Cross, Gaffney, Schmitz Vote Against Easing Recording Prohibition

I have written how reformer State Rep. Jeanne Hurley got snookered into sponsoring a bill in 1957 to prohibit reporters like Jack Mabley from using tape recordings of legislative corruption.

Hurley married Paul Simon and is Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon’s mother.

The retired State Representative who told me the story was Roland Libonatii.  After taking a busman’s holiday to the Illinois House Chambers, we were in the Amtrak Station waiting for the train back to Chicago.

Marvelous story of how those close to the Currency Exchange scandal took steps to try to prevent others from getting similar evidence of corruption.

So, now people have cell phones and record everything imaginable, even police making arrests.

And the policemen don’t like being held accountable.

You can see that from this recent YouTube taken by professionals across the street from a Chicago Hospital where a little girl had been taken after having been shot by a gang banger.  (Thanks to Illinois Review for pointing me to it.)


So, why is House Republican Leader Tom Cross leading the way to coverup wrongdoing?

You tell me. I didn’t hear the debate.

Here’s the 45-59-1 roll call vote on House Bill 1944:

Besides House Republican Leader Tom Cross, State Reps. representing parts of McHenry County who voted against the reform bill include Kent Gaffney and Tim Schmidt. Democrat Jack Franks was missing from the House floor today. State Rep. Mike Tryon voted in favor of the measure.

Here’s how the synopsis describes the bill:

“Provides that a person who is not a law enforcement officer nor acting at the direction of a law enforcement officer may record the conversation of a law enforcement officer who is performing a public duty in a public place and any other person who is having a conversation with that law enforcement officer if the conversation is at a volume audible to the unassisted ear of the person who is making the recording.”


Comments

Cross, Gaffney, Schmitz Vote Against Easing Recording Prohibition — 12 Comments

  1. It would be nice if the legislature released a summary of each bill and some reasons why people voted in favor or against.

  2. Would like to hear what goes on in the Committees of the County Board; that’s really where the nitty gritty gets hashed out, isn’t it?

    If someone had the time and abiliity to make a quality tape recording of these sessions, without being harassed by “some county officials”, we may actually know what’s behind the final vote at the County Board’s monthly meetings.

  3. There are a lot of “E”s in the vote column, including by Franks, what does that mean?

  4. Gaffney was nothing but a Cross puppet.

    Now he needs a job and Cross even more!!

  5. Ofr. Ward, Chicago Police District 3, is the one who was creating the scene.

    He should be arrested.

    Anyone else think he’ll be retired soon?

    Ward is a bully and should not be a police officer – anywhere!

    I wonder what his history is with CPD and how many times he has violated a person’s civil rights.

    Good thing the cameras kept rolling while a reporter and a cameraman were arrested.

  6. Ooops. Ofc. Ward is in District 10 (not Dist. 3).

    What were all the bleeps during Ward’s orders.

    He makes me sick.

  7. Since the House met the day after the electino, some in tough races were probably just exhausted and sleeping in.

    “Excused absences” are granted quite freely. It’s not like Mike Madigan requires a note from a doctor.

    As to why “Chainsaw Jack” Franks was among the missing, it can’t because he had a tough race. After all he had no primary opponent.

  8. It would have been a better bill if it included legislators, judges, etc. Makes you wonder why IL tries to protect public officials anyway…

  9. “E” means excused absence, indicating the lawmaker was not present for the entire day, as opposed to “NV” (Not Voting), which would mean participating in that day’s session but not on the particular roll call. “P” is “present,” meaning voting but not for either side of the question, as in Obama voted “present” constantly while a member of the IL Senate.

    As to the proposal itself, listening to the debate would probably have been a good idea before condemning it. It’s pretty rare that something good is trounced this badly, even in Springfield. I did hear a newcast clip from one House floor speech, and it sounded to me like a persuasive argument against the bill.

    Legislators, as Cal knows, must take many things into account – beyond the synopsis of the proposal – including the potential ramifications, in this case, for possible mob response to police. I’m not alluding to Sanford, Florida, or anything here. Just suggesting reasonable people could have anticipated a nightmare out of this legislation.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>