* A bit of a recap from yesterday…
Illinois Democrats are proposing $700 million to partially finance various human service programs that have gone without state funding since last summer because there’s no budget.
A House committee on Wednesday unanimously advanced the bill to the full chamber. The measure would use $450 million from a fund dedicated to human services and $250 million from other special funds. […]
The money would go to programs including homelessness prevention, rental assistance, addiction treatment, and veterans’ rehabilitation.
The proposal would fund 46 percent of what human service programs expected to receive had the state budget taken effect July 1.
* Tribune…
Officials with Rauner’s office threw cold water on the social services plan, saying they feared the legislation is a signal that Democrats will pull out of behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at striking a comprehensive deal, which has thus far remained elusive.
Further, if lawmakers continue to empty those funds, there will be less flexibility for Rauner down the road when the next budget emergency arises – such as the operation of prisons, where vendors are also waiting to be paid.
* That approp bill passed today. A senior administration official passed along this memo from the governor’s budget office which claims there are some bigtime problems with the bill…
Senate Bill 2038 has been put forward as a stop gap measure to fund some state programs currently not funded due to lack of appropriation authority.
The language contained in section 996 would prohibit some agencies from funding some of the very programs that this bill purports to fund. By prohibiting the use of funds for operational expenditures, some of the programs, which are operational in nature, would not be able to be funded. The prohibitive language is as follows:
“Section 996. No appropriation authority granted in this Act shall be used for personal services, state contribution for employee group insurance, contractual services, travel, commodities, equipment, permanent improvements, land, electronic data processing, operation of automotive equipment, or telecommunications services, as those terms are defined in Section 13 of the State Finance Act.”
We believe this provision clearly prohibits spending from operational line items which would be needed to implement some of the spending priorities outlined in this bill.
In fact, the appropriations language that authorizes funding for these programs references that the funding can be used for “administrative expenses” over 30 times in the bill, then prohibits the use of administrative expenses to carry out the programs in Section 996. Section 996 language is extraordinarily uncommon and seems to run counter to the purpose of the bill.
A few examples:
Dept on Aging
• Senior Help Line is a call center. Aging could not pay the related phone line charges and communication equipment used to support the call center.
Military Affairs
• Lincoln’s Challenge could not pay for food, educational/instructional materials and supplies to support the program.
Healthcare and Family Services
• Information Technology Infrastructure is an intergovernmental agreement with Michigan to develop new eligibility system. These expenditures would fall under contractual services and electronic data processing, which would be prohibited by Article 996.
Dept of Human Services
• Cornerstone is the main reporting and billing system for programs such as Early Intervention. A third party administers this system and DHS would not be able to pay the vendors to maintain the system or upgrade the computer software.
Dept of Public Health
• HIV/AIDS ADAP program could not purchase medical supplies, pay for lab testing or pay insurance premiums for clients.
Oy.
*** UPDATE *** Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), who chairs the Human Services Appropriations Committee, just called to say that the language was “intentional.” It wasn’t an error. Harris explained it was done this way to prevent the administration from transfering the money around for administrative costs.
But GOMB makes a good point that there could very well be some unintended consequences, so we’ll see what happens now that it’s in the Senate.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:05 pm:
Oh those pesky drafting gremlins…
- Capitol View - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
the language obviously refers to no such spending by the state agencies distributing the funds, not the grants or contracts recipients There must be standard interpretations or court cases that reinforce this common sense interpretation.
- Mama - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
What the heck is going on here?
- Dirty Red - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:18 pm:
Wow. Good catch. That’s getting really deep into the details.
- Honeybear - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:21 pm:
I think they are moving fast and made some mistakes. Good catch GOMB but let’s not whack your partners in government when we’re all starting to pull together. In the Navy we have Officers Wardroom etiquette. “Praise in public, Criticize in private.” Since you officers are now in the same mess, literally and figuratively, I suggest that you now observe wardroom etiquette.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:32 pm:
I’m stuck on my phone or I wouldn’t ask: Can someone provide a link to the text of Senate Bill 2038? I want to read Sec. 996 in context.
