Tony Rezko’s Third Airport Plan

Commentary

The Illinois Senate quietly approved a bill this spring that would have steered the proposed third airport down a path of pay-to-play politics – and certain doom.

I know, because Antoin “Tony” Rezko attempted to lead Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. down that same path two years ago – a proposal Jackson flatly rejected.

Pay-to-play was the pathway laid out in Senate Bill 2063, sponsored by state Sen. Debbie Halvorson. That bill would have codified what Rezko essentially proposed to Jackson, ALNAC and its developers (SNC-Lavalin and LCOR), which was to create an airport board comprised of appointed – not elected – commissioners.

These non-elected insiders would have enormous powers to control the project – including eminent domain, condemnation, taxation, and contracts galore – yet they’d stand accountable to no one.

Sound familiar?

Rezko, of course, is the governor’s former cloutmeister who was convicted Wednesday on 16 of 24 counts in federal court for selling seats on state boards to the highest bidder.

Two years ago – before Rezko’s indictment and trial – the Congressman and I (as executive director of the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission) were invited to meet with state officials about the third airport, a project we’ve championed for 14 years.

At the time, the governor was running for re-election and facing angry south suburban leaders who were running a massive ad campaign criticizing Blagojevich for reneging on his promise to build the airport.

Feeling heat from his voter base, the governor agreed to have two of his top aides meet with Jackson and ALNAC.

At the last minute, however, there was a change of plans. Instead of meeting with the Governor’s aides, we would be meeting with Tony Rezko.

So, on Sunday, June 25, 2006, at the Chicago Four Seasons Hotel, Rezko showed up by himself. He said he could offer gubernatorial support for ALNAC’s airport plan – if the governor were allowed to make key appointments to ALNAC’s Board.

In essence, Rezko wanted to turn ALNAC into one of those state panels controlled by unaccountable pay-to-play ringleaders like Rezko and Stuart Levine.

When Jackson and ALNAC quickly rejected Rezko’s offer, they didn’t realize it would be their last official meeting with the state on the airport. A few weeks later, Levine and Rezko were charged in a massive federal corruption case.

The Governor says this isn’t the way he does business, and we take the Governor at his word that he did not know about the Rezko airport plan.

But Rezko’s proposal wasn’t dead. Senate Bill 2063 attempted to revive the Rezko model by giving non-elected appointees unprecedented political power through pay-to-play donors.

By comparison, ALNAC is made up entirely of elected officials from home-rule municipalities, all bound by state ethics laws. ALNAC has been endorsed by 37 communities representing 400,000 Will, Cook and Kankakee citizens, and its board was approved by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who said the airport does not require legislative approval.

Beyond the issue of accountability, the Senate bill would have allowed the airport board to award jobs and contracts to the highest bidder – thus driving up construction and operational costs, and alienating potential private investors such as global airport experts like LCOR and SNC-Lavalin.

ALNAC’s model for building the airport comes with built-in accountability and ethics designed specifically to eliminate kickbacks and graft, thus creating 15,000 private-sector jobs at a low-cost airport that will attract low-cost carriers during this challenging economy.

Rezko’s model and the Senate bill would turn ALNAC’s innovative plan to construct a privately funded, publicly accountable, low-cost airport into a taxpayer-funded, pay-to-play, high-cost airport.

Fortunately, Senate Bill 2063 died in the Illinois House. But it remains an example of how good ideas – like wayward politicians – get imprisoned.

Rick Bryant is Executive Director, Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission (ALNAC)

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

jrysk

|Registered |2008-06-07 05:29:37

Obama will shortly be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the same provision
under which Rezko was convicted.

There will be MANY counts in Obama's indictment, more than there were in
Rezko's. This will give you details about one of the indictments, concerning
the board legislation which Obama sponsored as part of a criminal enterprise.
Both Rezko and Obama are members of the Syrian Mafia, which
trades--corporately--under the name General Mediterranean and is headed by
NadhmiAuchi.

I don't think I need to add that if Obama is elected, the Syrian mafia will be
running the United States Government. Patrick Fitzgerald, hurry up.

Below is a discussion of the board legislation by Evelyn Pringle, who published
a very detailed series on Obama's crimes at opednews.com. These articles have
been cited around the world.

Following her discussion is a link to a discussion, also reproduced, of 18 USC
1346, which, again is the section under which Obama will be prosecuted.

