The “Action” at O’HareThe Corruption of the Public PolicyProcess Leading to O’Hare Expansion

Authored by:J. Terrence Brunner, Project Director

Aviation Integrity Project351 W. Hubbard Street, #300

Chicago, IL 60610Tel. 312 527-6962

CHICAGO O’HAREINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

O’Hare: A Daley Family Business

The “Action” at O’HareIt doesn’t hurt to be a friend of the Mayor

Daley himself flatly denied, in mafia parlance, any knowledge, “I don’t know what part of the actionhe [Joyce] has, I don’t know and I don’t care.” Does this characterization of million dollar contractsas ‘action’ honestly reflect the Mayor’s view of City business at O’Hare?

[Grace] Barry acknowledged a closer relationship with the Daleys. Asked if her friendship got themthe contract, however, she said: “I’m sure it didn’t hurt.”

Authored by:

J. Terrence Brunner, Project DirectorAviation Integrity Project

December 2004

351 W. Hubbard Street #300

Chicago, IL 60610

312-527-6962

What Is the Aviation Integrity Project?

The Aviation Integrity Project (AIP) was established in January2002. It is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization foundedon the premise that a dedicated and independent investigationinto new and historic allegations of O’Hare InternationalAirport corruption is both urgent and necessary given the boldexpansion plan and closed-door approach displayed by MayorDaley and his proponents.

The goal to make public important facts concerning how theCity of Chicago manages the capital planning and operations of O’Hare—the world’s busiest airport—is critical to an honestand open public planning process of any expansion plan. AIPwas founded with this single purpose in mind and given freereign to determine the target of its investigations, the researchmethods it employs, and the conclusions it draws.

AIP was founded on the conviction of three O’Hare areasuburban leaders, along with their boards: Bensenville VillagePresident John Geils, Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson,and Park Ridge Mayor Ron Weitecha.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

• The “Action” – Chicago political slang derived from the Las Vegasconcept of money moving across gaming tables. Applied in Chicago itis the giving public contracts to favored relatives, cronies, or politicalcontributors on a favored or no-bid basis. Thus, enabling them tomake huge sums of money “Action” from the economic activityinvolved in the transaction.

• “Ubi est mea” –– “Where’s mine?” Mike Royko’s description ofChicago’s political motto describing Chicago Pols view of politicaldeals reduced to its essence, namely “where’s my cut of the “Action.”

PROLOGUEProject Director J. Terrence Brunner

When the three suburban mayors John Geils, RonWeitecha, and Craig Johnson first approached me andasked if I would be willing to look at O’Hare corruption,

they had already discovered that O’Hare expansion is all aboutChicago politics—an insider’s game. While their communitieswere most directly and deeply affected, they had beencompletely cut out of the decision-making process.

Geils argued that the O’Hare expansion project fight has neverbeen about aviation or delays, but about corruption, control,contracts, and the resources to run a political engine—a giantpublic works machine that produces jobs, contracts, andpolitical contributions, and which has the potential to grantcontrol of all Illinois government, since Illinois’s politicalsystem is so thoroughly interrelated.

After three years of examining what Daley himself calls the“action” at O’Hare, I believe Geils is right.

I have have been looking at Chicago and Illinois corruptionsince 1971, investigating Tom Keane and Matt Danaher,Daley’s father, Bilandic, the Mirage Tavern, Jayne Byrne andChicago Fest, Edgar and MSI, and Ryan and the License forBribes scandal.

I’ve seen it all up close and in detail—all the players.

But even I was stunned at the sheer size of the “action” atO’Hare. The total dollars in the Hired Truck scandal, thecurrent scandal celebrity of the Daley administration, are onlyequal to the size of the newsstand concession contract atO’Hare. And there are thousands of O’Hare contracts.

Matt Danaher went to jail on a $200,000 scam, AldermanWigoda for $50,000, and Keane got five years for making$1,000 deals off of obscure vacant lots.

i

Last year in 2003, however, the two minority women, Daley’splaymates in the O’Hare newsstand deal, split $11 milliondollars.

The mayor’s brother John admits he made over half a milliondollars last year insuring O’Hare contractors. Smith Barney,represented by his other brother, Michael Daley, has receivedbillions of dollars in O’Hare bond business. Michael hasreceived almost $2 million as the consultant who brings homethe business.

And the mayor’s mentor Jeremiah Joyce is taking home almost$2 million a year off McDonald’s and the Duty-Free shops.

As one long-time state official and a member of Richard I’scabinet joked, “They’re stealing the city blind.”

As a J.P. Morgan bond executive looking at the use ofconsultants in the bond business points out, the “whole thingreeks.”

And Mayor Daley shouts over and over that he’ll get to thebottom of city corruption. He will find the culprits and runthem out of government (Sun Times-Spielman 6/15/04).Daley “vows top-down contract bribe probes…no one is going to cheat the city, no one is going to steal from the city…but hedenies that he has created an atmosphere where corruption canflourish.” “I hope you’re not saying that me or anybody aroundme is for corruption.” But in reality, he constantly denies thepervasiveness of corruption and does nothing about it.Changes nothing! Why?

Because Mayor Daley is at the center of it all.

It starts with him. He understands it. He endorses it. He sets the tone. The two minority ladies at O’Hare are there because ofhim. He put them there. No one else. He did it.

ii

He knows nothing about Jeremiah Joyce’s “action” at O’Hare.Everyone knows that there’s no way that Joyce gets the O’Haredeal without Daley. They go way back to seatmates in theIllinois Senate when the mayor started his political career.

Smith Barney executives say they’ve never seen MichaelDaley—“but this is Chicago and his name is Daley.”

This report lays it all out chapter and verse. There is enoughinformation to teach two semesters on public affairs at LoyolaUniversity on how Chicago and Illinois government reallyworks.

Most interesting, because of the unusual level and clarity of theproof, much of how they did it is based on evidence weanalyzed in their own documents. Unlike his father, this Daleydoesn’t deny it. His dad always said, “Where’s the proof? Whatdo the Brunner’s want? Always demanding.”

But this Mayor Daley doesn’t respond that way. He’s reallysaying, “So what?”

Some key examples: O’Hare engineering consultant RamonRicondo puts in writing that O’Hare is all about “Jobs andContracts.”

Landrum & Brown, $11 million/year O’Hare consultants, notethat whatever happens, you cannot lose control of O’Hare.

Aviation Commissioner Mosena admits they fixed the O’Harenewsstand deal contract, detailed in writing by OscarD’Angelo, but held it until after the mayor’s election. And theybrag about Geri Chico from United Airlines and OscarD’Angelo fixing the Booz Allen Hamilton O’Hare study toinsure the mayor’s reelection. Amazingly, they wrote itdown—it’s all here in writing.

John Daley doesn’t even bother to deny his half-million-dollarincome from O’Hare insurance deals. Smith Barney doesn’tdeny they’ve paid Michael almost $2 million. It is documented.

iii

As then-Alderman Shaw said, “If you don’t believe that MayorDaley knows his brothers are getting rich off the city, I’ve got abridge to sell you.”

Their real response is, “So what? What are you going to doabout it?”

Daley’s power is complete and unchecked. He controls stategovernment through O’Hare and his alliance with Blagojevich,whose chief fund raiser, Chris Kelly, is a leader of the O’Harecontractor contributors, who swing their contributions andcoordinate them, not based on any political ideology or simplealliance to a political party but, as Mike Royko used to say, “Ubiest mea?” which is Chicago’s motto “Where is mine?”

So at one point they’re synchronizing their contributions tofederal officials who can help their cause building more atO’Hare—Senator Durbin, Congressman Lipinski, and Speaker Hastert. Collectively, downtown law firms and Governor JimThompson, downtown business leaders, major airlines, andO’Hare contractors all shower contributions on key federallegislators.

Next they give to state officials who can help: George Ryanbefore his famous flip at O’Hare, and then even to local countyofficials like Republican DuPage leader Schillerstrom.

Democrats giving to Republicans

Gore’s campaign manager Bill Daley giving $2,000 to Hastert;all the Democratic O’Hare contractors giving over $300,000 toRepublican leader Schillerstrom.

Republicans giving to Democrats

All the airline guys, George Bush’s buddy Don Carty, Presidentof American Airlines, and his pals giving to Democrats Durbin, Lipinski, and Tom Harkin. And old Republican war-horse JimThompson and his lawyers at Winston and Strawn giving toSenator Jay Rockefeller.

iv

Wow! Politics must be a wild and crazy place.

What’s going on here? It is all about O’Hare, its expansion, andwho gets what—ubi est mea? Where’s mine?

As Justice Stevens points out in his opinion inMcCain-Feingold case, there is no ideology involved when yougive to both sides.

So Daley has the state wrapped up. If you don’t believe me, askGovernor Blagojevich, who, when asked if his father-in-lawDick Mell had clout at O’Hare, said that ultimately, decisions atO’Hare are made by the mayor and no one else. What anadmission. So who is left to oppose O’Hare expansion? Themayor has cut in all the local Chicago government units onvarious O’Hare bond deals, so they’ll never take him on. Lookwhat happened with Daley’s dark of night destruction of MeigsField. That’s as crazy as government in America ever gets andno one at the Chicago Park District said “boo.”

Now Daley has DuPage County in his pocket thanks to a rainof contributions on DuPage County ChairSchillerstrom—hundreds of thousands of dollars organized byVictor Reyes, Daley’s guy, from these same O’Hare contractorcontributors and their downtown business allies.

The politicians have been making money hand over fist atO’Hare for the last 20 years.

Our books on AIP contracts at O’Hare, so secret that toplegislative leaders don’t know they exist, currently contain $2.5billion in contracts. The firm Daley’s brother represents hastaken home $4 billion in bond business in the last 10 years.Many cynical observers say, “Why does he need to expandO’Hare? Daley already controls all the ‘action’ he needs.” Butthey want to spend an additional $15 billion. As I noted earlier,the dollars for expansion are staggering.

Why not?

v

The mayor can theoretically do it without taxing Chicagoans.How? By using federal dollars and passenger facility charges(PFCs) at O’Hare ($4.50 per passenger on every takeoff andlanding). That’s where the billions in bond business come fromand no one is watching.

It is as if Daley has invented a free money tree for himself, andthere’s no one left to complain that the mayor is using themoney to personally enrich his family, friends, and politicalpals. The passengers are being screwed and they don’t evenknow it. In many ways, this is nothing but a high-class congame.

The only things standing in Daley’s way of spending $15 billionof other people’s money are some key suburban mayors.

The city’s own documents once again lay out their campaign todestroy the remaining suburban opposition.

The mayors, Geils and Johnson, are tough, smart, and wellfunded, with exceptional legal counsel. They are the last hurdles in the way of expanding the O’Hare money tree, whichamounts to seven times the current “action” at O’Hare. It is the largest public works project ever, anywhere. It’s breathtaking to envision; and just three suburban mayors? The documents setforth the plans. Isolate them and label them NIMBIs. Theyeven discuss, in writing, attacking and isolating U.S. SenatorFitzgerald.

So Daley, unencumbered with political problems at home inChicago, can turn to the suburbs. He has dispatched VictorReyes to take over Schillerstrom and DuPage County right outfrom under Republican Chairman Pate Phillip’s hands. Themayor of Chicago calling the shots in Republican DuPage—his father would have never believed it.

Daley’s man Victor Reyes, now the lobbyist for DuPage—it’shard to comprehend. It’s all documented in our report.

vi

And then Park Ridge Daley’s troops marching hand in handwith Democrat Congresswoman Schakowsky in the MemorialDay Parade.

O’Hare consultant Landrum & Brown spying on the ParkRidge Council meeting as they vote to flip to pro-O’Hareexpansion. Running Mayor Weitecha out of town.

Joining Daley and Rosemont’s Mayor Stevens’ forces in DesPlaines, compromising old friend Rita Mullins in Palatine,working on aldermanic elections in Elmhurst. Chicago’s publicrelations people, including the mayor’s campaign managerCarolyn Grisko, taking over the chamber of commerce in ElkGrove Village under Mayor Johnson’s nose to promote O’Hare expansion. A “road show,” they called it, funded by the airlines.

And Bensenville. Daley vowed to crush Mayor Geils. He linked his puppet, the Greater O’Hare Association, with Geils’internal opponents. Furnished lawyers funded by Chicagotaxpayers to take on Geils on his home turf.

Finally, a concerted effort by the city and its key allies inDuPage, Chairman Schillerstrom threatening to run candidatesagainst the mayor of Bensenville. Schillerstrom, flush withDuPage Water Commission cash—$75 million courtesy ofMayor Daley’s Springfield forces—brags about destroyingMayor Geils, stating, “I’ll bet he’s running out of money now.”

So you want to understand O’Hare corruption. It is all here.They really have hijacked our political system, using our rottenfundraising system, which Jimmy Carter called “legalizedbribery.” They’ve taken over both political parties in Illinois,isolating anyone who questions this avalanche of corruption,from local mayors to U.S. Senators to the fringe of Illinoispolitics.

This has nothing to do with ideology or, as John Geilssuggested long ago, aviation. At its heart, it’s about spendingmassive amounts of public funds, taxpayer money, to cut infamily friends and politically connected insiders.

Geils was right.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Family Cut-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Political Mentor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Family Friends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Suburbs Cut Out by Attacks on SOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chicago’s Flawed Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

O’Hare. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CHAPTER 1:The Deliberative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chicago’s O’Hare Consultants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

No City Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Daley’s Dinner Companion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Mayoral Politics Trump Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Terrible Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A Third Airport? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Only in Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Deceit and Obfuscation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bold-Faced Lies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Successful Guerilla War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Airlines’ Special Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Personal and Confidential: United to Daley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

The United Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The “Independent” Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Airlines Lie to Protect O’Hare Monopoly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

A Civic Group for Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The Front Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Micromanaging the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CHAPTER 2:A House of Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Rigging the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Faulty Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CHAPTER 3:So Why Do it This Way? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Politics of Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

CHAPTER 4:Corruption: An Example and a Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Reaffirming this View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Pinstripe Patronage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

CHAPTER 5:The Case Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Fix Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The Shill Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

The Mayor’s Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The Council’s Party Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

An Honest Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

CHAPTER 6:Daley Family Scandals Exposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Michael Daley and the Bond Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A Daley Cut-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The Mayor’s Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

The Gravy Train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Once Again, Denial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

John Daley and Near North Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Family Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Denial of Wrongdoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

CHAPTER 7:Daley Spreading the Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Refining Pinstripe Patronage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Joyce and Consulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

The Cut-In. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

The Denial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Another Joyce Deal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Another Daley Denial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

The Mayor Does Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Friends and Fences —A Daley Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

The Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Daley Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

The Contracts Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Daley and the Duffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Getting Rich off the Rich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The Daley Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CHAPTER 8:Following the Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Returning the Favor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Buying Springfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Buying Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

CHAPTER 9:Buying DuPage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

A Question of Character: Stacking the Water Commission . . . . 77

Vondra’s Chicago Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Raiding the Water Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

The Victor Reyes Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Schillerstrom: Political Ambition Trumps Public Policy . . . . . . 80

CHAPTER 10:The Republican Leadership Sells Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

The Ryan Precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

The Hastert Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

The Changed Political Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Schillerstrom Takes the O’Hare Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

The DuPage Flip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Schillerstrom’s Reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

CHAPTER 11:The Consequences of the Leadership Flip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Daley’s Move into the Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Daley Forces Coordinate Their Attack on Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . 85

Laurie Stone: Daley’s Forces Turn GOA into a Puppet Satellite86

Spying on the Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Cut Off the Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Chicago Forces Attack SOC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Don Stephens and Richard Daley Pick Off Des Plaines . . . . . . 93

Park Ridge Is Next . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Daley Allies Invade Elmhurst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Elk Grove Village under Siege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Bensenville: The Last Battlefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

CHAPTER 12:The Daley Suburban Steamroller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

SUMMARY OVERVIEW

While Chicago’s reputation for graft is legendary, Mayor Richard M. Daley’s plan to expand O’Hare International Airport has propelled the city to altogether newheights of corruption that eclipse all that has gone before.

The tens of billions of dollars for the O’Hare reconstruction is a prize sooverwhelming that not only has it already allowed Daley’s friends and relatives to walk away rich, it has changed the way government and politics are done inChicago, and extended the city’s corrupting influence into the suburbs.

Not even Daley’s famous father, the late Richard J. Daley, could have conceivedof such a thing. In the relentless pursuit of a public works scheme that promisesan unending stream of contracts and jobs for the favored few, the present mayorhas undermined the very concept of democracy and self-government bysteamrollering communities that lack the resources and political muscle of a large city to defend themselves.

This single-minded pursuit of an obsessive goal by a network of conjoinedinterests ought to be a warning to all who share a love for democracy, goodgovernment, and fair play. The lure of the money and power generated by thelargest airport expansion in the nation’s history stands as a threat to the veryintegrity of the political process.

This 2½-year investigation by the Aviation Integrity Project (AIP) isgroundbreaking in itself. Never before has anyone attempted to compile such acomprehensive and thorough story of the roots, intricate workings, and corrosive effects of corruption as it is taking place. Never before has the body politic beenpresented with such a compelling case for ethical and legal reform.

The threads of that pattern of corruption are captured in the major themes ofthis report:

Under Daley, Chicago still isn’t ready for reform. The legacy of corruption hasworsened as its nature has changed. Celebrated and romantic notions of old-style graft now must give way to the new reality. Chicago-style corruption no longer isentertainment. Where once Chicago’s history of corruption was a reason thatmany suburbanites fled the city and a subject of bemusement for the rest of thenation, the campaign for O’Hare expansion now threatens to waste billions of

1

dollars of U.S. taxpayers’ money and harm America’s national aviationsystem—all matters of great national consequence. It is no laughing matter.

This corruption leads directly to Daley. Despite his bold denials, Daley cannot be otherwise than enmeshed in the corruption that swirls around him. It would notand could not exist without his consent or participation. Yet, with everyembarrassment comes a new denial from Daley that he has any influence in these matters and another brush-off of suggestions that he has a conflict of interest.Always, events and denials unfold as if scripted from the same formula:

1. A lucrative deal is hatched.

2. A Daley relative or friend is cut into the deal.

3. Daley denies any wrongdoing when caught and insists that rules were followed.

4. Yet, in the face of public scrutiny, Daley does nothing to changeanything.

Among the report’s most stunning findings is how Daley’s forces havesuccessfully infiltrated historically independent and self-governing suburbs. Atthis very moment, Daley’s allies and promoters of O’Hare expansion areconducting a direct assault on the very core of the O’Hare expansionopposition—the leadership and citizens of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village.The report describes how Daley and his forces picked off Des Plaines, ParkRidge, and the DuPage County Board and its chairman Robert Schillerstrom.

Worse than Daley’s arrogant behavior is the failure of anyone or anything tocheck his political power. Many avoid criticizing him for fear of political oreconomic retribution. The enlightened know the benefits of being nice to themayor, as they are the ones receiving the city contracts. Individuals andinstitutions at all levels in the O’Hare battle have failed the commonwealth.Source after inside source who provided confidential information for this reportdeclined to be named in fear of retribution. Daley has skillfully eliminated thepolitical competition by:

1. initially using his power to appoint nearly half of the sitting aldermento vacancies on council,

2. compromising the heads of supposedly independent agencies, such as the Chicago Park District and Chicago Transit Authority,

2

3. changing the election rules to make it more difficult for challengers to be successful, and

4. benefiting from potential black leadership, particularly religiousleaders, who have been compromised by their acceptance ofgovernmental largess, both from the city and federal government.

These conclusions are based upon the careful compilation of existinginvestigative findings in addition to key original research conducted by AIP,including the following findings.

The Family Cut-In

• Municipal bonds are big business. Citigroup, a highly reputable multinationalcorporation, is the perfect example of how business is done in Chicago. Theirconsultant in Illinois is the Daley and George law firm, currently co-operated by Michael Daley, the mayor’s brother. Citigroup has received nearly $4 billion inO’Hare bond business since 1990, and Michael Daley received $180,000 eachyear for his consulting. Yet in disclosure documents filed with the MunicipalSecurities Rulemaking Board, Citigroup contends the Daley and George lawfirm does not work on businesses related to “Cook County, City of Chicago, orany governmental units directly associated with the City of Chicago.” AreChicagoans to believe this?

• The mayor’s brother John Daley, while head of the Cook County Board’sfinance committee, brokered deals for Near North Insurance, which is ownedand operated by Michael Segal, who is now convicted on federal charges andsits in prison. John Daley is making millions off insurance contracts withcompanies that depend on his brother, the mayor, for their business. Johnadmitted that he made upwards of $400,000 on annual commissions from NearNorth.

• Public airing of the internal documents detailing the entire W.H. Smith contractextension with the city is a case study in how deals are done. The single contract extension for the set-aside partners is worth $39 million in sales annually, andhas risen dramatically over the years. The report documents how MaggieDaley’s best friend Grace Barry and Barbara Burrell, both partners of Grabur,was W.H. Smith’s partner, and their joint company was called Air Ventures.Upon finalizing the contract, W.H. Smith cut two $50,000 checks for Barry andBurrell for “management fees.” In 2002 alone, Barry and Burrell split $11million of revenue at O’Hare.

3

Political Mentor

Joyce’s effect on sealing the deal for McDonald’s and Duty Free could not bedenied, and the mayor was questioned about it in the City Council. Hispartnership with Brad O’Halloran and Martin McNally also surfaced in otherO’Hare deals such as towing. In 2000 alone, Joyce, McNally and O’Halloranpocketed $1.8 million from the O’Hare contract. In addition to the millions hebrought himself with the McDonald’s and Duty Free partnership, Joyce alsoinvolved himself in another company: Environmental Auto Removal Inc. EARwas a successful towing firm that had received millions of dollars of citybusiness, even after they were exposed by the Tribune for over-billing.

Family Friends

Builders Chicago had been a major city contractor for decades, but the G.F.Structures business skyrocketed when Richard M. Daley became mayor. The firm raked in over $2.5 million in city contracts in the first years of Daley’s first term.G.F. Structures received contracts throughout the city, including the HousingAuthority, Transit Authority, Park District, and Chicago Public Schools. AtO’Hare Airport alone, Builders Chicago received $32 million in contracts for theinstallation of automatic doors, and G.F. Structures received contracts for newfencing on access roads and upgrades to concession areas, and more than $7million for capital improvement projects at the airport.

In fact, from 1996 to 2000, G.F. Structures was awarded more than $27 millionin city contracts, including a $10 million “all-purpose” contract for fencing onalmost all city property.

Suburbs Cut Out by Attacks on SOC

To Daley’s chagrin, the Suburban O’Hare Commission (SOC), through a varietyof tactics— public relations, lawsuits, and local organizing efforts—hassuccessfully stymied Mayor Daley from proceeding with O’Hare expansion.Simply put, the local communities—the source of SOC membership and itsfinancial war chest—are the last obstacle to Daley’s plan to expand at O’Hare.

Accordingly, Daley and his forces have been determined to apply a full-courtpress to weaken, if not destroy, SOC by cutting off its funding. This is the storyof how individual communities have been targeted by Daley and his supporterswho intend to divide and conquer SOC by invading these communities with

4

money, people, and influence to finally be rid of all opposition. This is not amatter of illegality; it is hardball politics at its best or, as the case may be, worst.It is the dark side of politics as played by Chicago, e.g., the creation of frontgroups by the airlines, the infiltration of non-partisan organizations such as localChambers of Commerce, and the backing of political local candidates, all withone purpose: to subvert SOC’s funding. Studies that exhibit the various schemesand deceptions that Daley and his proponents have employed to undermineSOC and achieve O’Hare expansion goals on their terms alone are shown in thefollowing communities:

• Bensenville

• Elk Grove Village

• Park Ridge

• Elmhurst

• Des Plaines

To illustrate how this all works, this report takes the reader through theintricacies of one such deal: use of a political insider, Oscar D’Angelo, whobrokered a concessions deal at O’Hare to churn up some money for a couple ofconnected friends. One of these friends just happened to be a friend of Daley’swife, Maggie. Neither had any experience in operating airport concessions. Yet,they were ostensibly brought in to “manage” the O’Hare operations of anationally known airport concessionaire. It was a sham. They rarely showed up.They became partners of the concessionaire under the provisions of the city’sminority set-aside program. When the whole deal was made public, the mayor, as usual, played dumb. Going on the offensive, he attacked anyone who wouldtarnish his wife’s good name.

Here is a pattern that the AIP would encounter over and over again. No longer is graft symbolized by stories about loafing lower-level city workers. Daley hastaken the theory and practice of “pinstripe” patronage to ever-higher levels. Thecontracts and jobs generated through pinstripe patronage now have become thecentral occupation of governance in Chicago. Pinstripe patronage now flourishes with an air of efficient government through the use of outsourcing or the“streamlining” of the no-bid contract process.

5

For all the attention given to the city’s rental truck scandal and similar escapades, nothing approaches O’Hare-related corruption. The “take” or “boodle” from the rental truck scandal, in which the city needlessly rented trucks from a politicallyconnected contractor, merely amounts a single concession contract atO’Hare—one contract among a forest of contracts.

Here is a critical finding of this report: the prize to come from O’Hare expansion is so huge that it has actually changed the way boodlers do business. Take awayO’Hare expansion and the hundreds of friends and contractor contributors linedup for their cut will disappear with it, along with their generous campaigncontributions and access to power so necessary to Daley’s style of new publiccorruption.

But taking away O’Hare expansion is unthinkable. Not now. Way too much isriding on it. Yet taking away O’Hare expansion still remains a serious, even likely, possibility, because of its many real and fatal flaws. Examination of Daley’sO’Hare Modernization Program (OMP) by some of the nation’s leading aviationexperts has revealed it to be hazardous, unaffordable, and unworkable. Even thepublicized results of the mayor’s own engineering consultants showed that theirsophisticated model could not support the capacity goals set by the mayor. Theknife to the heart of the OMP is the fact that no matter how much concreteDaley pours on the ground, he cannot expand the nation’s most crowdedairspace above O’Hare.

Without these communities there would be no opposition. The opposition fighthas produced expert studies, which contradict Chicago’s contentions. Notcoincidentally, those studies were sponsored by Bensenville and Elk GroveVillage. This, as much as anything, helps explain why Daley has to isolate,marginalize, and defeat those communities and their leaders, Bensenville VillagePresident John Geils and Elk Grove Village Mayor Craig Johnson. This is whyDaley has put onto the field of battle all necessary forces to crush the will anddetermination of those communities. Without those communities, there wouldbe no studies, and without those studies, the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) would feel no public pressure to not bend to Chicago’s will. One tellingexample: Chicago insisted on the FAA providing an expedited approval of theOMP. But faced with hard evidence debunking the city’s claims of extensivebenefits from the OMP, the FAA could not shirk its responsibility to carefullyanalyze the whole project. The city’s demand for swift approval was rejected outof hand.

6

The persistence of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village also helps to explain whyDaley has undertaken a historic expansion of Chicago’s hegemony into DuPageCounty and suburban Cook communities near O’Hare. While the currentmayor’s late father was content to view the suburbs from afar as (at best)irrelevant and (at worst) as pesky competitors for jobs, the present mayor hasplunged full force into this unfamiliar territory. The message was clearthroughout the suburbs: get on board the O’Hare expansion express, or get runout. And they did. Local officials from as far away as Naperville hopped aboardwith virtually no scrutiny of the supposed merits of Daley’s expansion plan. Thecapturing of the suburbs, while startling, is but one facet of O’Hare-relatedcorruption described in detail in this report. On display here are the details that,woven together, create a pattern that cements Chicago as the nation’s mostcorrupt city.

While such an attack should not be surprising, this report discloses details ofhow these forces successfully flipped other communities whose constituentsheavily opposed O’Hare expansion. Here is a description of how Daley and hisfellow forces picked off Des Plaines and Park Ridge through the cunning use ofoutside financing and political forces. Fueled by expansion promoters’ cash andpromises of future rewards, as well as foot soldiers from the Democratorganization, Daley’s sympathizers on O’Hare expansion were placed on thesuburbs’ city councils.

Emboldened by success in Des Plaines and Park Ridge, Daley allies sought toinfiltrate Elmhurst. There, two city council candidates appeared who had directties to Daley and Chicago City Hall. Although they lost, the efforts continue. Inone of most stunning reversals in Illinois politics, Daley flipped the DuPageCounty Board, turning it and its chairman, Robert Schillerstrom, into willingpawns who expect to reap personal or political rewards for turning on theirconstituents. The flip was so stealthy and complete that Schillerstrom—in theDaley style—sprung it without prior notice and without public debate. In thepages of this report unfolds a strategy of divide and conquer unlike anything ever conducted by Chicago against its suburban neighbors.

In Chicago’s entire history of corruption, no campaign has been sosingle-minded. This report describes in detail how Daley’s tentacles have snaredonce-proudly independent civic and business institutions. One by one, theboards of these groups have succumbed to the lure of the immense contractsand power of O’Hare expansion.

7

No previous corruption has so subverted both the political/governmentalprocess and the political/governmental outcomes. O’Hare corruption has morethan corroded the independence of suburban governments and civic groups. Italso has subverted any semblance of rational regional planning andpolicy-making. Nowhere, and at no time, was any systematic and satisfactoryoutside review made of what is the largest public works project in the nation’shistory. Daley unveiled it, and the only question many in positions ofresponsibility asked was, “Where is mine?” The only thing close to “duedeliberation” was a perfunctory state review of Daley’s original expansion plansprior to then-governor George Ryan’s decision to abandon his pledge to protectthe surrounding communities from expansion. Despite some serious questionsraised by his own cabinet member, Ryan signed on to Daley’s plan. That decision was generated by raw political considerations in which campaign contributionsfigured. As this report shows, the now-indicted Ryan received $263,400 fromO’Hare contractor contributors from 1998 to 2001.

Clearly the outcomes of this process have been deeply flawed and corrupted,with potentially debilitating consequences for America’s transportation system.

No less important is the degradation of the political/governmental process.O’Hare corruption has more than corroded the independence of suburbangovernments and civic groups. It also has subverted any semblance of rationalregional planning and policy-making. Nowhere, and at no time, was anysystematic and satisfactory outside review made of what is the largest publicworks project in the nation’s history. Daley unveiled it, and the only questionmany in positions of responsibility asked was, “Where is mine?” The only thingclose to due deliberation was a perfunctory state review of Daley’s originalexpansion plans prior to then Gov. George Ryan’s decision to abandon hispledge to protect the surrounding communities from expansion. Despite someserious questions raised by his own cabinet member, Ryan signed on to Daley’splan. That decision was generated by raw political considerations in whichcampaign contributions figured. As this report shows, the now-indicted Ryanreceived $263,400 from O’Hare contractor contributors from 1998 to 2001.

But the destruction of the process didn’t stop there. To create thisunprecedented and never-ending harvest of contracts and jobs, and thus, anever-ending source of power, Daley’s campaign to impose a questionableO’Hare expansion plan on the Chicago region and the nation was carried all theway into the halls of Congress. There Daley and his allies demanded something

8

unprecedented. They wanted the legislative branch to mandate the expansion ofO’Hare in an attempt to impose its will on the executive branch, namely theFAA. To cover all possibilities, the legislation would have required the FAA tobuild the airport itself—again, an unprecedented action—if the scheme hit anysubstantial roadblocks.

Carrying the banner for this legislation in a bipartisan spirit were House SpeakerDennis Hastert (R-IL), U.S. Representative Lipinski (D-IL), and U.S. SenatorDick Durbin (D-IL). Hastert, whose district would be impacted by the expansion and who abandoned his “neutral” position, received an unusual campaigncontribution of $1,000 from Daley’s brother, Bill, who also managed Al Gore’scampaign. Durbin, who also abandoned his neutral position in favor ofexpansion, received more than $140,000 in campaign contributions from 1998 to 2001 from companies with an economic interest in O’Hare.

When the legislation failed due to the efforts of Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL),Daley’s campaign turned to the Illinois Legislature—a body notorious for doingwhat it is told. Leading the campaign in Springfield was Illinois Governor RodBlagojevich, whose chief fundraiser and key policy advisor, Chris Kelly, was amajor O’Hare contractor. Blagojevich received $794,301 from O’Harebusinesses. Much of the money was received at a critical moment in the weekspreceding his tight primary race.

This report details the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and the money trail thatultimately led to the rubber-stamping of Daley’s plans by too many electedofficials and institutions that are supposed to be the keepers of the public good.In fact, it took more than a decade of secret planning to put the pieces in place.So sensitive was Daley to unwanted revelations of his secret intentions that heordered Chicago’s law department to fight all the way to the Illinois SupremeCourt to keep the tens of thousands of pages of documents, which detailed hisinternal process, hidden from the citizens who paid for them, including statelegislative leaders. Daley’s argument was a unique form of executive privilege:documents are works in progress and not ready to be disclosed. It was too muchfor even the Democratic-controlled court, which rejected Chicago’s flimsyexcuses for keeping the documents secret.

Once revealed, they confirmed the suburbs’ worst fears. Daley was planning notjust to add some new runways, but to completely redesign O’Hare over 20 yearsand $20 billion. Daley, of course, issued another denial, boldly lying about the

9

expenditure of millions of dollars for his secret planning. When Daley finallyended his charade and announced his expansion plan, it was worse than even itsopponents feared—not simply a modernization, but a whole new configuration.To believe that Daley wasn’t secretly planning this expansion for years, onewould have to believe that he came up with this grandiose plan virtuallyovernight; that is hardly a comforting alternative.

In this, Daley may have already done as much damage to the body politic as hewould if he were to successfully foist his expansion plan on the public. As thisreport shows, the corruption of the process produces horrible outcomes.Horrible outcomes, in turn, require more corruption of the process. To grow hispower, Daley needs a hugely expensive public works project. To get it, he needsto bypass the legitimate, thoughtful deliberative process. Each cycle brings moreand more people into the fold, demanding ever-larger pieces of the pie, which inturn requires an ever-larger pie. No matter that the pie is poisonous and thegeneral public will suffer its consequences.

This may turn out to be the most significant fact of this investigation.

Conclusion

This report describes how an entire political, civic, media, and corporateestablishment “saw the light” about O’Hare expansion because of awell-choreographed campaign to isolate opponents and raise the costs of beingindependent and thoughtful about the expansion. It was a campaign that soughtto achieve its corrupt goals by substituting heavy-handed politics for rationaldiscourse.

The reason that Daley and his forces schemed to build the largest airportexpansion in the nation’s history is simple: money—billions of dollars—and thepower that controlling such a project would bring its benefactors. Their pursuithas left a path of destruction whereby planning is thrown out the window,regional politics is turned on its head, and most basically good government andfair play are undercut.

Still, it’s not too late. An honest examination of the corruption underlying themotivations for O’Hare expansion could result in an honest process producingthe best solution if facts and truth still have any power. All it takes is for peopleof courage, integrity, and conscience to stand up for what is right.

10

Shortly after taking office in 1991, Mayor Richard M. Daley stood before theCivic Federation and proclaimed, “A little more than a month ago, I began myfirst full term in office by challenging the status quo in city government andgovernment agencies. The truth is, we have no choice.”

Change the status quo, Mayor Daley did—for the worse.

11

INTRODUCTION

The Aviation Integrity Project’s investigation of corruption at O’Hare amusedsome people. Everyone knows the corruption exists. If you live in Chicago,you’ve read about politicians and their contractor buddies making a buck atO’Hare. But you don’t have to live here to read headlines about politicians andtheir buddies profiting off of public contracts. We’ve got a national reputation.Chicago’s kinky business deals have given it such a shameful reputation that theChicago Tribune recently editorialized:

It’s unfortunate that there is no William Bennett to come to Chicago andembarrass the heck out of the city…pronouncing Chicago schools as the worst inAmerica…We don’t have a federal secretary of integrity to come into town andtell the rest of the nation that Chicago is one of the most corrupt cities in America, if not the most corrupt city in America.1

Many think of it as the mid-level patronage corruption that Mike Royko wroteabout. Indeed, it was the sort the Better Government Association investigated 30 years ago when it looked at O’Hare with the old Chicago Daily News: guys leaningon mops doing nothing but ogling flight attendants.

But Bensenville Village President John Geils and Elk Grove Village Mayor CraigJohnson experienced first-hand that this was no longer the case. They allegedthat the corruption at O’Hare went much deeper based on their personalexperience dealing with the issues surrounding O’Hare expansion. These localgovernment leaders decided to create the AIP to investigate O’Hare corruptionsince they concluded that this issue was not being sufficiently addressed by themedia, political candidates, and civic watchdog groups or by the governmentitself. In fact, Daley was pressing forward on an expansion plan of a size andscope the region had never experienced before. And he was getting a free pass.While his plan appeared to them to be based upon corrupt motivation, it wasdifferent than old-style Chicago patronage corruption—a whole new animal.Their perception was correct.

The AIP investigation underscores this. We have found that huge amounts ofmoney are involved and the size of corruption is staggering. A money trail leadsto the highest offices in state and local government, and the pursuit of politicalcontrol routinely supersedes good public policy. Our elected officials arecompromised and the policy decisions at O’Hare impact not just thetransportation needs of Chicago, but of the entire nation.

12

Our investigative research reveals important new facts surrounding publiccorruption at O’Hare, and presents key documents from our unique access to the 67,000 pages of the city’s O’Hare planning process obtained in litigation. Whilethese documents have received little attention, they tell a story of governmentlies and deception, conflicts of interest, money making, and raw politics.

AIP has identified two separate types of corruption that are prevalent at O’Hare:classic quid pro quo and the abuse of the public policy process. Quid pro quocorruption—the act of giving something, such as money or influence, to getsomething in return, say a public contract—is the easiest to understand. And this form of corruption is far sexier and better suited to our newspaper headline andbroadcast news culture. But its impact fades quickly as the news cycle rolls on. Itis the corruption of the public policy process that is more challenging tocommunicate through today’s news media. But it is the kind of corruption that is most damaging and long-lasting.

When the public policy process becomes infected with concerns over who getswhat, quid pro quo corruption as has existed here for 20 years, the wholeplanning process is compromised. Unlike setting up a swing set in the back yard,massive public works projects require sophisticated planning and technicallyskilled implementation. There is a tremendous impact—both financial and in thequality of life—when the planning process or its implementation isshort-circuited. The damage to the public goes on for years when the necessarysteps are not taken, including a wide range of representative interests, technicalexpertise, analysis, debate, and thorough examination of facts. All must becompleted before a decision can be made and the first shovel of dirt turned over. Sadly, Chicago’s history of failed public works projects is consistently based upon flawed planning. The reasons are typically traced back to planning shortcuts,decisions based upon quid pro quo arrangements, or simple political expediency.Failure to plan and debate options openly and honestly has truly damagedChicago’s historic legacy for forward-looking public planning that had setexamples for cities throughout the world. Let’s take a quick overview ofChicago’s most recent public project monstrosities.

Chicago’s Flawed Planning Process

Unfortunately, under Daley’s watch there are more examples of bad policyplanning and implementation than good ones. Shortly after the successfulcompletion of the Harold Washington Library—a project that began under

13

Mayor Washington’s term, which was done on time and on budget, even whileopen public debate raged on the design and site of the building—Mayor Daleytook a decidedly different approach. His first major project proposal was to build five Las Vegas-style casinos in the Loop. Strangely, but typically under Daley, the proposal was never submitted to the Department of Planning. It was unveiled by Mayor Daley, three casino executives from Las Vegas, and a labor leaderconnected to the mob. The size and scope were almost breathtaking—a casinoentertainment district encompassing 12 city blocks in downtown Chicago.

