I am posting links and excerpts from these Chicago Tribune articles because Richardson, Texas, Mayor Gary Slagel, CEO/President Capitalsoft, had told the audience at a public event that the Board of Directors of CapitalSoft were told by a consultant that if they wanted to do business in Illinois that they needed to get involved in politics there. A $5,000 check was reported to have been given to Gov. Blagojevich's campaign efforts. Gary said the donation didn't have anything to do with CapitalSoft being decided the winner of the contract. Before the check, they were not winning, according to reports. My simple question was, then why was it done?
This explanation reply by Mayor Gary Slagel, doesn't wash, in my personal opinion. It just doesn't ring plausible and true to me personally.
His business was in the city tax payer supported incubator (building) and it was something that I seriously tried to reserve judgement on too, however, I never was given the proof I needed that he paid the going rent as he told me he did for all those years that he kept his own business in the city supported incubator. I did meet a guy at city hall who complained that he and his partner applied to have their technology business in the city supported incubator. He was quiet upset by his experience and called the decision makers who decide who gets into the incubator "vulchers."
I still do not know if that part of what Gary said is true or not about him paying the going rate for rent for his business to be in the city supported incubator year after year but on the face of it no elected official should be a part of having his business or a corporation that he is a part of in the city incubator when he is the mayor, or on the council, because to me it causes questions of conflict and it is poor judgement. A past council member and staunch supporter of his, at least once staunch, told him to remove his business from the incubator. He finally did, but not after holding out from doing so and giving amunition for city embarrassment. That same bad feeling comes about every time he, in my opinion, does something he should not do, and especially with his history.
Him getting the City of Richardson to sign up with a consortium his business was a vendor partner in called Choice Facility Partners is a third thing that immediately comes to mind that I feel should have not happened and it would not have been learned of except that a member of council walked in on Gary, Bill Keffler and COR Purchasing Manager having an offline meeting on it. COR was on the list, then off the list (because of complaints), back on the list (when Gary got back in the Mayor's seat), now is not on the list/web site at least. Gary told me that he did not stand to benefit from the agreement when I asked him about it later after the commotion over the circumstances came to light, but it would be best if he did not get COR to sign with a consortium where he or CapitalSoft or any of his business (or businesses) that he may have as a vendor or member, even if the City was not going to directly use his services. This is particularly true given his history. I told Bill that it should not happen. In my opinion, Gary does benefit if at the minimum by raising the prestige of any consortium or his status in any consortium by signing COR (backed by tax payers), a municipality, up as a member, user or subscriber. The rationale was that COR would be the only real beneficiary. Really? The added problem is that it places any employee potentially in a difficult or in a leveraging position, in my opinion, especially since it should have never been a closed door meeting outside the other decision makers. (More about that later.) It should not be re-agreed to after it was un-agreed the first time once he got back in the mayoral position.
There are a dozen or more things, time after time, several of them published, many of them not as of today, that have happened that are very disconcerting and ongoing or influence what is happening. I sincerely hope at this point that Gary does not hold office again.
The fall, by December, was the time when the last two incumbents let it be known that they were not seeking re-election. That seemed to be a good time to let everyone know. I hope Gary will say he is not seeking another term soon.
Someone equally or more talented but who has a higher level of standards toward several things, especially toward separation between their business and campaign in regards to city resources (like separation of church and state), can become the mayor and represent more of the people and not be a (self-begging) lightening rod for ethics questioning.
I feel that way more strongly than ever because I support the judgement of some people who could not and cannot agree to his behavior and did not vote to keep him "in charge as Mayor."
My personal opinion is that he has been given many chances to act as above reproach as he can as the top elected and selected leader of the City and he doesn't seem to care to. My opinion of him is that he would rather see all those who cannot agree with all of his behavior to be treated very spitefully than for him to just behave. He spurs others on. It is contageous. He and all his nonsense is just not worth it, in my opinion.
Gary walked up to me and leaned over and whispered to me one time, out of the blue (at least to me), that he learned that a certain person who had been disagreeing with him, had been married a certain number of times before. I let it pass because the two of them were always at each other but I never mentioned it to anyone until right here. I do not wonder at all how he knew about it because as I posted previously, I came to see that investigating services were used by "the team" who did not like it that anything should be disagreed with or questioned, and not just by the unliked fellow, but by anyone who should dare not agree.
Some people will decide finally and have decided to not just take attacks just because they cannot go along to get along with unethical behavior that directly involves city tax payer resources. In fact, a year was given following the last severe outburst from "the team" to see if they "the team" would stop needling and saying hatefilled, grating things about good people and cut out the funny business at city hall. They continue to do all of it.
If that is the way they want it... It is contageous then. Just because someone is above average in age (constantly grating and taking jabs when no one is bothering him) or just because somebody else considers himself to be a lifetime appointee, as two examples, doesn't mean they can keep attacking and get free passes. Not any more.
I do wonder if they considered calling Gary Slagel, CapitalSoft Board Members and their consultant to testify in the Blagojevich trial.
More waiting in Blagojevich case
By Jeff Coen, Bob Secter and Stacy St. Clair, Tribune reporters
9:22 p.m. CDT, August 12, 2010
Excerpts
...array of alleged bad behavior — from trying to sell the Senate seat to siphoning money off a rigged state bond deal to shaking down a hospital executive, a racetrack owner, a road building executive and a U.S. congressman for campaign cash.
Jurors signaled that despite 12 days of deliberations, they had agreed on just two of the 24 counts faced by Blagojevich — without hinting at which ones or how they voted — and had yet to take up half of the remaining 22 counts.The result was a cloud of confusion hanging over a showcase trial that had captivated the nation with testimony and wiretaps portraying the twice-elected Illinois leader as a vain, profanity-spewing, responsibility-shirking politician who allegedly tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama.
full article here in Chicago Tribune
Blagojevich scandal is no laughing matter, author says
August 11, 2010By John Keilman, Tribune reporter
Rod Blagojevich has done his best to wring laughs out of his legal trouble, mugging for the cameras, blabbing on any talk show that would have him and yukking it up every chance he gets. But Laura Kipnis, a professor in Northwestern University's School of Communication, said the real joke might be on the rest of us. Her forthcoming book, "How To Become a Scandal: Adventures in Bad Behavior," (Metropolitan Books; $24) examines the strange relationship between those who fall from grace and those who watch the plunge, and concludes that both parties are dysfunctional.
"The necessary element in a scandal is us in the audience," she said. "We're the ones who are fascinated by these stories and addicted to them. We get to punish the transgressors. We get to be the villagers throwing the stones. We take a perverse pleasure in that."
Yet while we're having a good chuckle at their misfortune, she said, we fail to note some unflattering things about ourselves. We're eager for distraction. We're quick to find scapegoats. And we'd much rather laugh at a scandal than consider its tragic elements or larger implications. The Blagojevich ruckus is distinguished by the former governor's eagerness to draw mockery, Kipnis said. But with every snicker, the important issues underlining the case slip further from view.
Chicago Tribune article
