72 Comments - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:31 am: Because this post is critical of the Speaker and not the Governor I would expect very few comments on the thread besides OW the chief defender of the Speaker - OldIllini - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:31 am: So you’re saying it was Madigan setting up the Republicans to appear to play a race card. The only solution I see to all of this mess is a Republican majority in the House. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:33 am: ===If you always portray yourself as a man of your word, then keep your freaking word. Simple.=== Yep. Can’t make a deal and then be the one to “break it”, especially when you and your written remarks and your spokesmen continually talk about trust. That was more than bad form yesterday. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:36 am: Oh geez, - Lucky Pierre - Do yourself a solid, wait to be a victim to my comment(s) after I make them. K? K. - Lester Holt's Mustache - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:37 am: Not only does that sow more distrust between the speaker and the Gov/HR’s, but also with the BC. I assume at some point Madigan told BC members he would run this amendment, knowing it couldn’t be included without causing the uproar yesterday. Unless maybe he just had a senior moment and forgot that this wasn’t one of the items everyone agreed on? He is getting kind of up there in age…. - Anon221 - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:38 am: If Madigan hadn’t allowed this to come up and to the floor, would the Black Caucus members have voted “No”? Would it have mattered? probably not. There were enough R’s planning to vote “Yes”. Did it cause unneeded turmoil. Mostly, yes, but it did allow Currie to answer and calm some of the valid questions the Black Caucus members had. I especially her reply that next time maybe the GA needs to have more defined line items to make sure fewer concerns may fall through a crack or loophole. I think that exercise was more valid than Mitchell’s last ditch plea for and Exelon bailout. - thunderspirit - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:38 am: There’s a reason trust issues go both ways, and yesterday was a trademark example of it. There is plenty of blame to go around, regardless of on which side of the aisle your preferences lie. - VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:39 am: I heard they met on an airport tarmac in a private jet neither was using, to discuss their grandkids for 30 minutes. Yeah, I so trust them. - Nieva - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:40 am: When grants are passed around the people that usually benefit the most are the people that are in charge of them. How many failed programs like this have we seen. Bad idea all around. - Amalia - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:40 am: what is really needed is an overhaul of some so called higher education entities. standards are not near high enough, certain administrators are paid far too much, and determining a person’s talents may lead to some place other than college. it’s a real mess in higher ed and that needs focus. - Honeybear - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:41 am: I didn’t get that either. So Madigan would have to approve that amendment being put forward? I thought it was the Black Caucus that did it without consulting Madigan. Wow, that does change the trust equation. I don’t know what you’re talking about Lucky. You have to remember that Madigan was AFSCME enemy No 1 before Rauner. We have our interests aligned right now but I still don’t trust him. Beyond that however, does anyone think that the last minute amendment was a message instead of a trust goof? Might it be that Madigan was showing his power over the black caucus since Rauner has been courting them? Just a strange thought. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:42 am: When Rep Currie began withdrawing her prior amendments, it left no doubt leadership was involved. It really looked like this could fall apart. Kudos to Madigan for doing the right thing in the end, but this was completely unnecessary and left some members of both parties with a bad taste in their mouth. - wordslinger - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:42 am: –Because this post is critical of the Speaker and not the Governor I would expect very few comments on the thread besides OW the chief defender of the Speaker– The victim force is strong in this one. It was a bonehead, Keystone Kops play — so much for the all-knowing, all-controlling speaker — that was over in an hour. Was the Black Caucus threatening to blow up the structured roll call without the amendment? Had they really been left out of negotiations? Who talked them into withdrawing the amendment? Bonehead play, not helpful, but I don’t think any social service providers were shut down or people lost their jobs over it. - Lester Holt's Mustache - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:42 am: ==Because this post is critical of the Speaker and not the Governor I would expect very few comments on the thread be== If it helps any LP, another frequent commentor will be here in a few minutes to blame this on the teachers unions and “the Chicaguh way” - Mama - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:42 am: Both Madigan and the Legislative Black Caucus knew Madigan needed their votes to pass the stopgap bill. I think Madigan was between a rock and a hard place. - Abe the Babe - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:44 am: @Lucky Dont like the views of a majority of commenters on a website? There’s a simple solution. Go somewhere else. I hear the comment section at the SJR website is filled with informed, intelligent, and thought provoking writers. snark/ Youd fit in there…Another day another victim - cdog - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:49 am: Maybe Madigan was trying to not look like a “dictator” and so he gave the caucus their moment. - Ahoy! - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:50 am: I could be wrong here, but if this was a priority, it probably would have been included in the final deal. - Dome Gnome - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:50 am: It was an unnecessary game to play, no question. I stopped breathing at one stretch, because I thought the wheels were falling off right before my eyes. This eleventh hour drama, while exciting on one level, really toys with our emotions. I’m a real person, not a plaything. - Norseman - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:51 am: P.S. FKA, good comment. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 10:56 am: Not sure what you mean by victim. The point is an obvious one- the the super majority of commenters blame Rauner almost exclusively for the impasse and disregard the Speaker’s intransigence. A reasonable compromise with revenue, cuts and some reforms recommended by a bipartisan working group should have been worked out last summer. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:01 am: The black caucus is not a priority to the Dems. A clear sign of that is their priorities being left out of the final deal. News flash… Did any other caucus have concerns? No, because their concerns were addressed in the initial deal. Can’t say I am surprised. - DuPage - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:02 am: I think the Black Caucus realized the deal did not include the items they wanted AFTER the “deal” had been worked out. Whether the Black Caucus forgot about it, or Rauner’s negotiators quietly deleted it without telling Madigan’s side, once the “deal” was completed, it should not have been re-opened. That being said, Rauner has done much, much worse. - Springfieldish - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:03 am: Last I checked, the Speaker serves at the whim of his rank and file, of which the BC are constituents. The next two years will not ever be a process of building trust between the Governor and the Speaker. That link was permanently broken by the Governor less than 4 months into his first year in office. The trust that really matters is between the Speaker or the Minority Leader and their respective caucus members. Both leaders understand why those amendments were proffered and why a little bit of political hay would be made of it. As has been oft recommended: Deep breath. The trust that matters wasn’t damaged one little itty-bit. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:06 am: ===Rauner has done much, much worse.=== Really?! At the very last, last vote-taking moment of an agreed to deal to get Illinois at least through calendar year 2016… No. Rauner hadn’t done anything like this. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:07 am: Norseman - gracias! You nailed it as well on yesterday’s thread once we all got caught up. Things were moving fast. The sequence of what the Speaker coordinated so quickly was impressive. It was possible to see his move, then reconsider it for the better as the amendments were withdrawn, submitted, then settled on. It all ended well, and hope they build on this. - Saluki - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:08 am: Light Traffic on the blog today. I think Rich should go ahead and post the song and take next week off. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:10 am: ===I thought it was the Black Caucus that did it without consulting Madigan=== No. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:14 am: ===Not sure what you mean by victim=== You were the very first commenter and already you were lamenting about me and others not commenting at all. Read what you wrote, learn from how it was received. I’m done with it, and don’t drag me into your victimhood. To the Post, Orchestration of votes and the sequences of votes, and the presenting of language isn’t “accidental”. Being put in a position where obvious trust is broken isn’t “accidental” either. - Joe Bidenopolous - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:15 am: I’m struggling to remember a time when a spending plan with any significant opposition wasn’t held up by the black caucus at some point. That’s not a slam on them - they realize that when a vote might be close, they have the leverage (there’s that word) to stand up and try to get more for their constituents. I’d guess that Madigan was engaging in member management, that Durkin likely knew what was going on, and that little bit of member management allowed Madigan to talk the BC off the cliff when the predictable potential of killing the deal became more likely. - Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:16 am: ===that Durkin likely knew what was going on=== You’re right about the member management, but he should’ve told Durkin and Rauner what he was going to do. He didn’t. That’s not right. In prior years, he would’ve. - A guy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:19 am: On the surface, it was totally boneheaded and very embarrassing. Was it avoidable? Should have been. Then….why wasn’t it? Maybe we saw some unrest on display demanding more attention going forward. This was a surprise. To just about everyone. Just about. - Norseman - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:20 am: === So Madigan would have to approve that amendment being put forward? I thought it was the Black Caucus that did it without consulting Madigan. === As Rich said, Madigan let the amendment go forward. The Black Caucus couldn’t or wouldn’t do the amendment without Madigan knowing. There are plenty of staff involved and they want to keep their jobs. Not telling Madigan would be one way of losing them. I assume that Madigan felt he had to do the amendment for the BC. His error was not discussing his caucus problem with Durkin et al. before the amendment came up. - Gone - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:22 am: =You’re right about the member management, but he should’ve told Durkin and Rauner what he was going to do. He didn’t. That’s not right. In prior years, he would’ve.