First, Evelyn's discussion:

The evidence presented in "Tony Rezko's] trial focused on his influence over
officials in getting members appointed to the Boards. Prosecutors did not
discuss how the legislation got passed that enabled the Planning Board to be set
up in a way that allowed for the appointment of members to rig the votes to
begin with. That part of the scheme will likely be detailed in future
indictments, probably starting with Blagojevich. Blagojevich signed the Illinois
Health Facilities Planning Act with an effective date of June 27, 2003. However,
before he could sign the act, a bill had to be passed by the Illinois House and
Senate. As discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was the inside guy in
the senate who pushed through the legislation that resulted in the Act. Obama
was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The
minute the bill was introduced, it was referred to his committee for review. The
sponsors of the bill also served on this committee with Obama. Within a month,
Chairman Obama sent word to the full senate that the legislation should be
passed. On May 31, 2003, Senate Bill 1332 passed and specified that the “Board
shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the
Senate." The legislation reduced the number of members from 15 to 9, paving
the way for the appointment of a five-bloc majority to rig the votes. The
corrupt members appointed included three doctors who contributed to Obama.
Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 on June 30, 2003 and donated $25,000 to
Blagojevich on July 25, 2003. Malek also gave Obama another $500 in September
2003. Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and
gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. After he was appointed, Dr
Imad Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama. Almanaseer did not give
money to Blagojevich. When the first pay-to-play scheme was put in play, and
the application for approval of a new hospital was submitted, the Department of
Human Services, along with four other Illinois agencies, sent recommendations
that the project should be approved even though experts said the hospital was
not needed. During the trial, Rezko’s attorney presented an email exchange to
the jury that hinted at Obama's role in setting up the scheme. The exchange
showed that Obama and seven other top Illinois politicians consulted on the
legislation passed in 2003 and were involved in recommending the members for the
board. Matthew Pickering wrote the memo to Blagojevich’s general counsel, Susan
Lichtenstein, on behalf of David Wilhelm, a former chairman of the Democratic
National Committee, who headed Blagojevich's 2002 campaign for governor.
Pickering said he and Wilhelm had “worked closely” over six months with state
legislators. The memo recommended the appointees listed above and stated, “our
attached recommendations reflect that involvement” with the political leaders.
The persons appointed to rig the votes, including those who contributed to
Blagojevich and Obama, are cooperating in exchange for immunity or lighter
prison sentences. Feds shut down pay-to-play schemes. Only two pay-to-play
schemes succeeded before the Feds swooped in and shut them all down. Blagojevich
did not receive the $1.5 million from the Planning Board deal because the
hospital was never built. But Obama received $20,000 from the first kickback
paid in the pension fund scheme and the straw donors used to funnel the $10,000
payments, Elie Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, also made $1,000 contributions to
Obama's failed run for Congress in 2000. In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to
Obama's senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the summer of 2005, Aramanda's son
landed an intern position in Obama's Washington office. Obama also received
contributions for his senate campaign from the two persons appointed to rig the
vote on the pension fund board. On June 30, 2003, Jack Carriglio contributed
$1,000, and the other appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 on June 30, 2003,
$250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on June 25, 2004. The person chosen to funnel
the kickback in a future scheme, Michael Winter, donated $3,000 to Obama on June
30, 2003. All these people are also cooperating in exchange for immunity or
lesser prison sentences but prosecutors pointed out during closing arguments
that people who entered into agreements with the government are required to tell
the truth or all deals are off.

And now the discussion of the law under which Obama will go to prison, 18 USC
1346:

http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArtic le-Feb2006.pdf.

This article provides brief guidance as to the manner in which courts have
interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes of
federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively),
a "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or artifice to
deprive another of the intangible right to honest services." Specifically,
this article examines the manner in which courts have interpreted the broad
language of § 1346 in circumstances that do not involve the explicit bribery of
public officials.

I.

Background

18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes of reversing the Supreme
Court's decision in McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally, the Supreme
Court overruled a long line of lower court decisions by holding that the federal
mail and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes to defraud citizens of an
intangible right to honest government service from pubic officers. Id. at 355.
By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress restored "honest services" within
the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that a scheme to
deprive the public of "honest services" by a public official could be
punished as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that such an
instrumentality was used as part of the scheme or artifice).

II.

Judicial Interpretations of the "Honest Services" Fraud

A.

General Parameters of the Statute

Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have analyzed the "honest
services" fraud set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of
public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is in addition to other charges.
However, there have been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against public
officials (and those who have corrupted public officials) for transactions that
do not involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless involve the provision of
cash or gifts to a public official in exchange for the public official's
exercise of power on behalf of the individual or entity providing the gratuity.

