48 Comments - Dozer - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:22 am: or Governor - Sick & Tired - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:24 am: Just like how vulnerable residents of Illinois should not be held hostage by a billionaire governor who just doesn’t *get it*. - Anon221 - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:24 am: Follow.The.Law. Munger had a “pass” from Rauner to flaunt the law. Mendoza does not, and he will reap massive benefits if she does. GoAround. Don’t get caught in the undertow of the TA. - NobodysAccountable - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:26 am: Hopefully she will start paying the legislators and stop paying the state employees. Let’s allow the process to play out as it is intended. - Honeybear - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:30 am: She obviously needs the legal cover to pay legislators because of Rauner rhetoric and perfidy. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:30 am: Leslie Munger made a complete joke of her oath when the stopgap came and Munger’s Chief of Staff said they are “reassessing” At that point, Munger mocked her oath. If Mendoza does the same, I’ll be as harsh, if not harsher. Munger deserves the stain of the lawsuit. Mendoza will have the stain of starting off her term unconstitutionally. That’s not hyperbole, that’s recognizing that the popular doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. - Chucktownian - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:31 am: Mendoza should refuse to pay anyone and shut it all down as Topinka would have. Without her untimely death we have no budget disaster. - Team Sleep - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:32 am: Chucktownian - you and I agree on little but we agree on that. I felt the same way after Vince Demuzio passed away. Certain people just have that “it” factor. JBT and Vince had “it”. - Thoughts Matter - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:34 am: I agree she has to pay the legislators. I(unfortunately) agree that us state employees should not be getting paid without a budget - and therefore should not be working. If that came to pass, both a budget and an AFSCME contract would occur in just a few days. So she needs to step up and pay the legislators. She then needs to refuse to pay ( not just delay) the employees. - JoeMaddon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:34 am: Thanks Rich - you’re absolutely right on this. - Annonin' - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:40 am: Face Munger blew it when she played “Pick The Winners” with CMS and the bankers at the vendor assistance program. Then she as comfortable helpin Rauner and the 1%ers squeeze their opponents in the GA. What better to build support for the “reforms” by F* people’s efforts to pay the mortgages or child support or other debt. Hopefully this means IL is done sufferin’ the like of Munger — now 0-2 — in electoral bids. Thank goodness. - Ggeo - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:41 am: Look. If people have to go searching for a paycheck on the side, their full attention ain’t gonna be on the state’s problems. I mean that in the best way and the worst way possible. - Roman - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:45 am: If she wants to really show political courage, Mendoza will find a way to appeal the unconstitutional circuit court decision from 2015 that allowed the Comptroller to keep paying state employees in the absence of a state budget, thereby avoiding a government shutdown. That might force a budget settlement (as it did in 1991) and Mendoza could take credit for it. It also would expose her to a whole bunch of blame. But, that is, after all, the definition of courage. - justacitizen - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:45 am: When Roland Burris was Comptroller way back, he issued an incorrect tax stmt (1099) to auditor general Cronson - questionable whether intentional or not - but RB did not quickly correct the tax problem. Cronson made life miserable for the Comptroller’s Office after that. Moral: don’t abuse your constitutional authority. - JustRight - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:48 am: Umm, our budget does not have revenue to pay everyone that is owed. Comptroller is an Elected Executive with the authority to prioritize who gets paid first. This advice is sound. - Arock - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:56 am: For two decades the General Assembly and the Governor have failed to pass a balanced budget per the Illinois Constitution as well as made the required payments into the pension system so let’s not say the Legislators have a Constitutional right to a pay check. They have not passed a budget with expenditures for their pay. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:58 am: - JustRight - Read the Constitution and the accompanying statutes about legislator pay. ===Comptroller is an Elected Executive with the authority to prioritize who gets paid first. This advice is sound.=== If Mendoza wants to break her oath, then it’s sound. Do you realize the constitutional problems it bring when the Comptroller “decides” when legislators get paid? Why stop with a budget. How about Conceal Carry reforms, Abortion, Same Sex Marriage. “Repeal, or no pay. Pass or no pay” Geez, Louise, the constitution exists to help, it’s not a hinderence to democracy, it’s keeping democracy. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:58 am: ===so let’s not say the Legislators have a Constitutional right=== Except they probably do. Can’t just wish it away. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:58 am: I strongly disagree with Rich… Every citizen of the State and all its vendors and partners in providing services are being ‘held hostage’ by elected officials because of political philosophies… I don’t see it as politically incorrect for one elected official to attempt to exert POLITICAL influence over another elected official… By definition, this is a POLITICAL process. You may consider the Comptroller an ‘otherwise Ministerial’ job, but…that office also has other constitutional FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES. The Comptroller must write the checks and pay the bills, but if those elected reps that are suing want to jump to the front of the line ahead of all the others who are also rightfully owed money from the State, then those politicians are personally selfish, ignorant of the perceptions they strengthen with their selfishness, they ignore the reality of the States cashflow problems, their demands create the same POLITICAL conflict of influence of Legislative against Executive and their act of litigating the matter further erodes the public’s confidence in ANY elected official having the temperment, intelligence, wisdom or personal fortitude to hold office or say that they are somehow working for the ‘betterment’ of the people. IMHO, at this point in the POLITICAL warfare, any and all political acts that may bring some type of resolution to the entire matter should be employed. The members of the GA must have forgotten that their ‘job’ is to write laws…the Comptroller’s job is to IMPLEMENT law and do it in a way that preserves the sworn oath of protecting the philosophies embodied in the Constitution, but also in the context of the Fiduciary responsibilities of the office. Sometimes, you just can’t do two things as once. Those members suing to get their piece of pie first are just line jumpers. Plain and simple. - Michelle Flaherty - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:59 am: OK, let’s try this. I’ll refuse to pay my SJR subscription until the paper improves its overall product. I won’t pay a dime until there are more reporters covering my community and delivering a quality product and service to the readers. I’d encourage every SJR reader to do that. Come up with a demand and don’t pay until your demand is met. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:03 am: - Anonymous - (Ugh!) That pesky constitution… Just because it’s popular, doesn’t make it legal. All… all that you typed can’t ignore the constitution. Ignorance is bliss I guess. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:26 am: Delaying paychecks for legislators does not equal denying paychecks. I’ll wait on judgement of Supreme Court to see if it is intact unconstitutional Delaying paychecks for Judges would definitely be unconstitutional - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:30 am: ===Delaying paychecks for legislators does not equal denying paychecks.=== The accompanying statutes describing how and when, constitutionally explicitly say when, and the constitution says “do” It’s unconstitutional. ===Delaying paychecks for Judges would definitely be unconstitutional=== …just like legislators. Are you trying at all today? - It's All About Me - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:33 am: “They may legally be right, but..” Oh heck yeah let’s ignore the law and constitution. Ignoring the constitutional mandate of a balanced budget is how we got here in the first place! When one violates their oath of office, yes bad things happen. - Markus - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:36 am: A balanced budget submitted by the governor and associated appropriations bills that do not exceed revenues passed by the GA are also constitutional requirements. Once you start selectively implementing/enforcing explicit requirements in the constitution, it becomes a slippery slope that erodes the merit of any argument based solely on constitutional language. - Whatever - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:43 am: Lucky Pierre ==Delaying paychecks for legislators does not equal denying paychecks. I’ll wait on judgement of Supreme Court to see if it is intact unconstitutional Delaying paychecks for Judges would definitely be unconstitutional== So how do you reconcile the first and last statements? The constitution meant what it says for judges, but not for legislators? BTW, the constitution says nothing about not paying legislators. It says “changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” That language might let the Comptroller announce today that she is delaying pay for the upcoming term, but the whole point of prohibiting diminishing salaries is to prevent this from being done to influence legislators. - Old Shepherd - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:09 pm: This issue is a huge pet-peeve of mine. This is harmful to democracy. Your average Joe on the street should be outraged over this issue. Their elected representatives in the legislature are being threatened by the executive branch to pass its agenda. The executive branch is threatening the livelihood of the members of the House of Commons…pass my agenda or you’ll lose your house and you can’t feed your family. This is similar to why the Illinois Constitution says that members of the legislature are “privileged from arrest” when going to, during, or returning from session…to prevent bullying and coercion from the executive branch. This was wrong when Pat Quinn did it, and it’s wrong now. It’s a dangerous practice that needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, the public eats it up. If tricks like this continue, the only folks that will be able to afford to serve in the legislature are the Rauners and Pritzkers of this world. The House of Commons will become the House of the Lords. - Mouthy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:15 pm: I read the SJ-R letter to the gas station retailer on Friday informing them that the price of the SJ-R would be going up from $1 to $2 today. I guess they want the pain shared in reading their newspaper too. - Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:16 pm: I agree with everyone who says the state employee payroll needs to be stopped ASAP to solve this. Pretty sure Rauner can’t make us work without pay under federal law. He gets nervous whenever someone mentions it. If Mendoza doesn’t do it I’m considering being the sacrificial lamb who files the taxpayer suit and hoping it doesn’t backfire. - A guy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:28 pm: If you just pay ‘em, you could really hold them accountable. There’s