Rep. Derrick Smith convicted on corruption charges

Chicago Democratic Rep. Derrick Smith was convicted of accepting a bribe in exchange for official duties.

Smith was caught on tape as part of a federal sting negotiating a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter of recommendation for a day care center he believed was seeking a $50,000 state grant. The day care center was not actually seeking the grant — instead federal prosecutors used an informant who had been a campaign worker for Smith to broker the deal and deliver the bribe money. Perhaps some of the most damning evidence against Smith was an audio recording of him counting the cash.

Smith was found guilty on one count of bribery and one count of extortion. Both are felonies.

Smith’s lawyers argued that he was not seeking to commit a crime and would not have taken a bribe if the federal informant had not continued to push him in that direction. According to court documents, the informant discussed the bribe with Smith for three months before moving forward with it. “We gave it a good fight,” Smith told reporters after the verdict was handed down. “It’s God’s will. God knows the truth about it all. The jurors just didn’t see what God saw.” Prosecutors say they received information that Smith would be willing to take bribes and argue that it would have been negligent for them not to investigate the claims.

After Smith was arrested in 2012, the House voted to expel him. But he was re-elected and returned to his seat in 2013. Smith, who was defeated in the Democratic primary this year, automatically loses his seat due to the convictions.

House expels Smith, but he could return

By Jamey Dunn

The Illinois House expelled Derrick Smith today, but the embattled former representative could return to the ranks of the body if voters choose to vote him in this November.

The vote to expel Smith, who allegedly took a bribe in exchange for an official act, came as no surprise. The House disciplinary committee that recommended expulsion voted unanimously that Smith was at fault, and all but one member recommended expelling him. Smith was not present at the disciplinary hearing or during today’s vote. One hundred members voted in favor of kicking Smith out, while six voted against it. Three lawmakers voted “present.” The vote took effect immediately, and Smith’s name was removed from the House roll. It is the first time House members have expelled one of their own since 1905.

Smith was arrested in March and is accused of taking a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter of recommendation for a daycare center he believed was seeking a state grant. Smith was the subject of a federal sting, and the daycare was not actually seeking the grant. “Using one’s office for personal gain not for the public good is an affront to the core reputation of every legislator. To act in this way is to me a stunning violation of the oath of office each of us has promised to uphold. I can think of no greater breach of the public trust,” said Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, who served on the committee that recommended expelling Smith. Several House members said that if Smith had gone under oath and denied that he had taken a bribe, today’s vote likely would have not occurred. Since the disciplinary committee had little evidence to work with other than the criminal complaint against Smith, Currie said it would have been difficult to refute the claims Smith could have made.

Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti said that House members should take the information in the criminal complaint at “face value” because Smith never denied any of the allegations against him. “When you get down to the heart of the matter, Rep. Smith chose not to testify in front of us. He chose not to deny that those conversations [regarding the alleged bribe] in that affidavit ... ever took place. He had three opportunities in front of our special investigative committee to do so,” said Reboletti, who served on a preliminary committee that decided whether there was enough evidence to proceed with disciplinary action against Smith. Smith was allowed to plead the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, and choose not to testify in front of any of the House members. However, unlike in criminal court, House members were able to take his choice not to testify into consideration when decided whether to expel him from the chamber.

Those opposed to booting Smith did not defend his alleged actions, but they urged the lawmakers to wait until there was more evidence. They said that Smith had likely opted not to testify under oath because his lawyer advised him not to. Rep. Mary Flowers, a Chicago Democrat, called the proceedings “a dog and pony show.” She said that expelling somebody over unproven allegations sets a dangerous precedent. Flowers also noted that today’s vote means that lawmakers may have few options to get rid of Smith if he is elected to the House in November.

If Smith wins his bid in the general election, the House cannot expel him again over the same offense. He won his primary election race in the 10th House District with 77 percent of the vote. “He’s still on the ballot. And it is ‘we the people’, the people of his district that will have the say. They will be the ones to say if Mr. Smith will come back to this House or not,” she said. “There’s nothing that we will do here today that will stop him from coming back. And then what?”

