* 3:29 pm - A St. Clair County judge has denied Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s motion to dissolve a 2015 court order mandating that the state pay its employees without an appropriation. More in a bit.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From AFSCME…
AFSCME, other unions successfully defend state employee paychecks
A St. Clair County Circuit Court judge has denied a request by the Illinois Attorney General to dissolve an order previously won by unions representing state employees, ensuring that state workers would continue to get paid on time and in full even in the absence of an enacted state budget.
Legal counsel for the unions led the defense of the order, arguing persuasively that by agreeing to abide by court orders, the General Assembly has in effect appropriated funds for state employee payroll. The judge indicated that he did not want to see state government shut down and that the balance of equities in the case favored continuing to pay state employees.
“Through all state government’s chaos of the past two years, the people of Illinois have been able to rely on state workers to be there, providing important public services,” AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch said. “This decision ensures that that commitment can continue.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rauner administration…
The Rauner Administration issued the following statement from General Counsel Dennis Murashko in response to a St. Clair County judge denying the Attorney General’s motion to block state employee pay.
“We’re pleased our hard working state employees, who show up to work every day on behalf of the people of Illinois, will continue to be paid. It is our hope the Attorney General drops this lawsuit so the bipartisan negotiations in the Senate can continue in order to reach a balanced budget with changes to get our state back on track.”
*** UPDATE 3 *** Attorney General Madigan’s spokesperson…
We think the law is clear. The Illinois Constitution requires an enacted appropriation for state spending. Under the current injunction, the state has spent over $3 billion in taxpayer money without any transparency or legislative debate as required by law. The Governor is using this injunction to avoid following the Constitution and enacting a budget, irreparably harming the people of Illinois. We will appeal the court’s order.
*** UPDATE 4 *** We don’t have the judge’s ruling yet, but a friend who was in the courtroom said the judge appeared to be swayed by an AFSCME argument which references this language in the stopgap budget passed last June…
All appropriation authority granted in this Act shall not supersede any order of any court directing the expenditure of funds for fiscal years 2016 or 2017.
The GA didn’t appropriate any money for state employee payroll in that approp bill. It instead relied on the court order to pay workers.
Most of the stopgap expired at the end of December, but there are other approps in that bill that last through the end of the fiscal year.
AFSCME’s filing is here.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:32 pm:
– A St. Clair County judge has denied Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s motion to dissolve the court order which mandated the state pay employees without an appropriation.–
That’s why St. Clair County was chosen in the first place.
Up the ladder it goes.
- PJ - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
Likely expected. The question is how quickly can they get it appealed up the chain, if she still wants it to dissolve in 12 days.
- flippy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:35 pm:
Fascinating. As Mr. Spock would say…
- swIFT taylor - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:35 pm:
That’s what she gets for trying to stop our paychecks. I hope she pays at the ballot box.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:36 pm:
===Up the ladder it goes. ===
Yep. Gonna have to take it to the Supremes because that appellate court is about the same.
- anonawho - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
==- PJ - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
Likely expected. The question is how quickly can they get it appealed up the chain, if she still wants it to dissolve in 12 days.==
In the motion the AG asked the court not to dissolve it immediately, but rather give the General Assembly and Governor some time. The Feb 28 day was thrown out as a possible date. I don’t think it was meant as a date certain.
- Blue Bayou - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
swIFT taylor: better to miss a few paychecks than to have no place to work.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:38 pm:
The question wasn’t if either side was going to appeal a decision that went against them.
The question is how fast this is going to go up the ladder to the Supremes.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:38 pm:
Well now it goes to the 5th district appellate which is now Rauner turf. But who knows how they will pull it off.
- Blue Bayou - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
Major higher ed cuts and furloughs coming after March 1. Critical this gets sorted before that or at least very soon after that.
I’m guessing social services in same leaky, sinking boat.
- thrdsd - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
==- swIFT taylor - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:35 pm:
That’s what she gets for trying to stop our paychecks. I hope she pays at the ballot box.==
I understand the emotional side, but the attorneys arguing the motion are doing their job. Most lawyers who examine this issue agree the law is on their side, despite the fact the judge doesn’t see it that way.
