PHIL PAGANO

5/14/10

The recent suicide of Metra executive director Phil Pagano has been very much in the news locally and, I suspect, to a lesser extent, nationally over the last week or so. Whether what I have to say on the case is especially insightful or new is open to debate, but recent news has led me to encapsulate for my readers some of the thoughts that have arisen in my crowded cranium since Mr. Pagano’s mysterious suicide on May 7. Note that I know nothing beyond what I read in the papers; much of what I am writing is speculation and inquiry. None of it is necessarily fact or conclusion.

Phil Pagano had, as far as I can tell, a stellar reputation as a technocrat and a manager. He had been executive director of Metra, the transit agency that oversees commuter rail service in the six county Chicago area, since 1990. Under his leadership, Metra became, or solidified its place as, the country’s foremost commuter rail system. That Metra is the nation’s best commuter train system is readily apparent to its riders, and if one wishes to contest Metra’s preeminence in that endeavor I suggest a ride on the Long Island Railroad, but I digress. Given Mr. Pagano’s reputation, and obvious competence, it came as a shock when, late last month, it was revealed that he paid himself what was first described as an “unauthorized bonus,” but what was later described as “advance vacation pay” of $56,000, in violation of Metra’s compensation rules and practices. Mr. Pagano initially cooperated with investigators, including special counsel James Sotos, who were looking into Pagano’s alleged financial improprieties. However, last Friday, Mr. Pagano, who obviously had a sense of irony or a twisted sense of poetic justice, stepped in front of a Metra commuter train, killing himself instantly. In his pocket was found a Metra release on procedures to follow when commuter service is delayed by a train’s hitting either a car or a pedestrian. Since Mr. Pagano’s suicide, the estimate of the amount of money he expropriated from Metra has grown; as of this morning, the word was that he had taken “as much as $475,000,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

Mr. Pagano’s suicide is doubtless a (Words escape even me here.) sad and tragic event for Mr. Pagano and his family. One has to add, though, that this was also a traumatic and tragic event for the engineer of the train, and others who were operating the train, that Mr. Pagano chose to use as his instrument of self-destruction, especially since Mr. Pagano made eye contact, which doubtless took some effort, with the engineer just before impact. One would have wished that Mr. Pagano had been more, and I am not trying to be glib here, considerate in his choice of suicide methods. The engineer’s life is probably permanently scarred; how does one get over something like that, even though it was completely out of one’s control? Mr. Pagano’s choice was thoughtless and cruel. Killing himself was bad enough for his family; why did he have to wreak such havoc on an innocent man’s life in the process?

Given the circumstances, Mr. Pagano’s death certainly does not close this matter; the investigation of his financial finagling and its consequences continue, and they have to center around one key question: Why did Mr. Pagano kill himself? One can hope, which seems like a silly word here, that this was just an act of a disgraced yet proud man who couldn’t face the ignominy of having dishonored himself and damaged the agency that he did so much to build. But there may be more to it, and the crux of this matter has to boil down to one question: Why did Mr. Pagano, whose salary was $275,000, a pretty penny, especially when combined with public sector benefits, for anyone not employed by Goldman Sachs, feel the need to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars? Obviously, this is the focus of the investigation; when Mr. Pagano met with Mr. Sotos on May 5, he denied taking the money for illegal or immoral activities; he said, according to the Tribune, that it was a family matter, but that was all he said.

This may have been just a case of Mr. Pagano’s and his family’s living over their heads and finding themselves in financial trouble; that seems to be the new American way, even for people who make a LOT of money. It seems like more than enough is never enough. One hopes (again, a silly word in this context) that this was the case with Mr. Pagano, but, given that the Paganos, according to reports, live in a relatively modest home in Crystal Lake, a nice community but not, say, Lake Forest or Highland Park, the “living over one’s head” explanation, an obvious one in the case of about 95% of the American population, doesn’t seem to hold much water in Mr. Pagano’s case. So one must inevitably consider darker possibilities. AGAIN, I KNOW NOTHING BUT WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER. I AM ONLY SPECULATING AND QUESTIONING.

Was Mr. Pagano a gambler? He said that he didn’t take the money for illegal or immoral purposes, but he also might have been a liar on top of being an embezzler. Further, one’s definition of “immoral or illegal” can be quite flexible, varying, seemingly, from person to person, and the English language is subject to hair splitting; ask Bill Clinton, or any politician for that matter. Besides, what can be immoral about gambling? The common notion seems to be that if the state sponsors it, gambling is perfectly legal and moral. It is only when more entrepreneurial types are in charge of the action that it becomes immoral or illegal, but I digress. So Mr. Pagano could be gambling but still not be engaging in “immoral” activities, in his, or others’, estimation. And if he was a gambler, did he, as a result of this avocation, owe money to people whose idea of a loan workout is massaging the kneecaps of delinquent borrowers with Louisville Sluggers…or worse? (And I’m not talking about Adirondack bats, either.)

This being the greater Chicagoland area, one has to consider another dark possibility: Was some politician, or some politicians, putting the arm on Mr. Pagano to make sure that things continued to go smoothly for either him or his agency? Remember the excuse many employees of the Illinois Secretary of State’s office, when it was being run by future governor and federal inmate Honest George Ryan, gave for taking bribes? They were, they protested, only taking money because the lovable Mr. Ryan was constantly putting the arm on them to buy tickets to banquets and golf outings, to stuff envelopes with cash for “Christmas,” and otherwise to contribute to Mr. Ryan’s political operations and personal prosperity. One would have to be naïve to believe that these otherwise honest public servants only took money because Secretary of State McGruff was forcing them to do so, and that none of the bribe money made its way into the employees’ personal pockets, but the jury apparently concluded that such pressure from above was at least one of the reasons behind the open bazaar that Mr. Ryan’s Secretary of State’s office had become. What most people who have lived in this cesspool of corruption their whole lives realize, though, is that Mr. Ryan was by no means unique; extorting one’s employees, if one is a public servant, for “campaign” money is a time honored practice in these parts. And putting the arm on various public officials to insure continued favorable treatment, be that treatment employment, operational latitude, forbearance on investigation, or other perquisites of office, doubtless continues to this day. Could Mr. Pagano have been the target of such extortion attempts? Remember, Metra, Mr. Pagano’s agency, serves the six county CHICAGO metropolitan area.

Again, I don’t know the answers and I don’t even necessarily suspect any answers. But when we find out why Mr. Pagano, who was making more than a quarter million, somehow needed an extra nearly half million, much of this mystery will have been revealed.