Chicago Reader

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Kozicki gets another break

Posted by Ben Joravsky on Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:30 AM

If there was any doubt about who really runs City Hall, it was cleared up last week with the latest twist in the case of Chris Kozicki.

Kozicki is the former building department employee who testified in last year's Robert Sorich patronage corruption trial that he had altered the interview rating of the 19-year-old son of a high-ranking union official to ensure that he scored high enough to get a building inspector's job. He also testified that he got his job through his connection to his Bridgeport neighbor John Daley--Mayor Daley's brother, a Cook County commissioner, and the 11th Ward Democratic committeeman. 

After he testified, Kozicki was given a newly created job in the planning department, and sometime between then and December he got a raise. Last month city inspector general David Hoffman, whose job is to root out City Hall corruption, recommended that Kozicki be fired from his $129,528-a-year job as punishment for falsifying records. 

The city rejected Hoffman's recommendation, allowing Kozicki to keep his planning department job on the grounds that (I'm not making this up) firing Kozicki might deter other employees from blowing the whistle on corruption. As if immunity from federal prosecution had nothing to do with Kozicki's decision to testify. As if that weren't enough.

"We think it would send a chilling message to other employees if he was fired based on his testimony," law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle told the Trib yesterday.

I think the real chilling message is this: don't mess with the Daleys. 

Tags: , , ,

Comments (8) RSS

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Generic user icon

The 11th ward guys get their jobs back even if they do drugs, illegallys swipe in and out, or even ghost payroll and build houses. But good stand up guys like Pat McDonough, and Frank Coconate, that revealed tens of millions of taxpayer fraud and corruption get fired and harrassed.

Posted by Tom "the Grinch" Auman on January 20, 2007 at 8:36 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Jennifer Hoyle sent chilling messages when Frank Coconate revealed the 60 million dollar vortex waste. She also sent a chilling message to Patrick McDonough a whistle blower on Hired Trucks scandal costing hundreds of millions. The message is don't be a rat, look at what Briatta said, the message is don't mess with the Daley's or get a lot of retaliation. It is economic killing. Jennifer Hoyle is a lying hypocritcal mouthpiece for criminals who will be suffering in one of the lowest pits of Dante's inferno.

Posted by Brian Murphy on January 20, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Of course you don't mess with the Daley's, unless you wanna sleep with the fishes;)

Posted by renee on January 20, 2007 at 11:32 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

We're paying a planning department lackey with no real responsibility $130k? wonderful

Posted by lg on January 21, 2007 at 8:21 AM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

This ugly, troll, stupid, 11th ward hack criminal SHOULD BE FIRED He jeoparidized safety with putting those 13 years old on and hurt real union members

Posted by Nick the stick on January 25, 2007 at 5:22 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Say what you want but Tom Auman has a very active prostate gland when rubbed and activated internally, if ya know wat I mean!!!

Posted by Tom Auman on February 1, 2007 at 8:48 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

==PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTION EXPERIMENT== This may not be the proper forum for this, but I will state my 'idea'/'proposal' anyway, and see if anyone is intrigued by my reasoning. I hold the opinion that it has been a very, very long time since we, the citizens of these United States, have truly and honestly been represented by our so-called 'public servants'. While it can be said that a certain small percentage of any given area's population is well and generously served by their elected officials,(at the financial and social expense of the area's 'common', politically unconnected citizens),for the most part, our elected officials are motivated by three basic principles: get power, keep power and use that power to gain wealth, for themselves and for those of like mind. I assert that the vast majority of voters are poorly served by the 'powers that be', in all areas of their daily lives. It is obvious that many 'public servants' define themselves as being those individuals who are served BY the public. This sad state of affairs is the result of simple mathematics. If one determines, in any given area,(ie. city, county, state and federal),the total number of citizens who are qualified to cast a vote, one finds that perhaps 50%, more or less, of that number are actually registered to vote; further,in any given election, one finds that typically between 50% - 60% of those registered don't even bother to make the effort to actually cast their vote(s). Thus, all that is required to win a 2 person race is 51% of the votes actually cast, effectively meaning that a mere 26% of the total number of citizens qualified to vote are determining who is elected. In a race of more than 2 contestants, the percentage needed to win becomes even lower than 26%. It is a puzzling mystery why the 2 major political parties, the Dumbocrats and the Retardicans, continue to strongly resist the establishment of additional political parties, though one sees occasional use of 'shill' candidates by both major parties. So, I propose a little experiment, to be conducted in both the smallest, local level elections, (ie. town, city, county, township, village,etc.), as well as in the larger level elections, (ie. state and federal), an experiment which is designed to accomplish several goals and answer several questions,(besides the obvious one, of seeing if enough people/voters will get off their butts and choose to participate in this experiment!). Basically, my question is this: what would happen if enough voters choose, in every election, both primary and general, to cast their votes by adhering to the following rules, completely disregarding all factors commonly used by voters to make their decisions on who to vote for, and simply casting their vote(s) by applying these rules/formula: * 1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them. * 2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate. * 3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST. * 4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST. * 5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed. Remember to COMPLETELY DISREGARD all impulses to concern yourself with the specific persons who you are voting for and/or the specific persons you are not voting for and/or the specific incumbents who will, should enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, be losing their jobs. Remember,also,that the issues don't matter, policies don't matter, individual candidates' personal charm/attractiveness does not matter..................... nothing matters other than adhering to the 5 rules stated above. If enough voters in any given election participate in this experiment, the result should be that a whole lot of incumbents will be voted out of office. What reaction(s), on the part of politicians and their cronies, will this stimulate? If enough voters CONTINUE to participate in this experiment during the next several election cycles, thus keeping any specific person from holding office for more than a single term, will those non-politically connected individuals who would like to sincerely serve their fellow citizens by holding public office, but have determined that their chances of being elected are slim-to-none, now find that they have a reasonably decent chance of succeeding in holding public office? Will the 'professional politicians' eventually find other lines of work and abandon trying to gain and hold power over their fellow citizens, (since it's difficult to establish power,influence and control in just a single term in office)? Will the majority of those citizens who do gain public office now be honest, ethical, hard-working and intelligent individuals, who seek office to actually serve the electorate, (since the traditional motivations of power, influence and wealth will effectively no longer be available)? Will these new, honest candidates, now encouraged to run for office, alter the usual dynamics of 'campaigning'? And in what ways? As the reader may surmise, this experiment is designed to disrupt the decades-old flow of bullshit, which has passed for so long as democracy; bullshit both by the politicians and bullshit by the voting public's failure to effectively participate in their own governing. The above experiment should be conducted in all political contests; Administrative, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT. The 5 rules above are designed to mathematically ensure that the maximum number of votes are cast in such a way as to be effective in denying all elected officials more than one term in office; to prove, by the only means those smugly in power ever understand, that the voters actually determine who holds public office, and that those presently holding said office(s) have, for way too long, held the vast majority of their constituents in contempt, evidenced not by their words, but by their deeds. Keep in mind that this experiment I am proposing is not meant to be a solution to our present social, economic and political disparities, but more as a catalyst for positive change in the attitudes of those who claim to represent ALL citizens' best interests, instead of the present predominance of their representing only the interests of the chosen few. To paraphrase one of our past presidents, who once said: * You may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time * You may fool ALL of the people SOME of the time * But you cannot fool ALL of the people, ALL of the time The sad reality is that you need only to fool just the right number of people, at just the right time, to attain power and control over the many.

Posted by spock on March 5, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Report this comment
Generic user icon

Just..Get your affairs in order for the next election David E. Neeley!

Posted by Columbo Sherlock on March 9, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Report this comment

Add a comment

Latest in The Blog

Author Archives

  • Clout on the Calumet River

    Marina owner Mike Olsen has reason to fear the city will force him out of business to the benefit of his competition.
    • Oct 29, 2009
  • Funds and Games: Chicago 2016's "Stewardship Report"

    A new donor report claims transparency but obscures details on who’s paying for the Olympic bid. And then there's the question of why they're paying.
    • Sep 10, 2009
  • Ben Joravsky, Tool of the Man

    The real story behind the first story on trouble between Governor Blagojevich and his father-in-law, Richard Mell.
    • Sep 17, 2009
  • More»

Recent Comments

©2009 Creative Loafing Media
All Rights Reserved.