- anonawho - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
For those interested in the fiscal health of the state, this isn’t a good ruling. This court order has allowed the Governor and every constitutional officer to spending money without any oversight. The fear of a government shutdown is what forces elected officials to work together and get a budget. The judiciary is not supposed to dictate spending tax dollars. This isn’t how government functions.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
“That’s what she gets for trying to stop our paychecks. I hope she pays at the ballot box.”
We complain when politicians think only of the ballot box. Then when they show some actual courage…
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:47 pm:
Armageddon will be slightly delayed …
- Stir - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
@anonawho
The governor is supposed to present a balanced budget yearly too and that’s 3 years in the making and still no budget. This is not how government is supposed to function.
- DHS Jim - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
In the short term, glad we’re going to get paid. In the long term, fear this almost guarantees a strike to resolve contract unless courts intervene. And we’ll continue to go without a budget. Hope this gets repealed.
- BertMartucci - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:53 pm:
How long is slightly delayed? Will I eat the week of 2/28?
- DHS Jim - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
BVR has shown time and time again that the only time he does the right thing is when he is pressured. This ruling lets him off the hook yet again.
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
== How long is slightly delayed? ==
Figure the Appellant Court, then the Supreme Court. Going to be a while, even if fast tracked on emergency appeal.
And if AFSCME is smart, regardless of the strike vote outcome, they will hold off on any strike until this gets resolved.
If people are being rational players, it should be a while … probably months, not weeks.
- illini - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
Yeah, the 5th Appellate has definitely changed this past election. No predictions, but I think I have a feeling how this may turn out. The Ill Supreme Court will ultimately decide.
- Texas Red - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm:
St. Clair County judge Lechien is an interesting character - he along with two other judges resigned as judge in races that would have required a 60% retention vote - to instead run unopposed in a Democratic partisan judicial race where they only needed a majority vote. Typical Illinois stuff
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-clair-county-judges-can-quit-and-run-again-rather/article_23969e59-b665-534d-bff6-e0435433f84d.html
- anonawho - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:05 pm:
==- Stir - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:48 pm: @anonawho
The governor is supposed to present a balanced budget yearly too and that’s 3 years in the making and still no budget. This is not how government is supposed to function.==
My comment wasn’t limited to the judiciary, but rather meant to cover the entire process. The Governor isn’t doing his job. When he decided to no longer lead or try to get a budget, the GOP and Dem members of the General Assembly should have taken a break from campaigning to work together. When they didn’t, the court should have told both branches DO YOUR JOB. No one did what they should have or are supposed to do. Lack of leadership and courage everywhere.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:06 pm:
I’m struck by the comments here that all take it as a matter of course that the courts have the power to interpret the law and the Constitution.
Not everyone agrees, in some circles, these days.
- Former hillrod - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
@ RNUG
“And if AFSCME is smart”
Haha that’s a good one.
- Ok - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
AFSCME was foolish to defend against this. Now I will more than likely not strike thanks to the inept decision of this union.
- Delimma - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
Won’t every single entity owed money from the state file suit in St. Clair County demanding that they get paid under the same reasoning as what the Court used in this case?
- Nick Name - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
This was always going to end up in IL SCOTUS.
- Name Withheld - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
I’m very much a union supporter, but I’m not sure that I buy the argument that ‘by agreeing to abide by court orders, the General Assembly has in effect appropriated funds for state employee payroll.’ I realize that I’m not the one the union needed to sell on the argument, but I don’t think that will hold much sway should the case reach the ISC.
- flippy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:09 pm:
“Won’t every single entity owed money from the state file suit in St. Clair County demanding that they get paid under the same reasoning as what the Court used in this case?”
That would be my guess.
- walker - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
So court-ordered payments, made by the executive, somehow created a legal environment sufficient to continue on as if there were a legislatively passed appropriation?
Hmm. Tough constitutional argument to maintain — but the equity and harm arguments might be sufficient.
- tobias846 - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
Whew! That’s a relief! Now our governor and our legislators can drop all that silly “grand bargain” nonsense and go back to playing Candy Crush.
The pile of unpaid bills will reach the moon, social services and higher education will continue their slow-motion trainwreck, the state’s bond rating will be downgraded to junk—but hey, we averted a shutdown! WOOT!!! Illinois ROCKS!
