Once upon a time a businessman visited an alderman in Chicago regarding a parcel of land in the alderman`s ward. After some discussion the businessman, through an intermediary, delivered $25,000 in cash to the alderman and in return the alderman provided the needed assistance to obtain a zoning change, which could not have been accomplished without the alderman`s agreement.
At another time, a businessman sought to prevent the condemnation of his properties as well as to acquire the property adjacent to his. So he visited his alderman and together they agreed that for $3,000 paid to the alderman, the alderman would intervene and take care of the problem-and indeed he did.
The first alderman was Paul Wigoda, convicted in 1974; 14 years later the second alderman, Wallace Davis, was convicted in federal court of taking the $3,000 as well as thousands of dollars of other bribes.
Once upon a time, a Cook County commissioner received over $20,000 in cash from various developers seeking zoning changes. These developers got the zoning changes while the communities that were affected watched helplessly as the heart of their neighborhoods was destroyed.
Another time, a member of the Cook County Board was promised $50,000 in cash and in fact did receive thousands of dollars to obtain certain licenses needed to do business in Chicago.
The first commissioner, convicted in 1973, was Floyd Fulle, a former Republican county chairman. The second commissioner, convicted in 1983, was Martin Tuchow, a Democratic ward committeeman.
Between 1971 and today, 15 aldermen have been indicted and 14 have been convicted; one is awaiting trial. Last year the U.S. Attorney`s Office here had 8 percent of the Chicago City Council under indictment at one time. In the late 1970s, it prosecuted almost two dozen electrical inspectors for taking bribes. In 1985, we returned indictments that resulted in the conviction of 16 sewer inspectors, again for taking bribes.
And even as the media covered the trial of the sewer inspectors, we had an undercover investigation relating to consumer services inspectors who were taking money from businessmen throughout Chicago. Tapes of these consumer services inspectors reveal that while taking bribes they would often discuss the trial of the sewer inspectors taking place in federal court.
That investigation, named Phocus, has resulted in 55 people being indicted. Among those convicted are a former Circuit Court judge, a former state senator, a former alderman, three firefighters, including lieutenants, and 21 consumer services inspectors, including the former head of the city`s Consumer Service Inspection Department.
Let me break it down for you:
We have indicted and convicted half of the electrical inspectors in the City of Chicago; half of the consumer services inspectors; and almost three-quarters of the sewer inspectors.
Last year, after almost 15 years of aggressive prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney`s Office in Chicago, we returned more public corruption indictments than any other distict in the nation, including New York.
How is it that this community has tolerated these levels of corruption for so long? How is it that this community, which has a proud heritage of capable judicial officers, is also the community which gave birth to the greatest judicial corruption scandal in the history of our nation?
In searching for a common thread that has run through these corruption prosecutions, I have found the following:
There has been a long-perpetuated myth that a ”little corruption really doesn`t hurt anyone.” Bolstering this myth is another one: that ”you can`t fight City Hall,” that you can`t do anything about corruption. And there is the long-held view that we really aren`t responsible for the activity of others.
The cost of corruption has been twofold: the enormous cost in dollars and the even higher cost of political cynicism.
The cost to this community of the corrupt activities of its officials falls most heavily and most dramatically upon the poor. It is they who are most dependent upon city services and public support. It is the poor who are most dependent upon public officials to see that those services are provided. And it is the poor who are most grievously affected when those services are substandard.
Let`s take a recent example, Operation Lantern. A pattern has emerged among these cases. Companies doing business with the city and its political subdivisions, including the Chicago Transit Authority, Park District and the Department of Aviation, all paid bribes to the individual purchasing agents and others to obtain and keep lucrative public contracts worth millions of dollars to these companies.
A few weeks ago, one of the companies pleaded guilty and forfeited $250,000 as its portion of the inflated costs charged to the public as the result of corrupt activities.
Who paid for these bribes? The taxpayers did.
In one case, some of the public officials asked for tens of thousands in campaign contributions and bribes; dutifully, the company provided the bribes. Thereafter, at the direction of the public officials, the companies billed the city for nonexistent merchandise in order to recover the amount of the bribe. Into that billing they also added the cost of taxes they would have to pay, and they also added a markup for profit.
Back came the check with taxpayers` money to pay the amount of the bribe- and the tax on the bribe and the profit on the bribe.
When a contract is obtained through bribery, does anyone believe that the bribed public official will be concerned about the quality of the contract?
Year after year citizens are asked to pay increasing fares to ride the buses or take the ”L.” How much of that dollar amount is needed to replace the cost of bribes and corruption?
Look at the cost to the community from all the drunk drivers who were the clients of the ”miracle worker,” that group of lawyers who paid hundreds of bribes to judges in case after case to fix drunk-driving cases. How do we begin to calculate the havoc that has been wreaked upon our highways as a result of Richard LeFevour, John McCollom, John Reynolds and the other corrupt judges who released hundreds of drunk drivers in return for cash bribes?
We know, because it has been testified to, that judges who accepted the bribes to fix hundreds of drunk-driving cases also needed to find people
”guilty” in order to balance their statistics. Who was found guilty? The people who couldn`t afford to or didn`t pay the bribes, the people who were typically represented by the public defenders. The poor and less powerful received the brunt of this corruption.
We have set-aside programs designed to designate a certain percentage of contracts, at the state, federal and city level, for minority participation. When these programs are run as former State Rep. Larry Bullock wanted them to be run, they become political payoffs and are nothing more than another vehicle for corruption.
I believe corruption in our country adds tens of millions of dollars to the costs borne by taxpayers each year. To all this add the incalculable costs of the cynicism that has developed about our government. The Greylord prosecutions did not cause the cynicism about our court system. It was generated by citizens who went through those courts and saw what was taking place.
Witness after witness testified in trials involving the misdemeanor courts that they believed the cases were being fixed and that the ”hustling” attorneys were paying off the judges. They were right. And it was cynicism generated by police officers who brought good cases to Auto Theft Court only to see them dismissed by Judge John J. Devine for all too obvious reasons.
A system of corruption does not produce effective government. To the contrary, it produces waste, mismanagement and indifference to the needs of our citizenry.
To the apologists who say they have no choice but to go along with the system, I say there is no longer an excuse for going along. A phone call to the U.S. Attorney`s Office, to the FBI, to the Cook County State`s Attorney`s Office will bring instantaneous response. The major news media regularly do stories exposing evidence of fraud, mismanagement, waste and corruption. They are concerned.
And, indeed, many citizens now realize they can make a difference. We receive phone calls at an unprecedented rate, not only from citizens concerned about corrupt activity but, more important, also from public officials, including judges, who observe behavior they think is improper or illegal. Equally important, many members of the local government have responded with initiatives against corruption.
Corruption will not end until the cost of being corrupt is so high that people will not dare engage in it. The real commitment that has to be made is a personal and political commitment by all of us. We must resolve that we will not tolerate corrupt activity around us, or rationalize our inaction when we see it.
We must take a stand as a community that those who are found to have been involved in unethical and corrupt activities will be voted out of office. Voters have the power and the opportunity to address these abuses. Demand integrity in government. Refuse to elect those who would accept corruption in government. Expect and demand reform.
The Sullivan Report, which grew out of one of the greatest scandals in this city, proposed needed reforms in city contracting practices. Those reforms should not die in a city council committee. The issue of merit selection should not die in springfield.
Paddy Bauler said, ”Chicago ain`t ready for reform.” It may be that there are local politicians and businessmen who aren`t ready for reform, but my experience tells me that this community is ready and desires reform and has the motivation to lead it.
