The First Rule of Clout Club

The night before last I was evidently watching the same teevee as the estimable Steve Rhodes of the "Beachwood Reporter":

On Chicago Tonight last night, Chicago 2016 CEO Lori Healey said that public support "generally was in the 70 percent range."

Oops.

A Tribune poll out today says just 47 percent of city residents support the Games. That's down from 61 percent in February. And 84 percent "disapprove of using tax revenue to cover any loss."
...

when, for the 10th time in as many days, I was seized by a very basic question that I seemed to be all alone in asking:

Isn't it illegal -- and I mean flagrantly illegal -- for Ms. Healey to have taken that job in the first place?

Now it is certainly possible that I have just mislaid some crucial mile of track between premise and conclusion, but I don't think so. I think Da Mare, his former Chief of Staff and the Bid Committee have screwed up, and I think I can demonstrate how.

Follow my thinking here and see if I've missed anything:

1. For the sake of argument, let us stipulate that Ms. Healey appears to be a perfectly able and competent President of Chicago 2016. Let us further stipulate that her previous experience in government -- first in the Planning Department handling the complex problems of balancing public and private property development interests, and as Da Mare's Chief of Staff where she was up to her elbows in the conception and creation of Chicago 2016 -- has left her rich with all kinds of mad skillz that are the very reason she was hired into her new job in the first place (emphasis added):

CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS' John Pletz noted Healey's appointment gives Chicago 2016 Chair & CEO PATRICK RYAN "additional organizational help that some observers have said the bid effort needs as it grows heading toward the final vote." Ryan said Healey has "very strong leadership and organization skills. She's an expert in city planning and real estate development." Pletz noted Healey's appointment also "maintains City Hall's tight grip on the bid process"

2. None of that matters. Because,

3. While public officials are free to move pretty much unfettered from one public sector job or office to another (witness Barack Obama moving from the Senate to the White House; John Harris moving from being Da Mare's budget guy, to Rod Blagojevich's chief of staff, to jail; Todd Stroger moving from being the fastest swimmin' male gamete in his daddy's loins to President of the Cook County Board, etc.) when public officials moves from the public sector to the non-gummint sector (private business, public-private partnerships, not-for-profits, etc.) a whole bunch of very specific and restrictive regulations kick in.

4. So is Chicago 2016 a part of the gummint or not? Well if its budget comes from wealthy private donors like a duck

...
So far, Chicago 2016 has raised $76.9 million in the three years since Mr. Daley launched the bid with Mr. Ryan, according to a report provided to aldermen Friday in an effort to demonstrate the group's ability to meet financial targets. The bid committee raised $3.7 million more than expected, it said. Twenty-nine donors gave more than $1 million apiece, and another 20 contributed more than $500,000.

It has spent $48.3 million in pursuit of the games, including $10.9 million on consultants and $10.5 million on full-time staff. Its four highest-paid executives are paid $250,000 to $300,000 per year.
...

keeps its expenditures and tax records secret like a duck, and (until recently) wiped its ass with reporters' FOIA requests like a duck...then its not a god damn public institution, is it?

No, according to this Chicago City ordinance (PDF), it is "an lllinois not-for-profit corporation (the "Bid_-Committee"), which said Committee was formed for the purpose of assisting and representing the City in the Olympic Games bid application process in accordance with IOC protocols."

5. And the Chicago 2016 Bid Committee is not just any old private corporation being funded behind the scenes by a tiny group of wealthy individuals and companies. Oh my goodness no. Decisions made by this Committee have the potential to --

• Remake the map of the third largest city in America on a scale not seen since the Great Fire of 1871
• Make real estate developers and contractors who are in the right place at the right time rich beyond the dreams of Avarice, and
• Put Chicago taxpayers on the hook for billions if things go wrong.

-- which makes this unelected, private corporation arguably the single most powerful entity in the State of Illinois.

6. And so to get this ungainly behemoth airborne, they hired an insider who was already intimately involved in the details of putting the deal together. They offered Ms. Healy a 41% raise to walk out of her job as Da Mare's strong right hand and straight into her new gig as President of Chicago 2016

After working on the bid as a board member for more than two years, she will join the staff full time in January. "Her experience in government will help a lot in government relations," said Patrick Ryan, chairman and chief executive of the bid group. "And she has a very, very in-depth background in the real estate area and development and construction ... which will be particularly helpful as it relates to the Olympic Village." Mayor Richard Daley called Healey "the lead person for the city" on Olympic issues. She had served as the city's commissioner of planning and development, and before that was a principal in the Chicago office of architecture firm Perkins & Will.

at a time when the thousands of poor schmucks who were not being offered a Golden Parachute out of city gummint were facing pay cuts, unpaid furlough days, forced unpaid city holidays and layoffs.

