Read A Just Cause Online

Authors: Jim; Bernard; Edgar Sieracki

A Just Cause (10 page)

BOOK: A Just Cause
6.54Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Lang then asked Maram why the department had failed to respond to a past Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) submission by the Caro case
attorneys with a similar request. Hoffman responded that the request had been denied. She said that she had seen the response letter from the department, but she could not remember what was in the letter or the reason for the denial. It was her understanding that the request had been denied “in the context of litigation,” and she asked for the opportunity to consult with the attorneys involved to make sure that what she was saying was accurate (285). Lang tried to involve the governor by asking if anyone from the governor's office ever spoke to Hoffman or Maram about the FOIA requests. The witnesses responded that they had no knowledge of that but would talk to their attorneys.

Intently hunched over his notes, dressed in a white shirt and tie, with his left hand held to his forehead, Lang turned his questions to funding and asked how HFS was paying for the program expansion. Sitting erect, tense, and vigilant of his opponent's next move, Maram parried that the expansion was being funded through internal efficiency initiatives using available funds from the department's budget. Lang asked, incredulously and with a hint of sarcasm, whether the department would have a $6.3 million surplus if the program had not been expanded. Maram did not answer. Returning to the decision to go ahead with the expansion of FamilyCare, Lang asked directly if the expansion had been Maram's idea. Maram said it had not been initiated by him, but after review he was comfortable with the expansion. Lang, showing some interrogatory skill and trying once again to solicit a response that would implicate the governor, quickly asked Maram who had initiated the idea to expand the FamilyCare program. The director did not take the bait; he held firm and responded yet again that he had “no exact knowledge.”

Lang continued to press the witnesses, trying to get them to admit that the governor was involved in the decision to ignore JCAR and establish that he had been aware of the financial consequences. He quoted from a November 2007 Associated Press article placing the number of caretakers and parents that would be added with the FamilyCare expansion at 147,000 and quoting the governor as saying, “I'm going to do what I think is right, and that's one of the good things about being governor . . . you can do things like this.” Addressing both Maram and Hoffman, Lang asked how, in view of the extensive press coverage, it was possible that the representatives of the department could not remember anything about meetings or discussions regarding the FamilyCare expansion. Hoffman readily admitted that she had been involved in those meetings, and Lang
asked who was at the meetings (293). Initially Hoffman evasively replied, “lawyers and staff,” but then, bafflingly, she became specific (297). The governor had attended some meetings, she said. Pressed for the names of the people who attended the meetings, Hoffman was again evasive and said she would look for any meeting notes, and if she had them, she would forward them to the committee. Lang seized on what Hoffman had just said: that the governor was present at some meetings. He asked her if she remembered any conversations with Blagojevich concerning rule-making. Hoffman said she had told the governor that there was precedent for the emergency rule but did not talk to him about “specific rule making” (300).

Lang asked why HFS had included the expanded program in an emergency rule and then ignored JCAR's decision to reject the rule. He asked if Hoffman disagreed with Vicki Thomas's previous description of the FamilyCare expansion as “cavalierly” dealing with emergency rule-making. Larry Blust, who was acting as counsel to HFS, attempted to deflect the question and interjected that it was not the function of the department to “do those kinds of things,” but to the surprise of everyone, Hoffman cut him off in midsentence (302). She disagreed with Blust and said that it was the department's responsibility to determine when an emergency exists. It was odd to see the witness disagree openly with her own counsel, and the exchange reinforced the comedic appearance of Blagojevich's staff. The hearing began to take on a circus atmosphere and the audience became amused. Lang, the careful ringmaster, appeared to take no notice of the spectacle before him and continued with his questions for the record: Did Hoffman think JCAR was advisory? Had any court upheld that JCAR was advisory? When did HFS start to enroll people after the expansion was rejected? Though no definitive answers came from the witnesses, it had become clear that HFS had ignored JCAR's ruling and continued with the expanded program.

