IL-5: Fritchey Attempts To Explain Absence During Republic Windows Fight
Last night, Rep. John Fritchey held a conference call with several local bloggers. It was a great opportunity to bounce some questions and concerns off him, and you can read Jesse Greenberg's live-blog to get an idea of the full range of discussion. There is one exchange, ...
Last night, Rep. John Fritchey held a conference call with several local bloggers. It was a great opportunity to bounce some questions and concerns off him, and you can read Jesse Greenberg's live-blog to get an idea of the full range of discussion. There is one exchange, however, that I want to highlight.
On the topic of his lobbying work as a zoning lawyer in Chicago, I asked Fritchey if he had ever turned away potential clients because of objections to their line of work. He said that he has turned away clients because he thought their development proposals were inappropriate, but did not offer any examples involving companies whose work he disagreed with. I went on to ask if he would accept Bank of America and the Illinois Bankers Association as clients in the future, given the issues raised in my original piece. He said he would not, citing the Republic Windows controversy.
Then one of the other bloggers on the call asked a pertinent question, particularly considering Fritchey's lobbying work for Bank of America and the $2,000 in campaign contributions he received from them over the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.* He asked: Why were you not among the local polticians who publicly supported the Republic Windows workers last December? Here's Fritchey's answer:
"First of all, if you go back to the timing of that, that also came in the midst of the impeachment proceedings and the investigation proceedings. You know, I had a big, relatively full plate at that point. Not to mention that we had very capable leadership -- you know, Luis Gutierrez and others were doing that. You know, at that point, the reality is: if I had got involved, that probably would have been perceived as grandstanding on my part. I felt that situation was being capably handled."
Fritchey's timeline is a bit off here.
The Republic Windows sit-in began on Friday, December 5. Elected officials were making appearances at the factory by Sunday, December 7 to show their support. And on Monday, December 8, numerous alderman, along with Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley, introduced ordinances to hold Bank of America (Republic Windows' creditor) accountable for cutting off financing to the company before the workers could be paid the wages they were owed. But it wasn't until Tuesday, December 9 that Gov. Blagojevich was arrested, setting the ultimate impeachment proceedings into motion. By the end of the following day, an agreement had been reached resolving the Republic Windows dispute.
So that excuse seems a bit off.
More to the point, it's rather disconcerting that Fritchey was worried that a show of solidarity for the laid-off workers would be viewed as "grandstanding." After all, it's not as if he's some obscure representative from the other side of the city. He's the committeeman in the 32nd Ward, where the Republic Windows factory was located. He's also not afraid of a good press conference.
And frankly, I don't remember hearing anyone accuse the supportive politicians of "grandstanding" at the time. To their credit, they helped elevate the workers' situation and, in turn, ratcheted up the pressure on both Bank of America and the factory's owners.
*Fritchey received a $500 contribution from Bank of America on October 23, 2006 and a $1,500 contribution on September 28, 2007. (Source: National Institute on Money in State Politics)
Full disclosure: The SEIU Illinois Council -- which is the sole sponsor of Progress Illinois -- has endorsed Sara Feigenholtz in the 5th Congressional District race. Progress Illinois itself will not be endorsing any candidate in this contest.
Comments
"So that excuse seems a bit off."
Josh, while everybody was eager to join in the effort after his arrest, I had been working on impeachment-related research well before the arrest of the Governor. That is a documented fact.
Given my long history of highly proactive involvement in community issues, I have no reason to make excuses for not being involved in each and every issue that may arise, especially one which, as I said and as you in fact confirm, was being actively and capably handled by numerous elected officials at various levels of government.
On December 8, when the ordinances were being introduced, I was in meetings with parents and school officials for a local school attempting to secure the future of the school in light of anticipated school closures in my district. I would trust that you would find that to be an equally important use of my time.
And I'm sure that it's a mere oversight that you don't address Rep. Feigenholtz' absence at the Republic site. 'After all, it's not as if she's some obscure representative from the other side of the city.'
I would have hoped that you would have appreciated the open exchange last night, rather than try to twist the conversation to fit your agenda. I would be remiss if I didn't point out the numerous conversations that I have had with members of the media who have decried the fact that they have had zero such unfettered access to SEIU's endorsed candidate. Doesn't seem very progressive to me.