7. Because according to the Private Sector Fetishization mentality that Da Mare has soaked up during a lifetime of palling around and exchanging favors with moguls, there is no value to any activity if it cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Which means that, at least for certain friends of Da Mare, the grubby business of public service is such a fucking hardship that they shouldn't have to endure it for too long:

“Lori was sacrificing working for the city. Lori’s market value. . . . would be much higher than we’re paying her. She has been a jewel. So is Dave Bolger. So is the whole team,” the chairman said.

“Each one of these senior people could make considerably more money than they are with us."

8. All of which would would be just another not-worth-mentioning, sad-but-true tale of Crony Capitalism Triumphant were it not for the fact that it appears to be, y'know, illegal. You see...

9. It turns out, the City of Chicago has all of these pesky ethic regulations, some of which were designed specifically to prevent public officials from using their authority to create lucrative jobs for themselves outside of gummint into which they then jump.

Because, in case you didn't know this, over the last thousand years or so Chicago has racked up whatchacall a "storied history" of public officials (and their various friends, family members, school pals, in-laws, imaginary playmates, gang-banger boyfriends, ward heelers and third cousins living and dead) using their public offices to rip off the taxpayers for God alone knows hundreds of millions of dollars, usually in chiseling increments of a few thousand bucks per iniquity.

We're sorta famous for it, and so -- one hugely embarrassing federal lawsuit at a time -- the City has accreted a chitinous shell of "Thou Shalt Nots" designed to protect the public from the predations of its servants.

And how do I know this?

10. Because kiddies, believe it or not, the City has an honest-to-God online quiz here which you or I or a Chief of Staff or any mope with a modem can take to test their ethical acumen using the City's own Eth-O-Matic 3000.

(Will you score a "Sorich"? A "Reyes"? A "Dirty Sanchez"? Or a "Full Burges"? Pit your wits against the Eth-O-Matic 3000 and find out!")

And what do the ethics regs have to say about this exact scenario?

Ethics Quiz Answer #3: Beginning on the date City employment ends, a former employee is prohibited for one year from assisting or representing a person in a business transaction involving the City, if the former employee participated personally and substantially in the subject matter of the transaction while in City service.

Well, short of giving live birth to the Bid Committee, it is hard imagine just how much more the former Chief of Staff could have "participated personally and substantially" in the "subject matter" of the Chicago 2016 shadow government initiative during her tenure as Chief of Staff.

Unless she exercised control over the 2016 Bid Committee contract itself, in which case the prohibition against her participating in the business of that Committee would be permanent.

Ethics Quiz Answer #2: "Management over a city contract is called “contract management authority.” The Ethics rules permanently prohibit a City employee who exercised contract management authority over a City contract from assisting or representing a new employer with respect to that contract. “Permanent” means for the full term of the contract, even if it extends beyond one year after the employee left City service. "

Oops.

Well what about if there is maybe some arcane rule or secret waiver or special, double-secret Opposite Day exception that exempts the former Chief of Staff from the ethics ordinances that were clearly put in place only to prevent scruffier, not-on-a-first-name-basis-with-Da-Mare sort of people doing this sort of thing?

Ethics Quiz Answer #7: "The Ordinance’s post-employment restrictions do not contain exemptions for any former City employees. The restrictions apply to all former employees, regardless of the circumstances under which they leave City employment."

Um, well, OK, what about when the person is "a jewel"? What about dat, Mr. Smartypants? Somebody who could be raking it in elsewhere, but was willing to walk across the street and make do wit a paltry 41% raise for da good of da City dat we all love so much?

Surely no regulations would be tight-assed enough to prohibit dat!

Ethics Quiz Answer #5: "...These restrictions apply regardless of whether the former employee’s work benefits the City. "

Oh.

/Pause/

So..how 'bout dem Bears!

As I said, maybe I am missing something.

Or maybe it's just the first rule of Clout Club.