The casino concept was supported by an Andersen Consulting study puttogether for and by the gambling industry and supported with almost noeconomic data. It was rubber-stamped by a phony committee set up by Daleyconsisting of his political allies, who gave it a cursory review. Most everyone now agrees we’re all lucky it was never built.

While not a Daley idea, riverboat gambling provides another example of failedpublic planning. It was supposed to help economically disadvantaged areas andbeautify Illinois rivers. But it produced no real economic development and highgambling taxes on the poor. The legislative debate contained not a word abouttax revenues, yet the state has become dependent on gambling tax revenue. Thedebate looks laughable now. In a recurring pattern, business and labor leaderssupported any proposal that contained jobs, political insiders maneuvered to getthe contracts, and politicians benefitted from the campaign money it brought infrom the grateful gambling industry, now the largest political contributor inIllinois. Editorial boards, which repeatedly get out front supporting this grandplanning, are suddenly aghast when their investigative reporters ultimately revealhow corrupt it is.

The best example of this is the Rosemont Casino. Highly trumpeted in theChicago Tribune as more “economic development” and a response to gamblingin surrounding states, editors reacted in horror when the list of politicalinsider-owners was revealed. Since then, under the leadership of Mayor DonStephens, it has degenerated into one of the worst political nightmares in Illinoishistory.

Millennium Park was originally an idea from Mayor Washington’s administrationto build a music park on the lakefront, and was to cost $23 million. Carried outunder Daley, the cost ballooned to almost $500 million and became much morethan a band shell. The Washington proposal was low in cost and, more

14

importantly, did not violate the respected Montgomery Ward Supreme Courtruling of a “free and clear” Grant Park on the lakefront. The concept legallyprotects the Chicago lakefront from real estate development, and ensures thepark for the enjoyment by citizens of the city. Provisions allowed for a pubicband shell. Under Daley, Grant Park between Michigan Avenue and the lake hasbecome an architectural and financial monstrosity, bearing no resemblance to the visionary public planning concept of keeping the park free and clear.

And we all remember Soldier Field. The city’s own planners, particularly theHead of Planning and former Sun-Times architectural critic Lee Bey, told Daleynot to build it on top of the old stadium. But with city and state backing andBears corporate support, the deal was rushed through the legislature. MostAmerican cities would have had referendums on their publicly financed sportsstadiums, but Chicago sued to stop any referendum on the issue. The city filedlawsuit after lawsuit to stop any open discussion by outside groups such asFriends of the Parks.

Daley’s pubic relations team spun the issue of public debate. Then he said thateverything was finished—the design and the deal—and that the NationalFootball League was impatient to see it completed. 2 In Chicago, as Royko would say, once a deal has been cut, it stays cut. Unfortunately, the public will neverhave the benefit of knowing if a dome at McCormick place or elsewhere wouldhave worked at half the price. It’s too late to change. So shut up and get out ofthe way.

In selling the deal, Daley strained logic to include eight acres of median strips asparkland, causing the Tribune’s architectural critic Blair Kamin to point out, “Itwould serve as a reminder that public officials have a tendency to stretch thetruth when they’re shilling for subsidies that benefit the corporate elite.”3 Thiswas part of a recurring habit, and once again there was no real public input. Theconsequence: Soldier Field has become the most expensive publicly fundedfootball stadium ever built. “At a price of $632 million—two thirds from publicfunds—the second-largest National Football League market now is stuck withthe second-smallest NFL stadium.”4 It was even mocked by the New York Times:“Soldier Field stands to become the nation’s ‘biggest shadow memorial’ to World War I veterans” (a term for once-valued monuments that fall to modernmisuse).5 The New York Times also captured the ridicule by some Chicagoansover the architectural outcome: “It looks like a UFO crash-landed on an ancient

15

ruin; it’s a giant egg in a giant egg cup; it’s like a fat man trying to wedge himselfinto a skinny man’s shorts.”6

The destruction of Meigs Field defied public policy process altogether. Withabsolutely no public discussion or input, Mayor Daley tore up an airport in themiddle of the night. Could Daley really be so reckless? Daley rationalized thatMeigs was a public safety issue, especially after September 11, 2001. Yet there are several airports near Chicago city limits just like Meigs; would he have closedthese too if he had the power? Just a year earlier, and only six months afterSeptember 11, Daley testified before Congress, promising to keep Meigs Fieldopen: “Not just modernization of O’Hare Field, it’s a commitment for Peotoneand of course opening, keeping open Meigs Field, which is very difficult forme…Both supporting Peotone and keeping Meigs open…a beautiful piece ofproperty on the lakefront”7 (see Appendix 1). He admitted wanting to turn it into a park and never mentioned anything about aviation threats. What might be even more troubling than Daley’s action was the response of our civic leaders. Theywere stunned, but said little.

O’Hare

This brings us to O’Hare. The expansion plan is trumpeted on O’Hare kiosks asthe visionary transportation solution for the Midwest and the nation in 2030. But in reality, it’s an old 1980 design put together by United Airlines management. Itcalled for six parallel runways, but for various reasons they kept it secret all theseyears. Did United, whose management had driven it into bankruptcy, have theexpertise to redesign O’Hare’s runways? One would expect a high level ofexpertise—thousands of hours by top transportation planners looking to solveAmerica’s future aviation needs. This is especially so in Chicago, with a history of great city planners, not the least of which, Daniel Burnham, who famously noted, “Make no small plans.” They didn’t. But here again, there was no Blue RibbonCommittee, no Friends of O’Hare, and no real public input. In fact, those mostaffected—DuPage County and the surrounding suburbs—were purposefullyshut out.

16

CHAPTER 1:

The Deliberative Process

Chicago’s O’Hare Consultants

So who did the planning? The expansion concept was tailored by Landrum &Brown, technical aviation consultants to the city since 1962. But their longtimeconnection with the city gave them a unique and nuanced understanding ofChicago politics; and at the same time as they advised the city on aviation policy,Landrum & Brown proved themselves as capable political strategists. This is acrucial point in understanding how O’Hare expansion came to be. As far back as1992, Landrum & Brown suggested that Chicago expand O’Hare in order toproduce jobs to make the new Mayor Daley look good8 (see Appendix 2). Arethese the words of a professional consultant trying to solve regional and nationaltransportation issues? Of course not. It was clear that in the city’s eyes, O’Hareplanning was first and foremost a political issue.

No City Expertise

The city is heavily dependent on Landrum & Brown. As Aviation CommissionerMary Rose Loney testified in her deposition, the city’s own Aviation Department lacks any internal expertise9 (see Appendix 3). Not only does the city lacktechnical expertise, but many aviation positions are filled with political hacks. For example, under Harold Washington, the mayor’s speechwriters were carried inhigh-level positions within the Department. They admitted not knowing the firstthing about aviation.

Daley’s Dinner Companion

The city also depended on political insiders or expediters to counsel andrepresent the mayor. In this case, connected with Landrum & Brown was“lobbyist” Oscar D’Angelo, Daley’s ex officio aviation guru, personal confidant,and dinner companion. Landrum & Brown and D’Angelo, together knowing thecity’s own desire to build O’Hare, devised a plan and shepherded it through. The plan was for new runways. Landrum & Brown’s expertise was in buildingrunways and terminals, and not surprisingly, they recommended more runwaysand terminals. D’Angelo pushed for it because he knew Daley wanted to keepbig public works projects in Chicago.

17

Mayoral Politics Trump Public Policy

What was lacking was any wide-ranging discussion of future transportation needs not only the Midwest but for the nation. Neither the FAA nor Congress wasdoing the heavy thinking on how to solve America’s airline traffic jam. It was just Chicago’s consultants. Other solutions considered were all variations of morerunways and terminals. There was no big-picture thinking and no other outsideexperts involved. No one suggested building anything other than new runways at O’Hare. There were no proposals for integrating air, high-speed rail, and urbanmass transit systems. Instead of thinking bigger, they circled the wagons andthought smaller.

There were four reasons for their parochial approach that dictated the O’Hareplanning process:

1. The city had a “terrible dilemma.” Any discussion of expandingO’Hare due to lack of capacity would play into the hands of thoseadvocating a third airport in the south suburbs. Furthermore,expanding O’Hare would almost certainly involve a Chicago mayorcondemning suburban homes, which they labeled as “a politicalnightmare.”10

2. A third airport would logically result in a regional airport authorityusurping control of O’Hare from Chicago.

3. Chicago’s loss of day-to-day operational management would result inthe loss of control of jobs and contracts.

4. The preservation of O’Hare as a “fortress hub” for United andAmerican Airlines was essential to maintaining their monopolypricing advantage, which fit nicely with Chicago’s desire to expandO’Hare.

These concepts permeated the city’s planning process.

The Terrible Dilemma

As Landrum & Brown worked through the O’Hare planning process, theydescribed the city in an internal memo as:

…paralyzed by a terrible dilemma. On the one hand, the city recognized thatadditional airfield capacity would someday be needed in the Chicago region. Therewere only three possibilities for providing additional capacity: new runways at

18

ORD, new runways at MDW, or a third airport. On the other hand, the cityrecognized that new runways at MDW were impractical and was unwilling toincur the political heat that would accrue to any suggestion that new runways werebeing considered at either ORD or MDW.11 (See Appendix 4)

The most obvious part of the city’s dilemma was the potential public relationsdisaster. The city wanted to physically expand O’Hare, which could not beaccomplished without the condemnation of suburban homes and businesses. Itwas a highly charged political issue that the city wanted to avoid.

A Third Airport?

But Chicago’s dilemma revolved around solving the region’s transportationneeds. Simply, the region needed greater capacity, and a third airport was theeasiest solution. But where would the airport be built? Plans for an airport inPeotone had been around for years, but for several reasons the city wasconvinced that Peotone must not be built. It would place an airport outside citylimits, necessitating a regional authority, and would take away control of jobs and contracts from Chicago. This is exactly what Landrum & Brown foresaw. For allthese reasons, the city could and would not admit that O’Hare had a capacityproblem requiring expansion. The city’s dilemma was this: in order to maintaincontrol and keep from touching off a firestorm in the suburbs, the city, itsconsultants, and the airlines involved had to pretend there was no capacity issueand move forward planning alone with no public input, which could quicklyunravel their dilemma.

Only in Chicago

Landrum & Brown advised, “Thus the city was forced to argue from the position that new capacity was not and would not ever, in the foreseeable future, berequired in the Chicago region. The city did manage, by waging this argument, to stall any serious plans for a third airport outside the city limits”12 (see Appendix4). It was what they later called “successful guerrilla warfare”13 (see Appendix 4).After Mayor Daley took office, the city recanted on the need for a new airfieldcapacity in the Chicago Region and proposed a third airport at Lake Calumet.But why there instead of Peotone? Lake Calumet met all the criteria: 1) noencroachment on the suburbs, which would avoid local political battles, 2) nousurping Chicago’s control of O’Hare, and 3) no loss of operationalmanagement, jobs, or contracts. “The effort to demonstrate feasibility of thisconcept lasted about two years and succeeded again in preventing IDOT from

19

making any meaningful progress toward developing a new airport in a suburbanlocation”14 (see Appendix 4). But the city dropped Lake Calumet after failing towork out a deal with the state over control of jobs and contracts. The city’sstanding argument opposed Peotone and claimed there was no capacity crisis atO’Hare. But in keeping with Daley’s fundamentally political approach, a plan forLake Calumet was put forth for one reason: its location within city limits. Thattheir proposal completely contradicted their long-standing approach unmaskedtheir real position. A third airport necessitated by additional capacity was fine just as long as it was within the Chicago city limits.

Deceit and Obfuscation

The manner in which the city proposed Lake Calumet demonstrated their needto lie about their intentions. This deceit and obfuscation became a fundamentalprinciple of planning O’Hare expansion. As Aviation Commissioner Jay Frankewrote to the city’s Chief Administrator for Programs and Policy Frank Kruesi,Chicago needed to “minimize public exposure”15 (see Appendix 5). Frankeclarified exactly what needed to be kept from public view: “Some master planelements are less likely to become part of the public discussion process (e.g.,collateral land development programs). This is a distinct advantage”16 (seeAppendix 5). Franke was saying that not only were there sensitive land issues inregard to O’Hare expansion, but that the consequences of these issues were sopolitically dangerous that the city should avoid public discussion of themaltogether.

Bold-Faced Lies

The public did in fact have reason to worry about these “collateral landdevelopment programs.” DuPage County leaders had legitimate concerns aboutthe city’s plans, both for O’Hare expansion and for the region’s transportationissues. They repeatedly wrote letters and called city aviation officials asking to beincluded in the planning process, as they clearly should have been. They sensiblystated, “Any work program for a master plan update for O’Hare Airport mustinclude meaningful participation of the suburban leaders…and of the residentsof both Chicago and the suburbs”17 (see Appendix 6). Franke agreed with themand even carbon-copied Congressmen Hyde and Hastert in the note. “Publicparticipation is inherent in the planning process.” Franke and the ChicagoDepartment of Aviation continued assuring DuPage leaders, “The master planupdate is not a procedural precedent to developing new runways; it is a methodof addressing needs and alternatives”18 (see Appendix 7). Yet when DuPage

20

leaders held the city to its word and tried to set up a meeting with aviationofficials, they were told the city had “no information to share”19 (see Appendix6). This was a bold-faced lie.

Meanwhile, the city was still actively planning. According to notes between thecity and its consultants, the new aviation commissioner David Mosena continued to stress the company line: “All information on the effort should be kept asconfidential as possible, especially regarding public comment and release ofdocuments”20 (see Appendix 8). While the city was intentionally discussingO’Hare expansion, the people most directly affected were being systematicallyexcluded from the debate.

Successful Guerilla War

Landrum & Brown’s strategic analysis stated it clearly:

The city has conducted a protracted but successful guerilla war against the stateforces that would usurp control of the city’s airports by launching development of anew airport in the Southwest suburbs and creating a Regional Airports Authority responsible both for the third airport development and for operational andmaintenance of ORD and MDW.21 (See Appendix 4)

Landrum & Brown underscored the city’s basic fear. Admitting the need for new runways would logically lead to a third airport solution, which would result in aregional authority whose operational control over Chicago’s airports would mean the loss of O’Hare jobs and contracts for Mayor Daley.

Would Chicago fight this concept? Does the river turn green on St. Patrick’sDay? O’Hare expansion was never about solving transportation issues. It was,and continues to be, about Chicago retaining control by whatever meansnecessary. From one aviation commissioner to the next, from HaroldWashington to the Daley administration, the city was clear about whom theywere cutting out, and whom they were cutting in.

The Airlines’ Special Interest

The city had key corporate partners in expanding O’Hare. United Airlines andAmerican Airlines dealt with both capacity issues and Chicago’s political realities, and just like their partners in City Hall, the airline executive blew smoke. Thetwo top executives for United and American, Public and Government AffairsDirector Herb Gardner and Vice President of Corporate Affairs Bill Hood,

21

authored a letter in January 1996 attacking a third airport, stating that the thirdairport concept was based upon the “myth that O’Hare is at or near capacity. Inreality the Chicago Metropolitan area will not need a new airport for decades”22

(see Appendix 9). Just as the city had done, United and American had to lie andsay that capacity wasn’t needed. Again, Peotone would have been the answer.Their executives were convinced that competition from a third airport wouldcause them to lose revenue and “abandon or underutilize these investments [atO’Hare]”23 (see Appendix 9). American and United had no interest in dilutingtheir dual economic hub at O’Hare.

Understanding why United and American attempted all these public relationsmaneuvers is both essential and simple. The airlines both have a hub at O’Hare.Aviation analysts describe this situation as a “fortress hub.” This fortress huballows United and American to set high prices without competition from lowcost carriers. As a result, according to a report done by Governor Elect GeorgeRyan and Lieutenant Governor Corinne Wood entitled Illinois Transportation in the 21st Century, United and American receive $600 million in above-marketpricing at O’Hare every year.24 O’Hare provides United and American with aunique revenue stream they fight hard to protect.25

Personal and Confidential: United to Daley

In an unsurprisingly corporate approach to the nation’s transportation needs,United President Gerald Greenwald wrote a “personal and confidential” letter to Mayor Daley in February 4, 1998, which he complained about the CivicCommittee’s support for Peotone. United, a powerful member of the same Civic Committee, particularly on aviation issues, felt that Committee President ArnieWeber was off base by suggesting support for Peotone. Greenwald wrote toDaley:

As you know, United was very unhappy to learn for the first time from a Crain’s reporter that the President of the Civic Committee had expressed support forreinstating Peotone in the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems. In ourview, the letter does not accurately reflect the view of the membership of the CivicCommittee and, from our perspective, was a serious mistake. 26 (See Appendix10)

He noted, “United…had no interest whatsoever in the proposed airport atPeotone, nor in studies to support its viability”27 (see Appendix 10). How dare a

22

civic group make such an independent judgment? Greenwald wanted ChairmanArnie Weber’s head on a plate.

The United Strategy

But Greenwald wanted more, and after criticizing Chairman Weber, he detailedhis own approach. He informed Daley, “We believe an airport at Peotone makesno sense whatsoever…I want to advise you that we have embarked on severalinitiatives…We have retained Booz Allen & Hamilton to conduct astudy…reflecting the…significance of O’Hare as a ‘hub’ airport…and the impact that a third airport would have on the system”28 (see Appendix 10). Uniteddemonstrated their intolerance of support for a third airport. They also madeclear their own position and their plan of attack: retaining Booz Allen &Hamilton. Booz Allen was hired specifically to defend United’s O’Hare hub andhighlight the deleterious effect Peotone would have on O’Hare.

The “Independent” Study

In the very same letter, Greenwald states the Booz Allen study would be“independent” and “will probably be the first comprehensive and authoritativestudy” on O’Hare and regional transportation issues. How could the report beindependent when United gave Booz Allen its marching orders? Greenwalddirected his consultant to reflect in the report the importance of defendingO’Hare against the third airport. As Greenwald stated, this was United’scorporate position, and the report was his solution to short-circuit any publicplanning that could result in competing ideas.

Airlines Lie to Protect O’Hare Monopoly

A 1996 letter once again demonstrates United and American’s willingness tomanipulate the facts and recast the O’Hare debate in terms that were favorableto their current position. This time they had to keep a lid on O’Hare’s capacitycrisis: “Capacity at a hub airport is defined in terms of available seats, not flights.The myth that Chicago airports are nearing capacity has been proffered byuninformed groups and individuals who lack a basic understanding of theaviation industry’s economics and operational methods”29 (see Appendix 9).They concluded that “in reality, the Chicago Metropolitan area will not need anew airport for decades”30 (see Appendix 9). United understood that the needfor a third airport was based on how capacity was defined at O’Hare. Simply, ifthere were no capacity crisis at O’Hare, there would be no need for a third

23

airport. Thus, United manipulated the capacity numbers to avoid a third airportthat would disrupt their lucrative position at O’Hare.

A Civic Group for Sale

The airlines engaged in an aggressive, secretive public relations campaign toadvance their O’Hare agenda. They procured Booz Allen to support theircorporate position, but needed the report to appear impartial. So they turned toJerry Roper, President of Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. Roper’sprofessional role is to support the business community, but he has consistentlymade himself a willing tool of his powerful members by promoting their petprojects. So when United Airline executives needed to present Booz Allen’sfindings as unbiased and independent, they turned to Jerry Roper, who claimedto have commissioned the report. Ultimately Booz Allen presented their findings to the public under the auspices of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.31

The Front Group

As another approach in their public relations battle plan, United executivesdecided on the need to establish a “front group”32 (see Appendix 11). The groupthey established was called the Midwest Aviation Commission (MAC). Its rolewas to influence the federal government and push the airline’s legislativepriorities: “The MAC office will generate daily reports to all MAC principals andpartners. MAC will also maintain a physical presence in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington D.C.”33 (see Appendix 12). The mastermind and author of the MAC strategy was Jerry Roper, who outlined MAC’s initiatives in a memo printed onChicagoland Chamber of Commerce letterhead. Specifically, Roper outlined theMAC plan to “reduce opposition to the airport to these ‘fringe’ players whichwill ‘clear the field’ for us.” On a federal level, they planned to “isolate SenatorFitzgerald,” a vocal critic representing constituents throughout the state34 (seeAppendix 12). Providing additional evidence that Roper did not act on his own,Department of Aviation spokesman Dennis Culloton circulated a memorandumto Jerry Roper regarding the news coverage of the Booz Allen study stating, “Ithought the attached articles from the community press would be helpful foryour review as you continue to develop your grassroots program and strategy forthe Midwest Aviation Coalition. I do appreciate your support for the ChicagoAirport System. As always, please call me if I can assist you”35 (see Appendix 13). This was an important public policy discussion. But the airline industry, the city,and a leader of a prominent civic group had detailed a plan to create and

24

distribute a phony report, promote its findings, and isolate a sitting U.S. senatorwho was earnestly committed to solving the region’s transportation issues.

Micromanaging the Study

Leaving nothing to chance, prior to publication, the Booz Allen report wasmassaged and twisted by Daley and United insiders. It was given to OscarD’Angelo, who represented Mayor Daley and Landrum & Brown, as well asGery Chico, former Daley Chief of Staff and current United lobbyist. Togetherthey changed Booz Allen’s results 180 degrees:

The city would best be served if the BA&H study did not reference the need foradditional runways. Instead, the study might suggest that the region’s aviationneeds could well be served through the foreseeable future by means of amodernization program that considers the use of new technology and the eventualreconfiguration of the airport’s forty- year-old runway geometry.36 (SeeAppendix 14)

Oscar D’Angelo and Gary Chico maintained the changes made to the BoozAllen study were purely for political motives: “Irrespective of the nature of theBA&H report, making it public before the gubernatorial and mayoral election is a very ‘dangerous’ action. Whatever the report will ultimately contain certainly canwait until after the primary election”37 (see Appendix 14). The changescontradicted Booz Allen’s original findings and were made to coincide with themayor’s political calendar.

Yet even after being vetted by Chico and D’Angelo, the report was still notfinished going through the ringer. Booz Allen presented a series of conclusionsand answers, public relations talking points about the O’Hare study, to the city.They wanted to make sure they were all on the same page before making thefindings public, so Booz Allen submitted the Q and A to Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney to make sure all of their conclusions were approved by thecity. Loney worked over the proposed talking points. In her own handwriting she took out the recommendation for reconfiguration of runways entirely. WhereBooz Allen had written, “Runway reconfiguration will be required at some timeduring the next twenty years,” Loney’s written rebuke stated, “As I discussedwith Jerry Roper on October 20, it is way premature to talk about air fieldreconfiguration…I also feel that the number of runways should be left to the city to discuss”38 (see Appendix 15). Loney made it clear what the city expected outof Booz Allen: “I thought you were staying away from policy”39 (see Appendix

25

15). Loney, in coordination with the head of the Chicagoland Chamber ofCommerce, further undermined the credibility of an already biased report byagain readjusting Booz Allen’s factual conclusions. Now the report conceived toecho United Airline policies had been twisted to reflect the city’s political needs.However, under an increasingly ridiculous set of facts that underscore thefraudulent manipulation of the study, aviation department spokesman DennisCulloton gave a public statement a month later in mid-November, 1998 whenthe report was released to the public that “Chicago aviation officials have not yetreviewed the chamber-ordered study and refused to comment on its forecasts orrecommendations.”40 So much for the integrity of Booz Allen and theDepartment of Aviation.

By now, its “independent opinion” had been rewritten and edited by Loney, theCity Aviation Commissioner; Landrum & Brown’s David Goldberg and theirlobbyist Oscar D’Angelo; Gery Chico, United Airlines lobbyist and formermayoral advisor; and Jerry Roper of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.The airlines and the city stand by these doctored results. Indeed they are the soleand entire foundation for O’Hare expansion. Daley, testifying with GovernorRyan before Congress dismissed Senator Fitzgerald’s question as to whether thecity had effectively studied the issue, saying, “There has been so many studies”41

(see Appendix 1). In fact there was only one: Booz Allen. The final version,“Questions and Answers/Booz-Allen: Aviation Issues,” reworded by Loney andRoper was faxed to Carolyn Grisko and Laurie Stone on 11/4/98. (see Appendix 15)

26

CHAPTER 2:

A House of Cards

Even ignoring the blatant writing and rewriting of the Booz Allen study, theirfigures still don’t work. It’s important to review the study’s findings because itreveals how out of touch this single “independent” analysis of Chicago’stransportation policy truly was.

According to Booz Allen, O’Hare expansion was based on a massive increase inforeign travel that would emphasize Chicago as a world gateway. Booz Allenpredicted a 9% annual increase in foreign passengers after 1998, far beyond theFAA’s forecasts.42 (See Appendix 16) They also contended that internationalconnecting passengers have six times more economic impact than domesticconnecting passengers, and forecasted that international traffic would, over 20years, grow fives times over current rates.43 (See Appendix 17) Booz Allen’srecommendation to Chicago was to maximize international non-stops, bolstering Chicago as an “international hub” and becoming “an attractive center ofinternational commerce.”44 (See Appendix 18) Booz Allen calculated that by2015 this would add $17 billion annually to Chicago’s economy.45 (See Appendix18)

That was all very interesting, but 9/11 threw almost all air travel projections outthe window. Booz Allen’s findings were rooted in numbers that didn’t take intoconsideration either the effect of 9/11 or the changed economic climate thatfollowed the prior years’ stock market collapse. After 9/11, American Airlinescut half of their European destinations from O’Hare and they are still not back.And after predicting a resurgence of international business travel, even BoozAllen cut their own travel budget by 20 percent.46

But passenger volume at O’Hare went negative prior to 9/11 due to aneconomic recession. 47 (See Appendix 19) It has not recovered since. Thisphenomenon was best explained by American Airlines then what President Don

Carty called “changed consumer behavior,” the new unwillingness ofbusiness travelers to purchase high-priced tickets on short notice. Current studies demonstrate the willingness of American travelers to drive 450 miles rather thantake a short flight, up from 300 miles prior to 9/11. Booz Allen’s numbersassumed that the nineties business boom would go on forever. So many of thereports assumptions are obviously, no longer valid. The report was biased,

27

unchallenged, and outdated. The manner in which it was concocted shows thewillingness of large American consulting firms, corporations, and politicians toshirk, bend, stretch and turn upside down the truth and flat out lie to theAmerican public under the guise of what’s become known as political“spinning.”

A more reliable analysis of Chicago’s claims that O’Hare expansion will handle1.6 million flights a year—the figure upon which the city based these boldeconomic assertions—compared with about 950,000 flights a year now, wasperformed by a team of nationally regarded aviation experts. Sponsored byBensenville and Elk Grove Village and headed by Joseph Del Balzo, formeracting administrator of the FAA, the team also included David Hinson, formerFAA Administrator and former airline chief executive officer, and JonathanHowe, a former FAA Regional Administrator and former president of twoprominent aviation trade organizations – both of whom volunteered their timewithout pay because of their concerns about the operational, safety, security,economic and social issues of the Chicago plan.

After a year, they unequivocally warned the FAA in January 2004 of the plan’sserious defects, including its dismal failure to reach its capacity goals. EvenChicago’s own consultant, Ricondo & Associates, told the city that arebuilt O’Hare could handle only 1.3 million flights annually, beforeencountering delays worse than those experienced today.

Further, Ricondo & Associates’ own team concluded that even the 1.3 millionflights were unattainable because the ability to run the “quad” runway designproposed by Chicago was grossly overestimated. One astonishing reason wasChicago’s failure to factor in the bad weather that frequently slows air traffic atO’Hare.

But the ultimate limiting factor is not the inadequacy of the runways, butsaturated O’Hare’s airspace, the most congested in the nation. No matter howmuch concrete you lay at O’Hare, the airspace simply can’t handle theseprojected increases. Chicago simply ignores this problem, and refuses todisclose the data and computer simulations upon which it bases itsexaggerated claims. Because of those and other gross failures, the outsideconsultant team said, “Given the huge cost of the project—between $15 billionand $20 billion—the [expansion plan] cannot be justified on any sound economic basis.”

28

Another study by prominent aviation economist Jon Ash goes further. Not onlydo the economics of the expansion utterly fail, they well could have a negativeimpact on the region’s economy. That’s so because the huge cost of the projectwould increase the cost to the airlines operating out of O’Hare to such a highlevel that they would start diverting their connecting traffic to other, less costlyairports.

Rigging the Numbers

In order to sell the expansion project, the city consistently presents its plan to the public in the most persuasive and positive light—regardless of what the data may actually demonstrate. This has resulted in the city rigging the facts and numbersused to forecast the benefits of its massive O’Hare expansion proposal.

How are the numbers rigged? The city accomplishes this most effectively bytaking facts, and making unfair comparisons to prove their point. The analyticalapproach is that of comparing apples to oranges. The city presents the ultimatebenefits of the proposed expansion at any point in time with the least costassertions. By carefully selecting cost data and downside risks from a particularyear, an abbreviated time period or from a limited scope of the project and thenapply the data to make broad, sweeping generalizations about the entire projectthe city is able to create any outcome it chooses, that is to make the data singfrom their own song sheet so to speak.

The rigged comparison of figures is documented throughout the city’s entirepublic planning process. AIP research placed into exhibits many of the city’sinternal planning documents that prove this course of action. The act of the cityrigging the numbers is committed again when it presented its expansion plan tothe FAA for environmental approval. As a result, access to the facts, typicallyheld tight to the city’s vest and away from public scrutiny, slowly began to bepried open during the FAA’s preliminary approval process. It allowed for outside critical analysis of the data and an honest critique of the city’s methodology.

The most current outside analysis of the city’s flaws appear in a report by BrianCampbell and Joseph Del Balzo. The report focuses on the FAA’s preliminaryconclusions and analysis of the city’s supporting documents.

29

Campbell is President of Campbell-Hill, an aviation consulting firm. Dr. Campbell has 33 years of experience in theeconomics of air transportation. Between 1976 and 1982, Dr.Campbell was a co-founder and senor executive of twonew-entrant (post U.S. deregulation) airlines, with primaryresponsibilities for planning and finance. The first of thesenew companies was Midway Airlines, Inc. and secondly AirChicago, Inc.

Joseph Del Balzo, former FAA Acting Administrator. DelBalzo has been an outside analyst-consultant on previousO’Hare modernization proposals. The consultant’s serviceswere retained by suburban communities in opposingChicago’s current expansion plan.

Highlights of the consultant’s report strike upon three major weaknesses the cityfaces when it sells its ambitious proposal for expansion: 1) City and FAA ignoretrue cost of the project 2) City and FAA ignore viability of project financing and3) City and FAA’s preliminary approval does not provide answers to thefundamental question does Chicago’s proposal eliminate delays?

30

31

#1 The City and FAA have not disclosed true and accurate costestimates for O’Hare expansion

• Chicago claimed the project’s cost at $6.6 billion and had long peddled thenumber under an exhaustive city-financed public relations program.

• In February 2004, facing FAA analysis of their plan, Chicago admits that the costis between $14.8 and $15 billion.

Special Note: The massive increase in cost was not supported with any details.

• Upon close analysis of city records two important cost components were missingmaking the City’s estimates wrong again.

° Chicago based its estimates on convenient outdated cost information.It ignored using current available data and instead relied on older obsoletedata. A critical omission that when adding up the total project cost translatesinto billions of dollars.

° Chicago did not include “capitalized interest” – (i.e. the financingcharges which Chicago and the airlines must pay to build the project) isestimated to be more than $5 billion.

FAA requires Capitalized Interest cost in the City’s proposal. Thus,the FAA shares the city’s culpability in accepting grossly inaccurate costinformation on O’Hare expansion.

• Chicago’s projected cost contingency – that amount of money allowed forunforeseen costs in building O’Hare expansion – is significantly underestimated.

• Industry standards for contingency add an additional $3.5 billion in project cost.

Special Note: The FAA does not provide any detail that support its own costforecast of $14.1 billion.

O’Hare expansion will reach a minimum of $23.1 billion when projectcompleted and when costs being ignored today are ultimately are factoredinto the equation.

Preliminary Conclusions As To Flaws in FAA’s Draft EIS on Chicago’s OMPProposal, by Brian Campbell and Joseph Del Balzo

Summary of Outside Analysis of O’Hare Expansion

32

#2 Chicago’s O’Hare Expansion is Not Financially Feasible

• The FAA ignored legal requirements and irresponsibly “assumes” without anyanalysis that O’Hare expansion can be financed.

• Despite thousands of pages, the FAA’s discussion of Chicago’s ability to financethe most expensive airport project in aviation history is limited to a singlesentence in which FAA incredibly “assumes” that the billions of dollarsnecessary to build this project will be available.

“While the exact mix of funding sources that would be used by the City atthis stage of the project is not known, it is reasonable to assume that,based upon the impact O’Hare has on the NAS and the benefits to theregional economy, sufficient funds will exist to complete the proposal, ifapproved.” (FAA DEIS 2005)

• Expansion Not Financially Feasible

° Financing is impossible even at the low-ball cost estimate of $14.1 billion.

° City requires $815 million in FAA discretionary grants or 20% of the entirenational FAA discretionary fund

° $1 billion Passenger Facility Charge short fall

° O’Hare expansion requires over $8.7 billion in additional airline debt whichthe airlines cannot shoulder.

• Unsupportable financial burden imposed by the full O’Hare expansion planneeds to be publicly disclosed and examin3ed for its impact on United Airlinesand American the two major airlines operating at O’Hare. It is not prudent toassume that $billions of dollars can be assumed by United, which is still inbankruptcy, or American Airlines, which has been greatly weakened in currenteconomy.

Special Note: FAA makes no mention of the fact that American and UnitedAirlines refused to give their required contractual approval to the huge terminalcomponent of the O’Hare expansion

• Bondholders and Taxpayers impact financial feasibility. Full disclosure of therisks to both potential investors and citizens of metropolitan Chicago is necessary, although it is totally missing from the FFA analysis.

Special Note: Wall Street bond firms have recently been held liable for notdisclosing all risks to investors regarding the revenue streams that support bondinvestments. On a taxpayer level, there is an example of unrealistic planning: St.Louis invested $1 billion in a runway project using airport bond financing. Whenrevenue fell, St. Louis began discussing imposing a metropolitan-wide tax on St.Louis and the suburbs to subsidize the airlines and pay for a portion of the bonds.

Never has Chicago or its bonding firms raised such a potential risk, even thoughthe City’s proposal is a cost-multiple many times that in St. Louis.

Chicago and the FAA face a difficult financially reality. First, if the enormouscosts connected with the Campbell-Del Balzo analysis is correct then O’Hareexpansion is fated to fall crashing to the ground. If modernizing O’Hare is the priority then the FAA should be analyzing a much small and financiallyaffordable project.

33

#3 Highly Distorted Claims: FAA Analysis of O’Hare ExpansionDistorts Delay Reduction and Capacity Gains

• FAA used an outdated “low-ball” forecast that produced exaggerated delayreductions and capacity increases in its preliminary analysis.

• FAA’s own more recent forecast demonstrates that after spending over $20billion, on opening day O’Hare expansion will suffer delays equal to or greaterthan the delays experienced in the years 2001-2003.

• O’Hare expansion will have exhausted its capacity on the day that it opens.

• FAA is dishonest in its rejection of alternatives.

° FAA only compares the completely built out O’Hare expansion againstalternative airports.

° FAA’s analysis dismisses regional airports without supportable analysis. Itdoes this given the fact that the city’s expansion plan will be out of capacityeither at the time it opens or within a few short years there after.

° FAA rejects the transfer of traffic from O’Hare to other hub airports, eventhough major airlines practice the transfer connections between hubs

The FAA result-oriented approach rejected all other alternatives other thanthe city’s proposal for O’Hare expansion. The FAA proceeds without anyevidence on the false and unsupported claim there are no alternatives that canreduce delays and meet the Chicago region’s future demand.

The FAA is responsible to compare all alternatives if all that is financiallyaffordable is a smaller expansion plan that focuses on modernizing O’Hare.

Blind Boosterism

The Chicago business community relied on these bold Booz Allen findings as the basic reason for O’Hare expansion. Hearing these projections, big business gotbehind the effort. The City’s own contribution to boosting support for O’Harewas an emotional plea: Chicago can’t afford to lose its number one airportstanding to Atlanta or Dallas. Aviation Commissioner Loney remarked in herchanges to Booz Allen’s talking points exclaimed: “other cities are trying to claim itself as international gateways. We need to maintain our preeminence. . . . Forexample Dallas-Ft. Worth has plans to overtake Chicago in the next 5-10 yearsand become the premier international hub,” Loney adds, “By the year 2000!!”48

(See Appendix 15) The aviation consultant industry keeps promoting newairports and their own business by playing one city off against another.

Would Chicago really be a different place if Dallas had more internationaldestinations than O’Hare? If Dallas overtook O’Hare in international operations, would we all suddenly want to sell our homes and businesses in Chicago andmove to Dallas? Would the lone star flag soon fly about City Hall? Would itreally affect Chicago’s economy as Loney implied? Even if it were correlated, thefacts just don’t hold true: American flies to twice the international destinations

from O’Hare than they do from Dallas.

American goes to Brussels, Frankfurt, Glasgow, London,Manchester, Paris, and Rome from O’Hare. From Dallas theyonly go to Frankfurt, London, Paris, and Zurich. They havebasically closed down St. Louis, which had many TWAinternational flights, before being absorbed by American.

The City tried to boost support for O’Hare expansion with ham-handedattempts aimed at Chicagoans’ hearts. We’ve seen this before with sports teamsthat threatened to move to the suburbs or another city. The Bears did this atSoldier Field. That decision wasn’t based on economic analysis calculating thereturn on a publicly-financed stadium; it was purely emotional and ultimatelycarried out by ramming it through the legislature over a weekend with no noticeor public hearing. The City is making a similar argument for O’Hare.

Faulty Numbers

In order to get the full support of the business community, media and localcitizenry, city officials depended on the promise of job creation. The jobsnumbers come solely from Booz Allen projections on increased flight

34

operations. Without the consulting firm ever setting forth its methodology, Booz Allen proclaimed that increased travel would bring 1.6 million operationstranslating into the production of 195,000 more jobs.49 (See Appendix 20) Theglorified figures produced the desired effect upon civic boosterism from labor,politicians, the business community, and the media. The jobs numbers have been trumpeted by the city and paraded throughout the metropolitan region; theyappear on kiosks at O’Hare and are an essential part of the city’s public relationscampaign. These numbers are used to rally the troops and essentially bolster theCity’s position for expansion called “modernization”:

• Increase capacity to 1.6 million operations will solve delays for weary travelers

• Produce a 195,000 jobs invigorating a recovery economy

• Reasonable cost - $6.6 billion is affordable and can be financed

The city can’t have it both ways. The 195,000 jobs are dependent on BoozAllens’s 1.6 million operations projection. But according to the city’s ownstudies, performed by Ricondo & Associates, at 1.2-1.3 million operations, gridlock occurs.50 A source familiar with the study said, “The delay numbers basedon 1.3 million operations were so dismal that it was decided not to continue thesimulation out another 300,000 flights.”51 Therefore, the reality of the numbers is that O’Hare could not sustain the required operations to support their rosy jobcreation forecast. The truth is that the job number was never rigorouslyexamined and is found to be unattainable.