Other committee members continued with Lang's line of questioning. Republican Patti Bellock from Westmont, referring to the press conference in November 2007 that Lang had noted earlier, quoting the governor as saying JCAR does not have constitutional authority to block the expansion rule and that he was moving ahead with signing up families at a cost to the state of $43 million. Bellock's point was that the governor intentionally went ahead and dismissed JCAR's authority. Chapin Rose, a former prosecutor from the east-central Illinois town of Mahomet, was confrontational. Like Lang, he sought to establish that no court had denied the authority of JCAR and attempted to discover who had made the decision to go forward
with the expansion. Maram and Hoffman again deflected his questions. Jack Franks also attempted to have the witnesses state who initiated the expansion, but to no avail.

The investigative committee sought to portray the Blagojevich administration as being fully aware of the consequences of expanding FamilyCare. It tried to identify the governor or his office as the impetus for the decision to ignore JCAR's decision, and it attempted to show that the expanded program had no funding authorization from the general assembly. The witnesses from HFS facilitated these intentions. They were unprepared to face the questions posed by the hostile committee. They had no appreciation for the committee's intent, and their evasive and bewildered manner portrayed the image the committee wished. The committee requested that the University of Illinois professors and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Caro case return for follow-up questions from the committee. Currie dismissed Maram and Hoffman. The committee had all it needed from them, but as it was preparing to question the previous witnesses, Sam Adam Jr., an attorney assisting Genson, asked to be recognized. He asked Maram, after Blagojevich disregarded JCAR's decision, “how many brother and sister, Illinois citizens' lives were saved as a result from that moment on? How many lives were saved because of his policy to go forward and give healthcare?” This diverged from the track of questioning by lead attorney Genson, whose questions and comments addressed points of law and established courtroom procedures. Adam's questions, posed in street vernacular, represented an abstract attempt to solicit irrelevant emotion from a specific audience and present a different characteristic to Blagojevich's defense. Genson argued points of law, while Adam was a showman. His style was confrontational, and he relied on sensationalism and intimidation (364).
22

Lou Lang immediately objected to the question. Currie agreed and had the committee move on to follow-up questions for the University of Illinois professors. Lang and other committee members questioned Andrew Morriss and Robert Rich for the record. The questions and answers reaffirmed the authority of JCAR and the separation of power among the legislative and executive branches.

Genson attempted to challenge the qualifications of the professors who claimed that Blagojevich should be impeached for ignoring JCAR's ruling. Durkin objected and stated that Genson's questions, as prescribed in the committee rules, should be of a clarification nature only. What Genson was doing, Durkin claimed, was cross-examination. The discussion between
Genson and the committee grew heated, with members making objections to several of his questions and statements, but the lawyer endeavored to make his point: the JCAR case was not settled, the professors were merely speculating and giving their opinions, and thus there was no legal basis to justify Blagojevich being impeached. In a court of law his point would have relevance, but here it did not matter.

The investigative committee next turned to the most powerful evidence supporting the charge of maladministration: the results of the audits of the flu vaccine, the I-SaveRx program, and the activities of the Department of Central Management Services (CMS). These audits had provided indisputable evidence of mismanagement and malfeasance, gleaned meticulously by independent professionals and substantiated by hard data. Auditor General Bill Holland summarized the audit findings. Holland was well known to the committee and well respected. A former member of both the house and senate staff, he was one of them.

Holland addressed the two audits separately, beginning with the CMS audit, which focused on the administration of the efficiency initiatives program created by the legislature to seek efficient operations throughout state government. He quickly reviewed the legislative intent of the initiatives and the program's structure as defined by statute. In sonorous tones, he related what the audit had uncovered: CMS was not complying with the efficiency initiatives statute. The audit found that CMS had overbilled the state agencies, and the money was then used to pay outside vendors and consultants picked by the governor's office (418–21). As run by the Blagojevich administration, the efficiency initiatives had resulted in circumventing the legislature's appropriation process.

Holland took note of one particular company, Illinois Property Asset Management (IPAM), which received a $30 million, no-bid contract award before the company even existed. In another case, McKinsey and Company was awarded a $14.7 million contract to review the state's procurement process after McKinsey donated $52,000 to the Friends of Blagojevich, and the contract was awarded by a CMS employee who was a former employee of the company (458–59).