Rep. Jim Durkin, who helped argue the case against Smith in front of the disciplinary committee, said that since Smith is the subject of an ongoing investigation, there is a possibility that he might face other criminal charges in the future. Durkin, a Republican from Western Springs, said if that were to happen, Smith could be expelled over another charge. “My hunch is that this case is not completely done,” he said. “If that is not the case [and he wins the election,] then Rep. Smith will be sworn in and seated next January because we can’t remove him for the charges for which we removed him today. However, Durkin said that the charge against Smith is so serious that it was necessary to take action and not wait until after the election.

Smith told reporters at a Chicago news conference that he was “sad” about today's vote. But he said there is a silver lining. "I am happy because through this ordeal, I have been able to learn who my friends are," Smith said. He said he plans to remain on the ballot. Many Democrats, including Smith’s former political ally Secretary of State Jesse White, have thrown support behind his opponent, third-party candidate Lance Tyson.

Quinn calls special session with no deal reached on pensions

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn has called the General Assembly back into session to address pension reform, but it seems that legislative leaders are no closer to reaching an agreement.

Quinn announced today that lawmakers would be required to return to Springfield on Aug. 17. The Illinois House is already scheduled to be in session that day to vote on a recommendation from a disciplinary committee to eject Rep. Derrick Smith from its ranks. Smith is accused of taking a $7,000 bribe in exchange for helping a business seeking a state grant.

Quinn called on lawmakers to pass pension reform legislation this year, but negotiations fell apart in the final days of the regular spring session. Democrats argued that downstate and suburban schools, state universities and community colleges should pick up more of the cost of their employees’ retirement benefits. Chicago schools already pay most of their employee retirement benefits. Democrats argue that because districts are setting the pay upon which benefits are based, they should not be able to pass the pension bill off to the state. But Republicans said that shifting the costs to local districts when state funding to schools is also being cut would lead to layoffs and local property tax increases.

The governor made the special session announcement today when he addressed the City Club of Chicago. “We’ve accommodated repeated requests for study and analysis, and it’s pretty clear that the school districts of Illinois can have a stake in their own pensions. This is not a good situation, where a school district can negotiate a contract with its employees, then shift the retirement costs over to taxpayers who did not have a seat at the table. It’s about accountability,” Quinn told the Chicago-Sun Times. “We must have a system that’s accountable, and that’s what we’re going to have, and we’re going to get it done on Aug. 17.”

Talks among the four legislative leaders reached a standstill earlier this summer when no agreement on the issue was found, and it would appear that nothing has changed since those negotiations stalled out. “I’m not aware that there’s been any more progress in terms of conversation between leaders,” said Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, who was the representative for the House Democrats on a pension reform working group. She said that at this point, trying to predict what, if anything, the special session might produce would be pure “speculation.” Nekritz told the Daily Herald earlier this summer that she thought it was likely that pension reform would not pass until after the general election in November. When asked whether leaders were any closer to reaching an agreement, Steve Brown, spokesperson for House Speaker Michael Madigan said, “I’m not aware of anything.”

Republican leaders took a positive tone when reacting to Quinn’s announcement. “We are encouraged by the governor’s call for a special session on pension reform on Aug. 17. As many people know, we have been and continue to be supportive of comprehensive pension reform that solves the major crisis facing us today. The time to act has been upon us,” said a prepared statement from House Minority Leader Tom Cross and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno. “We are continuing to encourage Gov. Quinn to take a leadership role to get a comprehensive pension bill passed in the General Assembly. We will continue to be available to discuss this very important matter in the coming weeks.”

There are a few pension proposals out there that lawmakers could take up. Senate Bill 1673 would have shifted costs to schools, universities and community colleges. After it became clear that Republicans would not support that plan, Madigan turned control of the bill over to Cross, who added amendments to remove the cost shift. Also, the Senate passed House Bill 1447, which would reduce benefits for state employees and legislators only. The measure avoids the controversial topic of who would pay for school benefits. However, both bills have immediate effective dates so, they would require the approval of a three-fifths majority or amendments to change the effective dates. If the effective dates are changed, the earliest the legislation could become law is next June 1.