The economic impact of O’Hare expansion also rests upon the questionableassumption of connecting passengers. Booz Allen claimed that the connectinginternational travelers produce greater economic benefit than domesticconnecting passengers. But do people really buy more than a McDonald’s burger and a news paper while connecting through O’Hare? Do the 87,000 international connecting passengers have six times the economic impact of domesticconnecting passengers as Booz Allen stated? No one really knows. Booz Allencollected no ground data and performed no economic polls at O’Hare to back up their findings

But when the Daley/Ryan deal resulted in the unveiling of the expansion plan,no one in the cheering section worried about any of these nasty details. It washailed by labor, business, the papers and even U.S. Senators as new andvisionary. O’Hare kiosks kept claiming a, “79% reduction in delays overall” and

35

“195,000 new jobs.” But the key elements were questionable: cost, delays, jobs,and even safety. They were flimsy numbers but they had political backing.

It wasn’t the first time. This sort of job projection was used with Daley’sgambling proposal for five Las Vegas casinos. Arthur Andersen was the retainedconsultant, and estimated over 100,000 “upwardly mobile career path jobs.”Daley wildly told the Economic Club that he would clear out the public housingprojects giving folks jobs in the casinos. But as a member of Speaker Madigan’sgambling commission I watched those numbers dwindle before the testimony ofvarious experts. The Better Government Association and Madigan’s GamblingCommission reported estimates less than 20,000 jobs.52 The Booz Allen studies,like Andersen’s, based their job prediction numbers on accumulated “industryexpertise,” did no on-the-ground polling and collected no hard data to back uptheir claims. On the other hand, the BGA gambling numbers were based on ascientific survey of 800 riverboat gamblers, which were then put into computermodels at The Business and Economic Center at UNLV. The BGA alsosurveyed Chicago cultural shoppers at various Loop locations to determine theirinterest in gambling. In the Madigan Gambling Commission we held 16 sessions

36

City promises 195,000 new jobs in publicrelations blitz

The city’s new kiosks in 2005 reduce jobforecasts to tens of thousands

in Chicago and Springfield listening to experts, not just the Las Vegas publicrelations spins, before we began to get a real grasp of the numbers. On O’Hareexpansion, they’ve held none. Those differences in approach and methodologyproduce very different results and underscore the importance of collecting harddata. It would be interesting to conduct real surveys of O’Hare connectingpassengers to determine how much they actually spent at O’Hare.

Other than expansion opponents, one has to wonder if anyone bothered toanalyze Booz Allen’s findings. My guess is that the various CEOs who make upthe Civic Committee of the Economic Club together with the Tribune EditorialBoard would flunk the most rudimentary quiz on the rationale for O’Hareexpansion. If pressed their response would be along the lines:

• Chicago has to stay number one,

• We need a great airport,

• It’s good for economy—we need jobs

• We’ve got to end the delays – I was stuck just last week.

If pressed to reconcile the jobs number with delays and operations, I think theywould retreat to Daley’s comments from the U.S. Senate floor that there hadbeen “so many studies.” They blindly accepted the Booz Allen report and itsfaulty numbers. The civic community never understood and the media neverbothered to investigate the City’s deliberative process. By giving the city a pass,the public inherited a policy to expand O’Hare built on the lies and manipulation of the City, airlines, consultants, politicians, and willing business leaders — thereal stake holders in an expanded O’Hare.

37

CHAPTER 3:

So Why Do it This Way?

Is this the right way to approach America’s transportation needs in 2050? Theanswers are written in the documents of the city, their consultants, and theairlines. While there is always plenty of hand-wringing over classic quid pro quocorruption, there is almost no thought given to corruption of the public policyprocess by those with access and a monetary stake in its outcome.

More than a century ago, the “sober-minded Elihu Root” advocated legislationthat would prohibit political contributions by corporations in order to prevent “thegreat aggregations of wealth from using their corporate funds, directly orindirectly,” to elect legislators who would “vote for their protection and theadvancement of their interests as against those of the public.”

United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567, 571 (1957) (quoting E. Root, Addresses on Government and Citizenship 143(R. Bacon & J. Scott, eds. 1916)).

In Root’s opinion, such legislation would “strik[e] at a constantly growing evilwhich has done more to shake the confidence of the plain people of small means of this country in our political institutions than any other practice which has ever obtained since the foundation of our Government” (352 U.S., at 571). TheCongress of the United States has repeatedly enacted legislation endorsing Root’s judgment.53

Political neophytes would assume that in a city full of outstanding architects andtransportation planners, there would be an open process generating aninnovative and outstanding solution for the region’s transportation needs. But inresponse to their “terrible dilemma,” Chicago leaders battened down the hatchesand chose a 15-year course of deception, hiding their intentions and plans andtheir costs. Both the city and the airlines bounced from supporting a third airport to opposing one, from citing a need for new runways to saying they were notnecessary, all dependent upon which way the political winds were blowing at thetime.

Politics of Control

But throughout the decision-making process, one thing remained constant: thecity must not lose control of O’Hare54 (see Appendix 21). An August 10, 1990memo from City Aviation Commissioner Jay Franke to Chief Administrator for

38

Program and Policy Frank Kruesi set forth a series of strategic principles to guide the city in the formulation of its O’Hare master plan strategy55 (see Appendix 5).The principles underscored the city’s fear of losing control of O’Haredevelopment and the urgency it accorded preventing that outcome. The lastprinciple is named after Michael Schneiderman, a prominent Chicago lawyerspecializing in aviation issues who is the architect of the city’s expansionlegislation. “The Schneiderman axiom: No matter what, the city must retaineffective control of airport development”56 (see Appendix 5).

A more detailed analysis of the city’s guiding principle is found in a 1990 secretbriefing paper from consultant Ramon Ricondo to Deputy AviationCommissioner Kitty Freidheim. The paper includes a set of rhetorical talkingpoints that address the political considerations implicit to the management andcontrol of O’Hare operations. The section was entitled “Authority Issues,” andidentified as its purpose, “Achieve power and control in exchange for significantbenefit.” Ricondo elaborated on specific issues: “What constitutes significantbenefit? Runways and a new airport? Does one of the two constitute enoughbenefit? Is it better to live with delays at O’Hare and still be able to exercise totalcontrol?” Here Ricondo was expressing the city’s calculation to forgo delayreduction in order to keep control of O’Hare. In increasing detail, Ricondohones in on the city’s greatest fear of losing O’Hare to a regional authority:“Does single airport authority negate opportunity to spread Chicago airportrevenues among all its airports?” He made clear the nexus between control ofO’Hare and political and economic power. “What is the city trying to control:economic development? Jobs and contracts?” This questions digs into whichorganizational structure maintains “operational versus spending control.”Consequently, he set forth that “critical to control is assignment of appointmentpower: Mayor, Governor, County Board Presidents, air carriers, etc”57 (seeAppendix 21)—in short, who controls what. If Chicago lost operational controlof O’Hare to a regional authority, the power the city derived from controllingO’Hare revenue, jobs, and contracts would be severely diluted. This is the mostfundamental premise in Chicago politics.

When Daley was elected, he inherited this tremendous political power andillustrated in full scope the effect of “appointment power.” He began to bestowjobs and contracts to his family, close friends, and political cronies:

• Michael Daley in the bond business

• John Daley at Near North with Michael Segal

39

• Jeremiah Joyce at the airport.

• Walsh contracting, from nowhere to number six in the country

• Richard Crandall and his fencing

• Michael Tadin, his buddy and favorite trucking firm

• The Duffs

But this wasn’t new: the distribution of wealth through political office ispervasive throughout all politics. Jobs and contracts are the means by whichpoliticians consolidate their support and ultimately raise money. Illinoisans havewitnessed how the Ryan regime did it. Ryan squeezed everyone he regulated anddemanded kickbacks from everyone who got a state contract. Multinational firms were asked to pay million-dollar bribes to get computer contracts with the state.If this was how appointment power in Illinois played out over license plates, how did it play out at the biggest public works engine in the state?

One man was always in complete control of O’Hare: the mayor of Chicago.Overnight, Daley made his people rich beyond their wildest dreams while hesimply said, “I know nothing.” The city’s department spokespeople all chorusedthat procedures were always followed determining who gets what on merit. Butthe mayor didn’t deny his brother making money at O’Hare or any of his friendsgetting a piece of the “action” and in fact, saw little wrong with it. So the debategoes on and on. Why not give contracts to friends you can trust? It is howgovernment operates in most of the world. Is public bidding just some League of Women Voters concept, a progressive ideal to protect us from big business runamuck? Or do we really believe that bidding in a free, transparent market willproduce the best product and be the best use of citizens’ tax dollars? After all, it’s our money they’re playing with.

So what’s the difference between Daley contracts and the contracts that gotGeorge Ryan indicted? Isn’t the fixing of public contracts to benefit your friendsand family similar to Ryan’s quid pro quo corruption? The answer would be clear anywhere else in the country. But in Illinois, it’s a different story. There iswidespread cynicism and acceptance of big public projects being run for thebenefit of the politicians involved. This apathy forces us to ask ourselves overand over two fundamental questions: What’s wrong with all this? and Is it illegal?

40

CHAPTER 4:

Corruption: An Example and a Definition

A historical example may be helpful. 30 years ago, 49th Ward Alderman PaulWigoda took $50,000 from real estate developers to turn Edgewater Golf Course in Rogers Park into apartment housing. The golf course had been one of the fewopen spaces left on the far north side, and Wigoda’s constituents wanted itturned into a public park.

So where was the harm in this transaction? Was it that Wigoda was makingmoney off his public office? Was it that he had broken bribery laws? Was it thathe had breached his public trust, the bond that demands that he act in theinterest of those who he was elected to represent? All of the above. The breaking of his fiduciary obligation had consequences for all future Chicagoans and forthat reason, it is the most serious charge. Wigoda getting rich off his public office and his violation of ethics laws were clearly wrong. However, these damageswere limited to the alderman’s character and to the pocketbook of the real estatedeveloper paying the bribe. But the reality that today, Rogers Park is lined withdense apartment buildings instead of an open park is something that Chicagoanscontinue to live with far beyond Wigoda’s last day in public office. In Chicago we suffer from the burdens of these policy decisions all the time. McCormick Placeon the lakefront, the Illinois lottery and riverboat gambling casinos are just a fewthat springs to mind. We contend that the consequences of these tainted publicpolicy decisions are the real price of corruption.

The legal debate has gone all the way to our U.S. Supreme Court. Our campaignfinance system has left ordinary citizens in the dust. The public has been pushedaside by politicians who accept large gifts by the people who want somethingfrom government, whether legislation, favorable regulation, or a particularproject. The McCain-Feingold legislation aimed at reformed campaign financelaws caused the court to consider, “What is corruption?”

Is it money given for a particular vote? Can public corruption be contained bytraditional bribery laws, which are based on clear quid pro quo, or is the wholesystem corrupt? Special interests with a large economic stake in the governmentcontribute heavily to politicians and have vastly disproportionate access andopportunity to present their views. The Supreme Court mentioned trial lawyers,

41

automakers, and cigarette manufacturers as examples. O’Hare contractors fit this description.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens wrote, “Thus, in speaking of ‘improper influence’ and ‘opportunities for abuse’ in addition to ‘quid pro quo arrangements,’ we have recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of largecontributors (acknowledging that corruption extends beyond explicitcash-for-votes agreements to ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’).”Justice Stevens continued, “We have said that these interests directly implicate‘the integrity of our electoral process, and, not less, the responsibility of theindividual citizen for the successful functioning of that process’”58 (see Appendix 22). Understanding present-day corruption therefore requires going beyondsimple cash-for-votes influence. According to the court, the extensive presenceof special interests breaks fiduciary obligation between elected officials andcitizens.

What would the Supreme Court say about United Airlines’ influence indetermining aviation policy, or O’Hare contractors disproportionately fundingimportant public officials? This report illustrates the pervasiveness of O’Haremoney and the extent to which it affects public policy decisions.

Reaffirming this View

In a press conference announcing the George Ryan indictment, U.S. AttorneyPatrick Fitzgerald said that taxpayers have a right to expect that when a publiccontract is let, that it is done on the basis of what’s best for the citizens andtaxpayers, and not for the purpose of enriching the family, friends, or politicalcronies of the public officials involved59 (see Appendix 23). This is an “intangible rights” concept that underlies the Paul Wigoda example and was discussed inJustice Stevens’ opinion. In Chicago, given all we’ve discussed about our climateof cynicism and our long history of corruption, this simple, fundamental,democratic concept is practically revolutionary. Indeed, most Illinois politicianshaven’t heard anything like this since Elliot Ness.

U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald was suggesting that the Chicago way of government,“jobs and contracts,” was not only at odds with the interest of citizens andtaxpayers, but was also a violation of federal criminal statutes. Compared toprevious indictments of minority aldermen, the recent conviction of insurancemogul Michael Segal, whose Near North Insurance agency employed both the

42

mayor’s brother and governor’s son, and the Governor Ryan conviction went tothe heart of the Illinois political “combine.” This phrase was coined by theTribune’s John Kass to describe the combination of politicians of both politicalparties who conveniently run Illinois government for their own economicbenefit.60

When Senator Peter Fitzgerald wanted to appoint an independent U.S. Attorney,a career Justice employee, he was universally opposed by his own party. SenatorFitzgerald also had the courage to suggest on the Senate floor that GovernorRyan was wrong to use the future Lincoln Library as a vehicle to give outpatronage contracts and to populate it with political hacks.61 He furtherinfuriated his party by suggesting that not all public works projects in Illinoisbacked by Speaker Hastert were a wonderful use of taxpayer’s dollars.

Senator Fitzgerald was criticized by both parties and ultimately defeated when he opened the debate to include an amendment to have a competitive biddingrequirement; Federal competitive bidding procedures to the contracts at O’Hareand which would require the city of Chicago to disclose the recipients of thosecontracts. If the city intended to spend $15 billion of federal funds, it wouldseem a more than reasonable approach to ensure the public that contracts areproperly let. But in Chicago, that is not possible. In fact, Senator Fitzgeraldsummarized this during a budget crisis, point out that city workers get the choice of unpaid days or layoffs, but no-bid contracts continue to flow to the fewfavored insiders. “That’s the pattern: the connected guys get the bucks; theordinary guys get the shaft…We have a chance to pass a federal competitive bidprovision for O’Hare in the United States Senate. If we pass it, it should mean amarkedly different way of doing business in Chicago, at least at O’Hare.”62

The revelations uncovered in the trial of the governor’s chief of staff, ScottFawell, underscored the bipartisan nature of public corruption at the highestlevel of Illinois government. The message of the Segal and Ryan indictments was that the leadership of justice and the FBI were committed to attacking Illinoiscorruption at its core. Interestingly, even Mayor Daley, getting the heat from theHired Truck scandal, suddenly endorsed the view that the ultimate test ofcontracts was value for the taxpayers. In his State of the City speech he noted:

The burden is on me and my administration to show that we will live up to ourcommitment to put taxpayers first. There can only be one criterion in judging aprogram or employee, and that is whether the people of Chicago get the most fortheir money. No contractor or employee is entitled to special treatment based on

43

their friendship with me, my family, any city employee, or the seemingly countlesspeople who present themselves as my friends. And if you can’t do your job honestly and competently, there is no place for you in City Hall.63(See Appendix 24)

We could not agree more.

Pinstripe Patronage

These are Mayor Daley’s recent comments about the patronage system and theletting of jobs and contracts in Chicago. He hasn’t said much recently aboutO’Hare, but when you consider that Richard Mell, Jr. is the $56,000/year SpecialEvents Coordinator at O’Hare, it does seem rather clear. He is the son ofAlderman Mell and the brother-in-law of Governor Blagojevich. When pressed,one former high-ranking aviation department official told us in response to thequestion, What does Special Events Coordinator do? He yelled, “Nothing!”

So go jobs for the machine at O’Hare. Everything from low-level electricians upto top spots is controlled by the Daley organization. Case in point is AldermanLevar, who famously claimed he’s only a bartender and knows nothing aboutaviation, yet is the chair of aviation committee in the City Council. His brother,Michael, is the city aviation official who internally controls contracts.64 Even ouroverly candid governor sees nothing wrong in admitting that his father-in-law,Alderman Mell, has a lot of influence in determining who works at O’Hare. ButBlagojevich noted that the mayor is the ultimate decision-maker at O’Hare.65 Infact, the mayor is up to his eyeballs in contract pinstripe patronage. It hasovertaken the old-style machine jobs given to precinct captains as a means ofeffectively running a big city political organization. But he wants to bring backthat patronage system too, and is attempting to overthrow the Shakman decree.

But pinstripe patronage is where the real action is, turning patronage employeesinto patronage CEOs. It is the doling out of big-time contracts to friends andpolitical contributors. Most are professional no-bid contracts for lawyers,architects, and engineers, but the biggest were construction contracts effectivelystructured and fixed so that for one reason or another your people were chosen.This gave us scandals like MSI at the state level under Governor Jim Edgar.Edgar’s administration rewarded a computer contract to its top contributor. Infact, pinstripe patronage has risen with the importance of campaign fundraising.Political donations from contractors have now trumped the political importanceof giving out old-time patronage jobs.

44

At almost the same time, the concept of affirmative action and minorityset-asides swept across the country well-intentioned idea, but clearly a distortionof the bidding, free market process. It is this program of set-aside minoritycontracting that reveals Chicago corruption most clearly. The affirmative actionmovement coincided with the new Washington administration’s desire to givecontracts to their minority friends. They proclaimed “Hey, it’s our time; the Irishhave had these deals forever.” As minority contractors characterized the newapproach, “It’s all about contracts.” No more small jobs in Streets and Sanitation for minorities; they were in a position to get a piece of the real action at the top.Thus, we have a series of events that came together: the Shakman decree, a shiftto pinstripe patronage, and the growth of affirmative action, all giving us theideal of minority DBE’s and the Washington administration’s desire for theirturn at the goodies.

This interesting political experiment is most easily studied in the O’Harenewsstand deal, in which all the players were involved. It was a lucrative contract, which we will follow through three mayoral administrations. Everything you’llever need to know about O’Hare contracts was present in the deal. It’sworthwhile looking at in detail, particularly since we were able to contrast it withall the lies and political spin put out to defend this outrageous scam. We have anunprecedented amount of internal documents that refute the nonsensical political smoke surrounding giving contracts to friends.

45

CHAPTER 5:

The Case Study

To fully understand Daley’s method of operation, an examination of the art ofthe deal, from beginning to end, is enlightening. This case illustrates how O’Hare contracts are maneuvered to a favored few—a practice that Daley didn’t start,but which he has perfected.

While this case study is based on well-documented events already in the publicrecord, what makes it so valuable is its completeness. Chicagoans regularly aretreated to accounts of corruption compiled by investigative reporters. What ispresented here isn’t that kind of news in the strict sense. Rather, it provides thatrare opportunity of observing a comprehensive tale of unethical, and obviouslyillegal, practices unfold.

This is not an isolated case, but one of a pattern of sweetheart deals flowingfrom the mayor’s desk to the ever-fattening wallets of his family, friends, andpolitical allies. While Daley doesn’t see any fiduciary conflict from personallyhanding out contracts, the U.S. Supreme Court and State’s Attorney find it to beillegal and clearly not in the public’s best interest. In each deal, the mayor takesfour steps:

1. He engineers a lucrative city contract

2. He cuts in his family, friends, or allies

3. He denies any wrong doing when caught

4. Despite public criticism, he does nothing

This story begins in 1984, when Chicago law firm Chapman and Cutler hired aminority bond firm associated with Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson to brokerChicago’s bond business. Why Atlanta? It was Jackson’s political machine thatwas instrumental to former Chicago Mayor Harold Washington’s career andprovided critical contributions to his successful mayoral campaign.

Maynard Jackson, the first black mayor of Atlanta, was apolitical figure of national importance. He was instrumental ingetting Harold Washington elected as mayor of Chicago.

46

The new Mayor Washington was advised in 1985 that because Jackson helpedhim get elected, he should return the favor financially. One man, MayorWashington, was able to determine who received millions in municipal bondbusiness. Many of the deals under Washington were crude and sloppy, andpeople went to jail, School Board President Sharon Grant for example.

Chicago’s African-American powerbrokers thought it was their turn and set their sights on the biggest action: O’Hare. Did everybody understand what was goingon? Alderman Beavers of the 7th Ward said it best: “All I want is, just give mesome. I’m not asking nobody to be fair because I wouldn’t be fair if I was themayor.”66

In a sense, Congress agreed: minorities should participate. Honest minorityconcessions programs were made a requirement for the federal funding ofairport projects. To meet the federally required program legislation on theO’Hare newsstand contract, the Washington administration cut in anAfrican-American lawyer from Atlanta. Attorney David Franklin, who had noexperience in the concessions business but was a campaign manager for Maynard Jackson, would receive an estimated $1 million a year from the subcontract withElson’s News and Gift Shops (since bought out by W.H. Smith).67 Franklinhimself commented, “I helped Elson’s out on the minority requirement in thecontract.”68 His take would be 20% for only a $100 investment. Clearly, this wasnever about maximizing the public benefit by getting the most qualifiedconcessionaire for the airport nor was it about identifying the best minoritybusiness owner to support the spirit of the program. It was all about doling outcontracts to donors and supporters.

By now, every faction in the City Council along with those eyeing power saw that minority set-asides, while a thoughtful and well-meaning concept in America,were, in Chicago, an open invitation to make your friends rich. Chicagopoliticians, infamous for manipulating federal programs, instantaneouslydeciphered how set-asides could be used for their own profit.

In spite of city and federal government regulations restricting how the programwas to be run, Chicago did it their own way. The federal government and FAAnever bothered to check, relying entirely on the city’s own representations thatthe programs were honest and in compliance with the regulations.

47

The Franklin contract immediately became the center of contentious councildebate. Alderman Burke hired former U.S. Attorney Dan Webb to investigateO’Hare concession contracts citing the scandal under Washington. Washingtonresponded that he had nothing to hide and blamed the previous administration.The State’s Attorney’s office, run by Richard M. Daley, went so far as to empanel a grand jury to investigate the matter. There was consensus among the critics that the power of selecting the contracts rested solely in Mayor Washington’s office.So how did subsequent administrations behave?

In 1988, Eugene Sawyer had become mayor shortly after Harold Washington’sdeath. One of Sawyer’s first decisions was the extension of the newsstandcontract at O’Hare. On December 20, 1988, the City Council approved anextension for W.H. Smith of Illinois, allowing the new operator to extend thecontract through January 1996 and expand to 24 sites. While the City Council’saviation committee met, several aldermen left to receive phone calls, presumablytaking direction from the mayor’s office on how to vote. At that time thecontract was grossing $11 million per year. Under the extension, Smith wouldpay the city $250,000 each month,69 and during the last year the amount wouldrise to $442,000.70 The contract was not approved before Sawyer replaced DavidFranklin with a new minority partner. Martha Tucker, an African-Americanwoman, was inserted as the 40% minority partner.71 Tucker had previouslyowned a barbecue restaurant and had applied to open a restaurant at O’Hare.Ostensibly, Tucker’s agreement with Smith called for her to put up $503,000, but required only $25,000 in cash.72 The W.H. Smith contract was carefullycoordinated by three attorneys, all from the same firm: Jim Kane representingW.H. Smith; Arnold Kanter who was Sawyer’s personal lawyer; and OscarD’Angelo—all from Altheimer & Gray. All of the players were in place andsteered the contract through.

Soon after the deal was worked out, Sawyer began to take criticism. AldermanEisendraft, who supported Mayor Daley in his 1989 campaign, attacked thecontract. He contended that Sawyer’s personal lawyer had negotiated it and thatTucker was connected to a Sawyer fundraiser. Eisendraft stated, “She didn’t getit from her experience…She is tied to these guys who had ties to the mayor’sfundraising committee.”73 Specifically, Eisendraft was referring to the fact thatTucker worked for Chicago lawyer Robert Aulston, who was not only on themayor’s fundraising committee, but one of Sawyer’s closest friends. The mayorresponded by defending Aulston, saying, “He is a friend of mine, and I stick with my friends.”74 The City Council stammered over what to do about Tucker’s

48

minority contract. Committee Chairman Cullerton defended Tucker as well,saying Smith found Tucker independently: “She applied for the rib joint at theairport and in doing so she was contacted by the people at the concession aboutthe concession.”75 According to the City Council, W.H. Smith had initiatedcontact with Tucker.

But Smith’s attorney, Jim Kane, said he had no idea why Smith chose Tucker.The Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Leroy Bannister, said the contract was renegotiatedbecause United Airlines wanted to clarify concessions in its new terminal. “Smith was reluctant to make a commitment unless it was assured it could continue,” hesaid. Finally he pointed out that the city played “no role in the decision by Smithto bring Tucker in as its minority partner.”76 Bannister then repeated the partyline that underlies every concession deal, which coincides with the city’sguidelines on how concessions are let and minorities are selected: “The city doesnot select minority and woman participants…The city does not direct or steerfirms to a particular contractor or concessionaire.”77

This has to be the city’s position, under every administration, for if the city“directed” or “steered” minority firms to contractors or concessionaires, thatwould be exactly what everyone involved believed they were doing—fixing thecontracts. They could never admit to steering contracts. It would be illegal. Itwould fly in the face of the city’s regulations, which were fundamental to makingthe program appear honest. But clearly all the mayor’s people were involved andhelped steer the contract extension to a friend of a Sawyer fundraiser.

Mayor Sawyer set forth the usual disclaimer, institutionalizing the denial used byfuture administrations continuing the charade. The mayor claimed that W.H.Smith “sought out the minority based on experience and business records. Istrongly believe that we have provided a business opportunity to a qualified andexperienced minority business entrepreneur.”78 This, of course, was completenonsense. The letting of the contract had nothing to do with optimizing thebenefits for the public or selecting the most qualified minority.

The corporate minutes of a W.H. Smith director’s meeting refute almosteverything the mayor’s office said in defense of the Tucker deal79 (see Appendix25). In January 1989, W.H. Smith executive Sir Malcolm Field complained abouthaving to employ Martha Tucker and contribute twice to Sawyer’s campaign.Field added, “I would be embarrassed by a $100,000 contribution”80 (seeAppendix 25). Other W.H. Smith executives noted their boss “disagreed with

49

this business arrangement in principle, but this is a U.S. trend”81 (see Appendix25). The British-based retailer simply wasn’t used to the legalized bribery at theheart of the city’s contracting process. They stated, “Our policy is not to makepolitical contributions, but if you wish to trade in a country you must addressthis…we cannot survive in this industry without legal political contributions”82

(see Appendix 25).

The Martha Tucker minority newsstand deal stands as a model for how the cityrigs its set-aside concession deals at O’Hare. A no-bid contract is negotiated toinclude people with significant connections to the mayor. When the conflict ofinterest is made public, the city defends itself by saying they follow the rules.They admit no interference in the process, and because the mayor’s office stillhas ultimate control; nothing changes. All of the elements are still present today,and public officials will tell you it’s all legitimate. You don’t have to bidconcessions, and the city never suggests which minorities to use. It’s just acoincidence that the minority partners turn out to be the mayor’s family,clout-heavy friends, or political allies.

When Daley became mayor, he didn’t hesitate to continue engineering deals atO’Hare as Washington and Sawyer had done before him. But few Chicagoanscould have seen it coming. Daley had been out front in his mayoral campaign,criticizing Sawyer’s O’Hare deals. Daley’s campaign rhetoric indicates a profound knowledge of exactly how the O’Hare contracts worked. Daley stated, “The bestthing we can do for women in business is to make city government work betterfor all businesses.” He labeled the Tucker contract specifically as “just anotherexample of abuse of this worthwhile program by this administration.” “You have to follow the rules and regulations of the set-aside program,” he continued,“otherwise, you are going to defeat this program basically on political cronyism.They should be chosen on their performance and not on their fundraisingability.”83 If he were elected mayor, Daley said, “It will go to the most qualifiedperson period.”84 His political opponents knew better. Soon afterwards, in acampaign debate, Daley attacked Sawyer’s controversial O’Hare Hiltonextension: “It was not a good deal. It was a rip-off. Everybody knows it. It’s notjust me…Everybody’s looked at the deal and said it was a rip-off. If I was mayor, I would end it and that would be it.” Presciently, Larry Bloom responded, “Rich,you want to end it because you want to put your own friends in there.”85 Daleyhimself summed it up best: “We don’t need more studies or more investigations.

50

We need strong leadership at the top that sets the tone for everyone elsebelow.”86 The public would never have guessed from Daley’s campaign promises what was to happen next.

Would he follow his own exaltation and provide “strong leadership” that sets the tone? The W.H. Smith contract extension at O’Hare was the new mayor’s firsttest. An analysis of the Smith deal clearly sets out the corrupt use of the set-asideprogram under Daley. He sought to enrich his own friends at the public’sexpense.

Daley never knew at the time, however, that all the intricacies of his deal weretracked internally by whistleblowers at W.H. Smith and that ultimately, all thedocuments detailing the machinations of his closest advisors would be splashedacross the Sun-Times and Channel 2 as the “Secret Airport Papers” in April 2000.His administration’s statements are contradicted by W.H. Smith’s own internaldocuments, and reveal Daley to be duplicitous, false, and misleading. Even whenthe fixing of the contract became public, the mayor continued to lie andobfuscate, apparently hoping it would all go away. But a mountain of evidenceshows the contract was fixed for Daley’s friends. And again, the same fix manwas present to deliver the mayor’s goodies.

The Fix Man

Oscar D’Angelo was instrumental in bringing the set-aside partner from themayor’s office to W.H. Smith. Because of his success in extending the newsstand deal under Sawyer, W.H. Smith had retained D’Angelo at $25,000 per quarterbeginning mid-1990 to manage the contract under Daley.87 For his success, W.H. Smith agreed to an additional reward for D’Angelo: a cut of their O’Hare profits. In May 1996, D’Angelo wrote John Hancock and Rich McNamara to thank them for a check for $480,000, noting, “My father probably never earned that muchmoney in 20 years!”88 (See Appendix 26) While taking in hundreds of thousandsfrom W.H. Smith, D’Angelo also represented Landrum & Brown and acted asDaley’s unofficial guru at O’Hare. D’Angelo was now wearing three hats:lobbyist for W.H. Smith, the vendor; lobbyist for Landrum & Brown, theconsultant; and Mayor Daley’s representative to both. He was so close to Daleythat Landrum & Brown’s CEO sent the super secret World Gateway proposal to D’Angelo to give to the mayor.

As W.H. Smith’s corporate minutes indicate, D’Angelo convinced topmanagement that in order to extend their contract, they must politic— the cost

51

of doing business in Chicago. To that end, D’Angelo set up a $300,000 W.H.Smith donation for the grand opening of the Harold Washington PublicLibrary89 (see Appendix 27). The gift was presented to Daley personally by SirMalcolm at the opening gala event. Other W.H. Smith donations went to theDaley’s charities, including a $50,000 gift to their church.90 The directive couldnot have been any clearer. However, throughout their maneuvers with D’Angelo, W.H. Smith worried about their “dirty laundry” their “Chicago affair,” and their“politicking”91 (see Appendix 28). Smith executives were uncomfortable with the political bribes needed to secure their contract extension.

The Shill Partners

D’Angelo told W.H. Smith management about the final piece of their contractpuzzle. Before their extension could be granted, they would have to include twonew women as their minority partners. In December 1994, W.H. Smith receiveda note from D’Angelo detailing his conversation with Aviation CommissionerDavid Mosena. According to D’Angelo, “[Mosena] further suggested that weretain the Grace Barry/Barbara Burrell MBE presence in this regard”92 (seeAppendix 29). D’Angelo was telling W.H. Smith management that they wouldhave to change their partners to Daley people. Mosena also advised D’Angelo,“The [W.H. Smith contract] should go forward after the primary at the end ofFebruary, providing the mayor does not have a serious opponent in the Aprilgeneral election”93 (see Appendix 29). Their conversation demonstrates that notonly was Daley’s set-aside partner picked out by the mayor, but that finalizationof the contract had to be withheld to coincide with Daley’s political calendar.

The key question here was who suggested Barry and Burrell. According toD’Angelo, Mosena and the city directed Barry and Burrell to W.H. Smith. Yet we know it is a violation of city regulations to “direct or steer” contractors tospecific minority businesses. And the city always claims they don’t interfere withthe contract process.

In this case, the documents clearly state otherwise: the city delivered the minority partner to W.H. Smith. Once exposed, Aviation Commissioner Mosena gave theparty line and denied suggesting Barry and Burrell. “He [D’Angelo] broughtthem to us as partners. We did not cook this up. We accepted them but we didn’t create them. It was not our suggestion, not our creation…that combination[Barry and Burrell] would never have occurred to us…we didn’t have a problemwith it.”94 Mosena flatly denied that the Barry/Burrell partnership came from the

52

Department of Aviation. If Mosena was telling the truth, where did Barry andBurrell come from and why did Mosena admit that these contracts were made on the basis of politics? He obviously knew who Barry and Burrell were, but arguedover who delivered them.

Surely Barry and Burrell could clear up this matter. But they gave evasive answers to Chuck Neubauer of the Sun-Times:

Exactly how Barry and Burrell entered the picture is not clear. Barry had beenrunning a coffee bar in a W.H. Smith-owned bookstore on North MichiganAvenue. But it was not a financial success. Still, she believes that relationship ledto talk of a new partnership, though she acknowledged that “someone atAltheimer & Gray” or one of their consultants may have suggested it. D’Angelois a former senior partner at Altheimer & Gray, disbarred for providing freerental cars to judges in the Greylord scandal.” D’Angelo may have implied thatMosena suggested the Barry/Burrell partnership in communications with W.H.Smith because “he may have had to sell them [W.H. Smith] on it,” Mosenasaid. Both Barry and Burrell acknowledge they are friends of Maggie Daley’s,though both said they don’t like to make a big deal out of it. “I know Mrs.Daley, but we are not pals. I’m very fond of her, but we are not pals,” Burrellsaid. Barry acknowledged a closer relationship with the Daley’s. Asked if herfriendship got them the contract, however she said, “I’m sure it didn’t hurt.”95

But everyone in Chicago knew that Barry was Maggie Daley’s best friend, evenW.H. Smith. In March 1996, a Smith insider indicated knowledge of who Barryand Burrell were, and underscored the irony of the fraudulent transaction byordering business cards for their new partners96 (see Appendix 30):

On June 9, 1995, Malcolm Field wrote to John Hancock, “Chicago. Youmentioned that Mayor Daley is under investigation and touched upon the politics concerning his wife and a friend of hers”97 (see Appendix 31). So did MaggieDaley suggest Barry to D’Angelo?

53

The Mayor’s Denial

In February 1996, the W.H. Smith contract came up for discussion in the CityCouncil. Chicago Tribune’s John Kass and Jacqueline Heard reported Daley saying, “I did not choose them [Barry and Burrell]. The aviation department has made arecommendation on this; I did not choose them.”98 Daley said, “They’ve nevertalked to me about anything like that. They’ve never asked me about it.”99 Themayor denied any involvement in the deal and was angered that his wife’scredibility was attacked.

The Council’s Party Line

Deputy Aviation Commissioner Robert Repel also replied to the allegations. “We are not in the business of telling people who they must partner with,” Repel saidas several aldermen rolled their eyes and coughed.100 They knew what was goingon. But Repel continued the charade. “The contracts were not done by themayor’s office, but the Department of Aviation,” he said. “The departmentdoesn’t have personal relationships with any of these people.”101 “I don’t knowwho is Maggie Daley’s best friend. I don’t know about the relationship of any ofthe members involved. Those contracts ensure maximum participation ofdisadvantaged business enterprises.”102 Repel also maintained that the minorityinvestors were chosen by W.H. Smith, saying that the city had no input orinfluence. Rocking the boat, Alderman Joe Moore brought up Barry’s closefriendship with Maggie Daley, and was quickly attacked by Daley’s council allies.Not responding to the substance of Moore’s allegations, the council tried tosmear Moore’s family personally. The Tribune reported that the Daley majoritywas “outraged” and tried to link Moore’s wife to the Travelgate scandal at theWhite House. Observing the fracas and “watching the infighting, the mayor even giggled at times.”103 Apparently, he found Moore’s attempt at open discussionhumorously futile. At this point, no one knew who exactly put Barry and Burrellinto the deal. The mayor, the Aviation Department, and D’Angelo all denieddoing it. The documents clearly show that D’Angelo and Mosena discussedcutting in Daley’s shill minority partners.

The same documents show that Mayor Daley was intimately aware of Smith’s“politicking” as far back as the early 1990s. He was carbon copied on theproposed $300,000 contribution to the Library104 (see Appendix 27), and thecheck was later presented to Daley in person by W.H. Smith’s chairman. Thelibrary was just one of Smith’s donations to the Daley family’s charities. W.H.Smith gave $50,000 to the mayor’s church. Their support of Maggie Daley’s

54

charities was personally acknowledged by Mrs. Daley. On January 10, 1997,Maggie Daley wrote Steve Walker, new president of W.H. Smith Group USA,thanking him for his support for the Chicago Cultural Center and her othercharities105 (see Appendix 32). Smith’s subsequent correspondence underlinedthe personal endorsement of the Daleys for the new W.H. Smith partnershipwith Barry and Burrell. Steve Walker responded to Mrs. Daley, copying GraceBarry and Barbara Burrell, and thanked her for the note, saying, “If I can ever beof assistance, contact me directly, or through Grace”106 (see Appendix 33).

The architect of the Smith deal, D’Angelo, is still working hard to keep hisrelationship going. In June 1996, Hancock sent Oscar D’Angelo a check for$50,000 to the Children at the Crossroads Foundation, a Maggie Daley charity.Hancock wrote, “As always, we count on you to identify the needs in thecommunity”107 (see Appendix 34). In March 1997, D’Angelo wrote a draft letterto Mrs. Daley saying he was “delighted” to be joining her on a trip to Ireland and extended her an invitation to join W.H. Smith for lunch or dinner in London108

(see Appendix 35). D’Angelo continued to deal, sending a note to Smith CFORichard McNamara about co-hosting with Michael Marchese a 25th anniversarydinner for the Daleys109 (see Appendix 36). After this litany of correspondencewas made public, there could be no question that Mayor Daley, his wife, andpolitical confidant Oscar D’Angelo had knowledge of Barry and Burrell’s dealwith W.H. Smith throughout the entire contracting process. They were nearlyfalling over each other thanking one another for the wealth bestowed on themand chosen institutions. This was a deal built by Daley insiders to benefit Daleyinsiders.

An Honest Program?

