Mayors to pressure Majority Leader
Thursday, Nov 12, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Illinois Municipal League…
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: IML Board of Directors
FROM: Joe McCoy, Legislative Director
RE: HB 4305 Procedural Hold
As previously reported, we had success in achieving House passage of HB 4305 on Tuesday. This bill allows for the release of several local funds (MFT, casino gaming, video gaming, 9-1-1 funds, etc.) being held by the state. Following the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House, a procedural hold was placed on the bill by Representative Currie, perhaps at the behest of Speaker Madigan.
Yesterday and today, Brad received direct assurances that there is bipartisan support for HB 4305 in the Senate, but the Senate cannot consider the bill until the procedural hold imposed in the House is lifted.
It is important that mayors contact Representative Currie’s Office and respectfully request that the procedural hold be lifted from HB 4305 so that the Senate can vote on this important legislation. Representative Currie’s district office number is (773) 667-0550. Messages intended for Representative Currie’s Springfield office can be conveyed by calling (217) 782-5350.
The danger here for the House Democrats is that the mayors turn on them for bricking their bill.
* Phil Kadner tries to make some sense of the Majority Leader’s motion…
State Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, told me that during a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting earlier Tuesday the Senate Democrats decided they wanted to amend the bill to include natural gas revenue that was withheld by the state and that’s normally used for emergency heating assistance for poor people.
Cunningham said it’s his understanding the plan is to have the House reconsider its vote, with the amendments, in early December and have the Senate convene immediately thereafter. […]
Cunningham said he assumed that’s why Currie placed the motion to reconsider on the bill.
State Rep. Al Riley, D-Olympia Fields, the assistant House majority leader, told me Currie’s motion was just a parliamentary tactic to prevent anyone else from “putting a brick” on the bill that would stop it from being approved.
“It’s a tactic to prevent anyone else from coming in and stopping the measure,” Riley said. “Nothing more.”
I don’t think Cunningham is right because I can’t find anything in the House rules or with the people I’ve consulted that allows for new amendments on House bills that have passed on 3rd Reading. Plus, the Senate could simply add an amendment of its own.
…Adding… A former House parliamentarian disagrees…
If the motion to reconsider passes, the bill is then put back on the order of 3rd, and then can be brought back to 2nd for an amendment
I defer.
…Adding More…. A second former House parliamentarian says they can move it back to 2nd as well. So, I totally defer.
And Riley’s explanation is kinda interesting, since filing that motion is, in fact, a “brick” on the bill. Are they worried that somebody’s gonna billjack the Speaker?
…Adding… From a usually insightful and knowledgeable commenter…
The motion was filed to protect Ken Dunkin from filing a similar motion first, and having control of the bill. The motion to reconsider, IMHO, has nothing to do with the Senate.
That makes some sense.
…Adding More… A rebuttal in comments which also makes sense…
If it was really intended to simply block another Representative from hijacking the bill with a motion to reconsider, she would have immediately moved to table her motion. That would have prevented a hijacking and prevented a delay in sending to the Senate.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 11:58 am:
Cullerton needs to schedule session dates immediately. If he wants to take action, he needs to get the ball rolling, Currie with remove the brick, or risk major damage to HDEMS.
- Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 11:58 am:
MFT includes road salt purchases for many municipalities and counties. Ah Mr. Speaker, you might want to check Skilling’s long-range forecast.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:00 pm:
The motion was filed to protect Ken Dunkin from filing a similar motion first, and having control of the bill. The motion to reconsider, IMHO, has nothing to do with the Senate.
- Juice - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:07 pm:
I’m also not entirely buying the Senate amendment rationale. If that was the concern, there are a couple of senate appropriation bills that could have been amended and sent back if the House had wanted to have the Senate take it or leave it.
- My button is broke... - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:09 pm:
If the motion was made to prevent Rep. Dunkin from making the same motion, Rep. Currie should withdraw the motion anytime now. Only one member can make the motion. So she can withdraw the motion, Rep. Dunkin can’t make the same motion and it can go to the Senate. If she doesn’t withdraw the motion soon, then its most likely a brick until a deal is made with the House and Senate as to amendments.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
Fine. Get the Sente down tomorrow, take off the brick and move on.
Rauner had this as hostage for months. Times-a-wasting.
- scott aster - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:21 pm:
This is great…..all the folks can learn from the various manauvers that run our wonderful government.
- Anon221 - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:32 pm:
Could this bill be used at The Meeting to ask Rauner if there is anything ELSE he would like added in. Seemed like a lot of his “asks” came very late in the game the few days.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:34 pm:
To the “adding… ”
I guess, when the next session day happens, and the Senate is in, and the Bill isn’t over to the other Chamber, I guess, “procedurally” nothing is held hostage until then?
Ugh.
- Malone - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
If it was really intended to simply block another Representative from hijacking the bill with a motion to reconsider, she would have immediately moved to table her motion. That would have prevented a hijacking and prevented a delay in sending to the Senate.
- Anon2U - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
Has Rauner started the process of shifting who “owns” the morass that is Springfield? Madigan has chalked up many failures this overtime session and $20 million can go a long way pounding that into people’s heads.
- the Patriot - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
==Rauner had this as hostage for months–
And by delaying until, “early December” the legislature is risking shutting down the state if there is a snow storm as most locals will not move snow without MFT. One 8 inch snow would turn the Governor’s yield into a legislative boondoggle.
- free spirit - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:46 pm:
Appears the Speaker has lost control. Sun Times headline amusing to most. Wonder when donors will realize that he can no longer deliver. Free at last, free at last!
- Norseman - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:57 pm:
Dunkin motion theory is not possible see House Rule 65.
“65. Reconsideration.
(a) A member who voted on the prevailing side of a record vote on a legislative
measure still within the control of the House may on the same or the following legislative
day move to reconsider the vote.”
Dunkin didn’t vote on the prevailing side!
Furthermore Rule 65 says:
“(e) A Representative who voted “present” or failed to vote on a question does not
have the right to move for reconsideration.”
So that puts the Senate theory back in play.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 1:00 pm:
Norseman, Dunkin voted Yes. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/99/house/09900HB4305_11102015_004000T.pdf
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 1:14 pm:
“Continuous session” is Madiganese for “every once in a while”.
- Norseman - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 1:26 pm:
Rich, my bad!
- Dirty Red - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 1:31 pm:
Is there a story behind why MFT, E911, etc. are not continuing approps?
- GA - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 2:26 pm:
Go Senate Ds! Appropriate state liheap!! Please!! Hope Cunningham was right
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 2:35 pm:
Playing with the IML is playing with fire.
- walker - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
In other words, wait and see, before seeing this as some kind of ominous sign.
- Ugh - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
==- Malone - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
If it was really intended to simply block another Representative from hijacking the bill with a motion to reconsider, she would have immediately moved to table her motion. That would have prevented a hijacking and prevented a delay in sending to the Senate. ==
She can withdraw the motion whenever she wants. The House doesn’t have to be in session. My assumption is she will withdraw once the Senate schedules a date. Unless the want to hold the bill and move it back to Second to amend it.
- Anonin' - Thursday, Nov 12, 15 @ 3:44 pm:
Silly lobbyist mistake