelevant.

    The rest you mention are good factual questions, but it will be up to Mr. Moore to answer them.

  • In reply to marionruth:

    "And finally, why doesn’t Joe Moore waive the statute of limitations and ask the IG to release all of the evidence? Then let us decide. And then he can get to go to the Board of Ethics and plead his case."

    ...because he's a dishonest politician.

  • http://www.wbez.org/news/former-aide-ald-joe-moore-details-ethics-violations-108160

    Interesting article here:

    1. Joe told WBEZ he paid Ms. Sullivan for overtime work. She had 3 1/2 months of overtime? Joe lied and later changed that story.

    2. Joe told WBEZ the issue of campaign work done in his office was not something he was familiar with. He lied. The emails became public, the employee spoke up and he changed that story.

    And those are just the lies we know about...

  • In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Like I said, I'm not in a position to judge the facts, but the two interesting things in the article were:

    (1) "Sullivan said she later called the city’s human resources office and was told that the city of Chicago does not give severance pay to public employees." Yet Moore "believed" that he had the discretion to do so. Note also Sullivan's impression that “But for that I had to agree to walk away from the ward office, and not talk to anybody about anything that occurred in the ward office, or about anybody in the ward office, or badmouthing anybody,” Sounds more like a coverup than an unauthorized gift of city funds.

    (2) Note that after that, she talked to the IG and then " the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois on the advice of a friend. She claimed that office helped arrange for two FBI agents to interview her. " Moore did acknowledge in an interview with WBEZ that he was interviewed by FBI agents about the matter." Basically go back to what I said about 18 U.S.C. sections 1341-1346 and the feds looking into it. Moore can't say with a straight face that no one has informed him of possible violations, just that IG didn't cite them in his report.

  • In reply to Scott Phillips:

    Interesting Scott, thanks for sharing the link.

  • fb_avatar

    Haven't looked at this thread for a while. Wow.

    Joe knows that just a few weeks before I was fired I completed the city's ethics training. I was told by the trainer (an atty with the city's law dept) that no political work could be done ON CITY PROPERTY unless that property was rented from the city to do so. Instructing a volunteer to perform this political work--putting mailing labels on the invitations--and sitting him at the front desk of the ward office to do so would seem to violate this rule, right? Also, he forgets that Wayne printed the mailing labels from his city computer on the ward office's printer while he was on the clock.

    Here's the applicable rule, fyi, from the ethics ordinance:

    2-156-135. Prohibited political activities.

    (a) No employee shall intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time.

    (b) No official or employee shall intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources of the city in connection with any prohibited political activity; provided, however, any official or employee may reserve and rent a city-owned facility at a fair market value before any such activity or event connected therewith.

  • In reply to Anne Sullivan:

    You have missed a few choice responses for sure. Glad you checked back though and added your say.

Leave a comment