Despite the public airing of the internal documents detailing the entire W.H.Smith contract extension, the deal was done. The contract extension was worth$39 million in sales annually, and has risen dramatically over the years.110 Barryand Burrell’s company, Grabur, was W.H. Smith’s new partner, and their jointcompany was called Air Ventures. Upon finalizing the contract, W.H. Smith cuttwo $50,000 checks for Barry and Burrell for “management fees”111 (seeAppendix 37). In 2002 alone, Barry and Burrell split $11 million of revenue atO’Hare.112

But there was a great deal of stress regarding who would actually be doing thework at O’Hare. Both Barry and Burrell had other full time jobs. Their Air

55

Ventures contract with the city certified, however, their substantialresponsibilities at O’Hare that required their full-time participation. Theagreement states that Burrell, as Director of Human Resources, “shall direct theGeneral Manager and other management personnel in the screening, hiring, andtraining of new employees and shall monitor employee productivity and overseelabor relations”113 (see Appendix 38). Burrell was responsible for “assuring thatlabor demands of the Partnership are met,” and was required to “establishpolicies, procedures, and training methods for the Partnership.” Grace Barry’sduties as Director of Public Relations at O’Hare were similarly expansive,directing her to “manage the day-to-day relations between the Partnership andAirport personnel and shall participate directly in relations between thePartnership and City and State officials and regulatory agencies. The Director ofPublic Relations shall also direct the General Manager and all promotionalactivities and cultural events and shall be responsible for coordinating allAirport-wide promotions for the Partnership”114 (see Appendix 38). It was a fulltime job, especially at the nation’s busiest airport.

There was one problem though: Barry and Burrell had other full time jobs, andthe Air Ventures deal was put together simply so they could collect a paycheck.Barry and Burrell were partners in name only. Burrell was engaged full-time inher public relations firm, and hardly had time for her work at the airport.115

Barry, however, did not get the picture. Illustrating this, Barry listed hercorporate affiliation with W.H. Smith on a program for the Joffrey Ballet116 (seeAppendix 39). Her relationship with W.H. Smith was now public, causingmanagement to worry about the airing of their dirty laundry. On July 1, 1996,Grace Barry wrote John Hancock describing a conflict with D’Angelo over herrole. “Oscar has stated that he is not going to cooperate with me and he sees noreason to change the way he has carried on his responsibilities for these lastseven years. I do not want to be on a collision course with him. Oscar’s assertion that my problem is that ‘I really think that I’m a partner’ was fairly shocking,since I take my responsibilities very seriously and indeed I am a partner—albeit a minority one. We clearly have very different views of what this is all about.” Sheexplains, “He went on to tell me that people at the highest level of W.H. Smithwere very upset with me over the listing of my name with W.H. Smith on theJoffrey Ballet of Chicago Gala Program”117 (see Appendix 39). In the above note, Barry was admitting in writing that she was not viewed as a partner by W.H.Smith, but was actually a partner in a sham set-aside. This was accurate. Barrywas not a full-time partner. She was the full-time head of the Economic Club of

56

Chicago, making $123,000 per year, and hardly could accomplish what her jobdescription at O’Hare entailed.118

In January 1997, Barry wrote to D’Angelo, “I am going to ask W.H. Smith, andsubsequently the City of Chicago (if deemed necessary) to redefine my role so asto avoid any areas of overlapping responsibility”119 (see Appendix 40). Sherequested a change of the agreement and attached the lengthy Air Venturescontract, which certified to the city and the federal government that she was anactive partner. The Air Ventures partnership was clearly a sham and, asdemonstrated earlier, all the players knew it. It was obvious to everyone involved: Mayor Daley, Commissioners Mosena and Repel, W.H. Smith management,D’Angelo, and the City Council, that this was just the latest game at O’Hare.Through an extraordinary collection of investigative documents, we’vedemonstrated how the inner workings of the set-aside program, initially set up by Mayor Washington, have been even further manipulated by Daley. He haspersonally placed two close family friends into a multimillion-dollar contract atO’Hare. The only consequence for Barry or Burrell was becoming instantmillionaires.

Our investigation has found that Mayor Daley has on numerous occasionsbecome personally involved in determining who receives contracts andconcessions at O’Hare. Insiders contend that there is a clear relationship between the Mayor’s fundraising committee and O’Hare contracts.

In the Smith News Stand deal the two women (minorities: Grace Barry adBarbara Burrell) were personally contacted by the Mayor and notified by him that they would be the designated minority women. Their relationship to the contractand the scandal which followed was subsequently discussed at length and indetail with the Mayor.

The trouble is that for the city, exposing these documents has importantramifications. The integrity of W.H. Smith-Barry/Burrell partnership is essentialto maintaining a legitimate set-aside program at O’Hare. This is a requirementfor receiving federal airport improvement funds. The city depends on thesefunds for all manner of airport projects. The documents cited above demonstrate that Barry and Burrell were illegally chosen by the mayor and that even then,their participation at O’Hare was minimal. This represents a defrauding of thefederal government under USC Section 9, SS 19.

57

But what is the consequence for everyone else? We know it’s wrong that themayor’s friends are making money off city business. But is that it? DidChicagoans get the best concessions deal at O’Hare, or are we paying too muchfor the newsstands? Are the participants in the set-aside program actually themost qualified and most deserving minorities? The public will never know. Asthe Wigoda example points out, the true cost to the public goes far beyond themillions made by political deal-makers. The concessions contract is indicative ofthe approach Daley takes to running O’Hare: cutting in friends takes priorityover good management and mayoral politics trumps honest planning. O’Hareexpansion directly impacts people’s lives by destroying their homes andbusinesses. These are things that cannot be undone. At $15 billion, the publiccan only hope that their elected officials have done their homework and gotexpansion right. But our investigation exposes that they have it wrong. O’Hareexpansion is an investment in a flawed and corrupt process.

With Mayor Daley, however, the lying and engineering found in the W.H. SmithO’Hare contract is not an isolated case. It is one of a pattern of sweetheart dealsflowing from the mayor’s desk to the ever-fattening wallets of his family, friends, and political allies. But while Daley doesn’t see any fiduciary conflict personallyhanding out contracts, the U.S. Supreme Court and State’s Attorney find it to beillegal and clearly not in the public’s best interest. In each deal, the mayor takesfour steps:

1. He engineers a lucrative city contract,

2. He cuts in his family, friends, or allies,

3. He denies any wrongdoing when caught,

4. And despite the public criticism, he does nothing.

The following examples demonstrate these four steps over and over again.

58

CHAPTER 6:

Daley Family Scandals Exposed

Michael Daley and the Bond Business

Municipal bonds are big business. They allow Chicago to pay for its massivepublic works projects. O’Hare is the granddaddy of them all. However, unlikemost other city bond issues for which local citizens pay, bonds at O’Hare arepaid by the people using the airport. Mayor Daley collects $4.50 a head on everytake-off and landing. Consequently Daley is raising money through municipalbonds without taxing his constituents. It’s free money with no political stringsattached. Let’s look at how the mayor’s bond business fits the four elements ofDaley deals. Unlike most cities, the mayor designates which firms get to sell these bonds. They are not openly bid. The firms selling these bonds are sophisticatedbanking institutions and employ consultants and lobbyists in the cities and statesin which they do business. These consultants are the political links between thebanking firms and the man who makes the decision. In Chicago it is MayorDaley’s family and friends that are cut in on the bond deals.

A Daley Cut-In

Citigroup, a highly reputable multinational corporation, is the perfect example.Their consultant in Illinois is the Daley and George law firm, currentlyco-operated by Michael Daley, the mayor’s brother. Citigroup has received nearly $4 billion in O’Hare bond business since 1990, and Michael Daley received$180,000 each year for his consulting120 (see Appendix 41). Yet in disclosuredocuments filed with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Citigroupcontends that the Daley and George law firm does not work on businessesrelated to “Cook County, City of Chicago, or any governmental units directlyassociated with the City of Chicago”121 (see Appendix 41). Are Chicagoans tobelieve this?

Making millions for his bond work, one might assume that Michael Daley spends a great deal of time working with Citigroup, at least on their business outside ofCook County. But company executives have told us that they have never seenhim. So how do you rectify the apparent discrepancy of their lead consultantwho apparently performs no service with the city or county, resulting inCitigroup pulling in billions of dollars on Chicago bond business? As executivesbluntly pointed out to us, this is Chicago, and his name is Daley.

59

The last time anyone questioned Michael Daley’s consulting for Citibank was in1994, when Alderman Shaw blasted the city for giving $85 million in bondbusiness to Citigroup, then Smith Barney, and the mayor’s brother at Midway.Referring to the claim that Michael Daley does no business with Chicago, Shawtrumpeted, “If I believe that and if members of this Council believe that, I cansell you a bridge in Brooklyn!”122

The Mayor’s Denial

The mayor, who never denied that his brother made money off city bondbusiness, did not comment on the charge that he steered business to Michael.However, in the bond offerings that followed the exposure of theDaley-Citigroup connection, the mayor avoided giving bond business toCitigroup. It appeared the mayor was reacting to the criticism. On the surface,the well seemed to be drying up for Citigroup. But in an October 2003 bondissue that was never made public, Citigroup was chosen as the top seller. It wasworth a whopping $500 million, Citigroup’s most lucrative take in the O’Harebond business since 1990123. The third element appears: a complete Daley denial. He said he knew nothing about the bond business altogether, but soon aftermaking the claim, continued to cut in his brother.

Citigroup and Michael Daley certainly receive their fare share of the O’Harebond business, but other companies also have a piece of the action. The twolatest bond issues illustrate how these companies line up consultants with closeties to the mayor and receive bond business in return. The July 2003 andOctober 2003 bond issues, for $993 and $500 million respectively, illustrate thatDaley’s friends are constantly cut into the city bond business.

The Gravy Train

Our investigation of the bond issues revealed a striking list of political insiders,almost none of whom had any expertise in the securities business. We’vecompiled an impressive list of politically connected consultants hired to berainmakers for their firms on two O’Hare bond issues:

60

61

62

All these hangers-on are hired by bond firms simply to bring in city deals. Theyprovide nothing to the public. They add cost and limit competition. It is wrongto have people like the mayor’s brother and his political operative Victor Reyesmake millions off their access to City Hall. As Royko described, Chicago must be a city of big shoulders, for all Chicagoans bear the weight of carrying theseinsiders.

Once Again, Denial

Daley’s only response is, “That is their business.”124 He has no comment on how and why the city bond business is directed their way. He engineered the no-bidcontracts to go to his family and political allies and still denies any wrongdoing.

The mayor uses these bond deals partially to reward his political allies such asVictor Reyes. But directing this bond business also allows Daley to compromiseother municipal institutions that were traditionally independent from the mayor.By rewarding bond issues to firms that retain Maria Saldana and Carole Brown,Daley compromises their ability to independently run the Park District and theCTA. This is the new Chicago political system. Gone are the checks and balances of the old competing power centers once occupied by George Dunn in thecounty and Tom Keane in the City Council. Daley now controls city government and satellite government entities like the county, the CTA, and the Park District,so it is no surprise that when Daley decided to wreck Meigs Field in the middleof the night, there was no protest from Park District Board President MariaSaldana. Even a year later, the Park District still says “it has no intention ofaltering Daley’s vision for the land.”125

In the case of the Department of Aviation, we find Daley rewarding formerCommissioner Rhona DiCamillo for her political loyalty. How is the currentaviation commissioner supposed to act responsibly knowing the potential futurebenefit from the mayor’s ability to steer the bond business? Quite simply, theindividuals who run the Park District, CTA, and Department of Aviation won’trock the boat. This compromised independence of the Park District, CTA, andDepartment of Aviation results in an inability to make objective policy choices.That is the true harm to Chicago citizens and is exactly why the Supreme Courtfinds these types of conflicts of interest illegal.

63

John Daley and Near North Insurance

The mayor’s brother John Daley, while head of the Cook County Board’s finance committee, brokered insurance deals for Michael Segal’s Near North Insurance.That in itself seems to be without fault. Consider, however, that Near North andSegal were charged with federal crimes, and the mayor’s brother John is makingmillions off insurance contracts with companies that depend on his brother, themayor, for their business. “Michael Segal, president and chief operating officer of Near North Insurance Brokerage, Inc. (NNIB), was indicted…on new federalfraud and racketeering charges, alleging that for at least 12 years he illegally usedmillions of dollars in insurance premiums for personal and business expenses for himself and his companies…Segal was charged with seven counts of insurancefraud, seven counts of mail fraud, and one count each of wire fraud andracketeering”126 (see Appendix 42).

Family Ties

But what exactly was the mayor’s brother doing there? John admitted that hemade upwards of $400,000 on annual commissions from Near North. Aspokeswoman for Near North explained, “John Daley is an independentinsurance agent…For more than 30 years, he has used Near North as a brokerfor some of his business. However, Near North has not been involved with John Daley on any of the municipal work that Near North does.” This is the samedefense used by Citigroup to justify their hiring of Michael Daley. Both firmsbring in millions from city and state contracts but deny that the hiring of themayor’s brothers plays any role in their financial success. But high-ranking NearNorth executives told AIP that John Daley and Homer Ryan, son of GovernorGeorge Ryan, were hired by Near North precisely to get city and state insurancecontracts.

Our investigation of John Daley’s insurance clients reveals a list ofwell-connected city contractors, all of whom make millions at O’Hare in no-bidprofessional service and construction contracts under the capital improvementprogram, all of which the mayor directs and which are not available to the CityCouncil or state legislature to review. When Greg Hinz of Crain’s confrontedJohn Daley to confirm if these were his clients, he said that some of them werehis guys. According to Near North executives, while all other contracts involveextensive paperwork, John’s are done with merely a phone call. As O’Harecontractors know, the mayor’s no-bid deals are highly political, and cutting hisbrother John in is the name of the game. After Near North Insurance landed

64

$300,000 in fees in 1985 to supply insurance for O’Hare International Airportand the McCormick Place expansion, even Segal himself admitted, “I’d be lyingif I told you it didn’t help to have friends.”127

Investigative sources provided many examples, however, of Segal routinelycheating his clients, minority contractors, and brokers. But what happened whenSegal tried to short-circuit the contract game and stiff John Daley? Sources saidthe mayor himself reacted. His message to Segal was, Pay up.

Denial of Wrongdoing

John’s response to his sweetheart Near North deal was, “The bottom line I wantto make clear is that the mayor never intervened…I never spoke to him.”128 Thecity, with little understanding for what constitutes public service, blithely stated,“We haven’t been contacted by anyone who suggests the city has been a victimin this.”129

The mayor’s personal response was a little more truthful. According to theSun-Times, “Mayor Daley said…he has never lifted a finger to help his brotherMichael line up law business or his brother John snare insurance clients, and he’s not about to ask them to ‘move out of the city and change their names’…‘That’stheir own business. They have nothing to do with me…My business is the city of Chicago and that’s been my business. You know that.’”130 The mayor hasacknowledged the power of the Daley name, and even though he has “nothing to do with” his brother’s lucrative insurance deals, he won’t stop any of it.

The mayor’s laissez-faire attitude should not subvert good public policy. U.S.Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said that taxpayers have a right to expect that when apublic contract is let that it is done on the basis of what’s best for the citizensand taxpayers, and not for the purpose of enriching the family, friends, orpolitical cronies of the public officials involved131 (see Appendix 23). Daley’sbrother is making millions in business throughout the city, particularly at O’Hare, and the mayor’s only response is to sneer and rhetorically ask, what do we wanthim to do about it? Absolutely nothing, of course. Do Chicagoans expect Daleyto limit his family feeding from the city’s trough?

65

CHAPTER 7:

Daley Spreading the Wealth

Refining Pinstripe Patronage

While the mayor’s brothers make millions off the municipal bond and insuranceindustries, Daley’s friends and political allies have created cottage industries oftheir own off city contracts. Daley’s friends have financial empires based onconsulting on O’Hare concessions and beautifying every inch of city propertywith a wrought-iron fence. It could just as easily have been consulting on thecolor of manhole covers or erecting city flagpoles. It is pinstripe patronage forthe mayor’s friends. Jeremiah Joyce, Richard Crandall, Michael Tadin, and theDuffs received multimillion-dollar city contracts. In the process, they havebecome permanent fixtures in the city budget. It’s the taxpayers of Chicago whopay the bill.

Joyce and Consulting

Jeremiah Joyce, a former State Senator and 19th Ward Democrat, has been along-time mayoral ally. As the current mayor was cutting his political teeth inSpringfield, Joyce, his desk mate on the Senate floor, took Daley under his wing.As Daley’s political career blossomed, Joyce became his campaign manager.Daley has since repaid Joyce for his political loyalty and campaignaccomplishments. This repayment happened at O’Hare, and involved contractswith McDonald’s and Duty-Free shops throughout the airport. So what does along-time state senator know about selling Big Macs or running a Duty-Free?Very little.

The Cut-In

The partnership was called Chicago Aviation Partners, and included as itsprimary operators the McDonald’s Corporation and Duty Free International. According to the Sun-Times, Joyce served as the managing director of businessdevelopment and legal affairs and was responsible for scouting “future growthopportunities” for the joint venture and overseeing compliance with state andfederal regulations.132 While this was his job description, the true significance ofhis position in Chicago Aviation Partners was enabling them to win the O’Harecontract. “A month after the partnership of McDonald’s and Duty FreeInternational signed an employment agreement with Joyce, the city selected the

66

partnership to be the concession manager at O’Hare’s International Terminal.”133

Joyce’s partnership with Brad O’Halloran and Martin McNally also surfaced inother O’Hare deals such as towing. But did Joyce have any knowledge of towingor managing a McDonald’s franchise? No. It’s not expertise in business thatqualifies them for these contracts but their political relationship to Daley. In2000 alone, Joyce, McNally, and O’Halloran pocketed $1.8 million from theO’Hare contract.134

Joyce’s effect on sealing the deal for McDonald’s and Duty Free could not bedenied, and the mayor was questioned about it in the City Council. Far fromdebating the merits of political hiring, most aldermen attacked Daley for notspreading the wealth: “‘We’ve given away way too much,’ said Alderman WilliamBeavers (7th). ‘I want to take care of some of my own people. There are peopleon the South Side, on the West Side who can do business at the airport. Whyshouldn’t they get a chance too? Why cut the council out?’”135 Beavers was notcriticizing McDonald’s for cutting out his people; he knew the decisions onO’Hare contracts came straight from the mayor’s desk.

The Denial

As usual, the mayor denied any involvement with cutting Joyce in. “‘Thecontracts were not done by the mayor’s office but by the Department ofAviation,’ Commissioner Robert Repel insisted. ‘The department doesn’t havepersonal relationships with any of these people.’"136 Daley himself flatly denied,in Mafia parlance, any knowledge: “I don’t know what part of the action he[Joyce] has, I don’t know and I don’t care.” Does this characterization of milliondollar contracts as “action” honestly reflect the mayor’s view of city business atO’Hare? Does Daley view the letting of public contracts as some sort of ruse ormoneymaking racket? Daley continued, “I’m not here to turn anyone intomillionaires, I resent that.” Jeremiah Joyce, however, and companies that employhim, may happily dispute the mayor’s claim.137

Another Joyce Deal

In addition to the millions he brought himself with the McDonald’s and DutyFree partnership, Joyce also involved himself in another company:Environmental Auto Removal Inc. EAR was a successful towing firm that hadreceived millions in city business. The Tribune’s Ray Gibson and Laurie Cohendiscuss the EAR deal:

67

“A towing company that has been hailed by Mayor Richard Daley’sadministration for successfully ridding the streets of abandoned autos was overpaid nearly $1 million…Environmental Auto Removal, Inc., a politically-connectedfirm that has had the bulk of the city’s towing and auto disposal business since1989, was notified last week of the overpayments. On Monday, it paid$969,170 back to the city…Two principal players in the city’s towing programare well-connected to the Daley regime. Martin McNally, the president of EAR,is an investor with a Daley political operative (Jeremiah Joyce) in a firm thatholds a city contract at O’Hare. The firm was formed on July 11, 1989, justdays before the city hired it, records show. McNally, a Markham attorney, hadteamed up with Edward Corcoran, a Daley campaign donor with years ofexperience in the towing business.”138

Another Daley Denial

McNally’s firm had overcharged Chicago citizens and returned the money later,only under public pressure. Once again, all signs pointed to Daley. It was hismen, Corcoran and Joyce’s partner McNally that were involved. Yet Daleyinsisted. “’I had nothing to do with this.’ Daley told reporters, ‘I know you aretrying to pin it on me.’ He contended the selection was part of a, ‘very, verydetailed…public process.’”139

The Mayor Does Nothing

After this malfeasance, which was followed by a federal investigation into EAR’sauto pounds, how did the city respond to a company that had bilked Chicago out of thousands yet had strong political links to the mayor? As one might nowexpect, the city extended its contract. In 2003, the city awarded a lucrative towing contract to United Road Services, now parent company to Environmental AutoRemoval.140 Again, Mayor Daley constantly denied any involvement. He said he’s not here “to turn anyone into millionaires,” but that’s exactly what has becomeof his administration. Daley knew what the action was at O’Hare, inserted hisown man, Joyce, and directed millions in O’Hare contracts to enrich his friends.

Friends and Fences —A Daley Connection

Richard Crandall, a longtime family friend of the Daleys, is the owner of G.F.Structures and Builders Chicago, fencing and construction firms that do business with the city. Crandall was an insurance client of the mayor’s brother John, whohired him to replace the wrought-iron fencing surrounding his Bridgeportbungalow.141 The Daley & George law firm also represented Builders Chicago inthe late 70s over a contract dispute with the city. Through a spokesman, Crandall

68

stated, “He wouldn’t say he’s a friend of Rich’s.”142 Yet Crandall’s family ties date back to Richard J. Daley, who considered Crandall’s grandfather, William Payes,a close personal ally and a key supporter of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 presidentialelection.143

The Contracts

Builders Chicago had been a major city contractor for decades, but the G.F.Structures business skyrocketed when Richard M. Daley became mayor. “In1988, the company was paid $524,000 by the city; two years later, the companywas paid $2.1 million.”144 G.F. Structures received contracts throughout the city,including the Housing Authority, Transit Authority, Park District, and ChicagoPublic Schools. At O’Hare Airport alone, Builders Chicago received $32 millionin contracts for the installation of automatic doors,145 and G.F. Structuresreceived contracts for new fencing on access roads, upgrades to concessionareas, and more than $7 million for capital improvement projects at theairport.146 In fact, from 1996-2000, G.F. Structures has been awarded more than$27 million in city contracts, including a $10 million “all-purpose” contract forfencing on almost all city property.147

Daley Denial

Upon hearing of Crandall’s disproportionate take of city contracts, Daleyremarked, “No one is questioning the work or the quality that’s done. It’s just the amount.” Mayor Daley stated, “We’re going to look at it and get down to it.”148

In response to Crandall purchasing insurance from brother John at Near North,Mayor Daley responded, “Do you think I would jeopardize my career because of somebody using somebody for insurance of anything else? I have billions ofdollars of work going out. None of it can be clouted.”149 He continued, “I would never knowingly undermine our city or my reputation for a campaigncontribution, a friendship, or even a family member. I would sooner leaveoffice.”150 Yet the G.F. Structures deals indicate that contracts are directlyconnected to Daley friends and family. Daley’s comments seem almostcontradictory. The mayor has no objection to his friends doing city work, butalso says that nothing can be “clouted.” Apparently, the mayor has no ethicalconflict with contracts going to his friends and indeed approves of the quality oftheir work. He continues to assure the public that his contracts are legitimate but misses the State’s Attorney’s point entirely. It is the letting of contracts to familyand friends in and of itself, not whether they do a good job or not, that breachesthe public trust.

69

After Crandall’s ties to the city became exposed, the mayor responded by callingfor an audit of payments made to Crandall’s firms.151 Arthur Andersen was hiredto make recommendations on how to fix the purchasing system. The G.F.contract for citywide fencing was put out to bid, and G.F. withheld itsproposal.152 The commissioned audit was not made public, and reportedly foundno major instances of over-billing by G.F. Structures. It did not investigateCrandall’s conflicts of interest with the administration.

In a speech the following week, Daley stated, “Politics and friendshipsnotwithstanding, our first commitment must always be to the people we areelected to serve. And the bidding process must be fair, open, and beyondquestion…In light of recent stories, which have pointed to real problems…weare putting new systems and safeguards in place…But I know that none of thiswill work without an ongoing commitment from the top to make it work. Andthat responsibility rests squarely with me. I want every man and woman whoworks for city government to understand that these systems and safeguards must not be undermined.”153 The mayor’s actions again betrayed his rhetoric.

The Contracts Continue

A year later, in March 2001, just as the city was expected to approve a ParkDistrict contract for landscaping worth $9 million for G.F. Structures, the citybacked off the process, stating the need to reevaluate the bids154. Perhaps themayor and his pals were dipping into the well too soon. In September 2003,however, the city awarded a $10.9 million contract to Builders Chicago forautomatic door maintenance at Chicago airports. A competitor of Builders hadwon the contract three times, only to have it re-bid each time until it wasawarded to Builders Chicago.155 Currently, G.F. Structures has millions incontracts with the city for fences—even outdoor lounge furniture with theDepartment of Aviation—and made three recent price increases to their latestcontract (see Appendix 43). Many of these contracts are insured by Near NorthInsurance and John Daley.156

The mayor can deny these connections, and rant and rave about contractsafeguards and bidding processes, but here again are the facts. There was ascandal over a contract and those involved had close ties to the Mayor ofChicago. Daley claimed the contracts were legitimate, denied any wrongdoing,and did absolutely nothing about it.

70

Daley and the Duffs

In a rare event, a Daley insider was indicted for his city deals: the Duffs, longtime Daley political allies. They supported Daley’s mayoral campaigns by contributingthousands and hosting campaign fundraisers. In 1999, Patrick Duff and themayor walked from table to table greeting their guests at a campaign breakfast.157

In addition to raising money, the Duffs provided volunteer workers from theirbusinesses for the Daley campaign effort.

Getting Rich off the Rich

The Duffs made millions off city contracts. Their businesses included WindyCity Labor Service Inc., Remedial Environmental Manpower, and others.“Windy City Maintenance was in the business of supplying janitorial services toprivate companies and on a direct contract or subcontract basis to City ofChicago facilities, including…the International Terminal at O’Hare InternationalAirport.”158 Shortly after Daley became Mayor, Patricia Duff, with no experiencein the field, launched her first janitorial company; with revenues of $13 millionper year in city business, Windy City Maintenance was a stunning success159 (seeAppendix 44). But the U.S. Department of Justice claimed that the Duff business was really run by the family patriarchs, not by Patricia Duff or the certifiedminority businessmen supposedly in charge of operations. The JusticeDepartment stated in their indictment that the Duffs had “fraudulentlyobtain[ed] MBE and WBE contracts valued in excess of $100 million, as well asfunds paid pursuant to those contracts, from various corporate andgovernmental entities.”160 Even though the federal government claimed the citywas the victim in the Duff case, were they also finally cracking down on theDaley contract game?

Was the mayor himself involved in steering the minority contracts to the Duffs’phony business? According to Bruce DuMont, widower of top Daley staffmember Kathy Osterman, “When Kathy become special events director, therewere certain people who were recommended to her by Daley that she should dobusiness with…The Duffs were among the coterie of people she was supposedto do business with.”161

The Daley Denial

The mayor’s first response to the federal indictment was figuring out if he knewthe Duffs or not. At one point Daley told reporters, “Yeah I know them, you

71

know that. They’re hardworking people.”162 He later distanced himself from theDuffs though, saying, “I don’t know them personally.”163 But he did know them.He walked table to table with Patrick Duff at fundraising events and it was theDuffs who supplied his campaign with an army of volunteers. Realizing that hecouldn’t avoid the reality of their close relationship, Daley later contended thatthe Duffs really didn’t do anything wrong: “They have done a good job.”164 Even when faced with his political allies defrauding the city and being caught by thefederal government, Mayor Daley still skirted the real issue. In an exchange withFran Spielman on the scathing federal indictment, Daley said, “I don’t know. It’sup to the federal government. Not up to me.”165 When asked to comment onhow this affected his minority business program, Daley hedged, “Again, that’spending. I’m not going to get into that.”166

Was this all mayor had to say? An entire city program was being undermined by a contractor with Daley ties. His friends and political allies were getting rich offcity business, sometimes fraudulently and always disproportionately, and hewasn’t doing anything to stop it. Chicagoans’ tax dollars were being spent onillegal businesses, and the mayor of Chicago had no comment. Why wouldn’t hesay that the Duffs had done anything wrong? Why did he hedge his bets insteadof sticking up for Chicago’s interests? Was he giving the Duffs a free pass?Scandals flare up and the mayor snarls and endures some criticism, but doesnothing. The mayor never wages war on contracts that involve his friends. Theycontinue to be doled out, and only a federal indictment and the threat of jail time stop the cycle.

The Smith contract, the Daley bond and insurance business, and insiders Joyce,Crandall, and Duff are only the tip of the iceberg. Public contracts are thefoundation of Chicago’s pinstripe patronage system. Receiving them is essentialto a company’s bottom line and Daley depends on that necessity to generatepolitical loyalty, campaign contributions, and ultimately, power. This report hasshown how the mayor secured political loyalty in the Park District bycompromising board president Maria Saldana with a cut of a municipal bondbusiness. Consequently, the Park District never challenged the mayor on MeigsField. No one bites the hand that feeds them, so how do businesses that receivecity contracts repay their loyalty? To answer that question, you have to study thecontracts.

72

O’HARE SCANDALS WHO’S CUT IN CONFLICT OFINTEREST MAYOR’S REACTION OUTCOME

O’Hare Bonds

Citigroup wins city bid to sell$500M in O’Hare bonds

Michael Daley is paid$180K/year as Citigroupconsultant

Mayor’s brother “That is their business” No Change

Citigroup and Michael Daely continue with theirarrangement

O’Hare Insurance

Near North Insuranceprovides policies to manyO’Hare contractors

John Daley earns$400K/year on Near NorthCommissions, includingO’Hare accounts

Mayor’s brother “I’m not going to ask them to moveout of the city and change theirnames … they have nothing to dowith me”

No Change

John Daley continues to sell insurance to O’Harecontractors

(Near North and Michael Segal under federalindictment)

O’Hare Concessions

McDonald’s Corp. and DutyFree Retailers form ChicagoAviation Partners andsubsequently are awarded anO’Hare concession contractvalued at $tens of millions

Jeremiah Joyce is principle partner in Chicago Aviation Partners for which heearned $1.8M in 2000alone

Mayor’s longtime politicalmentor and foremostcampaign manager

“I don’t know what part of theaction he has, I don’t know and Idon’t care … I am not here to turnanyone into millionaires”

No Change

Chicago Aviation Partners contract has been extendedsince 1993

O’Hare Fences & Doors

Construction Firms G.F.Structures and BuildersChicago received $7M and$32M respectively at O’Hare

Richard Crandall isowner/operator of G.F.Structures and BuildersChicago who has received$millions in city contracts

Mayor’s family friend and ally from Bridgeport; insuranceclient of John Daley

“No one is questioning the work orthe quality that’s done. It’s just theamount.”

“None of it [city work] can beclouted … I’d sooner leave office”

Sent to the Bench

Daley sidelined Crandall’s citywide fence contract andconducted an audit, which did not look into conflicts ofinterest

Back in the Game

The City rebid a $10.9M aviation contract three timesuntil Builders Chicago won in 2003. G.F. Structurescontinues to win city business.

John Daley continues to provide their insurance

O’Hare Contractor Operates Fraudulent MinorityBusiness

Windy City Maintenancefraudulently operated as aminority business receiving$100M in city contracts

The Duff family owns andoperates Windy City Labor, Remedial EnvironmentalManpower and Windy CityMaintenance; all receivingcity contracts

Mayor’s longtime politicalallies.

Patrick Duff hosted campaign fundraisers for the Mayor and volunteered his employeesfor Mayor’s campaign.

“Yeah I know them, you know that. They’re hardworking people”

“I don’t know them personally”

“It’s up to the federal government. Not up to me … I’m not going toget into that”

Big Change!

Duff family businesses are currently under federalindictment

DENYING IT ALL: DALEY’S PATTERN OF CORRUPTION

CHAPTER 8:

Following the Money

Returning the Favor

Public contracts go right to the heart of Daley’s political system and thus areguarded secrets. At the same time, the city understands that the public has a right to know—the contracts are the taxpayers’ money. So the city promisestransparency and says that all contract documents can be found online. But thecity falls far short of providing any real information. Our sources even joke thatthe list of O’Hare contracts is “kept in a vault under the tarmac.” Electedofficials and journalists are constantly fighting for access to this publicinformation. Alderman Eddie Burke asked for a list of undisclosed O’Hareconsulting contracts, which the city claimed did not exist. Illinois SenatePresident Pate Phillip filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to get access to the O’Harecontracts. Journalists filed FOIAs and were stonewalled. The city successfullykept the contracts hidden. AIP obtained a glimpse of them, however—the list ofconsulting contracts Burke sought, which represented millions that the city paidout and never intended to disclose. On the list are Daley insiders and their pieceof the O’Hare action. The mayor’s former campaign manager Carolyn Griskomade $850,000. Longtime Daley family friend and owner of Airport OwnersRepresentatives Patrick Harbour took in $23,857,507. Daley supporter NiranjanShah of Globetrotters Engineering received $434,642. And this was just oneshort list of no-bid 1999 consulting contracts.

Later, we struck oil. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) listed hundreds ofconsulting, construction, and concessions contracts at O’Hare, totaling billionsof dollars, none of which were disclosed. Again the contracts flowed to Daleyfriends Pat Harbour, Carolyn Grisko, and Niranjan Shah, among others.

For portioning out millions of public contracts at O’Hare, Daley receivedthousands in campaign contributions. Between 1998 and 2001, companies withO’Hare contracts gave Mayor Daley $105,250—not a surprising quid pro quo.But our analysis of campaign contributions revealed that this wasn’t the end oftheir political loyalty. O’Hare contractor contributions influenced aviation policydecisions at local, state, and national levels by funneling money to key politicianswho had a say in moving Daley’s expansion plan forward.

73

Buying Springfield

Governor Ryan upheld the longstanding Republican position against O’Hareexpansion and promised to keep up the fight on the campaign trail. But inNovember 2001, the governor broke his promise and flipped to support Daley’sexpansion plan, undermining his constituents.167 O’Hare contractors made thispossible by donating $263,400 to Governor Ryan from 1998 to 2001. Included in the list of contributors were strong Daley backers Pat Harbour, Niranjan Shah,and Jim McDonough. The staunch supporters of Chicago’s Democratic machine clearly understood the political necessity of donating to a Republican. They werehelping the mayor best his political opponent to expanding O’Hare.

O’Hare contractor contributions were instrumental in Governor Blagojevich’sgubernatorial election. His chief fundraiser Chris Kelly was an O’Harecontractor, and Blagojevich benefitted as such, receiving $794,301 from O’Harebusinesses168 (see Appendix 45). Kelly, owner of Castle Construction and otherfirms, raised by far the largest amount: $583,500169 (see Appendix 45). During his rise to power as an O’Hare roofing contractor, Kelly made many powerfulfriends, chief among them Alderman Patrick Levar and Ronald Rossi of RossiConstruction. The Sun-Times discussed what became of Kelly’s and Rossi’sO’Hare riches: “Since the late 1990s, about the time Blagojevich began seriouslyconsidering a run for governor, Rossi has been awarded more than $30 million in O’Hare contracts, records show. Castle has secured at least $23.4 million inwork.”170 Kelly’s contributions were used to purchase political ads in the weekspreceding a close primary election. Given both the volume and the critical timing of the contributions, Kelly’s fundraising was perhaps the most important factorin the governor’s electoral victory.

It’s no surprise, then, that Governor Blagojevich supported O’Hare expansion.Kelly’s success as a political fundraiser bought him a place on the governor’sstaff as a political advisor. Despite not being a state employee, nor having anydepartmental responsibilities, Kelly maintains an office a few doors down fromthe governor, and is considered a member of his “kitchen cabinet.”171 With nopublic policy experience, Kelly has risen to key policy-making positions. He isnow the governor’s liaison on gambling. Kelly is a walking conflict of interest.His chief function for Blagojevich is to squeeze industries like O’Harecontractors and riverboat casinos for maximum political donations. How can the governor make objective choices on O’Hare expansion when his closest politicaladvisor and de facto policy liaison is pulling in millions of airport business for

74

himself and the governor’s campaign? When the Supreme Court talked aboutbuying access to politicians, they didn’t dream that the connection betweenfundraising and public policy would be flaunted as wildly as it is in Springfield.

The link between O’Hare special interests, their political contributions,172 andsubsequent public policy decisions becomes even more acute when looking atSenator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, bothof whom pushed legislation cementing O’Hare expansion.

Buying Washington

Senator Durbin had long maintained a neutral position on the question ofO’Hare expansion, and briefly opposed federal intrusion into the matter.173

However, a calculated and coordinated campaign by expansion proponentsultimately resulted in Durbin becoming a lead spokesman for their cause. Hebecame the Senate co-sponsor of the Durbin/Lipinski legislation that sought tofederalize O’Hare expansion.

Daley’s political allies, notably the airline industry, were key to Durbin’s flip.From 1998 to 2001, companies with economic interest at O’Hare made politicalcontributions to Senator Durbin totaling $140,752. A timeline of special-interestcontributions against Durbin’s public statements reveals how and why thesenator changed his mind. In December 2000, 14 executives from AmericanAirlines suddenly, and without a prior contribution history, gave Durbin $16,250. In March 2001, Don Carty, Chairman of American Airlines, met Durbin inSpringfield warning that Peotone would decimate air service in central Illinois. In April 2001, United Airline executives contributed $6,000. An additional $10,000came from airline industry political action committees. In May 2001, less thanfive months after receiving the initial $16,250 from American Airline executives,the Tribune reported that Durbin had said for the first time, “I’m for therunways…If we put the decision off any longer we will jeopardize air service atO’Hare and risk damaging the economic vitality of the region.”174 In only a fewshort months, O’Hare contractors, along with a tiny percentage of the airlines’lobbying budget, bought out the senior senator from Illinois.

The airlines got through to politicians on both sides of the aisle. From 1998 to2001, House Speaker Dennis Hastert received $27,500 from the airlines,lobbyists, and downtown Chicago business leaders. In July 2002, Speaker Hastert went from a neutral position to supporting expansion, selling out hundreds ofthousands of his suburban Republicans.175 The most surprising contribution,

75

however, came from Al Gore’s campaign manager, the mayor’s brother BillDaley, who gave a $1,000 contribution in May 2002. Politics does make strangebedfellows.

The symbiosis between the airline industry and political access is personified at6344 Cavalier Corridor, Falls Church, Virginia. That’s the address of Hastert’sWashington-area political action committee and home of its treasurer, JaneMattoon. But it is also the residence of Daniel Mattoon, Hastert’s close friendand political confidant, and lobbyist for United Airlines.176 Perhaps it’s not asurprise that the speaker changed his mind. Hastert’s best friend was a lobbyistfor the airlines, and Mattoon’s wife was on the speaker’s payroll. Whether puttowards Republicans or Democrats, the lobbying power and open checkbook ofDaley’s O’Hare business allies was the key determinant influencing the nationaldebate on the region’s transportation crisis.177

76

CHAPTER 9:

Buying DuPage

The most prescient example of this corruption of public policy may be foundright here at home. It involves DuPage Republican leader Robert Schillerstrom,the powerful Chairman of the County Board, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from O’Hare contractors. It also highlights the connection betweenO’Hare money and the corruption of honest public policy. There is a historybehind a county with a nearly 30-year policy stance suddenly changing itsposition. As we’ve seen before, O’Hare campaign money and the Daley politicalmachine are ever-present.