a thought. - m - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:46 pm: -ow and -whatever ==Delaying paychecks for Judges would definitely be unconstitutional== I think it’s called a joke. Has everyone here lost all perspective? -pierre is saying he’s not completely convinced the “delayed” pay plan will be ajudicated as unconstitutional. But if the dispute was over judge’s paychecks, it would definitely be found unconstitutional (because the judges would rule for their own paychecks). Just like when judges were left out of pension reform for the same reason. Nobody remember this? - RNUG - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:48 pm: == * I realize this is a completely “politically incorrect” thing to say in our current political climate, but duly elected members of the Illinois General Assembly should not be held hostage to the political whims of a state comptroller. == Legally, you’re right. And morally, you are right because we need to maintain the independance between the seperate branches of government. Having the judges and legislators get paid ahead of others is the price of that independence. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:56 pm: I think the Comptroller was wise to leave the judges out of the paycheck delay. The judges were left out of the pension lawsuit because they could not rule to diminish their own benefits I don’t think the Supreme Court could have been any more direct in their opinion it is the legislature that has refused to address the chronic underfunding of the budget. Judges haven’t failed to pass a budget, legislators have - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:00 pm: - m - I think - Lucky Pierre - kinda blew up your “joke-y thingy”. If Mendoza went to flat out “shaming” legislators… Every “payday”, highlight a group NOT getting funding or “pay” due to the “impasse”… It’s about the media, so take the constitutionality out if it. Plus, Mendoza can get a presser a month until June if this continues. That’s smart, and constitutional, politics. And heat too. - RNUG - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:01 pm: == Delaying paychecks for legislators does not equal denying paychecks.== As I noted the other day, the statute is crystal clear. If the Comptroller doesn’t issue the 12 equal payments in a year, then the Comptroller is in violation … the lawsuit should be a slam dunk, given the clear language. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:08 pm: Does anyone know of a law firm that would take on a taxpayer suit to stop the state employee payroll? I’m almost ready to be a named plaintiff. - Markus - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:30 pm: -Anonymous @ 1:08pm There is a constitutional officer who should have already filed that lawsuit to answer the question of whether employees should be paid. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:44 pm: Markus, yes, I agree. But because that didn’t happen it falls on a concerned citizen. I get the feeling that a lot of state workers want someone to do it but, understandably, don’t want to put themselves out there as the catalyst. - Whatever - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:45 pm: m — You did happen to notice that the judges ruled the pension “reform” was unconstitutional, even though it didn’t effect them? They would do the same for legislator salaries, because, if legislators’ salaries can be delayed, so can judges’. - Steve Polite - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:56 pm: Anonymous, Your lawsuit plan would not work the way you expect. Rich reported last year that the governor would require employees to report to work anyway. - Steve Polite - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:02 pm: Sorry my mistake, I think it was in April of this year. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:37 pm: Steve Polite, yes, I remember that. I believe he said everyone would still have to come to work because they’d eventually get paid for their work at a later, as yet unknown, date. The question is would that stand up under federal labor laws? I don’t know, perhaps someone else does? - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:59 pm: Weren’t Mendoza’s political ads saying she wouldn’t pay legislators??? - steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:01 pm: Anonymous 1:08, I’m not sure “Anonymous” would gain standing - m - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:02 pm: == The question is would that stand up under federal labor laws?== During the federal shutdown it seemed that most federal employees didn’t have to work. Though they all got paid in the end, which seems like a pretty good deal for them, free vacation.(as long as you can survive a while without the check) Not sure if it would work the same here. - Honeybear - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 4:38 pm: For those who say don’t pay state workers and think this would move the ball. Really? What about total collapse of the workforce and Springfields economy so you not get? From 38k to 30k in under 2years - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 6:22 pm: I’m likely a member of a small minority here, but, pay the darn checks, and promptly. I oppose any slippery slope constitutional interpretation (this is a tiny or arguable violation) or deminimus arguments (It’s only in there a little bit) because if they do it over there, they might give it a try with the Pension Code. - Pundent - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:51 pm: Honeybear - With respect, Rauner has shown that when push comes to shove he can’t take the heat. Case in point his decision on K-12 funding. Presumably an AFSCME strike might get him off the hook because it works well with his narrative. But a shutdown brought on by a desire for property tax freezes and term limits defies explanation. The current crisis has bought pain to few but is largely ignored. A government shutdown with daily pressers demanding answers would be a whole different ballgame. It may unfortunately be the only way to end this before 2018. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.