Courts have recognized that the term "honest services," as used in §
1346, is incredibly broad, but the statute has survived repeated challenges
asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague, with courts resorting to a
"common sense" usage of the phrase "honest services." In
rejecting a constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the statute's
wording, one court opined that "[c]oncrete parameters outlining the duty of
honest services should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the duty of honest
services sufficiently conveys warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in
terms of common understanding and practice." U.S. v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp.
162, 171 (S.D. W. Va. 1993), aff'd. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995). Another court
demonstrated little patience for the defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge in
the context of a kickback scheme, holding that "[i]t should be plain to
ordinary people that offering and accepting large sums of money in exchange for
a city councilman's vote is a type of conduct proscribed by the language of §
1346." U.S. v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless,
courts have refused to allow § 1346 to be used as a "catch-all" that
subjects every unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire fraud
prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th

Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that "not every breach of fiduciary duty
works a criminal fraud"); U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir.
2003) ("the right to honest services is not violated by every breach of
contract, breach of duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made in the
course of dealing"). Recognizing the difficulty of interpreting the
undefined phrase "honest services," courts have attempted to establish
general criteria that must be satisfied to successfully assert an "honest
services" fraud claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting the scope of
the honest services fraud is the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held
that: First, . . . honest services convictions of public officials typically
involve serious corruption, such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of
public officials, or the failure of public decision-makers to disclose conflicts
of interest. Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud statute . . . does
not encompass every instance of official misconduct that results in the
official's personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . . the government must
not merely indicate wrongdoing by a public official, but must also demonstrate
that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to prevent or call into question the
proper or impartial performance of the public servant's official duties. U.S. v.
Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal
citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the First Circuit's prior
decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has
held that "[m]isuse of office (more broadly, misuse of position) for private
gain is the line that separates run of the mill violations of state law
fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime." U.S. v. Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655
(7 th Cir. 1998). The court went on to note that "in almost all of the
intangible rights cases decided . . . (before McNally or since § 1346), the
defendant used his office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe in exchange
for official action[,]" but also noted that "[s]ecret conversion of
information received in a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against the
owner of that information." Id. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit summarized
its test for an honest services fraud as follows: "[a]n employee deprives
his employer of his honest services only if he misuses his position (or the
information he obtained in it) for personal gain" (emphasis added). Id. at
656-57.

The Dude

|Registered |2008-06-09 03:25:25

Please. A quick read of SB 2063 shows that Rick is worried about his job, not
pay-to-play. The Gov. would get one (that's one, o-n-e, one) out of seven
appointments to the Board. AND, the Gov's appointee could not be the chair.

The other appointments would be made by the Will Co. Exec & Board (4), the
Kankakee Co. Chair & Board (1), and a joint appointment (1) by the
municipalities of Beecher, Crete, Monee, Peotone and University Park.

In addition, the bill was sponsored by area Republicans and Democrats from the
House and Senate. That breadth of support would not be forthcoming if they felt
the current Gov. would control the Board.

It's possible Mr. Bryant is worried about losing his job if the State takes
over.

RepDavidMiller - Halvorson’s "Special Interest" Airport

|Registered |2008-06-16 07:25:02

Halvorson’s "Special Interest" Airport Bill

By State Rep. David Miller

Now that the third airport debate has resurfaced, it’s important to put the
latest “special interest airport bill” sponsored by State Senator Debbie
Halvorson (Senate Bill 2063) into context. I am well situated to place it in
this context because I sought an opinion from Illinois Attorney General Lisa
Madigan to determine the correct path for building a new airport. A similar
request was made of the Attorney General by Will County State's Attorney James
Glasgow.

Several Illinois laws – including the Municipal Code, Aeronautics Act, Joint
Airports Act, Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the Illinois State
Constitution –all authorize the construction of airports in Illinois.

O’Hare, Midway, Joliet, Lansing, Rockford – all were built under these statutes,
as were virtually every commercial airfield in Illinois for a century, including
several airports in Will County.

But SB 2063 proposed a new “special interest” airport law. It would allow
“private actors” appointed by politicians to serve as commissioners to oversee
the construction, development and management of the Abraham Lincoln National
Airport. More specifically, this new law would have prohibited elected
officials (read: accountable) from running an airport, but require private
citizens (read: unaccountable political contributors and influence peddlers) to
do so.

That model – infamously employed by the Teachers Retirement Fund and the
Illinois Healthcare Facilities Planning Board – is what landed Antoin “Tony”
Rezko in prison.

Cynics might suggest that contributors be barred from serving on an airport
board, but there is another problem with unaccountable “private citizens”,
“appointed” to run an airport. We simply cannot ignore the history of Illinois
politics – “don’t send noboby who nobody sent.” In short, the Halvorson Bill, SB
2063, would bring the “Chicago patronage way” to the south suburban airport, by
allowing certain politicians, in state and county government to make
appointments of “private actors” to the airport board.

That would sound the death knell for the airport because it would discourage the
only means for paying for the airport. The federal government doesn’t build
airports, the State of Illinois can’t afford to build an airport, and no private
developer will invest in a facility run by unaccountable actors.