A Question of Character: Stacking the Water Commission

The DuPage County Water Commission (WC) is an independent organizationcharged with managing distribution of Lake Michigan water to participatingtowns in DuPage County. Historically, the WC was a respected, apoliticalmunicipal body. But in January 2002, Schillerstrom’s appointment of Michael P.Vondra as Chairman immediately politicized the Water Commission Board.178

Why would Vondra be an effective choice? While not a familiar name inChicago, Vondra’s influence in DuPage reaches to the highest level. He hasinterests in many successful companies that feed off public contracts for work on roads, water and sewer repairs, and general contracting. His companies includeAbbott Contractors, Benchmark Construction, Bluff City Materials, and ReliableAsphalt. From 1987 to 1989, Abbott Contractors alone had $54 million incontracts with the City of Chicago Water Department.179

Vondra’s corporate wealth and political connections trickle down. Vondra anddeveloper Kenneth Lahner organized Schillerstrom’s “Chairman’s Club,” asuccessful campaign to help Schillerstrom’s bid for County Chairman in 1999.180

Vondra and Lahner co-authored a fundraising letter, asking for $500 donationsto Schillerstrom’s campaign. And last year, Vondra-related firms donated morethan $22,000 to Citizens to Elect Robert Schillerstrom.181 He was a big-timecontractor in Chicago and DuPage, and was Schillerstrom’s chief fundraiser.

But with Schillerstrom’s reputed ambition for higher office, the appointment ofVondra to chair the WC should come as no surprise. After all, Chris Kelly rosefrom Blagojevich fundraiser to state gambling liaison. Both are huge O’Hare

77

contract sharks whose fundraising ability led them to occupy important publicpolicy positions. But Chris Kelly and Mike Vondra are not concerned about theminutiae of gambling or water issues. They are there to cover for their bosses,while using their elevated political clout for their own economic gain.

Case in point, shortly after his appointment as Chairman, Vondra placed on theWC agenda a reimbursement for a public contractor. The contractor in questionwas clearly at fault and according to the board had mindlessly cut through a citywater line, causing a major water contamination problem. Only later did it comeout that Vondra’s company Bluff City Materials was the one responsible. Andnow he was trying to get the county to pay the bill. Schillerstrom intended toreorganize the WC to support his own political interests by putting Vondra incharge, and that is exactly what happened. Vondra purged the WC’s professionalstaff and replaced them with Schillerstrom’s political allies from the county.Under Schillerstrom, the separation between public contracts, politicalfundraising, and high-level policy decision-making was completely destroyed.

Vondra’s Chicago Conflict

While managing the WC at Schillerstrom’s behest, Vondra had spent much of his time trying to advance his own interests. At the time of Vondra’s controversialappointment, one of the highest priorities of the WC board was negotiating withthe City of Chicago a contract on Lake Michigan water. This was a complexcontract involving millions of dollars, and the WC Board had a standingcommittee to deal with the issue. Acting independently without expertise on theissue and without any communication or coordination with the WC committee,Vondra engaged the City of Chicago as the sole DuPage negotiator.

Why did he take this approach? He already knew his way around City Hall. Hisfirm, Reliable Asphalt, holds a number of paving contracts throughout the city,and has more than $10 million in capital improvement projects at O’Hare.182

Reliable Asphalt also subcontracts to firms with Daley connections includingSchadt’s Trucking183 (see Appendix 46), a hired truck firm with mob ties thatleases many of their trucks from longtime Daley friend Michael Tadin. ReliableAsphalt also subcontracts to Energon Inc.184 (see Appendix 46), run by formerChicago Purchasing Agent Mary Skipton. Another Vondra company, Benchmark Construction, also has close ties with Daley and the City of Chicago. Their citylobbyist is Thomas Manion, a key organizer of Mayor Daley’s first two successful mayoral campaigns.185 Benchmark Construction subcontracts to yet another

78

hired truck firm with mob ties, JMS Trucking.186 Benchmark alone received $18.5 million in city contracts since January 2003.187 Vondra’s economic ties to the cityare indeed great. Vondra’s firms take in millions in water, paving, and aviationcontracts from the City of Chicago, all while he is supposed to lead the DuPageCounty’s WC and its negotiations with the city.

In appointing Vondra, Schillerstrom placed his own politics in front of DuPagecitizens and compromised the ability of the county to conduct importantbusiness with the City of Chicago. It was a clear conflict of interest, andSchillerstrom alone was responsible. Schillerstrom’s undermining of the WaterCommission was just the beginning of his abandonment of constituents for hisown political gain.

Raiding the Water Commission

Concurrent with exerting his political control over the WC board, Schillerstromwent after the Water Commission financially. Schillerstrom saw the $75 millionof WC reserves as a way for him to plug a budget deficit that had blossomedunder his leadership as County Chairman. In March 2003, Schillerstrom lobbiedSpringfield to amend WC legislation that would allow the DuPage CountyChairman to redirect WC funds to cover the county’s budget shortfalls. This wasagainst the interests of the Water Commission, who, as an independentmunicipal body, wanted to keep its reserves for its own uses, and not to bail outSchillerstrom. To usurp the WC funds, Schillerstrom retained Greenberg Traurig, a multinational law firm whose principal lobbying representation in Illinois isVictor Reyes.188

Reyes had served as Mayor Daley’s director of intergovernmental affairs. In thatposition, he worked as Daley’s chief lobbyist, and was responsible for seeingthrough the mayor’s initiatives in the City Council, State legislature, andCongress. Reyes’ lobbying power throughout Illinois stems from the enormouspolitical force he wields in the City of Chicago. In his meteoric rise as Daley’schief political organizer, Reyes founded the Hispanic Democratic Organization.It was a Daley idea that created a machine-style patronage army in the Hispaniccommunity.189 Was Reyes successful as a Schillerstrom lobbyist? Of course. Andeven after the legislation passed, Reyes went right up to the governor’s desk toensure its approval. When Schillerstrom needed a political fix, he called on aDaley insider.

79

But while lobbying for Schillerstrom against the WC, Reyes was naively retainedby the WC itself. The Water Commission Board, concerned about itsnegotiations with the City of Chicago, understood the necessity of hiring a cityinsider, but they did not know that Reyes was the one responsible for legislationenabling Schillerstrom to raid the WC reserves. The WC Board had paid Reyes$100,000 to lobby for them and had no work to show for it except one meetingwith the city. It wasn’t until after their check was cashed and the legislationpassed against them that Greenberg Traurig sent the WC a letter stating theirconflict of interest.

After all, Victor Reyes’ reputation is for making money. Since leaving Daley’soffice, Reyes turned his political connections into record-breaking lucrativeprofessional contracts. As a contract rainmaker, Reyes raked in millions fromhigh-profile clients like Bechtel for O’Hare expansion, Bank One for municipalbonds, and J.C. Decaux for bus stops. But one has to wonder how a DuPageRepublican like Schillerstrom came to call on a Daley Democratic heavyweight to lobby on his behalf. To find out, just follow the money.

The Victor Reyes Conflict

Besides his major corporate clients, Reyes also lobbies for another firm: ReliableAsphalt, a Vondra company190 (see Appendix 47). So Reyes was working for theambitious County Board President, his chief fundraiser’s business, and theCounty Water Commission. For Reyes’ work, Schillerstrom received millions tocover his budget shortfalls, Vondra made millions in public contracts, and theWater Commission, in important negotiations with Chicago on behalf of DuPage citizens, got nothing. Vondra’s millions in city contracts are a result of hiringReyes. Schillerstrom picked Reyes as his lobbyist because of his chief fundraiser’s explicit financial ties to him. Ethics and public policy were sidelined by theserelationships. Schillerstrom’s politics quickly evolved from a conflict of interestwithin the Water Commission to a direct link with the heart of the Daley political system.

Schillerstrom: Political Ambition Trumps Public Policy

All this explains Schillerstrom as an ambitious political climber willing topoliticize government bodies and make back-room deals with longtime politicalopponents. To make real political hay out of all of this, Schillerstrom had onemore deal to make: O’Hare. Schillerstrom had been elected in 1998 as anopponent of O’Hare expansion. At that time, he stood with the DuPage County

80

Board, the sitting governor Ryan, and Republican leadership. Developed over 30years, this issue was a main piece of the Republican policy platform.

81

CHAPTER 10:

The Republican Leadership Sells Out

The Ryan Precedent

But the wheels of the statewide Republican flip were already in motion.Investigative sources gave an explanation of what happened in Springfield.Former Governor Jim Thompson, while a lobbyist for American Airlines,presented Governor Ryan with the O’Hare expansion plan. Thompson was thecreative legal mind behind drafting the federal legislation designed to circumventthe gubernatorial veto power on O’Hare expansion. Ryan was shown the writingon the wall: expansion was going to happen and there was little he could doabout it. Would Governor Ryan choose to fight for his constituents and theprinciples he said he stood for? No. Ryan flipped. Illinois Republicans had spentdecades opposing O’Hare, and Governor Ryan betrayed their trust withoutwarning. The only reason he ever gave was at a Senate hearing in Washington. Itwas the downtown business community that convinced him to supportexpansion and all he said was, “I see the light occasionally.”191 After GovernorRyan accepted hundreds of thousands from O’Hare contractors and specialinterests, were Illinois citizens supposed to trust his one eureka moment?Whatever Ryan’s stated rationale, what’s clear is that he changed his position,sold out his constituents, and set a precedent for other Republican leaders.

The Hastert Factor

But events suggest that a wholesale Republican flip was already in the works.Wanting to avoid public debate, Speaker Hastert maintained his neutrality. Hisactions, however, betray his public posturing. A week earlier, Hastert organized a closed-door meeting with Congressman Don Young from Alaska, Chairman ofthe House Transportation Committee, at the DuPage County Airport. At thatmeeting, Schillerstrom came out and gave his support for western access andO’Hare expansion. Presumably, this was done at Speaker Hastert’s bidding, foraccording to Schillerstrom, “When Hastert says jump, I jump.” Schillerstromagreed on his piece of the expansion, western access, and would put his politicalmuscle behind the effort. And just two days after Ryan announced his deal withDaley, Schillerstrom made his first public endorsement of O’Hare expansion.

Illinois Republican leaders had decided which side of the O’Hare issue they wereon. Rather than stand up for their constituents and continue to oppose O’Hare

82

expansion, which meant taking on the City of Chicago, the downtown businesscrowd, and the Democratic machine, Ryan, Hastert, and Schillerstrom tookairport money and sold out their constituents.

The Changed Political Landscape

After all, what was Schillerstrom going to do? He is a political animal, and thiswas a Machiavellian question. Did going along with expansion offer greaterbenefits for his political future? Yes. But what Schillerstrom could not havecalculated was how his political opportunity would be magnified in the wake ofGovernor Ryan’s Licenses for Bribes scandal. It created a power vacuum in theIllinois Republican Party and provided Schillerstrom’s best opportunity to seekhigher office. The Republican Party was in disarray. Senate President Pate Philipretired, House Leader Daniels was under investigation, and Illinois Republicanslost almost every state office in 2002. This was the political landscape that laybefore Schillerstrom by December 2001. Schillerstrom saw in the wake of theRyan scandal an irresistible political opportunity. But he knew that in order tomake a run for state office, he had to rely on the financial backing of O’Hareproponents.

Schillerstrom Takes the O’Hare Money

It was clear from the 2002 election that any candidate, Democrat or Republican,who opposed O’Hare expansion, was cut off from critical fundraising. Whilecontemplating his political future, Schillerstrom’s decision became easier witheach check he collected from O’Hare contractors. An examination of hiscampaign fundraising records tells all. O’Hare contractors filled Schillerstrom’scoffers with more than $300,000 between the years of 2001 and 2004.192 ButSchillerstrom alone didn’t have the political know-how to raise this amount ofmoney. He didn’t have downtown Democratic stalwarts and O’Hare contractorson his Rolodex. It was his fundraiser, Mike Vondra, whose relationship withVictor Reyes provided the political coordination to achieve this level offundraising. After all, Reyes’ political career and financial well-being are tieddirectly to the advancement of Daley initiatives, in particular the expansion ofO’Hare. Reyes was also “close fishing buddies” with John Harris, DeputyAviation Commissioner and Mayor Daley’s point man on expansion. Reyes could organize this sort of fundraising because his best friend Harris was in charge ofhanding out O’Hare contracts. But Harris was not a newcomer to the O’Haregame; he was a Deputy to Commissioner Mosena when the W.H. Smith contract was worked out. With higher office in mind, Schillerstrom sold out DuPage

83

citizens and public policy to the Chicago Democratic machine and the O’Haremoney that came with it.

The DuPage Flip

In January 2003, the city’s investment finally came to fruition. Schillerstromsuccessfully organized a vote to support a qualified expansion plan that wouldinclude western access and replacement tax revenue streams.193 Schillerstrom had set the date of the meeting for a time when a key opposition board member wasout of town and kept the plans for an O’Hare vote a secret. Opponents wereaghast at his political ruthlessness. It was a shocking flip in suburban policy by arump County Board. Schillerstrom’s historic flip ingratiated him to theDemocratic , but would his political calculus hold true? Would O’Hare moneypave his way to higher political office?

Schillerstrom’s Reward

Mayor Daley himself gave Schillerstrom his seal of approval, praising him for his“leadership and vision.”194 Two months later, Schillerstrom’s political strategyproved to be on course. At a March luncheon at the City Club of Chicago, ClubPresident Jay Doherty introduced Schillerstrom to downtown business leaders:“This native son of DuPage—long the bastion of Republican power in ourstate—now stands shoulder to shoulder with his party’s biggest names.”195 Thedowntown business crowd was almost congratulating itself for buying not onlySchillerstrom, but the Republican leadership of Ryan and Hastert. The ClubPresident continued, “If I were a betting man, I would bet that the nextRepublican candidate for governor will be our guest speaker today.”196 Only time will tell.

By September 2004, Chairman Schillerstrom stockpiled a more than $1 millionwar chest and has stated, “I am looking for statewide opportunities.”197 As forhis fundraising, he intends to begin traveling throughout the state to take hisfundraising to “another level.”198 Schillerstrom has even launched acampaign-oriented web site that seeks contributions under a message of supportfor a “greater Illinois.”199 A close review of the Schillerstrom contributionsreveals that a huge percentage of his money comes from O’Hare contractorcontributors.

84

THE O’HARE MONEY TREE

MAYOR DALEY

CLOSE FRIENDS

G.F. Structures, Builders Chicago

Walsh Construction

Airport Owners Representatives

Marina Cartage, MAT Leasing

McDonough & Assoiciates

Windy City Maintenance

W.H. Smith

Airport Retail Management

Glenrock Company

Lehman Bros. - City Bond Business

Richard Crandall

The Walsh Family

Patrick Harbour

Michael Tadlin

Jim McDonough

Patrick Duff

Barbara Burrell

Michael Marchese

Tim Degnan

Beth Gallagher-Coolidge

WASHINGTON, D.C.Oversees nation’s aviation system and its funding

What Happened:

SPRINGFIELDRepresents all metropolitan constituents

What Happened:

DU PAGE COUNTYConstituents directly impacted by expansion

What Happened:

O’HARE NEIGHBORING TOWNSHomes and businesses will be destroyed by expansion

What Happened:

POLITICAL ALLIES

The Grove Candy ConcessionHead of Gaming Board, Real Estate Developer

The Grove Candy ConcessionBlack Clergyman

O’Hare ConsulantFormer Campaign Manager

O’Hare Bond BusinessSpringfield Lobbyist, Firm under indictment

O’Hare Bond BusinessSpouse of U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez

O’Hare Bond BusinessFormer Illinois Attorney General

O’Hare Bond BusinessGodson of Cook County President Stroger

Bond BusinessFormer City Comptroller

Bond BusinessFormer Executive Director - CHA

Elzie Higginbottom -

Clay Evans -

Carolyn Grisko -

Ald. Patrick Levar -

Soralda Gutierrez -

Roland Burris -

Orlando Jones -

Thomas Beck -

Zri Smith -

STAFF TURNSTILE

UAL Lobbyist(Fmr chief of Staff and current Daley O’Hare liaison)

- Municipal Bond Business(Citigroup Executive)

(Fmr City Comptroller - City Bond Business)

- O’Hare Bond Business(President Park District Board)

(Fmr Head of City’s Law Dept. - Finance Division)

- O’Hare Bond Business(Chair, CTA)

(Fmr. Lehman Brothers - City Bond Business

- O’Hare Consultant(Fmr. Aviation Commissioner)

- O’Hare Consultant(Fmr. Managing Deputy of Planning, DOA)

- O’Hare Consultant(Current Chair, CHA)

- O’Hare Bond Business(Frm. Deputy Aviation Communication)

- O’Hare Bond Business(Frm. Personal assistant to Daley)

- O’Hare Bond Business(Frm. Illinois Building Commissioner)

Gary Chico -

Walter Knorr

Maria Saldana

Carole Brown

Mary Rose Loney

John Vranicar

Sharon Gist Gillam

Rhona Di Camillo

Adrienne Archia

Nona Myers

CONTRACTORS

Chris KellyRonald Rossi

Michael Vondra

Globetrotters EngineeringH.W. Lochner Corp.

Divane Bros.D’Escoto Inc.

Near North InsuranceLandrum & Brown

Ricondo AssociatesJasculca/Terman

HNTB Corp.Murphy/Jahn - Environdyne

Alfred Benesch and Co.Gilbane Construction

Standard ParkingAirport Owners Representatives

A. EpsteinKudman Associates

Environmental SystemsMcCoy Security

Unzelman Associates

Political Opportunists

Paying to Play - Contractor Contributors

(O’Hare Associates)

POWERBROKERS

Bechtel - Lobbyist $60k/mo. retainerBank One - Lobbyist for Municipal Bonds

Reliable Asphalt - Lobbyist for Mochael VondraHispanic Democratic Organization - Co-founder

Chicago Aviation Partners(Duty Free/McDonald’s) - Partner $1.8M Fy02

Environmental Auto Removal-Joyce’s O’Hare partners

Landrum & Brown - Lobbyist for O’Hareconsultant, while representing Daley as

his aviation liaison

VICTOR REYES

JEREMIAH JOYCE

OSCAR D’ANGELO

W.H. Smith - Lobbyist for vendor corporation,while working as Daley Minority Partner Fix Man

Michael Daley/ConsultantReceives $180k/mo. from

Citibank for municipalbond business

John Daley/Independent Insurance AgentReceives over $400k/yr insuring O’Harecontractors working on public contracts

FAMILYBill Daley/Lawyer

Former United Airlines lobbyist Grace Barry/Maggie Daley’s Best FriendMade millions on W.H. Smith

concession contract at O’Hare

Daley accumulates power by controlling a multibillion dollar money tree for his friends, families and allies.

To do this, Daley must venture out of his ivory tower on the fifth floor, negotiate critical transportation policyand compromise with the legitimate authority of regional governments and their constituents.

How does Daley approach these tasks?

Bensenville - Harrassment: Cook Co. Board of Elections remove Mayor Geils from 2000 ballot(wins as write-in candidate); City lawyers try to condemn property prior to expansion plan approval;local politicians aligned with Daley forces cut off tax revenue to fight O’Hare.

Elk Grove Village - Laurie Stone, executive director of Chamber of Commerce and Greater O’HareAssociation appears on Daley’s “A” list. She is key to flipping EGV on O’Hare issue.

Park Ridge - City council election swings to Daley forces and votes community out of funding SOC.,this follows the flip; similar attempts to overtake city council of fails.Des Plaines Elmhurst

O’Hare money, funneled to County Board ChairmanSchillerstrom, buys out DuPage opposition to expansion.

Schillerstrom received 250k in O’Hare contributions throughfundraiser Vondra, who has close connections withCity powerbrokers Victor Reyes and John Harris, (formerAviation Dept., responsible for O’Hare expansion plan).

Schillerstrom ties his career to Daley money.

O’Hare money is used to buy out former Governor GeorgeRyan who soon after flips on O’Hare Expansion.

Under Blagojevich, O’Hare contractors via Chris Kelly havean open door to the Governor’s Office.

The downstate roadblock to Daley’s O’Hare expansion planhas been removed.

O’Hare money flows quickly to Senators and Representatives,most notably Durbin and Hastert, who subsequently flip onO’Hare expansion.

O’Hare contractor’s money hijacked federal legislationand undermined the national debate.

Senator Fitzgerald remains lone voice opposing federalmandate of O’Hare expansion.

CHAPTER 11:

The Consequences of the Leadership Flip

Daley’s Move into the Suburbs

By the end of December 2001, with Daley having gained support for O’Hareexpansion from the Republican governor and the DuPage County RepublicanBoard Chairman, only one significant block of opposition to O’Hare expansionremained—the local suburban communities led by those most impacted byexpansion: Bensenville, Elk Grove Village, and Park Ridge. They had longsought to participate in an honest public debate and planning process to protecttheir interests and to produce the best long-term transportation solution for theentire Chicago metropolitan community. Although adversely effected by thephysical presence of O’Hare, they were still closely bound in an economic sense.

They, like many northern Chicago suburbs, had been built by previousgenerations of Chicagoans who fled the city for clean air, green grass, and goodschools. These new suburban politics were formed in reaction to Chicago’s longhistory of political corruption. They were free from precinct captains fixingparking tickets, political posters tacked to windows, patronage jobs, and all of the unseemly trappings of big city machine politics. The big city system was replacedwith non-partisan citizen elections that produced honest, professional villagegovernments.

Historically, in overwhelmingly Republican DuPage County, the RepublicanParty establishment had stayed out of local elections. So it was natural that theselocal suburban communities expected an open and realistic discussion of thefuture of this huge airport, which had been plopped down by Chicago in theirmidst over 50 years ago. With these few communities still standing in opposition, what was the next move for Daley’s army?

Daley Forces Coordinate Their Attack on Suburbs

Pro-expansion forces targeted these suburban communities for takeover. Theyattacked using public relations campaigns to isolate the communities from theirsuburban allies and try to divide their political bases. They even infiltratedcommunity groups to spy on their activity. Airlines created front groups. The city created the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC)—aChicago-controlled organization—to compete directly with its suburban-based

85

opponent the Suburban O’Hare Commission (SOC) for membership andpolitical influence. Non-partisan organizations, such as local Chambers ofCommerce, were infiltrated, and local political candidates were given financialand organizational backing, all with a single purpose: to eliminate funding ofanti-O’Hare expansion activities and to undermine the communities’ spirit tocontinue to fight Chicago.

Daley and his forces were determined to apply a full-court press to weaken, ifnot destroy, its opponents. Coordination was key to their efforts. The questionwas how carefully and how closely they coordinated their actions. Do two majorcompeting airlines plan side by side with the city and local civic groups to finance and carry out their attack? What follows is clear evidence that Daley and hisforces did just that over many years to defeat the defiant suburbs in their stalwart opposition to O’Hare expansion. It is hardball politics, the dark side of politics,played by Chicago. The objective is unconditional surrender by the suburbs.

Laurie Stone: Daley’s Forces Turn GOA into a Puppet Satellite

The Greeks had the right idea centuries ago when they figured out that the onlyway to capture Troy was with a Trojan horse. In the fall of 1992, Chicago’s ownTrojan horse was named Executive Director of the Greater O’Hare Association(GOA), a 25-year-old regional chamber of commerce. Thus began a decade-longusurpation of a legitimate regional business organization for a singular purpose:back Chicago’s plan to expand O’Hare Airport.

Such a highly charged political agenda had not been part of GOA’s purposebefore Stone arrived from the Northwest Suburban Alliance for Commerce andIndustry. GOA had been designed to function as an umbrella organization,linking local suburban chambers and providing services that the local units couldnot provide for themselves. Historically, the GAO had supported the concept ofadditional O’Hare runways, but had never strongly advocated any specific plan.

Within a year, Laurie Stone was on the Daley bandwagon. Her activeinvolvement in Daley’s cause is revealed through a series of importantinvestigative documents from the city’s aviation department files. They offerinsight into the tightly controlled coordination of Daley’s forces. Stone’sactivities were merely one of a cluster of connected and interrelated actions byDaley’s pro-expansion forces.

86

By May of 1993, Stone was promoting the relocation of the military installationat O’Hare airport. While advocating relocation, she corresponded with federalofficials pushing the city’s position. Concurrently, Stone coordinated her effortswith the city faxing her letter to Daley’s public relations firm Jasculca/Terman200

(see Appendix 48). Stone’s letter echoes the position of the aviation departmentunder Commissioner Mosena201 (see Appendix 49). Even at this early stage,Stone’s efforts reflected the position of the city’s PR team.

In March 1995, the city began to focus on pending legislation to create a regional airport authority. Passage of the bill would lead to the development of a thirdairport in Peotone, an idea supported by Governor Edgar and the Republicanleadership. As the city concentrated its energy on defeating this legislation, Stoneused the GOA as a platform to lobby against the bill. In a GOA direct mail letter Stone wrote:

We [GOA] do not support the legislative efforts to change the management ofO’Hare Airport to an authority that would support a third airport, causing anegative impact to the entire O’Hare area. We cannot support plans for a thirdairport until it is clearly established that there is:

1. A realistic need,

2. Commitment from airlines that they would utilize the new facility, and

3. Adequate additional funding that does not impact the continuedmodernization of O’Hare.

As a supplementary document to the GOA direct mail letter, Stone included afact sheet with bullet points that addressed each concern that the GOA had withthe regional airport authority legislation. The documents, signed by Laurie Stone, GOA President and CEO, were sent to legislators and GOA members.Interestingly, the exact same document—word for word—was mailed out to aseparate civic membership. In his mailing, Jerry Roper, President and CEO ofthe Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, included the same material. Stone andRoper were not just acting together, but were coordinating with the publicrelations and lobbying effort of the city202, 203 (see Appendices 50 and 51). Atthat point, Stone’s position on O’Hare was at odds with much of the suburbanGOA membership she was hired to serve.

A 1995 internal document by another of Daley’s O’Hare public relationsconsultants, Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, provides real insight. They created, intheir own words, an “A-team” of high-powered executives to promote O’Hare

87

expansion. They included officials from United and American Airlines, Chicago’s Department of Aviation, and the mayor’s political campaign manager CarolynGrisko, among others. The team was created to implement a campaign theyreferred to as their “road show.” Its aim was to persuade suburban businessaudiences to support O’Hare expansion. Interestingly, at that time, Chicago wasstill denying that it was planning an expansion of O’Hare. Laurie Stone’s namewas prominently featured on the “A-team” list204 (see Appendix 52).

In December 1998, Jasculca/Terman and Associates wrote a memorandumproviding a “road show update.” It provided a detailed update of public affairsactivities done on behalf of the Department of Aviation to generate oppositionto legislation to create a Regional Airport Authority and a new airport atPeotone. Two key passages set out Stone’s participation. In the summary of thesuburban Cook County forum, the memo states, “Immediately following theforum, we drafted a press release and worked with Carolyn [Grisko] and BillFilan on approval. We sent the release to and followed up with outlets on theGreater O’Hare Association of Commerce and Industry’s suburban media list, as well as the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Daily Southtown, Daily Herald, and the City News Bureau”205 (see Appendix 53, p. 2).

With regard to the direct mail sent out to members of the General Assembly,Jasculca/Terman noted, “The cover letter, which we drafted, was signed by JerryRoper, Laurie Stone, and Anita Cummings. We also designed special letterheadfor the mailing that incorporated logos from the Chicagoland Chamber ofCommerce, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, and theUnited Business Association of Midway”206 (see Appendix 53, p. 4). It is clearthat the city, airlines, and business chambers were involved in coordinating asophisticated public relations/lobbying campaign. Their activities werecoordinated and carried out under the direction of the city’s public relationsfirms Ogilvy, Mather & Reinhardt and Jasculca/Terman.

In January 1996, the top public affairs executives from United and Americanwrote Laurie Stone a letter. The letterhead proudly displayed the logos of each of the two supposed competitors. When protecting corporate interests at fortressO’Hare, even cutthroat airline competitors can be tamed enough to work hand in hand to accomplish mutually beneficial goals. The letter openly reveals themonopoly power that United and American Airlines hold at O’Hare. Clearly, inthe expansion debate, they were joined at the hip. The letter laid out the airline’sgame plan for Stone to follow. It contained the essence of their argument against

88

a third airport. She became a vocal representative for the pro-expansion forceswidely quoted by the media on the subject. The airline letter provided Stone with fresh ammunition to frame the airlines’ blueprint for the debate. Stone now hadthe expert opinion of the airlines on the critical point of whether or not O’Harewas at capacity. Admission of capacity problems puts policy makers on the roadto evaluating third airport proposals. The letter states:

Over the past several years, much discussion and debate have taken placeconcerning where a new airport for metropolitan Chicago should be built, notwhether it is actually needed. The assumption upon which the third airport hasbeen centered is the myth that O’Hare Airport is at or near capacity…The myththat Chicago airports are nearing capacity has been proffered by uninformedgroups and individuals who lack a basic understanding of the aviation industry’seconomics and operational methods. Blind acceptance of their definition of airportcapacity can be very costly and will cause mortal damage to Illinois’ economy…Inreality, the Chicago Metropolitan area will not need a new airport for decades.207

(See Appendix 9)

By October 1997, Laurie Stone was again signing her name and title alongsideJerry Roper to oppose Peotone. A joint letter sent to General Assemblymembers on Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce letterhead outlines all of thenegatives of supporting Peotone: loss of jobs and economic activity in Chicagoand northwest suburbs. The letter states, “The time has come to focus onconcrete, viable economic development projects in the south suburban region,rather than pin peoples’ hopes on an airport that will never be…I would behappy to put you in touch with one of the many other civic and businessorganizations that remain united in their belief that the state of Illinois would not be well served by an airport at Peotone”208 (see Appendix 54).

In April 1998, Laurie Stone signed a letter with Jerry Roper, ChicagolandChamber of Commerce, and Chris Mahaffey, President and CEO of theAssociation Forum of Chicagoland. The letter was again sent to members of theGeneral Assembly informing them of a coalition of business associations thatoppose the state spending Illinois tax dollars on the Peotone proposal and urgeslegislators to vote against buying land for Peotone, a “dangerous and speculativeventure.” The letter reinforces that idea that “dissecting the region’s marketamong three airports would destroy Chicago’s dominant position as the nation’sair transportation crossroads.” The letter specifically criticizes the state seeking$20 million for land acquisition when there is no evidence of public or privatefinancing for the third airport in Peotone:

89

Illinois residents may never know how much of their tax dollars have been spent,because nowhere in the state budget will you find a separate line item for eachexpenditure relating to the proposed airport. Members of the Illinois GeneralAssembly have a responsibility to their constituents, who have much at stake, toline item taxpayer dollars that are being spent to promote this airport plan.209(See Appendix 55)

The criticism presented to members of the Assembly thatIllinois residents may never know how their tax dollars arespent on Peotone due to a lack of transparency in the statebudget would seem to ring hollow with opponents to Daley’sexpansion. Under Daley’s management, O’Hare Airport’sbudget and finances by comparison is a black box. No usefulinformation is provided to the public, the City Council or evento leaders of the State Assembly who have gone as fare to filelawsuits in pursuit of O’Hare contractor information.

In November 1998, Dennis Culloton, spokesman for the Department ofAviation, sent a memo to Jerry Roper and Laurie Stone with carbon copies toBob Repel (DOA) and Jack Dorgan (Rosemont Trustee and leader of MayorStephen’s political operation). The memo contained 15 news clips from suburban newspapers reporting the release of the Booz Allen study—the study that United Airlines commissioned and delivered to the public via the Chicagoland Chamberof Commerce in order to give the report its veneer of independence. Cullotonremarks:

I thought the attached articles from the community press would be helpful for your review as you continue to develop your grass roots program and strategy for theMidwest Aviation Coalition. I do appreciate your support for the ChicagoAirport System. As always, please call me if I can assist you.210 (SeeAppendix 13)

The Culloton memo is additional evidence of how tightly coordinated theactivities of the Daley forces are in planning their actions. Culloton openlyspeaks of the Midwest Aviation Coalition, an airline front group. In January2002, Jerry Roper had drafted the strategy memo for MAC as it prepared tolobby passage of federal legislation that would mandate O’Hare expansion.Roper boldly stated his strategy:

We must create a sense of inevitability in regard to the plan which will isolateSenator Fitzgerald and SOC and discourage other elected officials andstakeholders from voicing opposition to the plan. We must reduce opposition to the airport to these “fringe” players which will “clear the field” for us.211 (SeeAppendix 12)

90

“Creating a sense of inevitability” became the internal slogan for Daley’sexpansion forces as they operated in the suburbs.

Interestingly, one of the news clips that Culloton includes in his memo revealsthe Department of Aviation’s own dirty laundry as it relates to the Booz Allenreport and its purported independence. The Booz Allen study was released inNovember 1998. Consequently, the news clips are dated mid-November 1998. In an article that appeared in The Star, Culloton himself was quoted, as DOAspokesman that “Chicago aviation officials have not yet reviewed thechamber-ordered study and refused to comment on its forecasts orrecommendations.”212 In fact, as this report has pointed out, in October 1998,Commissioner Loney, in coordination with Jerry Roper, revised the talkingpoints of the Booz Allen report. The Department of Aviation had months priorto its release to make changes to and doctor Booz Allen’s findings to coincidewith the city’s current policy position at O’Hare (see Appendix 15). The reportwas a wholesale production bought and paid for by United Airlines.

The documents demonstrate that over many years, Laurie Stone had done thebidding of the City of Chicago and the airlines in Daley’s quest to control thesuburban politics of O’Hare expansion. Stone operated the GOA as a puppetsatellite for the Daley forces. The documents also reveal that Stone operated with a large number of individuals who are among Daley’s staunchest supporters,such as Carolyn Grisko, Daley’s former campaign manager and political advisor,and Jerry Roper, President and CEO of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. Important suburban allies also appear, such as Jack Dorgan, who represents thepolitical interests of Mayor Stephens of Rosemont. Together, the documentsshow that the Daleys’ forces have created a coordinated O’Hare juggernaut totake over the communities that stand in the way of O’Hare expansion.

Spying on the Opposition

As the world’s busiest airport, O’Hare is, not surprisingly, a major polluter to itsneighbors. Residents of communities surrounding O’Hare have a long history ofgrassroots organizing to address the environmental issues that impact theirquality of life. These are non-profit organizations, large and small inmembership. Many operate out of their homes and have very limited finances.They are, however, sincere about their concerns and dedicated to being heard onthe issues.

91

Alliance of Residence Concerning O’Hare (ARCO) is just one example of a small but active citizens’ group. It claims over 1,200 suburban members. It is made upof business leaders, teachers, doctors, and homemakers concerned about thehealth and quality of life in their community. The group puts out studies; theywrite letters to city and state officials; they educate the public. They do whatgrassroots groups do best: create pressure on elected officials in an attempt toforce them to address the public’s concerns. Illinois has a long history of suchgroups.

Daley will leave no stone unturned in his conquest of the suburbs, even if itrequires infiltrating community groups to spy on their activities. In the case ofARCO, that is exactly what happened. Lisa Howard, the public relations directorfor Chicago’s Department of Aviation, emailed Laurie Stone on the results of the spying done by the city’s public relations firm. Howard remarks in her coverletter to Stone, “Unbelievable—this means war—They’ve crossed the boundswith this one. Take special note of the gas mask. This is the worst I’ve everseen”213 (see Appendix 57). In October 1995, acting on behalf of the city, PRfirm Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart sent a memorandum to the Department ofAviation and Carolyn Grisko, Daley’s political advisor, that summarized howthey had sent a confederate to sit in an ARCO meeting and gave a full report onthe group’s business.

As late as July 1997, the Greater O’Hare Association sent an email to ChrisArman, Assistant Commission, DOA, with the message, “More info re: way inwhich ARCO & by extension SOC will most likely try & exploit environmentalissues. Perhaps Kitty [Loney] would be interested in developing responses. Havethe studies that ARCO is calling for been done? If so, do we have thoseresults?”214 (See Appendix 58) After years of litigation, which uncovered theembarrassing history of spying by the Chicago Police department’s “Red Squad”on citizens’ groups during the Vietnam era, the city has obviously not learned athing; although it seems dumber than dumb, the city is still doing it.

Cut Off the Funding

The Suburban O’Hare Commission (SOC), established in 1981, is a broadcoalition of local governments from the communities surrounding O’Hare.SOC’s purpose is to lead and finance the response to O’Hare noise, pollution,congestion and expansion. SOC is strongly supported on the constituent levelthroughout these communities because their residents understand O’Hare’s

92

impact on their lives. They realize that Daley’s expansion plans for O’Harereflect only the political and economic interests of Chicago. SOC’s constituentsknow they are up against the resources of a major American city. SOC, bycontrast, is a collection of small, independent communities teaming up to protect their common local interests against a more powerful and arrogant opponent.

To Daley’s chagrin, SOC and individual member communities of Bensenville,Elk Grove Village, and Park Ridge, often acting independently, through a varietyof tactics (public relations, lawsuits and local organizing efforts) have successfully stymied Mayor Daley from proceeding with O’Hare expansion. Simply put, thelocal communities—the source of SOC membership and its financial warchest—represent a major obstacle to Daley’s expansion plan.

Chicago Forces Attack SOC

Chicago’s chosen instrument for prying away the suburbs from SOC is theO’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC), founded in 1996. Daleywanted to appear willing to appease angry suburbanites’ complaints over airportjet noise and air pollution. In reality, it is funded and controlled by Daley in order to—in the words of communities that refused to join—“build a consensus to get a new runway.”

ONCC’s offer of free membership was used as a wedge for expansion promoters to split SOC, not just in Des Plaines, but elsewhere. But Des Plaines offers a case study of how such flips are accomplished.

Daley successfully used ONCC as a wedge for expansion promoters to split apart SOC and strip the organization of dues-paying members. Without thesemembers, there would be no dues to fuel the opposition’s financial engine.

Case studies of several suburban communities opposing O’Hare expansionexhibit the various schemes and deceptions that Daley and his proponents haveemployed to undermine SOC and achieve O’Hare expansion goals on their terms alone. Now Daley had established two key entities to seduce the suburbs toChicago’s pro-expansion position, and began to work on individual suburbs.

Don Stephens and Richard Daley Pick Off Des Plaines

Mayor Donald E. Stephens is the Mayor Richard M. Daley of Rosemont.Actually, he is virtually two Mayor Daleys, having ascended to office in 1956, not

93

long after Richard J. Daley, the present mayor’s father, first became Chicago’smayor. Like both Daleys, Stephens controls a tight political organization whoseinfluence reaches well beyond his borders. Like the Daleys, he faces nosignificant political opposition. And like the Daleys, he has been associated withnumerous kinky deals. The Emerald Casino fiasco is the most recent airing of his dirty laundry.