= Probably a good thing the budget office drafted the bill or you may have seen more of this underhanded stuff outside of the agreement show up. - DuPage - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:23 am: @O.W. 11:06 ==Rauner has done much, much worse.== I meant that in the overall context of everything he has done (or not done) as governor. - IRLJ - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:27 am: From the sidelines, it smelled like Madigan allowing the Black Caucus a moment in the spotlight, knowing the BC’s amendment was DOA, all for internal Democratic Party reasons. At the time, Rich commented, urging patience, and it was soon resolved. Trust? Trust, but verify, my friends. - Norseman - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:27 am: === Was it avoidable? Should have been. Then….why wasn’t it? Maybe we saw some unrest on display demanding more attention going forward. === There has been a few instances where things have seemed out of kilter. The ham-handed Madigan budget vote was another example of this. There certainly needs to be better communications by them - internally and externally. Have their communications lines been disrupted by OODA Loops? /s - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:27 am: - DuPage - In the context of this Post and the ideal of Trust and the timing and ramifications, I stand by my comment, as I now understand your comment. No worries. - A guy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:27 am: There have been very few well coordinated narratives coming out of the Dem side all year. One of the few cogent ones was their view that they could not “trust” the other negotiating party. And then this. They just forfeited the only narrative that might have had an ounce of traction by violating it themselves…in a big, ill-timed, public and embarrassing way. When they do things, they do them big. - Honeybear - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:30 am: Okay so we know that Madigan let it go forward, which obviously created a trust breach. But was there a message in it, or is Madigan slipping? I’m not one of the Madigan is allpowerful club but this is/was a big deal. Intentional actions done in such times, I would think have meaning. What would could that be? If it was important enough to do, I would think it would be important enough to try to understand. Or am I trying to hard? Could it be, A. BC you are important enough to me that I would pull this stunt at the last minute. B. I can get what I want. Look what I can get people to do. C. Hey Rauner, you made these promises to the BC. Why didn’t you include them from your end. I don’t know. I’m new at this. But are there “reasons/meanings” that I don’t get? - A guy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:31 am: ===- DuPage - In the context of this Post and the ideal of Trust and the timing and ramifications…==== In any context, you’re sorely mistaken DuP. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:31 am: ===…in a big, ill-timed, public and embarrassing way.=== Then they corrected it, allowing the deal to be unaltered. Let’s not think this ridiculousness is any bigger or smaller than what it is… especially when trust on the outside of the chamber consisted of robocalls before and during voting… and yet the “We’er all in this together” structured roll calls remained. Context. - Chicagonk - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:32 am: Why does the black caucus continue to focus on ineffective programs like GYOT? These programs are remarkably inefficient and also duplicate many other federal and local organizations and yet the BC and Madigan almost scuttled the entire budget bill over it. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:34 am: - A Guy - Please don’t speak for me. I know what I typed, make your own point. Thank you. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:35 am: Why in this day and age do we even have a black caucus. Aren’t black issues everyone’s issues? Don’t we all want to have teachers scholarships and grow your own teacher programs for all? I guess I just don’t understand the segregation of a caucus for a particular group. - A guy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:36 am: === Let’s not think this ridiculousness is any bigger or smaller than what it is… === Yeah, Willy. Let’s not. It was huge. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:39 am: ===Yeah, Willy. Let’s not. It was huge.=== As big as signing contracts with Social Service groups with zero intention of paying these contractors, but lying to these groups, making them work until the company folds or people get laid off? All on purpose. - A Guy -, Madigan fixed this error. Rauner can never make these social service groups whole. Context. - A guy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:43 am: ===with zero intention of paying these contractors=== Wow man. You’ve got yet another supreme gift. You can discern people’s intent. Amazing. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:47 am: The fact that you ask why their is a black caucus let’s many know that you are oblivious to the reality of the world we live in. You should ask a black person or a Hispanic person why it’s necessary… - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:47 am: “Squeeze the beast” - A Guy -… You said it yourself… I can show you again, “shysters”… To the Post, The grandstanding versus breaking a trust should be a very healthy reminder that politics based on trust beats political grandstanding. This error is a fundamental one. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:49 am: If ya can’t think of a name, how can I take your criticism? Plus, making a point includes the point. If you had one, you woulda made it. - Norseman - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:52 am: Oswego Willy @ 11:49 am, well said. It’s amazing that some people are too dull or too lazy to pick a name. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 11:53 am: =or Rauner’s negotiators quietly deleted it without telling Madigan’s side= What? Rauner had nothing to do with this. The BC felt taken for granted, that their concerns weren’t reflected in the negotiated bill. If Madigan had communicated better with the BC during negotiations, or had he ommunicated better with the Republicans during yesterday’s votes, this could have been avoided. Instead, Rep Burke of the Beverly and Evergreen Park area introduced a surprise floor amendment. Then Majority Leader Currie suddenly withdrew her prior amendments, leaving Burke’s amendment as the only option. After GOP protest to this last minute change to the deal, Burke withdrew her amendment and Currie submitted a new one that was the original agreement. Rauner has never, iirc, done something like that. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:00 pm: If I knew which ” - Anonymous - ” was ignoring me… lol No one is forcing you to read anything. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:04 pm: ===How about you let the readers know identity. More than willing to take your lead.=== I thought my views are worthless, so now you want to know who I am? That makes no sense. - Doug Simpson - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:05 pm: I’m sure hoping that the White Caucus got something out of the deal yesterday. - Responsa - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:06 pm: Please stop. Both of you. - Anonymous - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:07 pm: What a joke. When you are willing to be honest on your identity - so will I. You just keep plugging away big guy. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:09 pm: I don’t care who you are. Please stop. - Honeybear - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:30 pm: Whoooo weeee OW you are makin pearls! You are a grain of sand irritant to a some people these days. They are all over you. Must be something they don’t like in what you’re saying. You know you’re on to something when anonymous comments make a sharp uptick. - Winnin' - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:31 pm: Anyone who has been around the Capitol for awhile knows the pattern: a deal is struck and then the Black Caucus uses its leverage for a better deal. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. It’s a little like Jack Franks bloviating. Frustrating but predictable. - illini - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:32 pm: Could not agree more about the ANONYMOUS comments - Get a handle so we all know who we are responding to. Please! - Politix - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:36 pm: Why does the black caucus continue to focus on ineffective programs like GYOT? These programs are remarkably inefficient and also duplicate many other federal and local organizations and yet the BC and Madigan almost scuttled the entire budget bill over it.” Agreed. It was obviously some kind of pet project/pork. I don’t feel sorry for them one bit. The power the BC once had seems greatly diminished when compared to past years. It’s as if they haven’t been able to regain their footing after NRI and Quinn’s loss. - Winnin' - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:39 pm: Sometimes a member of a caucus wants to try something and the rest go along — with a caveat. We’ll give it a try, but we’re not scuttling the whole bill for your issue. And so it goes… - Winnin' - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:41 pm: I vote that we call Anonymous “Anonymous” from now on and maybe he or she will become irrelevant. Oh wait, he or she already is. Never mind. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:44 pm: i could think of a dozen better ways to mock me… I hope you feel better To the BC and the Amendment, None of the orchestration was accidental. The approval is the problem - Keyser Soze - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:47 pm: What, the Speaker pulled a fast one at the last minute? Are there any more Mickey Fins in the budget that we will learn of later? - illini - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 12:49 pm: @Winnin’ - great point. My rule, which I sometimes will break, is to never respond to Anonymous. Yet. it is d@@n hard not to respond to some of the inane comments I read. - Athens - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 1:04 pm: Keyzer, No. Because GOMBY drafted the bill. Not Madigan. - Sideline watcher - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 1:21 pm: The Black Caucus asked for a commitment to two programs while they were in their “first in however many months caucus” because the money was lump summed. They never asked for an amendment. Everything is staff heavy over there. They were told we’ve drafted am amendment to deal with your concerns. They were surprised as everyone else and braced themselves for the inevitable blame and scapegoating that was going to happen. It’s par for the course actually. Grow Your Own is a primarily Hispanic caucus initiative. When any other caucuses ask for specific requests it’s just dealt with. When the Black Caucus does it, it’s somehow offensive. Give me a break. Rich’s analysis is spot on. - Chicago_Downstater - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 1:25 pm: @ Rich Friday, July 1, 16 @ 11:16 am “[Madigan] should’ve told Durkin and Rauner what he was going to do. He didn’t. That’s not right. In prior years, he would’ve.” That’s what gets me about yesterday. Say what you will about Madigan, but he didn’t use to play ball quite like this. Rauner and his PR machine have really gotten under the Speaker’s skin. This doesn’t bode well for the next round of budget talks come November. And I doubt that this election season is going to ease personal grudges on either side. Really not good. - Last Bull Moose - Friday, Jul 1, 16 @ 1:26 pm: It sounds like Madigan had several unforced errors on this vote. As others have said, the trust issue is immense. It is possible to work with people who you can’t trust. I’ve done it. It is exhausting and there are many good outcomes that simply cannot be reached. My hope is that the working groups built bonds of trust among the members. The lift for much more revenue will require all sides to act in concert. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.