* As expected, House Speaker Michael Madigan will block a vote on Gov. Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of a legislative scholarship reform bill. Quinn rewrote the bill to abolish the program in its entirety. The Speaker’s spokesman was not kind…
It’s not in compliance with the constitution as it relates to the use of the amendatory veto. That’s very clear,” Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said. “This is something the speaker has worked on for two decades in terms of keeping the coequal branches of government intact.”
Referring to Quinn, Brown said, “You can’t sit around in one little place, one office, and say, ‘Here’s what I think the legislation should be.’ You have to engage in the legislative process. You can’t decide in the summer this is the bill I want. That’s not the way it was designed. There are three equal branches of government, regardless of the topic.”
* The governor’s response…
A Quinn aide said the governor is intent on getting rid of what one aide repeatedly characterized as the “political scholarship program.”
“Obviously the governor doesn’t agree,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said when told of Brown’s comments regarding the governor’s use of the amendatory veto.
As I’ve said before, the scholarships should be abolished. But I have always been uncomfortable with the way governors try to stretch their amendatory veto powers.
Your thoughts?
LIVE session coverage...
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
Yes, the A/V was a stretch, but Quinn has the moral high ground here and he only needs one legislator who agrees with him to sponsor a bill. Then he can use that bill to hammer away at those who support the ridiculous legislative tuition waiver program.
And it appears the feds might help Quinn by keeping the issue in the news.
- How Ironic - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:38 pm:
I agree with Quinn, and what he is trying to accomplish. That being said, the speaker is absolutely correct and the AV shouldn’t be used in this fashion.
Madigan wins. Again.
- Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:41 pm:
The AV should be done away with, as well as the political scholarship tuition waiver program. It only invites abuse and executive foolishness. Guess we have a long wait till another con-con.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:47 pm:
I’ve never understood why opponents of this boondoggle still refer to it as a “scholarship.” It’s nothing of the sort.
- Lincoln's Penny - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
Funny though, that Madigan thought the free-rides AV was “in-compliance”…
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.as
p?DocName=09500HB0656gms&GA=95&Sessio
nId=51&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=27782&
amp;DocNum=656&GAID=9&Session=
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:51 pm:
LP, good point. If I remember correctly, it was deemed too politically popular at the time to override. Plus, it was attached to an important transit bill. Killing that bill by refusing to allow an override vote wasn’t an option. And few wanted at that time to vote against the seniors.
- Jaded - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:51 pm:
== Executive foolishness==
Nice job Ray del Camino, you just summed up the Quinn adminstraiton in two words.
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:52 pm:
Given all the bad press this program has generated for legislators, why wouldn’t they want to get rid of it?
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
As abused as the program is, I’m with Brown. This A/V reminded me of “Rewrite to do Right.” Though I am sure that is not the primary reason MJM is holding onto this one.
- Its Just Me - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:16 pm:
I completely agree, the av process is for small, technical, and procedural corrections when the exec branch finds something the legis branch overlooked by accident; not to re-write the bill. I think Quinn’s biggest failure is that he doesn’t engage the legislature. He sits in his big office and thinks he is the big man and should get what he wants. That isn’t how it works, and it shouldn’t work that way either.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:20 pm:
I’ve always thought Madigan’s position on this was less principled than it seems. The Governor cannot unilaterally rewrite legislation - the General Assembly has to accept the changes. So how exactly does this make the two branches unequal? Sure, it shifts some of the leverage, but is that really worse than the solution of Madigan, to just tube the bill in its entirety?
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:29 pm:
I’ve been impressed that Madigan’s position on the AV has not changed with the party of the governor. Such consistency is rare in politics.
- MOON - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:36 pm:
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Madigan is on record in favor of ending these scholarships. I think his opposition to the AV is due to the fact it is far and above what he believes is allowed for AV’s.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:49 pm:
A bill to abolish these legislative tuition waivers was passed in the House, last year, with the Speaker’s full support, and was killed in the Senate.
- Old Milwaukee - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:56 pm:
This AV rule is a convenient excuse for Madigan to avoid ideas that he doesn’t want to deal with.
As was pointed out, the rule wasn’t the rule when Blagojevich changed the transit bill to include free rides for seniors.
- jake - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:13 pm:
Both right, both wrong. The program should be abolished, but the Governor should get involved with pushing things he wants during the legislative session. It is a terrible precedent to permit the Governor to unilaterally legislate after the fact. At this level, process is as important as policy.
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:42 pm:
Another Quinn red herring, this kind of thing is exactly where we should not be. Petty agurements
by a small thinker. We need jobs not more givaways.Bravo to Ray del Camino.
- downstate hack - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 4:48 pm:
he Program should probably be abolished or seriously reformed, but that is a job for the legislative process, not by overstepping intended veto powers of a Governor.
- sal-says - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 5:14 pm:
If Quinn wants the scholarships to be abolished, let him work [with] the legislature. Or is he above that? Or doesn’t know how? Or is too gadfly?
- DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:10 pm:
Quinn needs to take a look in the mirror and ask himself if Pat Quinn would approve of this sort of abuse of the AV.
You know the guy- Pat Quinn- gadfly, media hustler, do-gooder extraordinaire. No one has seen him lately but I keep waiting for him to show up on my tv and put the screws to the Governor, speaking truth to power.
- Mike Huntoon - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:12 pm:
those scholarships have to go . . .
but Quinn’s up to his usual tom-foolery and the AV is also a no go . . .
- Stark's Boys - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 12:12 am:
Some have questioned why Madigan feels the scholarship AV is out of bounds but the seniors-ride-free AV was OK.
I certainly don’t speak for Madigan, but AVs cannot change the fundamental purpose of the legislation. In 2007, the fundamental purpose of the RTA bill was the bailout. Blago didn’t touch that. In the case of the scholarship legislation that Quinn AVd, the fundamental purpose is to reform the GA scholarship program by preventing legislators from giving scholarships to relatives. Quinn’s AV eliminates the program altogether. I’d say that alters the fundamental purpose of the bill in a big way.
As usual, Madigan is right.