Despite the similarities between the two men, Stephens acts independently ofDaley and runs his own suburban political fiefdom. He is motivated and activelyworks to increase his influence in neighboring communities for his own benefit.His interests, however, intersect with Daley’s over O’Hare expansion. Hebecomes the central player influencing local politics in Des Plaines and othercommunities that oppose O’Hare expansion.

Thus, Stephens moved to implement Daley’s efforts to throttle SOC by cuttingoff its funds, and with them, SOC’s ability to wage its legal and other resistanceactivities. For years, Des Plaines and Rosemont, although next-door neighbors,maintained a distant and cold relationship. Stephens, for his part, had made some forays into Des Plaines, but had been rebuffed. Then, in 1999, an unexpectedopportunity fell into the laps of Stephens and his O’Hare allies when Des Plaines Mayor Paul Jung, an ardent expansion opponent, died in office. With Des Plaines politics in disarray, Stephens implemented a fascinating and successful effort toextend his reach into a neighbor’s affairs, ultimately leading to Des Plainescutting off its funding of SOC.

Stephens’ first move actually came a few months before Jung’s death, when heplanted two political challengers in the city council election. His first handpickedcandidate was one of his own henchmen. Dick Sayad, a Des Plaines resident andowner of Gemini Services, a computer-related business, has a more than 20-yearrelationship with Stephens and Rosemont. Sayad served as a Rosemont courtofficer and was a part-time captain on the Rosemont auxiliary police force.(Membership on an auxiliary force allowed Sayad to maintain his residenceoutside of Rosemont). Sayad had no political organization in Des Plaines, but nomatter—Stephens provided it and Sayad won. Since January 2000, Sayad’sGemini Services has contributed $1,700 to Stephens’ political organization, theRosemont Voters League.

Stephens provided similar organizational resources for Tom Becker, a local realestate agent in Des Plaines, who ran as an outsider once it became clear that he

94

was capable of winning his seat. Becker had known Stephens through his churchand was attracted to Stephens’ power. Ultimately, Becker became a leading criticof Des Plaines’ financial support of SOC.

With two aldermen in his pocket, Stephens was prepared to move. After Jung’sdeath, Stephens knew whom he wanted to install as the mayoral replacement—Alderman Tony Arredia. Arredia possessed street sense and rough charm, butlacked leadership and administrative skills. Like Becker, he was drawn to thepowerful. He found that in Stephens. For Stephens, Arredia could be controlled.Stephens immediately dispatched his top deputy, Jack Dorgan, to Des Plaines toline up aldermanic votes for Arredia’s election.

Dorgan, a Rosemont trustee, and Bradley Stephens (the mayor’s son) ran DonStephens’ political operation. Dorgan is a partner in Dorgan/McPike &Associates. Both named principals served powerful legislators: Dorgan is aformer deputy chief of staff to House Republican Leader Lee Daniels andMcPike was formerly a legislator and majority leader for House DemocraticLeader Mike Madigan. Dorgan/McPike lobbies for the Illinois Asphalt PavingAssociation, a business group of which Bill Cellini, Republican businessman andIllinois power broker, has been an executive since 1973. The association isthought to be Cellini’s oldest and strongest political power base in Illinois.Clearly, Dorgan is working at the center of Illinois’ most powerfully connectedpoliticians and business operators.

When Arredia took office, two councilmen linked to Stephens were already inplace, establishing a relationship between Rosemont and Des Plaines thatcontradicted their historic relationship. Stephens quickly co-opted Arredia. Hebegan to hold weekly breakfast meetings with him, schooling Arredia on how tobe mayor. Also coaching the new mayor was 30-something Bill Schneider, whoquickly rose by appointment under acting Mayor Arredia, to Des Plaines CityManager/Economic Development Director. So who is Bill Schneider?

Schneider’s past is checkered. In his 20s, he served time in prison for embezzling $200,000 from JMB Real Estate. Re-entering society, he found work in Chicago’s Department of Aviation. Schneider is allegedly friends with James Dvorak, theformer Cook County under sheriff, who served seven years in the federalpenitentiary for income tax invasion and bribery.215 Subsequently, Schneidermoved to Des Plaines and became assistant economic development directorwhile Arredia was an alderman, and began his meteoric rise. Some view

95

Schneider as the de facto mayor of Des Plaines when Arredia was elected;apparently, Schneider provided Arredia with the smooth public presence thatArredia lacked.

Expansion proponents increased their power base in the 2001 aldermanicelection. Two more seats went to candidates whose views were in conflict withtheir constituents over airport expansion. Rosemary Argus, a close friend andprotégée of Arredia, took his seat on the council. A former United Airlinesemployee, she voted twice against SOC funding (not surprisingly). Many thought this incongruous since she represented the 8th Ward, which sits at the end of anorthern runway. It suffers more pollution and would have more homes andbusinesses demolished than anywhere else in Des Plaines.

Laura Murphy, also elected in 2001, is strongly aligned with Cook CountyDemocrats. In late 2003, she was appointed to the committee for the MaineTownship Democratic organization. The appointment came from the CentralCommittee of Cook County whose Chairman is Tom Lyons, but it’s clearlycontrolled by Daley. This is a powerful appointment, clearly showing that she has clout with the city. The appointment gives Murphy influence over importantendorsements, such as judgeships in Cook County. Thus, Murphy is an identified card-carrying Democrat and national office holder elected to the Des Plainesboard in a supposedly non-partisan election.

Democrats began to actively woo formerly Republican Des Plaines. The CityCouncil meetings, usually non-partisan affairs, now received frequent visits fromDemocratic leaders U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, Illinois, RepresentativeSusan Garrett (a member of the Transportation Committee), and IllinoisRepresentative Elaine Nekritz. Arredia was courting Democrats in his largelyRepublican township. Big-time Democratic politics were introduced tonon-partisan village government in Des Plaines.

As recently as 1998, the Des Plaines City Council voted 7 to 1 against joiningONCC. Even then-alderman Arredia said with reference to ONCC, “I am a firm believer that the SOC is where we should stay. But,” he added forebodingly, “it is not a good idea at this time” to completely isolate Des Plaines from theONCC.216

96

Because of the stepped-up efforts, SOC asked major members to increase theircontributions. Des Plaines’ would go up to $90,000 annually from $64,000, anincrease of $.50 a resident. Thus began a yearlong debate on the issue.

• June 2001: Council rejects motion to release back dues to SOC. The votesagainst funding SOC dues are, not surprisingly, Aldermen Murphy, Sayad,Becker, and Argus.

• July 2001: Becker publicly calls SOC membership a “waste of money,”217 and isjoined by three other Chicago/airport/airline-connected aldermen to block a$22,700 quarterly dues payment to SOC. Arredia casts the deciding vote torelease the payment.218

• August 2001: Arredia assures SOC that Des Plaines will approve the additional$250,000 contribution that was requested.219

But while publicly supporting SOC funding, Arredia was quietly meeting withDaley’s new assistant for regional issues, Rita Athas. The 1997 liaisonappointment of Athas, the former head of a council of government representingnorthwest suburbs, was first seen as a sign of inclusion by Daley and the city.That reaction quickly turned to ridicule after her ham-handed threat againstsuburbs that supported the construction of a south suburban airport as analternative to O’Hare expansion. Keep it up, she warned, and they could lose theirfunding for ONCC soundproofing. Her former suburban colleagues believed thatAthas had sold them out to peddle O’Hare expansion.

In December 2001, Arredia pulled the lever and led the Council in voting 5 to 3to withhold a $250,000 payment to SOC. In February 2002, the Council voted 4to 3 to join the ONCC. Arredia sits as the Des Plaines’ representative to theONCC and Becker is the alternate. The mayor, cleverly responding tooverwhelming constituent pressure (polling indicates Des Plaines citizens asheavily anti-expansion and pro-SOC), maintains that Des Plaines isanti-expansion.

Park Ridge Is Next

Park Ridge, one of the strongest suburban Republican strongholds, has a longhistory of leading the fight against O’Hare expansion. But Park Ridge wasflipped, just as Des Plaines was, using the same political techniques of infiltration with outside money and political ground troops.

97

In May 2003, the Park Ridge City Council began debating the payment of SOCdues after five new aldermen with no obvious political affiliations were elected in April. In just two incredibly swift months, it was over, as the newly constitutedPark Ridge City Council voted to leave SOC.

The flip was led by newly elected alderman Rex Parker, who runs a publicrelations signage business and often produces literature for political campaigns.Among his closest associates is Democratic U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, whose foot soldiers were seen canvassing Park Ridge neighborhoods in supportof Parker and other “independent” aldermen. In an interview, former Mayor Ron Weitecha, an active leader of SOC, said he saw Schakowsky in a Park Ridgegrocery store passing out Parker’s campaign literature. Parker and Schakowsky’shusband, Robert Creamer, are believed to have done business together onpolitical campaigns.

Allied with Parker was another “independent,” Jeff Cox. He is the son-in-law ofRichard Martwick, the former Illinois superintendent of schools, a political player in the state and Committeeman for the Norwood Park Democratic Party.Another alderman, Mark Anderson, is an attorney who formerly worked forMayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, which makes money at O’Hare. He has since leftthe firm, but his wife is a full partner, personally making money off the firm’sairline business. His conflict of interest was not disclosed during the SOC debate.

Alderman Donald Crampton is a Chicago accountant who, according toWeitecha, is connected to and ran with the approval of the Niles DemocraticParty and longtime Democrat Niles Mayor Nick Blasé. A strong political force,they are closely connected with Mayor Don Stephens of Rosemont andDemocratic State Representative Ralph Capparelli. Blase removed Niles fromSOC years earlier and was instrumental in rallying suburban support for theEmerald Casino in Rosemont. Rosemont and Stephens are big supporters ofO’Hare expansion.

Despite their assertions of “independence,” all four have explicit ties to the Cook County Democratic machine or to Daley’s colleague Jan Schakowsky. They allreceived campaign help from Democrats, so it was no surprise that during thetown’s annual Memorial Day parade, the new aldermen (excluding Cox) brokewith tradition and chose not to march with the Park Ridge City Council. Instead,they paraded with Schakowsky’s Democrats and donned her campaign t-shirts.All four also placed signs on their lawns supporting Democratic candidates for

98

the U.S. Senate. Their “independent” label is nothing but a charade attempting to pay homage to suburban non-partisan tradition.

But the Park Ridge City Council could not flip on SOC with just the newindependents; more votes were needed. Sitting Aldermen Larry Friel and Michael Tinaglia put the SOC opposition over the top. Larry Friel was a longtimealderman who was thought to be a staunch Republican supporter. But it wassoon learned that he too had a Chicago link—one that went right to the firstfamily. Friel, an undertaker who did business with the Daley family, recentlydirected funeral services for Mayor Daley’s deceased mother, Sis Daley. Nowtwo aldermen who had been key supporters of SOC were both flipping onpaying SOC dues. But again, their connection was clear. They had direct ties toJerry Roper and the Daley family, two of the chief proponents and beneficiariesof O’Hare expansion. It was the four “‘independent” aldermen and their moreexperienced counterparts with Chicago ties that led the Park Ridge Council toflip against SOC.

Landrum & Brown, the city’s O’Hare consultant for engineering and planning,acted as a political vote counter and city spy the night of the Park Ridge meeting. A detailed memo indicates that Landrum & Brown was in attendance to witnesshow votes were cast. A detailed memo was then sent to Chris Arman, deputyAviation Commissioner describing the meeting and its results:

As you are aware, the City Council of Park Ridge recently heard presentationsfrom the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission (ONCC) and the SuburbanO’Hare Commission (SOC). Those presentations culminated in a vote tonight(July 21st) on to whether to continue supporting SOC in terms of a membershipfee ($64,600 calculated at $1.85 per resident) and a commitment of $300,000 to be used towards future litigation. The vote was part of the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.

An attachment to the Landrum & Brown memorandum further displays the vote count. A re-creation of the spreadsheet attachment and comments follows:

99

Approve $64,600 payment to the Suburban O’Hare Commission?

NAME WARD COUNCILSERVICE

YES NO

Ronald Weitecha Mayor 1987-2005 Non-voting Member (unless a tie)

Carl Brauweiler Treasurer 1977-2005 Non-Voting Member

Betty Henneman City Clerk 1985-2005 Non-Voting Member

Michael Tinaglia First 1997-2005 x

Donal Crampton First 2003-2007 X

John Benka Second 2001-2005 X

Richard A. DiPietro Second 1995-2007 X

Andrea Bateman Third 2000-2003 X

Sue Bell Third 1993-2005 X

Sue Beaumont Fourth 1997-2005 X

Howard Frimark Fourth 2003-2007 x

Dawn Disher Fifth 2001-2005 X

Mark Anderson Fifth 2003-2007 x

Michael MaRous Sixth 1997-2005 Recused Recused

Rex Parker Sixth 2003-2007 x

Larry Friel Seventh 2001-2005 x

Jeff Cox Seventh 2003-2007 x

TOTAL VOTES 6 7

Thus the membership fee was not approved.

The second vote concerned approving the payment of $300,000 to the Suburban O’Hare Commission for future litigation. The results of this vote were also 7 to 6against making this payment to SOC. The members of the city Council votedidentically to the membership fee as illustrated in the table above.

As mentioned above, the vote on joining the ONCC has been postponed untilthe next City Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:06p.m. (see Appendix 56).

100

Landrum & Brown’s memo is based on an activity far a field from itsprofessional area of technical expertise. It clearly illustrates how parties workingon behalf of Mayor Daley to expand O’Hare are engaged in carefully coordinated planning in the suburbs.

Alderman Dawn Disher, who voted to support funding SOC, is currently thetown’s appointee to the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission. Disher’shusband, Chris, is Vice President of Booz Allen’s Chicago office (anotherbeneficiary of O’Hare expansion planning) and was described as Jerry Roper’s“right hand man.” All conversations on Park Ridge politics and SOC wererelayed from Disher to her husband to Roper.

In September 2003, Weitecha resigned, citing personal reasons. In May 2004,Park Ridge joined the ONCC. To this day, the majority of Park Ridge residentsare overwhelmingly against O’Hare expansion. Yet, as in Des Plaines, many ofthose residents have been disenfranchised by the Daleys’ desire to expandO’Hare Airport.

Daley Allies Invade Elmhurst

With Des Plaines and Park Ridge falling to pro-expansion forces, what could bemore logical than to apply the same successful techniques to bring Elmhurst toits knees? Located south of O’Hare, Elmhurst is directly affected by O’Harenoise and pollution. Its residents strongly endorse participation in SOC, andonce again in 2003, the Elmhurst City Council approved funds to maintain theirmembership and active participation in the organization.

Elmhurst has experienced upstart efforts to build a pro-expansion movement,but they failed from lack of public support. In June 2000, local attorney JohnHowlett and a few businessmen created a non-profit organization called theO’Hare Western Access Committee. Its primary goal was to supportconstruction of western access to O’Hare, which SOC also has long endorsed.Now, Daley’s expansion plan includes western access, yet fails to identify how itwill be funded. That critical omission of sponsorship and money from westernaccess only strengthens the belief that Daley’s support of western access is just afalse promise to win suburban support for overall expansion and drive a wedgebetween SOC and other suburbs.

Elmhurst Mayor Thomas Marcucci said, “I would bet dollars to doughnuts thatif you follow the money behind this committee, it would lead to American

101

Airlines or United Airlines…They are paying [Howlett]. It’s business.” Howlettacknowledged that the non-profit group has received “seed money” from theairlines, but said he was unsure about which ones and how much. He also saidcommittee members, which include freight services and other entities that dobusiness at O’Hare, have contributed. Marcucci adds, “They [Daley’s ExpansionProponents] co-op ways to penetrate DuPage County and spread theirpropaganda from their side of the fence line.”220

Airline funding of Howlett wouldn’t be surprising. The airlines, in their owninternal documents discussed earlier, outlined the creation and funding of such“front groups.” But such covert public relation strategies were not the centralfocus of expansion promoters. Better to strike at the heart of the opposition bymaking inroads into Elmhurst’s local politics.

Repeating the pattern in other communities, two challenging candidates in lastyear’s Elmhurst City Council elections had direct links to the City of Chicago and the Daley administration. Here is another example of how Daley’s tentacles reach beyond Chicago and Cook County to actively coordinate aldermanic campaignsand to tip the balance of votes in favor of rejecting SOC.

One candidate, Moira Moriarty, was a neophyte, having no political operationbut possessing a sudden urge to seek public office. Without any prior publicservice, she jumped into the race and nearly defeated her incumbent.

How did she pull off such a near miracle? It didn’t hurt that working behind thescenes of her campaign was Tom Manion, a top political operative in Chicagowho happens to be an Elmhurst resident. Manion, a registered Democrat since1972, started as a volunteer in Daley’s first race for state’s attorney and becameone of his top political lieutenants. During Daley’s 1989 and 1991 mayoralcampaigns, Manion organized his get-out-the-vote field operation. In 1992,Manion was a prominent political player in the primary and general electionvictories of the once clout-heavy U.S. Representative Rostenkowski. In 1993,Manion coordinated Democrat John Stroger’s field organization in his successful campaign to become Cook County Board President. Moriarty, now viewed as apolitical pawn, is run by a political professional with close ties to Daley and other top Democratic leaders. Her reason for running: to provide another vote againstfunding SOC.

102

Manion’s political work reaches further across party lines and extends higher upin the Republican leadership. He, along with Victor Reyes, advises DuPageCounty Board President Bob Schillerstrom. As discussed above, Schillerstromsought the advantages of being co-opted by downtown special interestssurrounding the O’Hare issue in exchange for future political support.

Manion’s curious reach across party lines to organize Republicans goes back to1990, when he worked as the field organizer for Dan Cronin in his successful bid for the State Senate. Manion has since supported Cronin, a childhood friend,with campaign contributions. In 1994, Manion directed Gayle Franzen’s fieldoperation in his GOP primary bid for DuPage County Board Chairman. In 1997, Manion played a similar field-organizing role in Cynthia Cronin Cahill’s (SenatorCronin’s sister) campaign for DuPage County chairmanship. Mayor Daley joinedstate Senator Cronin and about 1,000 DuPage Republicans for a corned beef and cabbage dinner at Drury Lane in Oakbrook Terrace.221 Daley to Manion toMoriarty: a neat triple play. Not even the most local of elections is missed in thepursuit of an expanded O’Hare.

The second Elmhurst aldermanic challenger, John McDonough, also possesses alimited background in public and community service. Yet without politicalexperience or a political organization to support him, and as a self-described“stay-at-home dad,” he too felt the sudden urge to challenge a popularincumbent alderman. How to explain such a phenomenon?

Here’s one clue: On a campaign questionnaire, he listed a phone in the City ofChicago law department as his work number. Further investigation revealed thatit was a number in the division responsible for land condemnation—bound to be a hotbed of activity when Chicago starts to take land from surrounding suburbsfor airport expansion. Was the number a mistake? When investigators called andasked for Mr. McDonough, administrative staff said he was not in the office atthe moment. McDonough made it clear from the beginning of his campaign thatO’Hare was an issue and that he backed its expansion.

State Representative Jim Brosnahan (D-Oak Lawn) is thought to have played asignificant role in managing McDonough’s campaign. McDonough’s home was a virtual parking lot for automobiles with legislative license plates. The campaignwas negative and aggressive from the beginning. The presence of long-timepolitical operatives demonstrated that this was far from your typical localcampaign. On election day, McDonough’s campaign placed people that reflected

103

appeared to be Cook County-style campaign workers at polling places. Insidersknew these were not Elmhurst citizens, but workers imported to work thepolling places, in many cases intimidating voters.

All of this effort was put out for two election contests in which fewer than 2,400votes were cast among four candidates. How does one explain such a frenzy ofactivity in such a small contest? The high stakes of a $20 billion airport make noelection too small.

In the end, all the imported resources were not enough to sway Elmhurst votersin the two wards. The two neophytes lost. Apparently, Elmhurst isn’t ready forreform, Chicago style. But Chicago will be back, just as surely as it is now at thedoors of Elk Grove Village.

Elk Grove Village under Siege

We have discussed in detail how Laurie Stone had been working with the Daleyforces during her tenure as President and CEO of the Greater O’HareAssociation (GOA). These carefully coordinated details had never been disclosed to the membership of the GOA.

In 1997, Craig Johnson ran for Mayor of Elk Grove Village and won. Ascandidate, he was approached by Stone, who openly lobbied him to supportO’Hare expansion. And in an almost unprecedented event for a dominantlyRepublican suburb, Mayor Daley paid a personal visit to Mayor Johnson shortlyfollowing the election and spoke to the community’s business leaders to urgethem to support O’Hare expansion. Johnson told Daley, as he had Stone, that he would maintain an open mind on expansion but promised to do what was bestfor the village. Johnson’s response was a political line drawn in the sand that split the business community and pitted Daley and his “A-team” representative Stoneagainst Johnson in a fight over O’Hare expansion in Elk Grove Village.

Historically, the GOA had supported the concept of additional runways atO’Hare, but had never strongly advocated any specific plan. All that changedwhen Stone arrived. Under her leadership, the GOA quickly deviated frombusiness as usual and took on a strongly political position supporting Daley’sO’Hare expansion plan. There was no broad support among Elk Grove Villagebusiness leaders for Daley’s plan. It called for the destruction of many businesses in its prominent industrial park, one of the largest and most productive in theworld. Thus, it was not an issue formerly taken up by GOA membership. So

104

GOA members were caught by surprise when they found themselves alignedwith Daley’s expansion efforts. How did Stone suddenly change the focus of theGOA’s efforts in Elk Grove Village from a quiet local chamber group to astrident advocacy operation?

Stone had spun a web that she was soon to be caught in herself. By taking a leadrole for Daley, Stone supported expansion, but while working as head of GOA,she represented suburban business leaders, many of whom opposed Daley’s plan. Consequently, her prominent role on Daley’s A-team was a closely guardedsecret from the GOA membership. Meanwhile she continued to maneuver theGOA posture.

Throughout 1997, Stone used the GOA to lobby Elk Grove Village on Chicago’s behalf to leave SOC and join the Chicago-controlled noise commission, ONCC.Once again, ONCC would be the carrot to draw away SOC communities and cut off the critical funding they provide the organization to carry out its fight againstDaley’s O’Hare expansion. In that, Stone failed. Even with Daley urging localbusiness leaders to join on, the Elk Grove Village Board continued to declare itsallegiance to SOC.

Politically savvy Stone sought a way to bypass the hot opposition to O’Hareexpansion. She created a new Elk Grove Village Chamber of Commerce separate from the GOA and put herself in charge of it. Supposedly, the new organizationwas meant to focus on local issues and steer clear of the O’Hare issue. But ashead of the new local chamber, Stone installed her supporters and O’Hareproponents on its board. The chamber became yet another tool for Stone tocontrol the politics of O’Hare in Elk Grove Village. But by 2001, dues-payingmembers of these organizations began asking questions about contributions andinfluence by the airlines. Pushing for details on how much money the airlineswere pouring into the local Chamber and GOA, members were stonewalled byStone and the GOA president. Specific records that detail dollar amounts cannot be obtained, since the organization is not required to itemize its membercontributions. But it had become more evident that under Stone’s leadership, the GOA and the Chamber became front groups for the city and the airlines. Theincreased financial scrutiny by business members forced Stone to resign andleave Elk Grove Village.

Loyalty being the coin of the realm in Chicago politics, Stone landed on her feet.After taking a similar position in Schaumburg, Stone sought a seat on the Harper

105

College Board of Trustees. In a campaign marked by unusually high spending,Stone won. Campaign records disclose generous contributions from O’Harecontractors. Among them is Carolyn Grisko, Mayor Daley’s campaign manager.Grisko’s no-bid O’Hare contract was recently increased to $850,000. Othercontributors included Bill O’Dell, who received up to $15 million in Departmentof Aviation contracts, and Joe Clare, senior vice president of Gilbane BuildingCo., another big O’Hare contractor. Given this unusual series of events, thepolitical rumor mill is buzzing with word that Stone is building a politicalorganization with substantial backing from Daley’s O’Hare contractorcontributors to challenge Johnson in his next run for re-election. This would beconsistent with the approach taken in communities opposing O’Hare expansion.

Bensenville: The Last Battlefield

Bensenville, like Elk Grove Village, sits on the front line of Daley’s O’Hareexpansion plan. Both communities stand to lose in the most direct way. The cityhas advised Bensenville that it intends to acquire and destroy over 500 homes, 55 businesses, 2 parks, and 2 cemeteries deemed historically significant toaccommodate proposed new runways. In Elk Grove Village, the city will destroyat least seven substantial commercial and industrial properties. Thus, it is nosurprise that the opposition to Daley’s single-minded solution for O’Hare isstrongest among the residents and business leaders of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village.

But Bensenville would suffer the loss of hundreds of homes—some of thembelonging to families that have lived in the community for more than acentury—and an entire neighborhood. So flipping Bensenville from theanti-O’Hare camp to pro-O’Hare expansion would be the most prized of alltrophies. Bensenville is home to one of the most passionate and determinedfighters, Mayor John Geils, who is also Chairman of SOC. If he can be defeatedand the community won over—or overtaken—the last great political obstacle toDaley’s plan will then be removed. That is why Daley, when speaking plainly tohis closest advisors, says that while he respects Mayor Geils for his fight toprotect his town, he must destroy Geils.

Daley and his forces employed the same strategy in Bensenville as they had in the other suburban communities: find ways to cut off revenue streams that fuel theanti-O’Hare fight, and more profoundly, break the community’s spirit to oppose

106

the city. Use tactics to convince opponents that their fight is futile, or as Daley’spublic relations professionals phrase it, to view expansion as “inevitable.”

Laurie Stone, as clearly documented in this report, was a team player for Daleyand deeply involved in the coordination and promotion of pro-expansion plans.Stone naturally sought a foothold in Bensenville, having already embeddedherself in neighboring Elk Grove Village. In John Wassinger, a prominentBensenville real estate broker and Executive Officer of the Bensenville Chamberof Commerce and Chairman of the Bensenville Park District that she found awilling ally.

In January 2000, Wassinger led Bensenville’s Chamber of Commerce into amerger with the GOA. This event makes the Chamber the first and onlyBensenville civic group to align itself with a pro-expansion force. Wassinger hadpreviously denied any connection to expansion promoters. Mayor Geils andother elected leaders demanded that Wassinger sign a document declaring hisanti-expansion position, as shared by the community at large; he refused. InNovember 1998, Wassinger had said, “it is difficult for the chamber to take sideson political issues because of the diversified business group it represents. Thedirection we’re looking at is to do some soul-searching on behalf of the chamberand its members”222 (see Appendix 57). Wassinger’s position seemed absurd in atown defined by its opposition to Daley forces and recognized for its skillfulresistance and longevity in the fight against O’Hare expansion. Wassinger’sposition was subsequently picked up in a memorandum from aviationdepartment spokesperson Dennis Culloton to Laurie Stone, Jerry Roper, andJack Dorgan223 (see Appendix 13).

Business, civic, and community leaders of Bensenville saw Wassinger’s actions as purely political. Wassinger is an outspoken critic and political opponent of Mayor Geils. Perhaps Wassinger, like DuPage Chairman Schillerstrom, thought he wasmaking a shrewd decision by aligning himself with the powerful and rich side ofthe O’Hare issue in anticipation of a political payoff down the road in a futureelection. After all, joining GOA under Laurie Stone was most certainly a vote for Daley’s expansion and a clear statement against Mayor Geils’ leadership. Duringthis period, Stone had successfully used GOA as an effective counter voice toSOC. Stone operated as a quick response to SOC’s public relations andcommunity organizing efforts. The media turned to Stone as a pro-expansionrepresentative to be quoted and appear on public affairs programs, such as

107

WTTW’s Chicago Tonight, to promote expansion. Now Wassinger had built hisbridge into that camp.

While Wassinger’s maneuvers resulted in a strange alliance in Bensenville, theCity of Chicago took a more direct approach in attacking Bensenville. The cityhas threatened to condemn everything in Bensenville in the path of Daley’sO’Hare Modernization Program. How can the mayor of Chicago use quick takecondemnation on property outside of its municipal jurisdiction? The simpleanswer is that it cannot. But with a willing state legislature, laws can be rewritten.What follows is a special act, the O’Hare Modernization Act, signed byGovernor Blagojevich in August 2003 amending Illinois law to provide the Cityof Chicago with the power to use quick take condemnation of property in thefootprint of O’Hare expansion:

Acquisition of property…the City may acquire by gift, grant, lease, purchase,condemnation (including condemnation by quick take…)…private property,property held in the name of or belonging to any public body or unit ofgovernment…devoted to a public use…including any property…owned by theState, units of local government, or school districts, including forest preservedistricts, for purposes related to the O’Hare Modernization Program. The powersgiven to the City under this Section include the power to acquire, bycondemnation…any property used for cemetery purposes within or outside of theCity…the cemetery be removed to a different location…Property acquired underthis Section includes property that the City reasonably determines will be necessary for future use…whether final regulatory or funding decisions have beenmade…Quick-take proceedings under Section 7-103 may be used by the City ofChicago for the purpose of acquiring property…for the O’Hare ModernizationProgram as defined in Section 10 of the O’Hare Modernization Act.224

The amendment gave Mayor Daley the power to condemn residential andcommercial properties, forest preserves, units of local government, schooldistricts, and cemeteries. He had been given the power to take anything inBensenville standing in his way. And that power was given to him in thelegislation to be used even before federal decisions on expansion were to bemade. He was prepared to act. Earthmoving tractors, brought out to Bensenville, were poised to begin their work. It was a frightening sight for Bensenvillehomeowners. They were well aware of what he had done to Meigs Field. It wascertainly a brilliant public relations move by Daley. If he could condemn half thehomes in the footprint, he would have a startling victory. A checkerboard ofempty lots and plummeting property values for those who remained would besufficient to break the town’s spirit. The sense of “inevitability” would be

108

realized in the most tangible way. All of this could be accomplished years beforeDaley received FAA approval for his expansion plan and many more yearsbefore the first shovelful of dirt would be turned over to begin its construction.Chicago was looking for a knockout blow to the opposition’s flagshipcommunity. If Chicago was successful with its condemnation plans, Bensenvilleand Mayor Geils would have nothing left to protect and no reason to fight.

Bensenville fought back and filed a suit to block Chicago from buying homes for condemnation purposes. The city responded in kind and hired high-priced,high-powered Chicago firms Jenner & Block and Kirkland & Ellis to press theircase for rolling out the bulldozers. Bensenville was successful in the litigation.The city agreed to halt further action. Judge Hollis Webster said that her order“prohibits Chicago from taking any further action—including negotiating withlandowners in Bensenville—to gather property before receiving state approvalsfor the expansion project.”225 Chicago could not move ahead as quickly as it hadplanned, but its intentions were clear. The city’s efforts left an ominous cloudover Bensenville.

Out of the legal battle arose a group of Bensenville homeowners protestingMayor Geils’ position. Declaring that they wanted to sell their homes to the Cityof Chicago, the homeowners, known as the Bensenville 17, joined the suit on the side of Chicago and filed an emergency petition with the court. But it turned outthat the attorney who so expeditiously represented the upset Bensenvillehomeowners was paid not by the homeowners themselves but by the City ofChicago. What might have appeared as a groundswell of public dissent is againmore accurately described as an attempt by the city’s legal team to find its wayaround the court’s injunction to condemn property. The city was caughtred-handed interfering with the local governmental affairs of Bensenville,funding the legal expenses of an opposition trumped up by the city. This is butone more example of how far Daley would go to crush his opponents.

The city’s condemnation targets are not limited to homeowners and businesses.Their expansion footprint includes two cemeteries, St. Johannes and Rest Haven, which are located in the path of the new runway plans. Condemnation ofcemeteries is much more complicated than that of residential homes orcommercial properties. Historic state laws going back decades protect thehandling of the deceased and the sanctity of the cemeteries. Strict rules dictatehow disinterment can proceed. In Chicago’s pursuit of O’Hare expansion,however, nothing is sacred. The amendment to Illinois law described above

109

granting Chicago the power to quick-take condemned suburban homes also gives Chicago the power to circumvent laws protecting cemeteries that fall within theO’Hare Modernization Program. The legislation reads:

The powers given to the City under this Section include the power to acquire, bycondemnation or otherwise, any property used for cemetery purposes within oroutside of the City, and to require that the cemetery be removed to a differentlocation.226

Amazingly, the wording of the legislation by the Daley forces boldly andsystematically guts the protections offered by numerous acts regardingcemeteries, skeletal remains, and vital records. The amendment repeatedly useslanguage to break and remake the laws in order to allow Chicago to eventuallybulldoze Bensenville cemeteries. All of these state statues were amended with the following language:

Nothing in this subsection limits the authority of the City of Chicago to exerciseits powers under the O’Hare Modernization or requires that City, or any personacting on behalf of that City, to obtain a permit under this subsection whenexercising powers under the O’Hare Modernization Act.

Specific statutes that are stripped of legal protection include:

The Archeological and Paleontological Resources Protection Act: The actdates back to January 1, 1989. It protects historical resources and sacred groundsfrom grave robbers and wanton destruction. Artifacts found on public lands areprotected by the state, which reserves the exclusive right and privilege ofregulating, exploring, excavating, or surveying through the Historic PreservationAgency. In case property is transferred, the act allows for a deed given by theowner of public land to contain a clause reserving to the state a property right inany historical resource. Without such protections, the historical remains orlocalities of past human life or activities on public land, including artifacts andhuman skeletal remains, could be destroyed, disturbed, or removed without theapplication of criminal sanctions.

The Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act: The act dates back to August11, 1989. The act makes it unlawful for anyone to disturb skeletal remains,artifacts, and grave markers. The state’s attorney or the attorney general may berequested by the director of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency to initiatecriminal prosecutions or to seek civil damages, injunctive relief, and any otherappropriate relief if any of these are alleged to have occurred.

110

Cemetery Removal Act: The cemetery removal act allows for any cemeterywithin a city to be removed. But it can be removed only if the city determinesthat there is good cause for removal. Prior to any action that may cause theremains of the interred to be removed to another suitable location; a majority ofthe trustees representing the cemetery must give their consent.

The Vital Records Act: The act sets forth the law by which the state records are managed and controlled; included are vital records on births, deaths, marriages,and divorces. It is the responsibility of the Illinois Department of Public Healthto preserve these records. Generally, they are available only to the individual orto a member of his or her immediate family. The department first collected birthand death records in 1916, but since then, 27 million vital records have beenplaced on file, including some records dating back to the mid 1800s.

The changes to Illinois law did not quite allow Daley to proceed on his schedulewith the relocation of the two Bensenville cemeteries. Another set of lawsinspired by federal legislation is on the books. The Religious FreedomRestoration Act offers broad and sweeping protections to churches and religiousproperty from the state; the act is similar to laws enacted all across the UnitedStates. Was this just another speed bump for Chicago’s legal team or was it adead end?

In ongoing litigation, the city’s lawyers pursued Daley’s position that his poweroverrides the protections offered by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act inIllinois. The legislation says that it will not apply to O’Hare expansion. Thus, citylawyers argue that while the law may apply to cemeteries everywhere else inIllinois, in Bensenville, the two cemeteries fall in the path of O’Hare expansionand are exempt from the protection of the law. But there is also a FederalReligious Freedom Restoration Act as well as First Amendment protection ofreligion, which present clear constitutional problems. The First Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgingthe freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Daley’sposition is clearly discriminatory on its face, and religious discrimination runsdirectly afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court cases. Daley’s interpretation taken to itslogical extreme would force the mayor to argue that he has the power to ignorethe act and assert that for a “compelling reason” he would have the power to tear down Holy Name Cathedral and turn it into a parking lot.

111

While outside pressure to break Bensenville was strong —in the form ofChicago’s aggressive move to condemn personal and religious property and theGreater O’Hare Association linking up to the Bensenville Chamber ofCommerce— local, internal pressures were mounting in equal if not moreinsidious ways. Mayor Geils, who had been elected to office for over 20 years,found that he was kicked off the ballot in the 2000 election for a minor technicalerror on new petition forms. He may have been the only candidate to have sucha problem in all of DuPage County. Yet, he won with an overwhelming majorityof votes cast as a write-in candidate. Since then, he has been the target ofanonymous campaign literature attacking his honesty and credibility withslanderous statements. It is illegal under Illinois election law to circulate politicalcampaign literature anonymously. But not all of Bensenville’s political hijinks areso clandestine.

Wassinger, as head of the Bensenville Park District Board, embroiled MayorGeils in a game of political endurance involving Bensenville’s public golf course.Wassinger took a small political squabble over issues of management and control of the White Pines Golf Course and built it into a platform to attack MayorGeils. Ultimately, Wassinger fought for and won de-annexation of the ParkDistrict and complete control of the golf course from the Village of Bensenville.

Wassinger’s motives are difficult to identify beyond what political gain he mayhave found for himself by creating a politically independent body to lord over.But digging deeper, it became clear that more was at stake than local politicalpositioning. The public golf course generated a revenue stream of hundreds ofthousands of dollars for Bensenville through the municipal amusement tax.Wassinger criticized Mayor Geils for using those funds to fight O’Hareexpansion. De-annexation successfully cut off that revenue stream to Bensenville and re-directed it to the hands of Schillerstrom’s pro-expansion DuPage County,the body that governed the Bensenville Park District following de-annexation.DuPage leaders already on board the expansion express understood drying upBensenville’s financial resources was the surest way to eliminate Mayor Geilsfrom the fight to expand O’Hare.

Wassinger, with the nod of approval from Republican leaders, appears to beoperating right out of Daley’s play-book: cut off the revenue and starve theopposition into submission. This is what Daley and his forces had pursued inother suburban communities. Wassinger was implementing the tactic fromwithin Bensenville. It is an open question whether or not Wassinger (like his

112

fellow O’Hare ally at the DuPage County Board, Chairman Schillerstrom) has the political organization and personal attraction to take his success in Bensenville to the next level and beat Geils and his fellow elected leaders at the polls. Given the examples of Park Ridge and other communities, it is also an open questionwhether, if he were to win, he would support the community’s mandate to fightexpansion or simply become a shill for Chicago and DuPage County.

113

CHAPTER 12:

The Daley Suburban Steamroller

It is the final connecting of the dots. Daley’s political influence and the financialpower of O’Hare overcame nearly every obstacle to expansion. O’Hare is a jobsand contracts engine, and expansion ensures Daley’s economic and politicalpower. He eliminated his opposition and ignored constituents’ honest concerns.In blatant disregard for open policy process, Daley alone decided what’s best forChicago and the nation.

Open debate, compromise, and honesty are at the heart of a healthy democracy,but Chicago operates on a different system. In his 2003 mayoral campaign, Daley responded to a question whether he had too much power. His answer was, “It’snot power, it’s responsibility.”227

We ask, responsibility to whom?

114

O’HARE EXPANSION FORCES

City lawyers seek tocondemn residentialproperty prior to O’Hareexpansion plan approval

Pass fast track legislationthat stridently ignoresconstitutional law protectingreligious rights in order tobulldoze a cemetery.No due process.