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
Wow. Maybe AFSCME opposed the motion because they want to be the ones to stick it to Bruce with a strike. Dangerous game if that’s the case. I think the last hope for averting a strike is a stay from the Fourth District Appellate Court on the ILRB decision. I hope that comes soon.
- Exhausted - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:16 pm:
SECTION 4. SUPREME COURT - JURISDICTION
(a) The Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction
in cases relating to revenue, mandamus, prohibition or habeas
corpus and as may be necessary to the complete determination
of any case on review.
- Nero's Fiddle - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:18 pm:
How nice that AFSCME and Rauner are in such good agreement on this! Maybe now the Governor will come back to the bargaining table! /s
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:20 pm:
–Legal counsel for the unions led the defense of the order, arguing persuasively that by agreeing to abide by court orders, the General Assembly has in effect appropriated funds for state employee payroll.–
Huh?
The GA isn’t a party to the suit. They haven’t been “ordered” to do anything. They haven’t “agreed” to anything.
The governor, CMS and the comptroller were ordered to process payroll. The GA literally has nothing to do with the lawsuit or the order.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:24 pm:
===And if AFSCME is smart, regardless of the strike vote outcome, they will hold off on any strike until this gets resolved.===
That will likely depend on if and when Rauner decides to impose his last/best/final and if AFSCME can get a TRO until this motion is heard by the ILSC.
- Dee Lay - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:25 pm:
“Won’t every single entity owed money from the state file suit in St. Clair County demanding that they get paid under the same reasoning as what the Court used in this case?”
You can now see why this was a bit of a trickbox for Rauner.
If social service agencies suddenly filed, it would create a bit of a crisis right? Crisis, as they say, creates opportunity.
- Reluctantly Living in ILL - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:26 pm:
This is a disappointment. Only an acute crisis will provoke a budget. THe slow mounting of debts, and killing off social services and universities little by little doesn’t create big enough political consequences.
- Juice - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:27 pm:
Wordslinger, respectfully disagree that the GA has nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Since Article VIII of the constitution says “(b) The General Assembly by law shall make
appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State,” and article II says “No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging
to another” they arguably have something to do with it.
- Whatever - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:27 pm:
==Won’t every single entity owed money from the state file suit in St. Clair County demanding that they get paid under the same reasoning as what the Court used in this case?==
Some already tried it, and lost in the Supreme Court. That loss is AG Madigan’s stated reason for asking for the injunction to be lifted.
- m - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:28 pm:
=We complain when politicians think only of the ballot box. Then when they show some actual courage…=
So the AG threatening to shut down government in order to get elected officials to do something they’ve resisted, that’s your definition of courage?
Funny, that would seem to describe Rauner’s whole plan as well. But I’ve never heard anyone here describe it as courage.
- CornCob - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:28 pm:
GA and Governor to AFSCME - “we have to reduce your pensions”
AFSCME - “No way, because the constitution says you can’t.”
AG - “No pay, because the constitution says no appropriation, no pay”
AFSCME - “What constitution?”
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:28 pm:
==The GA isn’t a party to the suit. They haven’t been “ordered” to do anything. They haven’t “agreed” to anything.==
They’ve acted sense then through the stop gap budget, passing such to “keep government running” by not directly appropriating general revenue for payroll, with the understanding that payroll would be processed by the Order.
- Henry Francis - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:29 pm:
Hey Dennis - how does the AG’s motion prevent the Senate from negotiating and passing their grand bargain?
Try to focus on the law more and leave the political pandering to your boss.
- Moby - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:30 pm:
OK, so my memory is a little fuzzy, but didn’t the courts also rule that state employees didn’t have to be paid back pay from FY2011 without an appropriation? So, are these conflicting rulings?
- PJ - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:34 pm:
If that really was the rationale for the decision, and I haven’t read it, that’s extremely bizarre. The GA complying with the order is the same thing as an appropriation? Is the Illinois GA complying with Roe V Wade equivalent to the Illinois GA endorsing legal abortion?
Also, the judge didn’t want to shut down government? The judge has a mandate to decide a case based on the facts presented to him or her. This one seems to have explicitly ignored the the legal arguments because he didn’t want to shut down government, which is simply not how courts are supposed to operate.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:38 pm:
“So the AG threatening to shut down government in order to get elected officials to do something they’ve resisted, that’s your definition of courage?”