It is unclear whether House Republicans could get behind a plan -- or whether Quinn would sign it -- that only covers state workers and legislators and does not address the pension systems for teachers and university employees. According to Quinn’s budget office, those systems would account for the bulk of pension costs for 2013. Multiple attempts to contact Quinn's office for comment were not returned. The announcement for the special session also mentions Quinn’s plan, which was never drafted into bill form.

Meanwhile, Senate President John Cullerton is urging Quinn to call off the special session. He has volunteered to call back his members on August 17th in order to cut costs associated with a special session. “I share the governor's interest in resolving the lingering pension issues, but it makes no sense to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars when there is an easy, no-cost alternative,” Cullerton said in a prepared statement. He estimates that the cost of one day of special session would be about $40,000. If the Senate returns voluntarily, some travel costs would not be covered by taxpayers.

Rep. Smith shows up but says little

By Jamey Dunn

Rep. Derrick Smith and his lawyer appeared before a House investigative committee today, but the two did little to shed light on the allegations of bribery against Smith.

Smith faces one charge of bribery from allegedly accepting $7,000 from a day care center, which he believed was seeking a state construction grant. In reality, the center was not seeking a grant, and Smith was the subject of a federal sting. Smith read a prepared statement to the committee, which is tasked with deciding whether there is enough evidence to discipline him. He refused to testify under oath or to answer questions. His lawyer, Victor Henderson, took questions from the committee but declined to answer many of them.

Smith said he is “painfully aware” how his arrest reflects on him and the House. However, he maintained his innocence. “I intend to fight this charge and clear my name,” Smith said. “I will continue to represent the interest of the people in [my] district. They elected me despite the fact that the government had leveled a charge against me just a week before the primary. In the same way that the people in the district did not abandon me, I will not abandon them.” Smith was appointed to his House seat. In March, he won the Democratic primary race in his district with 77 percent of the vote.

Henderson said that Smith may opt to testify before the committee in the future but does not want to do so until federal prosecutors grant the defense access to the evidence against Smith.

Committee members and House Counsel David Ellis, questioned Henderson about specific parts of the criminal compliant. Ellis read the portion of the complaint that describes Smith and the government source counting out the $7,000 that prosecutors say was a bribe. When directly asked, Henderson would say if Smith wrote the letter of support or took the $7,000. Henderson said that he would not comment “without full knowledge” of the information in the case. He said the only people who can provide this information are prosecutors. Henderson said that since federal investigators created a fake nonprofit and other documents as part of their sting, it is difficult to sort out what is real. “By the government’s own admission, they created documents — false documents. So without having access to the discovery [of evidence], who created what? I can’t tell you. All I can tell you is that they acknowledged creating false documents, fake email accounts, fake letters and things of that nature.”

Ellis said the committee was giving Smith the opportunity to present his side of the story. “This is not an adversarial proceeding, believe it or not. This is supposed to be a truth finding function. I am doing what no cross examiner would do, I’m giving you the floor to explain. … I’m trying to figure out, did he write this letter. It’s not a crime to write a letter. That’s just part of the story,” Ellis said.

He tried to push Henderson to deny or explain any aspects of the criminal complaint against Smith, but Henderson continued to stonewall and attempt to cast doubt on prosecutors' case. “The government lawyers put their pants on one leg at time just like the rest of us do. They’re susceptible to being dishonest. They’re susceptible to making mistakes. They’re susceptible sometimes to, you know, not doing the right thing.” Henderson focused on the government’s anonymous witness — who, according to the criminal complaint, brokered the deal between Smith and the day care. Henderson said the informant had been on the “government payroll” long before he met Smith and pointed out that he had criminal convictions and multiple arrests on his record. Henderson said any disciplinary action against Smith before the completion of his criminal case would be “premature.”  “Lots of people are charged every day of violating laws, and those charges turn out often times to be unfounded,” he said.

However, Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said he thinks the committee probably has enough evidence to move forward and recommend some disciplinary action based on the criminal complaint against Smith. He said that lawmakers had to make a “judgment call” when they impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and removed him from office before his criminal case had been resolved, and he sees parallels between that situation and the current one. “I’m not sure how many [more] times this committee is going to meet before we begin our deliberations,” he said to Henderson and Smith.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz, the chair of the investigative committee, said the committee can consider Smith’s decision not to go under oath or take questions when deciding whether to recommend disciplinary action to the full House. She said the committee will regroup and decide the next step. “I think we all need a little bit of time to reflect on this and think about what we’ve heard to day,” said Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat.

 As the committee weighs its options and the criminal case against Smith proceeds, he continues in his position as a legislator. Henderson said Smith has been going to work each day at his legislative office and attending session days in Springfield and that his constituents should be proud. “Everybody, whether you’re a dentist or a news reporter or a lawyer, you’re going to have good days and bad days. And the test of a man is when he has his back up against a wall and shows us. Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, they all had bad days, and they all persevered,” Henderson told reporters after today’s hearing: “You don’t really understand what a man is made of until he’s tested. And I think that there are a whole lot of people who admire him to be able to stand up like he has as opposed to caving. That speaks to his character.”

Rep. Smith a no-show for first investigative committee hearing

By Jamey Dunn

An Illinois House committee tasked with investigating a lawmaker who was arrested on bribery charges kicked off proceedings today.

The House Special Investigative Committee will consider the charge that Smith misused his office by accepting a bribe for services rendered from his position as a legislator. Investigators contend that he accepted a $7,000 bribe in exchange for writing a letter on his legislative letterhead recommending a daycare center for a construction grant. Smith was the subject of a federal sting. The daycare center was not actually seeking a grant, but prosecutors say Smith believed he was accepting a bribe for the letter.

Smith did not show up for the hearing today. He has not been present for legislative session in Springfield since he was arrested March 13. He has also not spoken to the press or responded to requests for comment from Illinois Issues or other media outlets.

Smith won his primary election race in the 10th House District with 77 percent of the vote. However, it is likely that Democratic leaders hope to pressure him to leave the ticket so they can choose a replacement candidate.

David Ellis, counsel for the investigative committee, said that he called Smith last Wednesday when the committee was created. He said he emailed Smith to let him know when and where the hearing would take place. Ellis said Smith told him he was aware of the hearing.

“Rep. Smith has not been convicted of a crime. He has been arrested on the basis of a sworn criminal complaint. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt following a full criminal trial,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, chair of the investigative committee. However, she added, “There are very serious allegations to be investigated by this committee.” Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, noted that the committee is not tasked with disciplining Smith. Instead, members must decide whether disciplinary actions are warranted. She said that there has not been a similar ethics charge in the chamber in recent history. “In anyone’s memory, there’s been no proceeding like this in the House, especially with the concurrent criminal investigation and charge out there.” But the proceedings are already drawing some comparisons to the impeachment and removal from office of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. 

Rep. Dennis Reboletti, an Elmhurst Republican, said the committee is a “hybrid” between a grand jury, which decides whether there is enough evidence to move forward with a case, and a preliminary hearing. Reboletti, a former state’s attorney, said that if the committee decides there is no reason to move forward with a disciplinary tribunal, Smith would be exonerated of the alleged breach of ethics. “Like a preliminary hearing,” Reboletti said, “Rep. Smith is allowed to attend and testify on his behalf, be represented by council and … cross examine any witnesses that appear before this committee.” Nekritz said Smith would have to testify under oath if he appears before the committee. The committee’s vote will have no effect on the criminal case against Smith.

Committee members voted unanimously to consult with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to ensure that their efforts would not interfere with the federal investigation. Nekritz said they would also ask if  federal investigators would provide any evidence or witnesses to the committee. But Nekritz said such a move is unlikely. “We’re anticipating, frankly, that we have access to nothing, but we’ll see what they say.”

Nekrtiz said the committee would meet again when it receives a response from Fitzgerald. She estimated that the next meeting would be held on the week of April 8 and would likely take place in Chicago.