Tamper with local electionswhereby Cook Co. Board ofElections toss longtimeincumbent Mayor Geils fromballot in 2000 election (winsas write-in candidate)

CHICAGOLEGAL ASSAULTS

MAYOR DALEY

Daley extends an awesome forceof financial and professional

resources, including legal, publicrelations and heavy campaign

contributions to bear down on afew small O’Hare suburbs

Money andpolitical ally

of DaleyLOCAL INDEPENDENT COMMUNITIESUNITED BY SOC AND UNDER ATTACK

BENSENVILLEELK GROVE VILLAGE

PARK RIDGEELMHURST

DES PLAINES

UAL/AMERICANAIRLINES

DOWNTOWNBUSINESS COMMUNITY

Creation ofFront Groups/

Biased Reports

PUBLIC RELATIONS

O’Hare NoiseCompatibilityCommission (ONCC)

MAYOR DALEY’SFRONT GROUP

A wedge tool used todraw away dues payingmembership from SOCand weakening thefinancial resource towage a fight againstthe Mayor’s plan

O’HARE CONTRACTORCONTRIBUTORS

O’Hare contractors loyalto Daley and guaranteedto benefit from thecornucopia of contractsexpected from expansionlend a helping hand

Direct several hundredthousand dollars toGovernor George Ryanand DuPage CountyChairman, RobertSchillerstrom who flippositions on O’Hareexpansion

Provided to the public asan independent consultingreport, in reality the ideawas conceived and paidfor by UAL and thefindings were handedover to the Mayor’s teamof lobbyist and City AviationCommissioner to proof readbefore release - hardly anindependent report.

BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON

MAC is a front groupcreated to represent theairlines special interest. Itprovides the publicappearance of being agrassroots group, whichsprung up to championDaley’s and airlinesexpansion plan for O’Hare.

A memo from Jerry Roper,head of ChicagolandChamber of Commerceand Daley ally, sends outa memo to MAC Principalsand Partners, which includethe following threestatements:

MIDWEST AVIATIONCOMMITTEE (MAC)

Link O’Hare ModernizationPlan (Daley’s plan) topositive economic benefitsfor everyone in the region.O’Hare is a national issue.Create a sense ofinevitability in regard tothe plan which will isolateSenator Fitzgerald andSOC

1)

2)3)

SOC is a small, but vocalcommunity...showopposition to expansion islimited to a minority ofsuburban residents andofficials

We’ve been involved in afalse debate; most peoplesupport expansion

Expanding O’Hare isgood for the economy -opponents are against astrong economy or strongO’Hare

Noise “victims” are beingheld hostage byobstructionist suburbanpolitics

Define terms andconditions...acceptable topeople in the area

Develop evidence showingbroad support of City’ssolution - Chicago is willingto compromise

O’Hare concourse billboardswith post cards stating:“Chicago has a solution tothe problem, but we needyour help.”

STRATEGY ANDMESSAGE

Mayor Daley’s PRpeople organize an“A” team to penetratesuburban opposition toO’Hare expansion

The list includes:

“A” TEAM

Laurie Stone, Exec.director of GreaterO’Hare Associationand Elk GroveVillage Chamber ofCommerce

Daley’s campaignmanager CarolynGrisko

Airlines top publicrelations executives

GOA, a respected businessassociation, is taken overby a Daley ally to promotehis expansion plan and winsupport in the suburbs. It isdone in the mostunderhanded manner

GOA members are mute onthe Daley O’Hare expansionplan. Many of thecommunities active in GOA,such as Elk Grove Villageand Bensenville, stronglyoppose the proposedexpansion. All of thischanges when Laurie Stonebecame GOA ExecutiveDirector.

Under Laurie Stone:

GREATER O’HAREASSOCIATION (GOA)

The major airlines pourhuge amounts of moneyinto GOA.Stone’s name appearson an internal publicrelations memo namingher as being on Daley’s“A” team in the suburbs.GOA seeks to undercutsupport to SOC bydrawing away its dues-paying members andinvolve them in GOAinstead

1)

2)

3)

Chicago business communitymay be O’Hare’s heaviestusers; they’re most interestedin wanting the best, mostcomfortable, passengerfriendly airport possible.

Chicagoans are proud ofO’Hare. What’s not to like?It produces jobs and makesChicago important city ofcommerce. It is a typicalresponse. But an averageChicagoan knows little ofhow O’Hare is managedunder Daley andunderstands less howtransportation policy forthe region has been runby the Mayor.

United Airlines CEO GeraldGreenwald writes a“Personal and Confidential”letter to Daley saying “Unitedwas very unhappy to learn...[T]hat the President of theCivic Committee hadexpressed support forreinstating Peotone in theNational Plan for IntegratedAirport system...[UAL] had no interestwhatsoever in the proposedairport at Peotone, or instudies to support itsviability.” Consequently, thePresident resigned.

Overseeing the CivicCommitte’s process to forma position on O’Hare andregional transportationpolicy is Lester Crown,Chairman of the Civic Club’sAviation Task Force. UnderLester Crown’s leadership,the committee took astrongly political positionsupporting Daley andfunctioning as an outspokenvoice to the public andworking behind the scenesto support front groups,such as the Midwest AviationCommittee (MAC).

POLITICIZEDCIVIC ORGANIZATION

Deception, money,and political allyof Mayor Daley

EPILOGUEProject Director J. Terrence Brunner

How can this all go on? American government is based on a system of checks and balances—sideways among thethree branches and up and down among local, state, and

federal governments. At all times and at all levels, it is supposedto be responsive to the wishes of its citizens.

Between the branches and levels, tension must exist in order tocreate a system of checks and balances. Ideally, this results inthe restraint of one branch by another in order that one branchnot become so powerful that it takes over and swallows up thewhole government. For example, the unity of the executive and military branches in a banana republic often results inauthoritarian regimes.

In many ways, political parties perform this vital catalyticfunction, making government work by addressing theiragendas, which are often endorsed by voters in an election.Restraining government through criticism and legislative action by the opposition is the duty of the minority party.

At the local level, various local entities, transportationauthorities, park districts, and boards of education provide forspecific needs, all revolving in a state of tension with cities andcounties.

In Illinois, many observers have felt that the natural state oftension between the parties and governmental entities hascollapsed, creating a one-party government made up of thepoliticians and office holders at open odds with the citizenswhom they purportedly represent. John Kass of the Tribune, afrequent vocal critic, has called this phenomenon the“combine.” It’s short for the combination of the variousinterests together with both political parties to work side byside to maintain power in Illinois. Assuming this is so, howdoes it work?

I

It was probably created but certainly reinforced by our current“modern American fundraising system.” Politicians naturallywant to sty in power. Clearly, longtime office-holding tends tocorrupt; thus we have term limit advocates. They argue that thelonger a politician is in office, the further he goes from hisconstituents.

In order to stay in power in today’s politics, television hasreplaced big city machines and precinct captains as a means ofswaying voters. Record-breaking sums are spent on campaigns, often on TV, to the almost total absence of any other campaigntechnique. Indeed, many millionaire candidates have noexperience or background and would not be in the race exceptfor TV, with makes them instant candidates. Professionalpoliticians can only compete by raising large sums of money.That money is simply not available at the grassroots level fromordinary voters. So the politicians turn to heavy contributors.Their degree of participation is usually determined by how theyare treated by the government. So at key levels of governmentin Illinois, as we have elaborately explained in this report, thecontributors give to those who can directly help them in theirbusiness or profession.

As Justice Stevens so clearly noted in the McCain-Feingoldopinion, there is no ideology involved when a contributor gives to both sides. Access and favorable status are the name of thegame.

The politicians aren’t stupid; they have grown up with thesystem. They understand it. They serve it. As is so oftenrepeated, “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” So they have worked out a system, a methodology, to keep themselves inpower. They put aside ideological differences and split up thepower to give out contracts, jobs, goodies, and favors amongthemselves. They know each other, they’re friends, and they’rein it together to ward off outside challengers.

II

The most egregious example was the Illinois First scam, inwhich the leaders of both houses, both parties, and thegovernor agreed to split up money among themselves in orderto avoid the normal constitutional appropriation process inwhich each project is debated and funded on its merits thusgiving each leader of both parties a personal pot from which todole out money for favored projects to constituents, closepersonal friends, and contributors. The same approach ispresent in state-funded developments where the leadingcontractors are often key fundraisers representing both parties.

In Illinois, both parties understand the system and almostunconsciously endorse it in order to retain power.

There is a circle-the-wagons mentality against outsidechallenges toward change. Inside change agents are almostnonexistent, but when they emerge they’re often kickedupstairs or sent to Washington when they agitate for honestgovernment. In Illinois, we’ve had a whole stream: PaulDouglas, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Simon, Chuck Percy, andSid Yates, to name a few. When they emerge, they are usuallystrongly endorsed by the voters who are tired of years ofentrenched us-versus-them, corrupt politics. This theory hasbeen laid out over the years both by Mike Royko and MiltonRakove, who entitled his book, We Don’t Want Nobody Sent.Famous examples of this disdain for volunteer activistsinterested in doing good are Abner Mikva and Jesse Jackson.

The clearest consequence of this system is the almost completelack of criticism by the parties of each other. While you haveinternecine parliamentary squabbling in Springfield, it almostnever goes to the heart of the political system. Indeed, thepoliticians luxuriate in agonizing over cultural issues: guns,abortion, and gay marriage that are hot-button constituentissues, while almost never discussing things like how power,contracts, and money are split up.

III

They obviously want the voters to stick with issues like gaymarriage while never receiving information that gives them theclear insight into the rotten fundraising system that producesthem and maintains them in power. So U.S. Senator PeterFitzgerald was snubbed by his colleagues when he laid out onthe Senate floor his view of Illinois corruption that producedthe O’Hare Daley/Ryan deal. No one wants it talked about. No one brings it up.

One of the best examples is close to home. In 1993, the BGA,Channel 5, producer Marsha Bartel, and reporter Phil Rogersproduced a five-part investigative series highlighting GeorgeRyan’s shakedown of driving schools. We spelled out inlegislative testimony in Springfield exactly how the shakedownworked. We named names and cited relevant Federal Criminalstatutes violated. Ryan’s driver’s license people passedunqualified foreign drivers based on purchase of Ryan’sfundraising tickets. For the next 10 years, we screamed andhollered that Ryan and his people were crooks, compromisingpublic safety, and demanding that heads roll. Not one politician from within either party joined us in criticizing Ryan. Indeed,the only ones to stand up in Illinois and demand Ryan’sresignation were the Reverend Willis who lost six children as aconsequence of Ryan’s scheme, his lawyer Joe Power, and me.Otherwise a complete political silence pervaded Illinois.

Why? Ryan was a well liked insider, known for his wheeling and dealing and dishing out money to legislators for their favoriteprojects. When his Chief of Staff Scott Fawell went to trial, hiscarefully kept charts of who got what from the governor wereunveiled in Federal Court. And (surprise!) the Democrat Senate leader was given 23 jobs in the Ryan administration. Ryan’slargess was revealed to be across the board, taking in bothparties along with key media players.

IV

When Ryan attempted to turn the Lincoln Library into a havenfor his over-the-hill political hacks, no one said anything except for the stand-up tough Illinois senator, Peter Fitzgerald. Noone in either party campaigns on corruption anymore. They’reafraid the voters will realize how they got their power andmaintain it, and throw them all out. At the dedication of theLincoln Library in Springfield, they all endorsed Ryan, whileunderstanding how awful his governorship had been. HouseSpeaker Hastert sat on the dais with him. Democratic LeaderSenator Jones said Ryan was a “profile in courage.” So shouldwe ever expect criticism of the politically corrupt Chicagosystem that is integrated with the state system by politicians?Obviously not; there’s a wall of silence.

Once in a while, some minor candidate says something. Eventhe so-called good guys like Senator Durbin are quiet. They’reproduced by, funded by, and prisoners of the system. Onlyonce in a while, Illinois produces a Paul Simon who stands upand admits how bad it really is. When we gave Senator Simon acitizenship award at the annual BGA dinner, he said, “Terry,you’ve done lots of great investigations in Illinois but you’vegot to take on the worst scandal of all: our fundraising system.”

Corruption Cases

Since the local state’s attorneys are almost always products ofthe system, they almost never build political corruption cases.Only erratic Republican Jack O’Malley attempted to makeweird high-profile cases like Congressman Mel Reynolds. TheCook County State’s Attorney has slumbered for years sinceRepublican Bernie Carey. They can’t bite the hand that feedsthem. Consequently, the field is ceded by default to the federalgovernment to investigate and police Illinois politics.

V

But U.S. attorneys have been criticized in recent years formaking easier, low-level cases against Chicago aldermen, oftenminorities, while neglecting to go after higher-level heavyhitters involved in transactions like O’Hare, where tens ofmillions are involved. For instance, Alderman Evans went tofederal prison for taking $1,000 on tape in an FBI sting. He wasclearly confused by Illinois fundraising systems, and minoritieswere systematically excluded from the jury by the government.John Kass would argue that the U.S. attorneys never really went at the heart of the system since they hoped to become wealthylawyers when they left office, taking jobs in lucrative positionsin law firms waist-deep in the system. The fact that in Daley’soriginal casino proposal, four former U.S. attorneysrepresented casinos underscored Kass’s point.

Having been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago andworking in the organized crime section at Justice inWashington, I don’t agree, since I’ve seen these casespainstakingly put together. However, there is no doubt thatsome cases are easier to make. All prosecutors know this, andbureaucratic inertia underlines it. Making big-time politicalcorruption cases that go to the heart of the system is tough.You need commitment, time, and resources to succeed. Andoften, an outside career lawyer has an edge and less of a learning curve.

So Peter Vaira, a top career attorney, succeeded as a U.S.attorney in Philadelphia producing Abscam. And obviously,Patrick Fitzgerald’s tenure in Chicago has been outstanding.His conviction of Segal and the Ryan indictment goes to theheart of the system and underlines the nature of the“combine.” Near North, Segal’s insurance company, in orderto attract government business, purposely employed themayor’s brother John and the governor’s son. How’s that forclout? And it worked. Segal insured O’Hare and John Daleyadmit making $400,000 to $500,000 million a year off O’Harecontractors he insures as a Near North broker. When Segal ranafoul of state regulators, Governor Ryan intervened for him.

VI

But Patrick Fitzgerald is here on a fluke. Proposed by SenatorFitzgerald, along with two independent downstate U.S.attorneys, he was opposed at every turn by the establishmentand the combine, who feared an aggressive outsideforce—which was exactly what they got. We’ll never know how much animosity Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Ryan andhis people produced toward Senator Fitzgerald from his ownparty, most notably Congressman Ray LaHood and SpeakerHastert. It’s obviously very difficult to be the one independent,stand-up, call-’em-as-you-see-’em guy in the snake pit ofIllinois politics. If you’re Senator Fitzgerald, you pay aprice—in this case, the animosity of your own party, whichwould much rather continue the status quo of one handwashing the other.

So if Governor Ryan, whose corrupt conduct was about asoutrageous as it ever gets anywhere, much less in Illinois, tookno heat from the Democrats and none from the Republicanswhile destroying his own party, van we expect any of thesepeople to criticize Daley or Chicago corruption? TheRepublican Senate Primary campaign in 2004 highlighted thesilence on corruption. Sure, they mutter under their breath thatthis is all horribly unfair, that a Republican-appointed U.S.attorney is tearing apart their party. And with regard to Daley,everyone knows there’s widespread corruption in Chicago,particularly at O’Hare. Hell, you can read it in the papers. Butpublicly criticize Daley and the connection to contracts? No. So by default we are left with essentially local politicians to criticize the mayor.

VII

The City Council

What used to be called Lebanon on the Lake during HaroldWashington’s Council wars has turned more silent than thenotorious silent seven aldermen during the reign of Richard I.There are a number of factors.

• Daley has changed the election rules to make it moredifficult for challengers to be successful.

• His power to appoint aldermen to vacancies has resulted in a council almost half of which was appointed by Daley.

• Much of the potential black leadership, particularlyreligious leaders, has been compromised by theiracceptance of governmental largess, both from the city and federal government.

• Other local governmental unites, which should provide“tension” in the system, have been compromised and areclearly under Daley’s control. His brother John is theFinance Chair of Cook County; Carole Brown, the CTAchair, was on his payroll in the bond deals; Maria Saldana,the park district president, is also cut in on the bond deals.

Under Daley I and his successors, these were independentpower bases: Tom Keane in the City Council, George Dunne at the county, and Ed Kelly at the Park District were allindependent warlords with their own political armies andsupporters. Officials like Brown and Saldana are technocratshighly qualified on paper but with nonexistent independentpower bases. Their very existence and ability to make money ingovernment is completely dependent on Daley.

VIII

The Independents

There are no more coffee rebellion aldermen. Cliff Kelley andVrdolyak are gone. Alderman Burke, the Finance Chair, haslong been neutralized. Singer and Simpson are long gone. JoeMoore remains the so-called independent alderman. Dave Orris a happy county clerk. Even Dick Mell seems subservient tothe mayor. The Council, as Daley promised, is quiet. His poweris solidified. No more raucous meetings televised on Channel11 to entertain Chicagoans who have always viewed politics assports, certainly more interesting and fun than the Cubs.

This leaves Daley in position to go outside his power base inChicago to attack his remaining enemies, who are visibly few.Thus it was really unprecedented for three gutsy suburbanmayors to fund this project to examine corruption at the coreof Daley’s power base: Geils in Bensenville, Johnson in ElkGrove Village, and Weitecha in Park Ridge. Clearly troubled bythe constant media investigative reports of corruption,particularly at O’Hare, they decided to take him on over theissue.

Meanwhile, Daley, freed from political worry at home andhaving a reputation for mean-spirited grudge-holding, was freeto take on his enemies individually and by throwing hugeresources into local contests, defeat them. Or he could makeforays into the suburbs by making deals, like he did withSchillerstrom and Hastert. Or even by attacking and defeatinglocal suburban mayors who opposed him. Thus he threwthousands into Park Ride to destroy Mayor Weitecha, and nowa compliant DuPage President Schillerstrom has threatened torun candidates against mayors like Geils and Johnson whocontinue to oppose O’Hare expansion.

IX

Fear

Daley has, in fact, created his own little political dictatorship,completely neutralizing his potential enemies. His power ismuch greater and less checked than his father’s. At its base areboth fear and reward: the stick and the carrot. There are toomany carrots to count for politicians; everyone is free to makedeals and money and, unlike his father, he doesn’t banish thosewho get caught. But everyone—from the staff to the Council to outside agencies—is in fear of incurring his wrath. Theturnover at the highest levels of city government threatens tooutdo Las Vegas.

This has resulted in a deafening silence—a complete lack ofcriticism at the local level of the numerous instances ofcorruption in Daley’s administration.

The Passengers

Congress, in its wisdom, created Passenger Fare Charges(PFCs) to create funds for local communities to expand andrebuild American airports. The PFC at O’Hare was originally$2.50, is now $4.50, and is heading toward $6 per each landingand each takeoff per passenger. It created pots of money forairport improvements. This is, in effect, a congressionallyauthorized tax on interstate commerce that would beunconstitutional if an individual city tried it. In Chicago, this isbased on the concept that no federal good idea cannot beturned upside down for local political fun and profit. Thisconcept has provided Daley with an unlimited pot of otherpeople’s money (the kiosks trumpet that no local taxpayerfunds are involved in O’Hare expansion). That’s right: it’s other people’s money. All the poor mopes who happen to connectthrough O’Hare are hit up for $9, and the politicians get to playwith it. Daley can now use this money to give contracts to hisfriends and cut in people on bond deals.

X

But isn’t the federal government watching how we spend all the money raining down on us at O’Hare? As one legislative leadertold me when I showed him the list of O’Hare AIP contracts,all under complete control of one man, Mayor Daley, “Wow,that’s a revenue stream. I’ve never seen that!” But as we nowknow, the FAA, who’s in charge, wasn’t watching for Osamabin Laden’s guys, much less watching the mayor of Chicagospend the passengers’ money. Believe it or not, the passengerfunds, like the minority set-aside programs, are all on the honor system. The FAA folks who oversee the minority DBEprogram told me that if the city says they have a minorityprogram, they accept their word for it. No audits, no checking.When I sent the Smith newsstand file to Attorney GeneralReno, suggesting massive fraud in the DBE program, she sentit to Transportation I.G. They lost it and nothing happened atO’Hare. I know it sounds silly, but this is way down on thefederal hit list. Obviously, as we now know, thanks to the 9/11commission, the FAA had no clue on more important thingslike airline security. Why would they ever check on how Daleyuses the PFC money?

So Daley gets to play with billions of passenger funds created atO’Hare with absolutely no check on his unlimited discretion.As we’ve shown in detail, he has used these funds to issuebonds, cutting in at the passengers’ expense his brothers,closest business associates, and political allies.

Ultimately, in America, we assume that if politicians misuse our funds, we have, as John Adams suggested, the authority toconstitute new agents, attorneys, and trustees of our money. Ifthey don’t like it, Chicagoans can vote out Daley. But here wehave a tax on Americans who have no vote on how Chicago’smayor plays with their money. Supposedly, there’s always ataxpayer’s recourse. But here, in a goofy violation of the mostfundamental federalist concept, the people who are taxed haveno vote on the folks issuing their taxes. Obviously, 99% of thepassengers hardly know they’ve been taxed (Where are theconsumer groups supporting passengers?), much less howthese funds are being handled. These types ofcharges—security charges and trust fund charges—come closeto $100 on a $200 Chicago–London round-trip ticket.

XI

This used to be called “taxation without representation,” andyears ago, Americans became very excited about this concept.But here in Chicago, it’s a bonanza. The passengers arescrewed. But so what? We love it, particularly the businesscommunity. No local taxes are involved in O’Hare expansion,only federal funds and passenger charges! The passengers andAmericans from all over the country—federal taxpayers—willpay for the $15 billion O’Hare cost, the biggest public worksproject ever. It’s our airport, and we’re not taxed. No one inWinnetka has to pay, and no one in Chicago. Jerry Roper andthe business guys were so excited.

Daley loves it. The politicians love it. Almost unlimited money.And the contractors really love it. $15 billion. Wow. Isn’tgovernment wonderful? Isn’t life grand?

And the business guys love it. They’ll probably finally get a newAdmirals Club, where they will have to hang out during O’Hare delays. Traveling will be nicer for the road warriors. After all, atthe moment, O’Hare is a dump for the regulars.

The Downtown Business Guys

But wait. The downtown business guys won’t only get a newairport to hang out in. They’ll also make real money on theexpansion. There will be more bonds, and Chicago guys will get the business. The latest bond issue cut in not only thepoliticians—Daley, Brown, and Saldana—but the Big Boardfirms, Bank One’s Jamie Dimon and Victor Reyes, and LaSalleBank’s Norm Bobbins. The guys on the Civic Committee andthe newspaper guys will get more full-page ads. So the Tribune’sMadigan and the Sun-Times’ Radler on the Civic Committee willbe happy, and how about the two airlines CEOs on the civiccommittee from American and United? They’ll get a newairport paid for by American taxpayers from all over, and thosebeat-down passengers. The airlines have already said they’renot paying for this, since they have no money—particularlyUnited, who’s bankrupt.

XII

Criticize Daley? You’re kidding! Sure he’s a little nuts. Likes totear up runways in the middle of the night. Slightly bizarre, buthe’s our guy. As George Ryan told the Senate, The business guyscame to me and said, “We need a new airport.” So Ryan said, Great,let’s spend $15 billion of other people’s money on a new airport. Ryan hasnever seen a public works project he didn’t love. He used totravel around Illinois handing out checks—George was always allabout money, they told me.

So the business guys will be able to hold their meetings on time. There will be new VIP clubs for them at O’Hare like the firstclass lounge at K-19. Chicago will be number one forsure—and not just those grubby contractors and politicians will make money off expansion, But the LaSalle Street guys, theNorth Shore guys, and the Brooks Brothers crowd will makemoney—real money. Bonds, law firms, and accountants all willhave a piece of that $15 billion of other peoples’ money. Isn’tAmerica the greatest? It’s an orgy of civic boosterism.

How does Daley do it?

But is there corruption at the core?

The proposal for O’Hare expansion was not only endorsed butheavily pushed by the Civic Committee of the CommercialClub. The committee had a cross-section of the top downtownCEOs, including the two airlines and top publishers of theSun-Times and the Tribune.

In an unusual irony, the Chair of the Aviation Committee wasLester Crown, CEO of Material Service and the Crown defense contracting empire. Crown had been given immunity years agoby U.S. Attorney Jim Thompson and became the star witness in how he had led his company in the bribing of Illinois statelegislators [check fact].

Looking at Chicago TV, it’s clear that it is no longer the era ofLen O’Connor, Peter Nolan, and Jory LuLoff, representativesof 10 o’clock political commentators that no longer exist.Indeed, almost no political stories make the 10. Investigativereporting is more quick hits and consumer stories.

Daley crowd spends the $15 billion.

XIII

Crown obviously believed this was the way to get things done,since his corporation led the O’Hare contractors in giving tostate officials and key federal officials, along with JimThompson (now representing American Airlines). Theycarefully targeted those with the power—Durbin/Lipinski—to make O’Hare expansion happen (See AIP report: Hijacking the System). Crown’s company also led the charge to influenceSchillerstrom. While it’s clear that Crown knew a lot aboutinfluencing politicians, it’s a measure of the Civic Committee’sarrogance that they placed someone with his background andreputation in this sensitive slot.

The position of the Tribune says a lot about Chicago and themedia. The Tribune, with a clear economic stake inChicago—the Cubs—wants and needs approval from City Hall and Daley. They need zoning for the ballpark expansion overneighborhood protests, more night games to make moremoney, and a better monetary arrangement with theneighboring rooftop owners.

All these issues are controlled by the mayor notorious forpettiness and grudge-holding.

Whether this influences their editorial policy is a key question.They, of course, say no. But maybe it’s an easy choice onO’Hare since they want it so badly for all the obvious reasons.They can embrace the mayor on this one. Certainly, theeditorials have been suspect, the latest pooh-poohing the jumpfrom $6.6 billion to $15 billion in cost, suggesting that the newfigure is only a wish list. The paper has for years drummed the$6 billion figure, and the story by the thoughtful andaccomplished beat reporter John Hilkevitch treated the newnumber as if it were a shocker.

There is also an editorial history of treating O’Hare corruptionas something inevitable. But not to worry, Chicago. You havethe assurance that the Tribune will be watching closely as theDaley crowd spends the $15 billion.

XIV

The Tribune says it’s really a management problem. Indeed,when our project began, they said it was unnecessary—that you could read investigative reports of O’Hare corruption in theTribune for $.50.

In the last 2 ½ years, there have been no original reports in theTribune on O’Hare corruption, and none seem underway.

On the other hand, John Kass, the Tribune’s columnist, hasconstantly spotlighted Daley’s corruption scandals, particularlyO’Hare.

Similarly, the Sun-Times has found itself not only in internalfinancial corruption problems (Jim Thompson is the head ofthe Audit Committee) but they, like the Tribune, wantsomething big from the city.

They hope to build a Donald Trump sky scraper on their site on the river. This, of course, means zoning and Daley. In the past,the planning department has been ruthless in attacking thosewho take them on, threatening the withholding of zoning onother projects for those who publicly oppose them.

Unlike the Tribune, the Sun-Times has highlighted Daleycorruption at O’Hare. Tim Novak uncovered brotherMichael’s $180,000/year deal with Smith Barney. Bob Herguth, assigned to aviation, has highlighted fundraising connectionsof the governor’s chief fundraiser Chris Kelly, one of theleaders of the O’Hare contract contributors.

Likewise, Mark Brown, the Sun-Times columnist, has constantlyreminded readers of Daley’s history of corruption. However,the editorial policy has been staunchly pro-O’Hare.

The Hired Truck scandal shows editorial independence: TimNovak and Steve Warmbir’s series captured readers’imagination by showing clearly the outrageousness and blatantwaste of taxpayers’ dollars. However, for all the light and heat,the entire Hired Truck Program is only the size of the O’Harenewsstand contract—another measure of how O’Hare’s sheersize dwarfs everything.

XV

With the exception of Andy Shaw and Chuck Goudie’s storieson Governor Ryan’s license for bribes resulting in the death ofsix children, it’s hard to recall stories with political impact.

It’s been almost 30 years since the Sun-Times’ Pam Zekman,along with the BGA, turned Chicago on its ear with the MirageTavern scandal. The exposé was made possible by homegrown, committed newsmen Marshall Field and Jim Hoge who livedhere and believed in the stories. This is in contrast to largecorporate media giants, who don’t seem to have the samecommitment to Chicago.

There are no more TV bureaus covering Springfield, and the 10 o’clock has more to do with appealing to suburban affluentmoms with health stories. All of this de-emphasizes politicalstories. Indeed, most state officers are almost invisible and theonly politicians regularly covered on the 10 o’clock are themayor and governor. There has been much written about howentertainment is taking over news.

The media are the only private entity that has a special niche inour government; their freedom and responsibilities are setforth in the First Amendment. James Madison thought thepublic’s right to know to be the key to all of our liberties. Butalong with their special freedom the constitution gave them theunusual responsibility to provide information to the public on“men and measures” without which an electorate cannotfunction efficiently.

However, large media conglomerates are clearly not fulfillingtheir role in informing the citizens of the depth and breadth ofcorruption in the Daley administration.

XVI

XVII

Civic Groups

The civic groups could provide a check, publicly criticize, andfile lawsuits. But with the exception of “Friends of the Park,”they have again been mostly silent. Many boards are dominatedby the same pro-O’Hare business folks, and the staffs of majorChicago foundations are filled with ex-Daley staffers, clearlyafraid to take on the mayor.

So the normal governmental checks and balances seem to havefailed. Clearly, the quid pro quo corruption has infected thelarger public policy process on major projects from SoldierField to O’Hare to McCormick Place to the Park Grill.

But surprisingly, the First Amendment works. One scandal,“Hired Trucks,” pushed by the gutsy Sun-Times, has causedthe mayor to become unglued. His Friday press conferenceannouncing the clean-up of Hired Truck showed a man underfire: ducking, bobbing, and weaving.

These events, together with the rapidly out-of-controlrevelations on the City’s phony minority program, couldhistorically provide the tipping point in this long tale ofChicago political corruption.

The real question is for how long will America’s airlinepassengers tolerate being ripped off at Daley’s O’Hare tollgatefor his family and friends’ fun and frolic.

The “Action” Never StopsFollowing the Completion of the AIP Report (December 2004)

KEY EVENTS:

1) The Duff’s were Convicted in Federal Court

• James Duff, Patricia Green Duff (James’ mother) and six others accused ofdefrauding Chicago out of $100 million, including O’Hare contracts were setfor trial in February 2005.

• On January 1, 2005, in order to avoid trial, James Duff pleaded guilty andawaits sentencing on federal charges of mail fraud, money-launderingconspiracy, racketeering and tax evasion through a fake minority- andwomen-owned business he created to win city contracts: “I admit I obtained money from the city through fraudulently obtained contracts.”

• Duff pleaded “blind,” choosing not to strike a deal or cooperate with thegovernment

• February 2005 William Stratton, longtime Duff family associate, and minorityfront, was convicted on 11 of 12 counts of racketeering, fraud and moneylaundering.

2) Hired Truck Scandal Continues to Grow

• The Hired Truck Program – the rigged outsourcing of city trucking services –exposed in the Chicago Sun-Times has resulted in 27 people indicted in thefederal investigation.

• Angelo Torres, top administrator of The Hired Truck Program plead guiltyalong with two other former city employees.

• In spite of The Hired Truck expose, insider firms continued to make moneyon city contracts in the program.

• Federal prosecutors have charged Michael Acosta, Chicago Police Cmdr. andtop officer at O’Hare Airport of lying to the FBI investigating The HiredTruck scandal.

• Acosta is accused of doing favors with a convicted criminal John “Quarter”Boyles. (Boyle’s nickname Quarters comes from his 1992 conviction stealing$4 million in tollway money — Boyles is now charged with shaking downfirms in the Hired Truck program and is considered the center of theprogram’s scam).

• Acosta resigned from the police department.

3) Victor Reyes’ sister is accused by the Sun-Times of operating a sham(pass-through) minority at O’Hare.

• Virginia Reyes president of Toltec Construction ostensibly purchasedplumbing supplies for resell from a white owned firm, Builders Plumbing andHeating Supply Company.

• The transaction was purely a paper pass-through to the ultimate end-user,Cecchin Plumbing and Heating, the white-owned contractor running theO’Hare plumbing job.

• Toltec as a broker of plumbing supplies earned $218,000 and $480,000 fromeach of the white-owned companies respectively, while essentially doingnothing but bookkeeping.

• City regulations prohibit minority owned businesses to be used as this type ofpass-through entity.

• Although admittedly more expensive by purchasing from Toltec, Cecchin wasable to meet minority requirements in their O’Hare contract.

• Toltec also has city contracts with CHA, Chicago Board of Education andIllinois Human Services.

4) Billy Goat Tavern Owner Sam Sianis Accused by the Sun-Times ofFraudulent Minority Business at O’Hare

• Sam Sianis placed his wife’s name on an O’Hare Airport liquor license to takeadvantage of the minority set-aside program.

• Sianis claimed that a city employee instructed him to place his wife’s name onthe license. After his comment caused uproar at City Hall, Sianis declarednobody at the city told him to do anything.

• The partner to Sianis’ wife in the O’Hare contract is Clarice Coutretsis themother of Andrea Coutretsis, Scott Fawell’s fiancee.

• City moved to remove the firm’s minority certification.

5) Congressman Jessie Jackson, Jr. Calls City Minority Set-Aside Program“Fraudulent and Corrupt”

• Congressman Jackson called for Daley to “clean up the stench surroundingthe program.”

• Congressman Jackson wants the minority program reformed. He directed hiscriticism directly to Mayor.

• Daley, the chief executive ultimately responsible for overseeing the program.

• Congressman Jackson said that the city’s “fraudulent minority program”places much at risk “if a case emerges out of Chicago called “Unites States ofAmerica vs. City of Chicago, Mayor M. Daley Et. al”.”

• Congressman Jackson called for the city council to behave as a legislative body and hold legitimate hearings to open Democracy that would investigate thefraud in the program and ferret out clout heavy firms abusing the system.Jackson said:

i. [T]his is “good government . . . we hold hearings in congress all thetime, the Springfield legislature holds hearings all the time, what iswrong having hearings in Chicago – it’s such a foreign concept.

ii. “I simply called for Democracy in Chicago, and look at the attention Igot . . . it would be a unique thing in Chicago for someone to believein Democracy.”

6) Ald. Beavers said to the Sun-Times: “It’s been going on for years(minority contract fraud).”

7) Roland Burris former Illinois Attorney General who has been a“consultant” to minority municipal bond firms told the Sun-Times that the “minority “fronts” have turned Daley’s set-aside program into “atotal joke”.”

8) Daley Continues to Defend His Chicago Minority Program

• Daley’s reaction to Congressman Jackson was I’ll clean this program up

• February 5, 2005 Daley places administration insiders to head the clean up ofHired Truck

1. Mary Dempsey, Appointed Interim Chief Procurement Officer andHead of Chicago Public Library System

2. Lauri Lightfoot, Appointed first deputy to M. Dempsey andformerly Head of Chicago Police Department’s Office ofProfessional Standards

3. Theodore Chung, Appointed to First Assistant CorporationCounsel and previous mayoral deputy Chief of Staff. (Former Asst.US Attorney)

• The mayor defends brother, John Daley, brokering insurance contracts. When pressed by a reporter if favoritism included the mayor’s brother sellinginsurance to firms caught in the Hired Truck scandal, the mayorrepeated “It doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.”

• February 8, 2005 Daley does away with Hired Truck program – 3 days after announcing his reform team

9) Daley contends: “Anyone who believes that my interest in public life isin enriching my family, friends or political supporters doesn’t know orunderstand me at all.” Mark Brown responded in his column.

• “Whether you understand or misunderstand, the unavoidable fact is thatDaley’s 15 years as mayor has served to enrich his family, his friends and hispolitical supporters …

• Is that why he wants to be mayor? Probably not.

• Is that part of what you get by having him as mayor? Definitely.

• Does that bother him? Not that we’ve ever seen.(By Mark Brown Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 9, 2005)

10) Millennium Park Costs Run Amuck, while Daley’s friends GetSweetheart Restaurant Deal at the Park Grill restaurant.

• Mayor Daley said the city’s cost for the park would be $130 million; the costmore than tripled to $475 million and opened four years late.

• Daley financed the park through revenue bonds backed by undergroundgarage parking fees. When the parking fees fell short, a controversialtax-supported (TIF) fund (a.k.a. Loop Tax) was designed to subsidize the dealraising $35 million in public funds.

• In 2005 Mayor Daley raises garage parking rates to cover revenue shortfall and to aid the retirement of the Millennium Park bonds.

• Sun-Times revealed the cast of Daley insiders in a sweetheart deal at the ParkGrill restaurant.

• The bidding process mismanaged – only three bids and all local.

• City on the hook for majority of operating expenses – not in original plan –taxpayers take it in the wallet according to Greg Hinz Crain’s Chicago,February 2005.

11) The Latest Numbers Indicate the City’s Solider Field Cost EstimatesWere Wrong

• Mayor Daley promised taxpayers a total price tag for a new stadium of $632million. However, the city has been consistently wrong in their cost estimatesof large public works projects. The final cost to tax payers is now $681million.

• The costliest publicly financed football stadium offering the second smallestnumber of seats for fans in the league was rammed through state legislatureover a weekend without public debate or notice.

12) The Cost Estimate of O’Hare Modernization Jumped More ThanDoubling from $6 billion to $14 billion.

• The city’s public relations campaign predicted a cost of expansion at $6.5billion on posters, paid advertisements, airport kiosks and in publicstatements. The true cost finally revealed in city’s FAA application is $14.8billion.

• The city admits that the new cost does not include western access estimated at $4 billion.

• Scrutiny of FAA documents suggests even greater costs because critical lineitems are still missing, such as capitalized interest.

• Outside experts contend that the ultimate cost will be closer to $23 billion.

13) O’Hare Expansion Financing Is Completely Dependent On FutureAirline Health

• Chicago Tribune recognizes that United Airline’s survival is crucial tofinancing O’Hare expansion.

• FAA Environmental Impact Study includes hundreds of pages of the city’sjustification for the expansion project, and only one sentence of analysis on its finance plan suggesting that the money will simply appear.

14) Bensenville Mayor John Geils faces political opposition in mayoralelection

• Mayor Geils’ political opponent is John Wassinger, who is best known for hiscollaboration with pro-Daley operator Laurie Stone then head of GreaterO’Hare Association.

• Wassinger’s campaign manager is Tom Manion, Elmhurst resident and Daleypolitical campaign field manager.

• Tom Manion has run pro-Daley/pro-expansion candidates in Elmhurst overseveral election cycles to no avail.

• Tom Manion had been lobbyist for Mike Vondra’s Benchmark Construction.