No, the AG, in her capacity as the state’s top legal representative, seeking a definitive ruling of a key point of constitutional law — whether the state constitution means exactly what it says it means — despite it being a wildly unpopular, is my definition of courage.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:42 pm:
==Maybe AFSCME opposed the motion because they want to be the ones to stick it to Bruce with a strike. Dangerous game if that’s the case.==
They opposed the motion because they want their members to keep getting paid. Sometimes there’s less going on than you think.
- Miss Blago Yet? - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:43 pm:
Bad news! No pay would have been a strike without a strike. Would have been check mate. Now it’s more of the same. I don’t understand why AFSCME is wasting our Union dues in this matter. No paychecks would force Rauner to pass a budget quick without all of his union busting demands attached.
- UF Guy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:46 pm:
I’m going to talk to the judge about a writ of habeas corpus…I’m gonna put the system on trial,
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:49 pm:
PJ, judges weigh the harm and consequences their decisions would have all the time when deciding how something should be decided
- Iron Lady - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:50 pm:
I would prefer the AG be successful than a strike occur. Rauner would lose his leverage and the state workers won’t be hated by the public because they did not bring it on themselves. Also, it would be a larger number of employees than just AFSCME.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:51 pm:
What did the Donald say about so-called judges?
- August Spies - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:57 pm:
Legally, AG Madigan is correct it seems. The judge punted on this one.
- Generic Drone - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:03 pm:
Iron Lady. ” then the state workers wont be hated by the public”. Wanna bet?
- IRLJ - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:07 pm:
Watch this go directly up to the Supremes, bypassing the Appellate Court. This only drags on if the justices decide that keeping the pressure off Springfield protects the AFSCME workers from Rauner.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:09 pm:
=- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm: =
RNUG, if AFSCME does not strike, due to the Stop-pay hearings, does that mean they will have to accept Rauner’s last offer?
- Iron Lady - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:09 pm:
Drone, what’s to hate if employees don’t work because they are not paid?
- Juvenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:14 pm:
Seems like a misreading by the trial judge.
“Shall not supercede” does not mean the same thing as “shall equal”.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:15 pm:
Interesting theories used by AFSCME’s attorney in showing the differences in the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court in the case the AG relied upon.
Anyone have a copy of the circuit court order?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:41 pm:
–Wordslinger, respectfully disagree that the GA has nothing to do with the lawsuit.–
They are not a party to the lawsuit. AFSCME sued the governor, CMS and the comptroller. The court ordered them to process payroll. The GA is not under any order of the court and did not “agree” explicitly to anything in court.
–All appropriation authority granted in this Act shall not supersede any order of any court directing the expenditure of funds for fiscal years 2016 or 2017. –
Not being a lawyer or a judge, I don’t understand the purpose of that language in the act, or why the St. Clair judge found it significant.
The GA and the governor could not enact a law intending to supercede a court order, could they?
Obviously, the Supremes will hash this one out, on their own timeline.
- IRLJ - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:50 pm:
===–All appropriation authority granted in this Act shall not supersede any order of any court directing the expenditure of funds for fiscal years 2016 or 2017. –
Not being a lawyer or a judge, I don’t understand the purpose of that language in the act, or why the St. Clair judge found it significant.===
Significant as to the intent of the General Assembly to let the courts decide whether state employees should continue to be paid…?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:57 pm:
–Significant as to the intent of the General Assembly to let the courts decide whether state employees should continue to be paid…?–
They had a choice? I’m not aware of any laws passed that are designed to specifically supersede court orders.
Laws are passed to remove the underlying reasons for the order, but that’s something different.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:06 pm:
==They had a choice?==
Yes, hey did. They passed a budget with the intent that government continued to operate. They could’ve expressly appropriated general revenue for payroll, or left that empty and allowed the payments to continue under the Court Order. Either way, their clear intent was that employees still be paid.
- Lawyer Guy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:08 pm:
@wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:41 pm:
=The GA and the governor could not enact a law intending to supercede a court order, could they?=
The GA may certainly pass a law that overturns a court order, unless the court order found that the GA acted unconstitutionally on that topic to which the order was issued.