SB 2063 was noteworthy for another reason: integrity. ALNAC governments devised
a plan, and identified the means of financing the construction of the facility.
ALNAC then organized itself to secure the plan and the financing consistent with
Illinois law. Since public financing is not available for the construction of
the airport, Halvorson’s legislation essentially tells the private sector to
take it or leave it. Do business the way we do business or not at all. If you
want to do business in Will County you need to “court” a commission of “private
actors.” This is the model that is making our state unfriendly to business.

SB 2063 was suspiciously noteworthy for another reason: transparency. It passed
without fanfare or publicity by its sponsor, the Majority Leader of the State
Senate. It’s almost unimaginable that legislation effecting one the most
contentious issues facing the south suburbs in 30 years managed to “slip
through” the Illinois Senate without public notice. (Fortunately, the bill died
in the Illinois House.) Lastly, on the same date of its passage in the Illinois
Senate, after having learned of his newly gained status (5 appointments to the
airport board), Will County Executive and former Senator Larry Walsh was so
ecstatic that he celebrated and was arrested later that same evening for driving
under the influence according to The Joliet Herald News.

The makeup of the new airport board is very important to the prospect of this
airport. ALNAC’s plan is designed to protect not only the future of our region,
but future airport commissioners from doing something wrong. And it’s a model
that is free from Chicago style politics and insider deals.

ALNAC’s participating governments have studied airports. ALNAC has been endorsed
by The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, The SouthtownStar, The Defender,
The Hammond Times, The Kankakee Daily Journal and more. They have participated
in public debates and conceived a model that minimizes risk. They have entered
into intergovernmental agreements of common and shared purpose to create 15,000
jobs during an economic slowdown. They have secured $300 million in private
sector commitments. And they have eliminated bogus “finders fees”, “unnecessary
consultants” and hidden patronage.

ALNAC's private developers partner, meanwhile, who have built airports around
the world, have said repeatedly that they have no tolerance for Chicago-style
graft and corruption.

If Will County truly wanted to build an airport, not only would they join
ALNAC’s lead, which is legal and tested, they would have followed the existing
statutes that built dozens of airports in our state, which ALNAC did and
Attorney General Lisa Madigan confirmed. But they did not. Instead, they sought
to circumvent existing statutes and create “special interest legislation” that
does not serve the state or the interest of the people.

Halvorson tries to defend her opposition to ALNAC (actually, Cong. Jesse Jackson
Jr.) by saying “I won’t let Chicago politicians tell us what to do.” Yet, she
admits to meeting with Mayor Daley on airport financing; asking Congressman Rahm
Emanuel for strategic advice; seeking Gov. Blagojevich's legislative support;
and serving as Emil Jones' majority leader.

In short, Senator Halvorson relies on the Chicago machine for just about
everything, yet attempts to bad mouth Congressman Jackson as a “bigwig from
Chicago.”

Halvorson says it’s about “local control.” ALNAC is run by University Park, a
Will County home-rule community that borders the airport footprint, and is
legally constituted under existing statutes. Someone should tell Halvorson that
there is a difference between local control and Rezko control.

Rick Bryant

|Registered |2008-06-24 10:30:52

Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission

“Building Chicagoland’s Third Airport”

Hon. Al McCowan, Chairman

If all the demands for “local control” of the new airport weren’t so stubbornly
uninformed, they’d be comical.

State Sen. Debbie Halvorson and Congressman Jerry Weller sound like broken
records when they repeat their only concern about the airport is “local control,
local control, local control.”

Guess what? The Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission is locally
controlled.

I am the chairman of ALNAC. I am also the mayor of University Park, a Will
County community. I live in Will County. And I pay Will County taxes.

ALNAC’s vice chairman is John Ostenburg. He is mayor of Park Forest, another
Will County community.

We formed ALNAC four years ago under the same state laws used by virtually every
other airport commission in Illinois. In short, we didn’t seek special
treatment in Springfield.

More importantly, we designed a world-class airport (which IDOT adopted) and
secured $300 million in private funds to pay for it, so Will County taxpayers
won’t foot the bill.

Finally, we opened ALNAC to all Will County mayors of home-rule municipalities,
in accordance to state law and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s
guidance.

Park Forest and University Park border the airport. Our communities want an
airport, but one that is friendly to the local environment. That’s why ALNAC is
run by local elected officials, who are accountable to local voters, sensitive
to local needs – and committed to creating 15,000 local jobs during the worst
economy in a generation.

Frankly, I cannot think of an airport with more ”local control.”

But if anyone can prove that University Park is not in Will County, let me know.
Then our residents can stop paying Will County taxes.

Al McCowan

Mayor of University Park and Chairman of ALNAC

eNews Park Forest

Tony Rezko’s Third Airport Plan