15) Elk Grove Village’s Mayor, Craig Johnson, and Board of Trustees facepolitical opposition in spring election

• Mayor Craig Johnson’s political opponent is Roger Bianco, an unknownpublic person in Elk Grove Village. Bianco has not previously held publicoffice or served the community in any public capacity, but appears out ofnowhere to run a campaign for mayor.

• Candidate Bianco received a contribution for $250 from Pete Gennuso, anElk Grove Village financial advisor who is a resident of Schaumburg.

• Gennuso traveled to Washington, D.C. as a member of Mayor Daley’spersonal entourage to lobby the U.S. Congress seeking a federalmandate to expand O’Hare.

• Michael “Mitch” Gora the candidate for the Village Trustees, similar to Bianco, is a political unknown in the community. Gora has notpreviously held public office or served the community in any publiccapacity.

• Candidate Gora received $500.00 from the Chicago Teamsters political action committee. Daley’s political foot soldiers, members fromChicago’s Teamsters lodge, have provided boots on the ground topush the unknown candidates door-to-door.

• Bianco for Mayor and Gora for Trustee are co-campaigning. That iseach candidate shares campaign literature and shares one view on thenumber one issue in the community - O’Hare. Bianco and Gora aretwo Pro-O’Hare Expansion Views

16) Michael Vondra Continued to Raise Funds for Schillerstromtotaling $380,000 from O’Hare Contractors. Vondra usedSchillerstrom’s list to raise funds for Geils’ opponent.

17) Both Bensenville and Elk Grove Village were flooded withDaley’s political workers to beat both Mayor John Geils andMayor Craig Johnson.

APPENDICES

STAFF PROFILES

J. Terrence Brunner,Project Director

Terry Brunner, one of the most prominent government watchdogs in Chicago,received a Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from the University ofWisconsin and a law degree from Loyola University of Chicago.

In 1965, he was appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago, and later becameCorporate Attorney for Johnson’s Wax in Racine, Wisconsin in 1967. InDecember of that year, he was appointed Corporation Counsel for MarathonCounty in Wausau, Wisconsin. He advised the county on legal matters pertaining to county government.

In 1969, Mr. Brunner was appointed Special Attorney with the Organized Crimeand Racketeering Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. In 1970, he was appointed attorney in charge of Pittsburgh Organized CrimeStrikeforce.

He was appointed Executive Director of the Better Government Association in1971. At the BGA, a non-profit, non-partisan citizen’s watchdog group, Brunnerpersonally supervised all local and national investigations, some of whichincluded award-winning projects with 60 Minutes, WMAQ-TV Unit 5, and theChicago Sun-Times, most notably the Mirage Tavern exposé. Brunner alsooversaw successful public interest litigation against Chicago’s “Red Squad” andthe Byrne administration.

In 2002, Brunner came out of retirement with the Aviation Integrity Project toinvestigate the Daley-Ryan backroom deal to expand O’Hare Airport. Mostrecently Brunner initiated the investigation into George Ryan’s Secretary of StateOffice extorting driving schools called “License for Bribes.” Brunner has taughtat Northwestern, Columbia College and Loyola University.

Mike Lyons,Investigative Advisor

Mike Lyons, the Chief Investigator for the Better Government Association for21 years, received his Masters in Political Theory from Northeastern IllinoisUniversity. After serving for the US Army from 1968-1972 as a CombatCorrespondent in Vietnam (where he received a Bronze Star), Mr. Lyons joined

the BGA and in 1979 testified in front of the Senate and House for both thestate and federal governments.

He has directed over 500 investigations, resulting in many journalistic awards,indictments and political reformations. Some of the stories Lyons has leadinclude the investigation of George Ryan with Phil Rogers at Channel 5, over 25investigations concerning health care with Mike Masterson of the Sun-Times,ship building with 60 Minutes, the Patten Land Project, Ed Bradley minoritycontracts, home health with David Brinkley at CBS, and investigations of the USSenate with the Permanent Subcommittee.

Mr. Lyons’ piece on O’Hare Perimeter Security conducted with Tom Flynn ofCBS Nightly News with Dan Rather is nominated for a 2004 National Emmy for investigative reporting.

Lyons has managed investigations in over forty states, communicating withvarious undercover sources and conducting a broad scope of document research. He was recently an Adjunct Professor of Journalism and Communications Artsat Loyola and Columbia University, training many of today’s leading print andbroadcast journalists.

Bryan Doyle,Senior Project Manager

Mr. Doyle earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology at the University ofWisconsin, and received his MBA at the Northwestern University J.L. KelloggGraduate School of Management where he studied under Professor Don Haider. Doyle served as the General Manager for the Better Government Associationfrom 1991 to 1997. Among his many duties at the BGA, he organized business,legal, and news media resources as well as managing media and public relationsfor projects generating local and national news reports in print and broadcastmedia. Mr. Doyle went on to act as the Strategic Projects Manager of CharterBank & Financial Services in Albuquerque, New Mexico and as a ProjectAssociate for the Ernst & Young Capital Advisors. In 2002, Doyle joined theAviation Integrity Project as its Project Manager. At the AIP, Doyle managedstaff operations for three suburban municipalities and coordinated governmentrelations to communicate the project’s findings to officials at the local, state, andfederal level.

Drew Adamek,Chief Investigator

Mr. Adamek served as Chief Investigator for the Aviation Integrity Project fortwo years. He earned a degree in Journalism from Columbia College Chicago,and acted as an investigator for the Better Government Association for two years as well. He has completed freelance journalism for CBS, Chicago magazine, andvarious broadcast magazine shows. Adamek is currently an Associate Producerfor American Justice on A&E.

Ed Pauker,Staff Researcher

Mr. Pauker served as Managing Director of the World Affairs Council inWashington D.C. for three years. He previously worked with Terry Brunner as asummer intern for the Better Government Association in 1998. He received hisBachelor of Arts degree in History from Bates College in Maine and is currentlyin his first year of law school at Chicago-Kent.

Kevin O’Reilly,Staff Researcher

Mr. O’Reilly is a graduate of Columbia College Chicago, where he majored inJournalism. He is currently the Midwest Managing Editor of Insurance Journal.

Andrew Keith,Staff Researcher

Mr. Keith is a graduate of University of Missouri-Columbia where he majored inRussian Studies, and received a Master of Science in Journalism from the MedillSchool of Journalism, Northwestern University. Mr. Keith worked for Timemagazine as News Desk Editor/Bureau Manager–Moscow, Russia. He iscurrently a Business Intelligence Analyst with Kroll, Inc.

Alissa R. Hull,Staff Researcher

Miss Hull served for the AIP in 2003, and has been involved with non-profit and social justice organizations in the Chicago area since 1999. She is currently on the Board of Directors for the Young Women’s Empowerment Project and doesstrategic corporate research for Local 1 of the Service Employees InternationalUnion.

Mark Gerhardt,Staff Researcher and Attorney

Mr. Gerhardt received his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at the University of Illinois, and his law degree at The John Marshall Law School. He worked as theAssistant State’s Attorney for Cook County for five years, and is the owner of his own law office.

Megan Breen,Staff Researcher

Ms. Breen received a degree in Dramaturgy/Criticism from the Theatre Schoolat DePaul University, and is currently the Literary Manager for greasy joan & co., a non-profit theatre company in Chicago.

Robert Cuthbert,Staff Investigator

Mr. Cuthbert graduated from the University of Chicago, and investigated caseswith the Social Services division in New York City.

a

1 Chicago Tribune, “Yes, they will cheat City Hall.” June 17, 2004, pg. 26

2 Chicago Tribune, “Daley’s Year of Infamy.” May 27, 2001, Editorial, pg. 18

3 Chicago Tribune, “The fine print on Soldier Field,” Blair Kamin, April 24, 2002, TEMPO, pg. 1

4 Chicago Tribune, “If only Chicago could be proud,” Editorial, September 21, 2003, pg. 10

5 Chicago Tribune, “Daley’s Year of Infamy.” May 27, 2001, pg. 18

6 The New York Times, “Renovation Brings out Boo-Birds,” David Barboza, June 16, 2003, Chicago Journal, pg. 12

7 Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Chicago O’Hare Expansion, March 21, 2002

8 Confidential Draft, The Chicago Aviation Facilities Development Challenge, Landrum & Brown, pg. 1

9 People of the State of Illinois, ex rel., Joseph E. Birkett, et. al., v. City of Chicago, an Illinois municipalcorporation, Evidentiary Appendix in Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and inSupport of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 2001 (?), i, Footnote 1

10 Internal memo from Kitty P. Friedheim, Deputy Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Aviation,June 24, 1992

11 Letter from Jeffrey N. Thomas, President, Landrum & Brown, to David R. Mosena, Commissioner ofAviation, City of Chicago, January 5, 1993

12 ibid., Letter from Thomas to Mosena, 1/5/93

13 ibid., Letter from Thomas to Mosena, 1/5/93

14 ibid., Letter from Thomas to Mosena, 1/5/93

15 Memo from Jay R. Franke, Chicago Aviation Commissioner, to Frank E. Kruesi, Head of Planning andDevelopment, Chicago, August 10, 1990

16 ibid., Memo from Franke to Kruesi, 8/10/90

17 Letter from Mary Eleanor Wall, DuPage County – Regional Planning Commission, to Charles Thurston,President, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, December 18, 1989

18 Letter from Jay R. Franke, Chicago Aviation Commissioner, to Mary Eleanor Wall, DuPage County –Regional Planning Commission, January 19, 1990

19 Letter from Mary Eleanor Wall, DuPage Center, to Charles Thurston, President, Northeastern IllinoisPlanning Commission, December 18, 1989

20 Memo from Foster de la Houssaye, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., to Kitty Friedham, Department ofAviation, November 18, 1992

21 Letter from Jeffrey N. Thomas, President, Landrum & Brown, to David R. Mosena, Commissioner ofAviation, City of Chicago, January 5, 1993

ENDNOTES

22 Letter from Herb Gardner, United Airlines, and Bill Hood, American Airlines, to Laurie Stone, President,Greater O’Hare Assoc. of Industry and Commerce, January 22, 1996

23 ibid., Letter from Gardner and Hood to Stone, 1/22/96

24 Illinois Transportation in the 21st Century, Governor Elect George Ryan and Lieutenant Governor CorrineWood, 1999

25 Chicago Tribune, “Arrogant Tribune Fails Public in O’Hare Coverage,” Mayor Ronald W. Wietecha,January 30, 2002, pg. 24

26 Personal and Confidential Letter from Gerald Greenwald, CEO, United Airlines, to Richard M. Daley,Mayor, City of Chicago, February 4, 1998

27 ibid., Letter from Greenwald to Daley, 2/4/98

28 ibid., Letter from Greenwald to Daley, 2/4/98

29 Letter from Herb Gardner, United Airlines, and bill Hood, American Airlines to Laurie Stone, President,Greater O’Hare Assoc. Of Industry and Commerce, January 22, 1996

30 ibid., Letter from Gardner and Hood to Stone, 1/22/96

31 The Star, “Study: Expand O’Hare,” Patricia Richardson, November 15, 1998

32 Letter from John Kiker to Stuart Oran, cc: Larry Clark, Cyril Murphy, Shelley Longmuir, John LaSage,March 22, 1995

33 Memo from Jerry Roper, President, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, to Midwest Aviation CoalitionPrincipals and Partners, re: Midwest Aviation Coalition Plan, January 18, 2002

34 ibid., Memo from Roper to Midwest Aviation Coalition, 1/18/02

35 Memo from Dennis Culloton, City of Chicago Department of Aviation, to Jerry Roper, Laurie Stone, JudyGold, cc: Bob Repel, Stacey Spencer, Jack Dorgan, Re: Booz Allen Study Community Media Coverage

36 Confidential Memo from Douglas F. Goldberg, Landrum & Brown, to Oscar D’Angelo, May 26, 1998

37 ibid., Memo from Goldberg to D’Angelo, 5/26/98

38 Booz Allen’s “Independent” Consultant’s Questions and Answers Report prior to its release, w/ChicagoAviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney’s handwritten edits, 1998, pg. 5

39 ibid., Booz-Allen’s Report w/Loney’s edits, 1998

40 The Star, “Study: Expand O’Hare,” Patricia Richardson, November 15, 1998

41 Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Chicago O’Hare Expansion, March 21, 2002

42 Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Report on Chicago Aviation Policy, November 12, 1998, pg. III-1

43 Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Report on Chicago Aviation Policy, November 12, 1998, pg. I-5, III-3F

44 Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Report on Chicago Aviation Policy, November 12, 1998, pg. III-3

b

45 ibid., Booz-Allen & Hamilton Report, 11/12/98, pg. III-3

46 The New York Times, “Troubled Airlines Face Reality: Those Cheap Fares Have a Price,” August 18, 2002,pg. 1

47 City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Airport Activity Statistics. O’Hare International Airport MonthlyOperations, Passengers, Cargo Summary by Class, for December 2000.

48 Booz Allen’s “Independent” Consultant’s Questions and Answers Report prior to its release, w/ ChicagoAviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney’s handwritten edits, 1998

49 Stenographic Transcript of Hearings, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United StatesSenate, Hearing on the Expansion of Airport Capacity in the Chicago, Illinois Area, March 21, 2002, pg. 50

50 Chicago Tribune, “Assessing the Airport Damage,” Editorial, April 3, 2003, pg. 22

51 Chicago Tribune, “O’Hare Expansion Won’t Cut Delays, City Study Finds; Expert Disputes Daley Claims,”Jon Hilkevitch, April 2, 2003, pg. 1

52 See BGA Gambling Reports

53 McConnell, United States Senator, et. al., v. Federal Election Commission, et. al., Appeal from the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia, Argued Sept. 8, 2003; - Decided Dec. 10, 2003

54 Memo from Geoffrey Goldberg, Assistant Chicago Aviation Commissioner, to David Mosena, ChicagoAviation Commissioner, September 29, 1992

55 Memo from Jay R. Franke, Chicago Aviation Commissioner, to Frank E. Kruesi, Head of Planning andDevelopment, Chicago, August 10, 1990

56 ibid., Memo from Franke to Kruesi, 8/10/90

57 Memo from Ramon Ricondo, consultant for O’Hare expansion, to Kitty Freidheim, Deputy AviationCommissioner for Planning and Development, January 22, 1990

58 McConnell, United States Senator, et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al., No. 02-1674. ArguedSeptember 8, 2003 – Decided December 10, 2003

59 U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, “U.S. Indicts Former Illinois Governor George Ryan for AllegedPublic Corruption During Terms as Secretary of State and Governor”, December 17, 2003

60 Chicago Tribune, “We Da People Can Cash in on a Gore Win,” John Kass, October 30, 2000, pg. 3

61 Senate Floor Filibuster Speech on Lincoln Library, October 3, 2000

62 U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL), Senate Floor Speech, April 22, 2002

63 Remarks of Mayor Richard M. Daley, 2004 City of Chicago Address, February 10, 2004

64 Chicago Sun-Times, “Alderman Rakes in Cash with Clout,” Robert C. Herguth, July 20, 2003, pg. 11

65 Chicago Sun-Times, “Gambling Adviser a High-Roller,” Robert C. Herguth and Chris Fusco, October 23,2003, pg. 6

c

66 Chicago Sun-Times, “Aldermen Defensive Over Daley O’Hare Maneuver,” Fran Spielman and RobertWoods, July 27, 1995, pg. 9

67 Chicago Tribune, “O’Hare Gives Up Revenue for Minority Bids,” John Camper, November 19, 1985, pg.1

68 Chicago Tribune, “Atlanta Lawyer Gets O’Hare Plum,” Douglas Frantz, March 8, 1985, pg. 1

69 Chicago Tribune, “Contracts at O’Hare Extended,” December 21, 1988, Chicagoland section, pg. 6

70 ibid., “Contracts at O’Hare Extended,” 12/21/88

71 ibid., “Contracts at O’Hare Extended,” 12/21/88

72 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Stands by Fundraiser Who Served Sentence for Fraud,” Joel Kaplan, Ray Gibson, James Strong, January 13, 1989, Chicagoland section, pg. 2

73 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Defends O’Hare No-Bid Deal,” Ray Gibson, Joel Kaplan, R. Bruce Dold,January 12, 1989, pg. 1

74 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Stands by Fundraiser Who Served Sentence for Fraud,” Joel Kaplan, Ray Gibson, James Strong, January 13, 1989, Chicagoland section, pg. 2

75 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Defends O’Hare No-Bid Deal,” Ray Gibson, Joel Kaplan, R. Bruce Dold,January 12, 1989, pg. 1

76 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Stands by Fundraiser Who Served Sentence for Fraud,” Joel Kaplan, Ray Gibson, James Strong, January 13, 1989, Chicagoland section, pg. 2

77 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Kaplan, Gibson, and Strong, 1/13/89

78 Chicago Tribune, “Sawyer Defends O’Hare No-Bid Deal,” Ray Gibson, Joel Kaplan, R. Bruce Dold,January 12, 1989, pg. 1

79 Minutes of W.H. Smith North American Management Committee Meeting, January 11, 1989

80 ibid., Minutes of W.H. Smith Meeting, 1/11/89

81 ibid., Minutes of W.H. Smith Meeting, 1/11/89

82 ibid., Minutes of W.H. Smith Meeting, 1/11/89

83 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Rips Mayor on Midway Pact,” Joel Kaplan, February 14, 1989, Chicagolandsection, pg. 1

84 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Kaplan, 2/14/89

85 Chicago Tribune, “Excerpts from Debate Show Spirit – and Flashes of Humor,” February 8, 1989, pg. 19

86 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Relents on Petition Probe; Foes’ ‘Innuendo’ Cited in Call for Special Prosecutor,”Robert Davis and Ray Gibson, January 4, 1989

87 Chicago Sun-Times, “How Daley Pal D’Angelo Got Rich By Selling Clout,” Chuck Neubauer and JohnCarpenter, April 2, 2000, Sunday News, pg. 6

d

88 Letter from Oscar D’Angelo to John M. Hancock, CEO, W.H. Smith, and Richard McNamara, VicePresident, W.H. Smith, May 28, 1996

89 Letter from Cindy Pritzker, The Chicago Public Library Foundation, to Sir Simon Hornby, Chairman, W.H.Smith PLC, December 3, 1990

90 Chicago Sun-Times, “How Daley Pal D’Angelo Got Rich By Selling Clout,” Chuck Neubauer and JohnCarpenter, April 2, 2000, Sunday News, pg. 6

91 Highly Confidential Memo from Richard L. Robbins to W.H. Smith, Inc., Senior Management: John M.Hancock and Richard J. McNamara, February 18, 1994

92 Confidential Memo from Oscar D’Angelo to John M. Hancock, CEO, W.H. Smith, Inc., December 14,1994

93 ibid., Memo from D’Angelo to Hancock, 12/14/94

94 Chicago Sun-Times, “How Daley Pal D’Angelo Got Rich By Selling Clout,” Chuck Neubauer and JohnCarpenter, April 2, 2000, Sunday News, pg. 6

95 ibid., Chicago Sun-Times, Neubauer and Carpenter, 4/2/00

96 Internal Copy of business cards for Grace Barry and Barbara Burrell; W.H. Smith Packing Slip Receipt for500 each of the 2 business cards for Grace Barry and Barbara Burrell, March 26, 1996

97 Personal and Private Internal Memo from Malcolm Field to John Hancock, “Note of Our Meeting onThursday 8 June 1995,” June 9, 1995

98 Chicago Tribune, “New Pact at O’Hare Criticized; Foes Accuse Daley of Playing Favorites,” John Kass andJacquelyn Heard, February 8, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 1

99 Chicago Tribune, “Contracts Have Ties to Daley; City’s OK to Benefit Mayor’s Pals, Backers,” John Kassand Jacquelyn Heard, March 6, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 1

100 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Kass and Heard, 3/6/96

101 Chicago Tribune, “Daley’s Allies Harvest Some Bounty at O’Hare; Council OKs No-Bid ConcessionContracts,” John Kass, October 3, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 3

102 Chicago Tribune, “New Pact at O’Hare Criticized; Foes Accuse Daley of Playing Favorites,” John Kass andJacquelyn Heard, February 8, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 1

103 Chicago Tribune, “No-Bid Contracts Pounded Out; Aldermen Condemn Blood Sports, then KO DaleyOpposition,” John Kass and Jacquelyn Heard, March 7, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 1

104 Letter from Cindy Pritzker, The Chicago Public Library Foundation, to Sir Simon Hornby, Chairman, W.H.Smith PLC, December 3, 1990

105 Letter from Maggie Daley, Chair, Chicago Cultural Center Foundation, to Steve Walker, President, W.H.Smith Group, January 10, 1997

106 Letter from Steve Walker, President, W.H. Smith, Inc., to Maggie Daley, Chicago Cultural CenterFoundation, cc: Grace Barry, Barbara Burrell, Clive Sillis, January 22, 1997

e

107 Letter from John M. Hancock, CEO, W.H. Smith, to Oscar D’Angelo, June 5, 1996

108 Letter from Oscar D’Angelo to Margaret C. Daley, Chair, Chicago Cultural Center, March 12, 1997

109 Letter from Oscar D’Angelo to Richard McNamara, Chief Financial Officer, W.H. Smith, Inc., March 25,1997

110 Chicago Sun-Times, “How Daley Pal D’Angelo Got Rich By Selling Clout,” Chuck Neubauer and JohnCarpenter, April 2, 2000, Sunday News, pg. 6

111 Copies of W.H. Smith checks to Grace Barry and Barbara Burrell for $50,000 each, reference no.“management fee,” March 27, 1996

112 Chicago Sun-Times, “Maggie Daley’s Friend Sells Share in Lucrative O’Hare Concession Deal,” FranSpielman, November 18, 2003, pg. 14

113 Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement, W.H. Smith of Illinois, Inc. and Grabur International, Inc.,Chicago O’Hare To (Sub) Exhibit 3.11 (b), 1995

114 ibid., W.H. Smith Partnership Agreement and Grabur, 1995

115 Chicago Sun-Times, “Maggie Daley’s Friend Sells Share in Lucrative O’Hare Concession Deal,” FranSpielman, November 18, 2003, pg. 14

116 Letter from Grace Barry, Grabur International, to John M. Hancock, CEO, W.H. Smith, Inc., July 1, 1996

117 Ibid., Letter from Barry to Hancock, 7/1/96

118 Chicago Sun-Times, “Mayoral Connections Don’t Cut It,” Fran Spielman, September 23, 2000, pg. 8

119 Letter from Grace Barry, Grabur International, to Oscar D’Angelo, June 27, 1996

120 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Form G-37/G-38, with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. listed asdealer, Attachment to Form G-37/G-38, Name of Consultant: Daley & George, April 1 – June 30, 2003 -Amended

121 ibid., MSRB, Citigroup as dealer, 4/1 – 6/30/03

122 Chicago Sun-Times, “Council Tamer as Shaw Heads for New Challenges,” November 6, 1998, pg.41

123 City of Chicago O’Hare International Airport, First Lien Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2003 Series, October 2, 2003, Substitute Ordinance, $500 million

124 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Defends Himself, Brothers; Mayor Denies 2 Have Profited From His Status,”Gary Washburn, March 19, 2003, Metro, pg. 3

125 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Boasts About Closing Meigs; New Group Says Mayor is a Liar,” Gary Washburnand Hal Dardick, March 31, 2004, Metro, pg. 1

126 United States Department of Justice Press Release, “Near North Insurance Executive Indicted on New Rico and Fraud Charges in Alleged $20 Million Fraud Scheme,” October 31, 2002

127 Chicago Tribune, “Exec Who Built Firm on Cloud Indicted,” Matt O’Connor and Ray Gibson, January 29,2002, pg. 1

f

128 Chicago Tribune, “O’Hare Plan Foes Target Daley’s Brother,” Gary Washburn, March 18, 2003, Metro, pg.3

129 Chicago Sun-Times, “Insurance Power Broker Charged in Fraud Scheme,” Curtis Lawrence and SteveWarmbir, January 29, 2002, pg. 3

130 Chicago Sun-Times, “Mayor Defends Brothers’ Jobs,” Fran Spielman, March 19, 2003, pg. 8

131 U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, “U.S. Indicts Former Illinois Governor George Ryan for AllegedPublic Corruption During Terms as Secretary of State and Governor,” December 17, 2003

132 Chicago Sun-Times, “Joyce Gets Top Airport Job,” July 20, 1993, Metro Briefings, pg. 4

133 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Denies Clout Won O’Hare Deals; Mayor Maintains He Doesn’t Know Pal’s Rolein Pacts,” Aamer Madhani and Gary Washburn, March 21, 2001, pg. 1

134 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Insider Paves Way for Big O’Hare Contracts; Jeremiah Joyce Makes Connectionfor McDonald’s, Duty-Free Shops,” Laurie Cohen and Andrew Martin, March 19, 2001, pg. 1

135 Chicago Tribune, “Aldermen Trying to Regain a Say Over Big City Contracts,” John Kass, July 27, 1995,Chicagoland section, pg. 3

136 Chicago Tribune, “Daley’s Allies Harvest Some Bounty at O’Hare; Council OKs No-Bid ConcessionContracts,” John Kass, October 3, 1996, Metro Chicago, pg. 3

137 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Denies Clout Won O’Hare Deals; Mayor Maintains He Doesn’t Know Pal’s Rolein Pacts,” Aamer Madhani and Gary Washburn, March 21, 2001, pg. 1

138 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Pals Get Towing Plum; Firm Clears City Streets and Clean Up on Bottom Line,”Ray Gibson and Laurie Cohen, March 27, 1997, pg. 1

139 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Won’t Take Blame for Tow Deal; Mayor Puts Aide on Spot for Pact,” GaryWashburn, November 5, 2003, Metro, pg. 1

140 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Washburn, 11/5/03

141 Chicago Tribune, “Contract Mess Will Be Fixed, Daley Says; Embarrassed Mayor Orders Overhaul of City’s Purchasing,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen, January 11, 2000, pg. 1

142 Chicago Sun-Times, “Daley Contributor Lands City Jobs; Crandall Companies Get $27.8 Million inContracts,” Fran Spielman, January 7, 2000, pg. 7

143 Chicago Tribune, “Contract Mess Will Be Fixed, Daley Says; Embarrassed Mayor Orders Overhaul of City’s Purchasing,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen, January 11, 2000, pg. 1

144 Chicago Tribune, “Chicago Overpaying for Daley Fence Plan; City to Launch Audit of Bills Submitted byFirm Tied to Mayor,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen, January 9, 2000, pg. 1

145 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Martin and Cohen, 1/9/00

146 AIP’s calculations resulting from findings concerning public city contracts and capital improvements atO’Hare

g

147 Chicago Sun-Times, “Daley Contributor Lands City Jobs; Crandall Companies Get $27.8 Million inContracts,” Fran Spielman, January 7, 2000, pg. 7

148 Chicago Sun-Times, “Mayor: Builder Got Too Much,” Fran Spielman, January 9, 2000, pg. 17

149 Chicago Tribune, “Contract Mess Will Be Fixed, Daley Says; Embarrassed Mayor Orders Overhaul of City’s Purchasing,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen, January 11, 2000, pg. 1

150 Chicago Tribune, “Daley Vows Cleanup of Contracts Process,” Rick Hepp, January 10, 2000, Metro, pg. 1

151 Chicago Tribune, “Chicago Overpaying for Daley Fence Plan; City to Launch Audit of Bills Submitted byFirm Tied to Mayor,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen, January 9, 2000, pg. 1

152 Chicago Tribune, “Clout Firm Fenced Out on New Contracts,” Andrew Martin and Laurie Cohen,February 5, 2000, pg. 1

153 www.cityofchicago.org, “Remarks of Mayor Richard M. Daley, State of the City Address,” January 19, 2000

154 Chicago Tribune, “Park Bosses Back Off Landscaping Bid from Daley Pal,” Liam Ford, March 28, 2001,Metro, pg. 1

155 Chicago Sun-Times, “$10.9 Million O’Hare-Midway Deal Defaults to Clout-Heavy Contractor,” FranSpielman, September 16, 2003, pg. 12

156 www.cityofchicago.org, Department of Procurement Services, various G.F. Structures Corp. Contracts,Department of Aviation: General Facilities, Renovation/Construction – Unrestricted, 10.23.00 – 5.30.03;Noise Abatement Fence Maintenance of Guard Rails, 10.5.01 – 10.31.03; Dept. of Transportation: BicycleRack Purchase and Installation, 11.5.01 – 11.30.04; To Advertise, Submission Date 1.12.04

157 Chicago Tribune, “Family Mops Up on City Deals; Insiders with Mob Ties Profit from Mayor’s Push toPrivatize,” Andrew Martin, Laurie Cohen, and Ray Gibson, July 25, 1999, pg.1

158 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. United States of America v.James M. Duff, William E. Stratton, Patricia Green Duff, John J. Leahy, Edward Wisniewski, StarlingAlexander, and Terrence Dolan. February 2002, pg. 3

159 Chicago Tribune, “Family Mops Up on City Deals; Insiders with Mob Ties Profit from Mayor’s Push toPrivatize,” Andrew Martin, Laurie Cohen, and Ray Gibson, July 25, 1999, pg.1

160 United States of America v. James M. Duff, et. al. February 2002, pg. 8

161 Chicago Tribune, “Family Mops Up on City Deals; Insiders with Mob Ties Profit from Mayor’s Push toPrivatize,” Andrew Martin, Laurie Cohen, and Ray Gibson, July 25, 1999, pg.1

162 Chicago Tribune, “U.S. Alleges Huge Fraud in City Minority Pacts; 2 in Connected Duff Family Indicted inSet-Aside Scam,” Matt O’Connor and Ray Gibson, September 26, 2003, pg. 1

163 Chicago Tribune, “State of City Finds Taxpayer Pockets Picked Yet Again,” John Kass, February 11, 2004,pg. 2

164 Chicago Tribune, “Fest Vendor Report Fails to Stir Daley,” Gary Washburn, September 29, 1999, pg. 1

165 Chicago Sun-Times, “Daley’s Turbulent 2003,” Fran Spielman, December 21, 2003, pg. 16

h

166 ibid., Chicago Sun-Times, Spielman, 12/21/03

167 Chicago Sun-Times, “Philip Calls for State to Run Meigs,” Dave McKinney and Fran Spielman, November15, 2001, pg. 22

168 www.elections.state.il.us, Campaign Disclosure List, 2002

169 ibid., Campaign Disclosure List, 2002

170 Chicago Sun-Times, “Gambling Advisor a High-roller,” Robert C. Herguth and Chris Fusco, October 23,2003, pg. 6

171 Crain’s Chicago Business, “Chicago Observer: How nasty? Bad enough to Drive Board of Trade IntoMerc’s Arms,” Steven R. Strahler, April 21, 2003, p. 78

172 All contribution numbers come from www.fec.gov, Campaign Finance Reports and Data; see The O’HareScandal: Hijacking the System, A Report of the Aviation Integrity Project, September, 2002

173 Chicago Sun-Times, “Durbin Still Undisputed King of Flip-Flop,” Steve Neal, April 23, 2000, Editorial, pg.53

174 Chicago Tribune, “Durbin Backs New Runways; Senator to Push for Daley-Ryan Accord by July,” JonHilkevitch and Kevin Lynch, May 21, 2001, pg. 1

175 Chicago Tribune, “Hastert Leads Fight for O’Hare; Speaker Backing Expansion Plan,” Mike Dorning, July19, 2002, Metro, pg. 1

176 Associated Press, “Health, Phone Companies Back Hastert,” Jonathan Salant, December 24, 1998

177 For sources concerning numbers used on pages 71-72, see AIP’s report The O’Hare Scandal: Hijacking theSystem, September, 2002 and Chicago Airport System’s Capital Improvement Program, O’Hare CostReports, February, 2002

178 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage Leader Names Backer to Head Water Panel; Entrepreneur Has Helped RaiseFunds for Schillerstrom,” Bob Goldsborough, January 5, 2002, Metro, Zone: D, pg. 11

179 ibid., Chicago Tribune, Goldsborough, 1/5/02

180 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage’s Schillerstrom Bulks War Chest with Club,” William Grady and Linda Young,April 16, 1999, Trib West, pg. 9

181 www.elections.state.il.us, Illinois State Board of Elections data, FY 2002-2003, Campaign Disclosures

182 Chicago Airport System’s Capital Improvement Program, O’Hare Cost Reports, February, 2002

183 www.cityofchicago.org, Department of Procurement Services, Reliable Asphalt/E.A. Cox - J.V., contract #T24526, Disclosure of Retained Parties, Award Date May 30, 2002

184 ibid., www.cityofchicago.org, Department of Procurement Services, contract # T24526, 5/30/02

185 Chicago Sun-Times, “No More Old Boy Network,” Steve Neal, September 15, 1997, Editorial, pg. 29

186 Chicago Sun-Times, “Suspended Firm Linked to Fatality,” Steve Warmbir and Tim Novak, March 8, 2004,pg. 6

i

187 www.cityofchicago.org, Department of Procurement Services, Contracts for Benchmark Construction, Inc.

188 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage Hires Democratic Lobbyist,” H. Gregory Meyer, March 26, 2003, Metro, pg. 8

189 Chicago Reporter, “New Latino Group Gains Power: Ties to City Hall Help the Hispanic DemocraticOrganization,” Robert O’Neill, November 1994

190 www.cityofchicago.org, City of Chicago Board of Ethics Registered Lobbyist List, as of April 23, 2004

191 AIP’s own calculations from www.elections.state.il.us, Illinois State Board of Elections data, FY 2000-2001,Campaign Disclosures

192 www.elections.state.il.us, Illinois State Board of Elections data, FY 2002 – 2003, Campaign Disclosures

193 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage Says ‘Yes’ to O’Hare,” January 16, 2003, Editorial, pg. 18

194 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage in Flip-Flop Backs O’Hare Plan; County Shifts Sides in Expansion Fight,” H.Gregory Meyer and Jon Hilkevitch, January 15, 2003, pg. 1

195 Chicago Tribune, “DuPage Leader on Cordial Turf in Chicago,” H. Gregory Meyer, March 5, 2003, pg. 1

196 ibid., Chicago Tribune, H. Gregory Meyer, 3/5/03

197 Chicago Sun-Times, Lynn Sweet, September 2, 2004, pg. 5

198 ibid, Chicago Sun-Times, 9/2/04

199 ibid, Chicago Sun-Times, 9/2/04

200 Letter from Laurie Stone, Executive Director, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, toCommissioner James A. Courter, Chairman, Base Closure and Realignment Commission, May 10, 1993

201 Letter from David R. Mosena, Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Aviation, to Robert Meyer,Assistant Director, NSIAAD/DMN, General Accounting Office, April 15, 1993

202 Letter from Laurie Stone, President, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce and MauriceChampagne, Chairman, Board of Directors, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, toGreater O’Hare Association Members, March 23, 1995

203 Letter from Laurie Stone, President and CEO of Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerceand Maurice Champagne, Chairman, Board of Directors, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry andCommerce, to friends of Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, and Proposed PositionStatement in Support of O’Hare Airport

204 Memorandum from Lyn Corbett Fitzgerald, Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, to Herb Gardner, Bill Hood,Barrett Murphy, Hugh Murphy, Mark Pufundt, Bob Repel, Laurie Stone, cc: Carolyn Grisko, Lisa Howard,Bill Filan, Jerry Roper, Re: Meeting Tuesday, October 3, 2:00 p.m., at Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, 900 North Michigan, St. 2750. September 29, 1995.

205 Memorandum from Dave Bayless and Paula Belnap, Jacula/Terman & Associates, to Carolyn Grisko, LynCorbett Fitzgerald, Anita Cummings, Mary Frances Fagan, Bill Filan, Herb Gardner, Bill Hood, JoeHopkins, Bill Luking, Chris Mahaffey, Mike McClain, Barrett Murphy, Mark Pufundt, Laurie Stone, SteveWermcrantz, Re: Public Affairs Update, December 17, 1996

j

206 ibid., Memo from Jascula/Terman & Associates to Grisko, et. al. December 17, 1996

207 Letter from Herb Gardner, United Airlines, and Bill Hood, American Airlines, to Laurie Stone, President,Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, January 22, 1996

208 Letter from Gerald J. Roper, President and CEO, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and Laurie Stone,President and CEO, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, to Representative EdwardAcevedo, October 29, 1997

209 Letter from Laurie Stone, President and CEO, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce,Gerald J. Roper, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, Chris Mahaffey, President and CEO, AssociationForum of Chicagoland, to Representative, April 24, 1998

210 Memorandum from Dennis Culloton, City of Chicago Department of Aviation, to Jerry Roper, LaurieStone, Judy Gold, cc: Bob Repel, Stacey Spencer, Jack Dorgan, Re: Booz Allen Study Community MediaCoverage

211 Memo from Jerry Roper, President, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, to Midwest Aviation CoaltionPrincipals and Partners, Re: MAC Plan, January 18, 2002

212 The Star, “Study: Expand O’Hare,” Patricia Richardson, November 15, 1998.

213 Facsimile Transmission from Lisa Howard, Director of Public Relations, Chicago Department of Aviation,to Laurie Stone and Lisa Ziegler, October 6, 1995

214 Fax Cover Page from Dan Proft, Greater O’Hare Association of Industry and Commerce, to Chris Armen,July 7, 1997

215 www.journal-topics.com, “Link Official with Felon as Gaming Board Nears Explanation,” Todd Wessell,April 8, 2004

216 Chicago Tribune, “Council Rejects O’Hare Panel Run by Chicago.” Mark Shuman, April 22, 1998, MetroNorthwest, pg. 4.

217 Chicago Sun-Times, “Is airport fight worth cost?” Chris Fusco, July 16, 2001, pg. 8

218 Chicago Daily Herald, “Des Plaines delays paying its dues to anti-runway group,” Amy McLaughlin, July 17,2001, pg. 4

219 Chicago Tribune, “Suburb set to vote on O’Hare fight funds,” Dan Mihalopoulos and Rogers Worthington, September 5, 2001, Metro, pg. 1

220 Chicago Tribune, “New Panel Adds to Din Over O’Hare; Rivals Question Push for West Road,” TedGregory, October 17, 2000, Metro Southwest, pg. 1

221 Chicago Sun-Times, “Breaking Bread to Make Peace,” editorial by Steve Neal, February 28, 1997, pg. 35

222 Bensenville Press, “Chamber may fight more O’Hare flights: Village asks group to take position on issue,”Alice Hohl, November 18, 1998.

223 Memorandum of Dennis Culloton, City of Chicago Department of Aviation, to Jerry Roper, Laurie Stone,Judy Gold, cc: Bob Repel, Stacey Spencer, Jack Dorgan, Re: Booz Allen Study Community Media Coverage

224 O’Hare Modernization Act, www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/fulltext, August, 2003.

k

225 Chicago Tribune, “Lid Stays on City’s Buys for O’Hare,” Jeff Coen and Mike Dorning, July 18, 2002, Metro, pg. 1

226 O’Hare Modernization Act, www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/fulltext, August, 2003.

227 Mayor Richard M. Daley’s comments to host Bob Sirrot on Chicago Tonight, WTTW Channel 11, 2003

l