Rep. Fritchey,
The distinction in this case between you and Rep. Feigenholtz is your role as 32nd Ward Democratic committeeman. That post gives you a certain stature in the community. I just find it surprising in retrospect -- particularly considering your various connections to Bank of America -- that you couldn't find any time to show some solidarity with the Republic Windows workers. (Though I don't doubt you spent time on other matters of import during the six-day sit-in.)
As for our agenda, if you click on the "Republic Windows" category tag at the bottom of the post, you'll see that we've been continually writing about the dispute and its ripple effect for months now -- long after every other media outlet in the city stopped paying attention. Same goes for the issue of payday lending, which I brought up in my previous post on your lobbying clients. You can peruse our coverage here:
http://www.progressillinois.com/taxonomy/term/260
It's in that context -- not that of SEIU's endorsement -- that we bring up these issues.
Again, I appreciated your decision yesterday evening to invite an open dialogue with a group of local bloggers and will encourage other candidates to do the same. But I don't believe I've "twisted" the conversation in any way.
Has John Fritchey turned away potential clients for zoning changes because of their inappropriateness?
He had no problem looking the other way for this one for a chicago rapper who ruined the neighborhood.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2006/Under-Siege/
hundreds of workers were sandbagged by a company and lost their jobs and he did not bother as a state representative to stop by in all the days of protest for solidarity? He is twisted.
"Grandstanding" is a legitimate issue and risk for elected officials who, like John Fritchey, already maintain a high-profile in the news media as a result of prominent issues within their official domain. Had John inserted himself into the RW debate in his capacity as 32nd Ward Democratic Committeeman alone he, indeed, would have set himself up for ridicule and a grandstanding charge.
Moreover, the absence of a publicly asserted claim of grandstanding by a third party against any of the other politicians who did insert themselves into the debate in no way grants them innocence on that point. Quigley certainly comes to mind.
Yet, having said this, it is certainly unnecessary for John to drag Sara Feigenholtz into every discussion regarding his record for the purpose of muddying hers.
Regarding Fritchey's talking points that he's not a lobbyist, he's a "zoning attorney" that just happens to have to register as a lobbyist. Well, there's a good reason for that - zoning changes AKA zoning map changes ARE legislation in Chicago, and when you attempt to influence legislation on behalf of a client for pay you are by definition a lobbyist.
Regarding Fritchey's talking point that his zoning activities are a part-time job, well, so is Illinois state legislator. The relative weight of these two sources of income is an empirical question easily clarified by disclosure.
More on one Fritchey zoning change opposed by residents: rapper Rudy Acosta's castle visible off the Kennedy.
Wait Till They Find Out About the Moat
Chicago Reader, THE WORKS, Ben Joravsky, December 2, 2005
As a would-be rap mogul breaks ground for an honest-to-god castle on the northwest side, the neighbors turn on the prominent politician who brokered the deal.
When residents of Irving Park got wind of the plans hip-hop label owner Rudy Acosta had to build a 42-foot-high castle on the vacant lot he owns overlooking the Kennedy Expressway, they went on the attack, castigating city officials and lawyers for failing to give them adequate notice. Now they're battling on a second front: in their efforts to kill the castle they've made provocative accusations against John Fritchey, a well-connected state representative who's threatening to sue them for defamation. "This has struck as raw a nerve with me as anything in my 41 years on earth," Fritchey says.
Back in 2002, Acosta asked the city to change the zoning on a vacant parcel of land he owned at 3716 N. Lawndale from R3 to R4, a less restrictive category. To steer his petition through the city he hired Fritchey, who in addition to being a state rep is a zoning lawyer married to the niece of 36th Ward alderman William Banks, chair of the City Council's zoning committee. ...
Fritchey says he fulfilled the city's notification requirements for Acosta's zoning change, sending letters by certified mail to all owners of property within 250 feet of Acosta's lot and then filing an affidavit saying he'd done so. ...
Mr. Fritchey refused to offer proof, saying he threw out the returned signed receipts.
More...
https://securesite.chireader.com/cgi-bin/Archive/abridged2.bat?path=2005...
I find it appalling that John Fritchey considers standing up for working people "grandstanding". With all due respect to the Representative, he found plenty of time to "grandstand" on practically every TV segment that would host him to talk about the impeachment.
And while he may have legitimately been busy, the republic window workers where there 24- hours a day, you mean to tell me he couldn't find 15 minutes in his schedule to go by and show his support for them?
As a lobbyist for Bank of America, John Fritchey could have had a positive impact and stood with the workers. I guess after you look past all the excuses, we see where his loyalty really lies.
Post new comment