Jack Franks had anticipated Holland's testimony. Since the State Government Administration Committee investigation of the flu vaccine episode in 2005, and the resulting audits of CMS, the flu vaccine, and I-SaveRx in 2005 and 2006, Franks had called for further action by the legislature. Now his efforts and the findings of the audits would at last be acted upon. He was ready.

Franks interrupted Holland and began to ask questions that reinforced the findings of the audits and extended speculation of nefarious activity. Was it not true that 44 percent of contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder? Did the company Team Services give a large contribution to Blagojevich and then receive a $5 million no-bid contract? And was it not correct that no performance guarantees were included in the IPAM contract? He asked Holland to elaborate on IPAM and if he remembered what the governor's response to the CMS audit was. Holland deferred to Franks, who answered his own question, paraphrasing the governor's statement: “this is a prize fight amongst accountants—a lot of noise but not a lot of muscle” (434). Thoroughly familiar with the audit, Franks made another supporting point: 77 percent of $708,000 of expenses examined were questionable (436).

Holland continued that in seven out of the nine contracts examined in the CMS audit, people from the governor's office had attended the selection committee meetings. Lang asked if that was unusual, and Holland answered, “Very unusual.” Holland said that when the audit was performed in 2005, he had thought some of the problems were the result of “simply inexperience with the procurement process,” but the events of the last nine days put what he had uncovered in 2005 in a new perspective. “In light of some of the disclosures that we see recently,” he said, “maybe in retrospect this audit is a lot more valuable and a lot more relevant than what we anticipated.” Lang remarked rhetorically that the committee had to face whether the actions of CMS were “simply incompetence or whether it goes beyond incompetence to some pattern of behavior that would relate to a conclusion or not as to whether the Governor was involved in an abuse of power with the distribution of contracts—the awarding of contracts at CMS” (447–50).

Indeed, the CMS audit presented tangible, indisputable evidence of misfeasance. The efficiency initiatives program was being used to create funds to award contracts to selected vendors and consultants. In light of what had been discovered, the conduct of the governor's office was cause for serious concern. The hearing-room audience listened intently as Holland related the audit findings. Many began to understand Jack Franks's passion and the investigative committee's motives.

Holland next turned to the flu vaccine and I-SaveRx audit. He briefly went through the scenario of events leading to the governor's office agreeing to purchase flu vaccines from the UK-based Ecosse Hospital Products. “The administration knew that the importation of flu vaccine was not legal,” he told the committee. Although the Centers for Disease Control located
sufficient flu vaccines to cover the state's priority population, the state increased the order for the number of doses to a total of 254,000. Holland pointed out that three weeks after agreeing to purchase the vaccine, the state had still not executed a contract. The governor's special advocate for prescription drugs, who negotiated the purchase, claimed that he did not know a contract was required and had been informed that the flu vaccine would be paid COD. Holland told the committee, “I know of no other product, service, or contract ever paid COD—cash on delivery—for any service in the State of Illinois—certainly not for something that was in excess of $2 million” (466–67). A contract was signed by deputy governor Louanner Peters on January 13, 2005, two days after receiving a bill from Ecosse (489). Further, the state negotiated supplying other governments with flu vaccine and increased its order with Ecosse to 773,000 doses, but no agreements with other governments ever came to fruition, so the state was left with a total liability of $8.2 million. A troubling aspect of the report, Holland related, was that high-ranking officials were aware that the vaccine would never be delivered, “even prior to being billed by the vendor and executing a contract” (468). Ecosse filed suit to recoup $2 million, and at the time of the impeachment hearings, the suit was still in litigation.

BOOK: A Just Cause
6.54Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Wicked by Joanne Fluke
Something Different by T. Baggins
The Lich by Adventure Time
The Jeweller's Skin by Ruth Valentine
Jubilee Trail by Gwen Bristow
My Wish for You by Destiny Webb