– MrJM
- I'llPourYouAGlass - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
I agree with Capitol View @2:13pm. The section mentions “appropriation authority” not simply appropriation. It is referring to the state agencies not the service providers receiving the appropriated money.
- Mama - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
++@MisterJayEm - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:32 pm:++ Senate Bill 2038:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/SB/PDF/09900SB2038lv.pdf
- Mama - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
How can the workers distribute the funds to the proper parties do so without supplies or a salary?
The funds cannot disburse themselves.
- Miss Marie - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
That’s a little bit of a far reaching interpretation by GOMB. The House was clearly referring to agency operational costs, not grant operational costs.
If you look at appropriation bills from year past, those identical items are used to list out the operational appropriations of the agencies, and they are usually listed out in the same order as they are in sec 996
- Earnest - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
Does this mean they’ve finished off all the other things for which they were “going to supply details later”?
- walker - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 2:51 pm:
It appears the Gov’s office is wrong, as this language is usually interpreted. But if they’re still confused, perhaps some clarification is in order.
“Major drafting errors” appears to be the go to language of the week.
- Juvenal - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 3:59 pm:
“It’s a feature, not a bug”
The language ensures the funds are spent on the actual delivery of services.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 4:04 pm:
Not a lawyer, but I’ve read a lot of approp bills over the years and find the GOMB position to, frankly, be a bit of a stretch, if you will.
I appear to be in good company from reading the comments above. Anyone have an argument for the GOMB position?
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
AA:
It really depends on how the Comptroller interprets that language. I’m assuming that these expenditures are occurring out of a 1900 (lump sum line) or 4400 (grant line). However, when you submit an expenditure you still have to give it a detail object code that reflects the purpose of the expenditure. So, for example, if you spent funds for the Senior Help line from the Dept of Aging you would submit the expenditure for the phone line as a 1900 lump sum expenditure with a detail object code of 1700 (which is telecommunications).
I agree with OMB that this language could create problems.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
I would also say that the interpretation of this language is going to be put on the Comptroller. She’ll decide whether an expenditure fits within the appropriation authority granted here.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 4:34 pm:
Seeing how SB 2038 passed the House 111-0 and the Senate 56-0 and given the Tribune’s attribution in Rich’s report, does the Governor’s Office now fear the legislation is a signal that the Republicans will also pull out of behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at striking a comprehensive deal? Hearing grumblings that they are getting restless despite the $5M recently thrown their way.
- for the record - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 5:09 pm:
Demoralized is correct. It is a little bit of inside baseball on the mechanics of how the state actually pays the bills, but please follow along.
Article 3, Section 5 is the AIDS/HIV funding. The appropriation clearly states that Drugs, Counseling, Testing and other activities are authorized by the appropriation. However, it is the department of public health that actually purchases the drugs. In state accounting circles, drugs fall under Medical, Scientific and Laboratory supplies, which falls under the broader category of Commodities. The appropriations cannot be used to purchase commodities - no drugs.
Testing, another component of the appropriation would be considered Hospital and Medical Services which falls under the broad category of Contractual Services. The appropriation cannot be used to pay for Contractual Services - no testing.
Counseling - if not performed by a medical professional (already prohibited), it would likely be considered other professional services, which falls under Contractual Services, which can’t be paid.
So, no drugs, no testing, no counseling can be paid from an appropriation that authorizes the department to pay for things like drugs, testing and counseling.
With me so far?
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 6:14 pm:
The wording speaks loudly about how much Rauner is trusted. That is the scariest part of the discussion.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 12, 16 @ 8:06 pm:
Blago Rules.
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 2:10 am:
No medical supplies or lab testing for HIV/AIDS. No vendor reporting or billing for Human Services Early Intervention. No food, educational materials or supplies for Lincoln’s Challenge. No Senior Help Line for the elderly.
This was ==intentional==?
The Big Brains in the House want… this?
- Miss Marie - Friday, May 13, 16 @ 9:14 am:
Formerly Known As,
No, that was not the intention of the House. Rep Harris said the intention was for the money not to be spent on Agency Operations, but on programs. GOMB presented this interpretation after the House voted on it. The House and the Senate appear to disagree with this interpretation.