In this case, the judge did not grant the injunction based upon a Constitutional provision. Quite the opposite (as almost everyone knows). And passing an appropriation for payroll would supersede the injunction. The reason the GA put that sentence into the stop gap budget was to insure that the State was still obligated to follow the court’s order. Without that language, the lack of an appropriation for payroll could have been understood to mean that the GA specifically intended not funding state employee payroll. And that would have overturned the injunction.
- Seats - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:08 pm:
Can someone pleast attempt to explain to me why AFSCME has decided to fight this?
- Sue - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:09 pm:
Serves Mike right for sending in his daughter for a case he really cares about.
- Lawyer Guy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:11 pm:
BTW, State agencies often seek to pass legislation to overturn court cases, particularly when the agency feels the court did not understand the intent of the statute being interpreted.
There are even statutes passed that will specifically name a Supreme Court decision as being over turned, just so that it is clear to the courts that the Supreme Court did not understand the GA’s intent in passing a law.
- tobias846 - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:18 pm:
So if the legislature says “we’re cool with that court order thingamabob,” that’s the equivalent of an appropriation? In what bizarro universe is that true?
The judge punted because he doesn’t want to be the person to shut down the government. He’d much prefer that the Supreme Court take the heat for that. I can’t say that I blame him; the budget stalemate is a constitutional crisis, and it should be treated as one.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:23 pm:
I really hope that a full and balanced budget is signed into law before this makes its way to the ISC. I expect the high court to side with Lisa Madigan if it goes that far. I feel bad for our state workers for having to go through these stressful times.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:26 pm:
–BTW, State agencies often seek to pass legislation to overturn court cases, particularly when the agency feels the court did not understand the intent of the statute being interpreted.–
You keep saying “overturned,” and I don’t think that’s the correct term.
You can change laws to remove the conditions that caused a court order or ruling, but you can’t pass a law that simply says “Judge Jones’ ruling in Smith vs. State of Illinois is overturned.”
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:28 pm:
–Serves Mike right for sending in his daughter for a case he really cares about.–
Always with the sober and thoughtful insight, this one.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:57 pm:
Thank God I was wrong. I apologize that I’m sure I got some people jacked up. I’m so glad I was wrong. Don’t worry though there is always something I can go into hysterics on with Rauner in office!
- Civility - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 7:34 pm:
==- Sue - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:09 pm:
Serves Mike right for sending in his daughter for a case he really cares about.==
Can we drop the sexist comments? Not productive
- lost in the weeds - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 7:42 pm:
Is that clause citing court orders in the Act because of the consent decrees that require state expenditures regardless of appropriations. Employee pay is now one of those consent decrees.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 7:43 pm:
swIFT taylor
Learn from the morale of this story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266cV7V4P30
- Mittuns - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 8:13 pm:
Perhaps this Memorial Day we will remember when Illinois had a functioning government as the state begins its shutdown.
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 8:41 pm:
== does that mean they will have to accept Rauner’s last offer? ==
Well, there is still the ILRB case up north; that is probably more relevant as to whether or not the State can impose their final offer. If Rauner is OK with the slow destruction, then his best move is to wait for that court case’s conclusion before imposing his “best and final” offer.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 10:38 pm:
Could the ACSFME argument be extended to allow the Governor to pay replacement workers in the event of a strike?
Would the ACSFME argument expire at the end of fiscal year 2017?
- Rabid - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 4:45 am:
Madigan is a force to be reckoned with
- Rabid - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 6:49 am:
Whatever
- A Jack - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 7:02 am:
I am sure all those strike breakers are happy that they will still get paid through AFSCME’s actions.
- A Jack - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 7:48 am:
I guess if there is a bright side, it’s that state employees will continue to get paid through the appeal process. It would be more traumatic for them not to get paid during appeal.
But if they aren’t willing to go now without pay, I have to doubt the seriousness of an intent to strike.
- Crispy Critter - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 8:26 am:
In case law, most times they go back to see who was negligent first. The first negligence is back on Rauner for not proposing a balanced budget. It has been down hill since. So to come in a few years later and want to enforce this constitutional requirement would then force their hand to then force the 1st requirement which is the governor propose a balanced budget, so they can’t force this issue without forcing the 1st negligence first. The 1st negligence caused the issue at hand.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 17, 17 @ 10:46 am:
Rauner needs to do his job and stop trying to balance the budget on the back of state employees