Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: After vetoing their salaries, Quinn expands duties of regional superintendents
Next Post: Updating our infrastructure ain’t free
Posted in:
* 10:40 am - Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt has ruled that he has no judicial authority to force the state to pay the salaries of regional superintendents of schools after they were vetoed out of the budget by Gov. Pat Quinn.
* From the ruling, which you can read by clicking here…
The Plaintiffs claim that their position and salary are mandated by statute and they are entitled to a temporary restraining order granting them prospective relief in the form of an order from this court that they be paid. […]
The Governor is vested with broad power. The Illinois Consitution provides that “[t]he Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him…” […]
Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments. The bare possibility that one might abuse their power does not authorize this Court to take from the executive the powers the Constitution plainly invests in them. People ex rel. Millner v. Russel, 311 Ill. 96, 99-100 (1924)
The rational of Russel supports the conclusion that a position and salary created by statute must still be supported by an appropriation. The Illinois Constitution states very plainly that the Governor may veto an item of appropriation. To hold otherwise would thrust the Court into the appropriation process. Such would be contrary to the Illlinois Constitution.
In sum, this Court is without authority to issue a temporary restraining order mandating the executive branch pay the Plaintiffs prosepectively.
* Statement by the regional superintendents…
“We respect the court’s decision but are disappointed that the judge did not agree with us. State law clearly calls for us to be paid for the good work we continue to do, but our fight continues. Today’s outcome doesn’t change that we believe this situation is totally unfair and against what this state stands for. We continue to work hard for the students, parents, educators and taxpayers of Illinois. And we will find a way through discussions with state lawmakers for a long-term funding solution. Clearly, the pain continues for many superintendents and their families during this very difficult time, and hardships are growing every day. They will have to make difficult decisions as this crisis continues as we work through the inconsiderate decision to end our funding with no other plan in place to pay us for doing our jobs.
“Our association is meeting this afternoon to discuss our next steps.”
*** UPDATE 1 *** Despite his budget office’s repeated claims that a solution was imminent, Gov. Quinn said today that the superintendents won’t be paid until October…
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn expects the state’s regional school superintendents to keep working without pay until at least October.
He said Friday he expects lawmakers to resolve the dispute over cancelled salaries for the 44 superintendents and their assistants when they return to work in Springfield in October. They have been working without pay since July 1 after Quinn cancelled their salaries.
Raw audio…
*** UPDATE 2 *** Follow-up statement by the regional superintendents…
“The association is reviewing the results of the court’s ruling and its legal options, including an appeal. We will thoughtfully consider our next steps and make the appropriate decision at the right time, understanding the time frame allotted to us under court rules.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 10:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: After vetoing their salaries, Quinn expands duties of regional superintendents
Next Post: Updating our infrastructure ain’t free
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Looks like an ultimate unfunded mandate and an unconscionable abuse. That the legislative leaders are not calling themselves into session to deal with this is also cold. If the legislature’s funding had been vetoed you can bet this would have ta
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:03 am
…you bet the situation would have been resolved in a Chicago minute.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:04 am
This is clearly not right. If the governor wants to eliminate the office, he should work through legislation and not have these people elected in the next election.
So, why not discontinue pay for a whole bunch more elected officials?
This seems similar to a breach of contract.
Comment by amazed Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:07 am
“Looks like an ultimate unfunded mandate and an unconscionable abuse.”
We’re all required to wear seat belts when we drive, but I don’t recall getting a check from the feds to pay for the seat belts. Or for the carseat for my baby.
In other words, get over it. Life is full of unfunded mandates. Your boss can require you to wear a tie to work, but he’s not required to go shopping for you.
This was a slam dunk for the governor. The Illinois Supreme Court refused to step in to force the state to provide its fair share of funding for public schools — a Constitutional requirement. There was no way legally they could force payment to the superintendents.
My advice to the regional superintendents — quit.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:12 am
It appears the supes get paid in different scales depending on number of students in the area. However the story about the guy resigning gives the impression the salary has not been fully funded for a while.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:14 am
So to take this another level. An official is elected by the people to a full time gig. The gov decides not to pay the person. The person has to resign to find employment to put food on the table. The gov has vetoed the election by not paying the person? NICE!
Comment by frustrated GOP Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:15 am
Are State’s Atty’s next? They make a lot more money.
Comment by frustrated GOP Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:17 am
YDD,
Let’s visit this issue in, say, 2 years. I wonder how these school districts will get along w/out these regional superintendents?
Somehow, I think the schools will find a way, don’t you?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:17 am
Quinn might have won this round, but he sure isn’t going to win any respect.
Comment by Aldyth Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:18 am
The particulars aside, the ruling is a well-reasoned example of judicial restraint.
Constitutions aren’t perfect and neither are elected officials.
It’s an issue for the GA and gov. Fair to the sups? Life’s unfair.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:25 am
The schools finding their way is NOT the issue. School officials jobs are already full in August. This leaves all these people with no options. If you’re going to do this, do it properly. The supts. were treated very very poorly.
Maybe the positions can be reduced, but NOT in this way.
Comment by amazed Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:26 am
By my calculations, this cost savings amounts to $13,000 per school district. So now each district can hire someone at two, three or four times that much to do teacher certifications, their own building inspections and all the other duties performed by the ROEs. Sounds efficient to me.
Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:27 am
Life’s unfair?
Sure. Then the courts rule to make things fair.
Can all employers now start terminating all employees for any reason at any time?
You’ve gotta be kidding.
Comment by are you kidding? Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:28 am
Wasn’t there a case a few years back during the Blago budget wars when AFSCME successfully sued for state employees to get paid while there wasn’t a budget in place?
I realize the facts are different (no funding vs. vetoed funding), but in that case the judge stepped in and ordered the state to keep paying the employees even without there being an appropriation.
Comment by Dont Worry, Be Happy Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:29 am
@are you kidding-
Yes, Illionis is a Employ at will state, people can be fired with no notice
Comment by Crow04 Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am
This situation really tests a group of public officials as to where to draw the line between their responsibilities to their jobs and their responibilities to their families and well-being. Perhaps, as a commenter above recommends, they should all resign and let the Governor and the legislature work out It would be interesting to see how the absence of ROE authority affects the school districts. The game is afoot and the pawns are the students.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am
I’m not sure the school districts can hire someone. By law, the its the superintendant that is in charge of the inspections. And it’s not like the school district is getting the superintendants salary to apportion around. That money has been 0′d out, which means there’s no ’savings’ - just an additional expense now.
Comment by Name WIthheld Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am
AYK, did you read the judge’s ruling? Do you understand the Constitutional issues he addressed?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am
Interesting. I don’t know the answer, but wonder if this decision has any applicability to the unions’ dispute with the Gov over their wage increases? This is downright scary - “Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments.”
Comment by Anon Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:35 am
People always cry for removing levels of buracracy, this is one way to do that. My issue is how QUinn did this. At least it is a democrat, so not much stink will be made about this.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:36 am
One way to do it might have been to have a Plan B regarding who was going to pick up these statutory and, in some cases, regulatory duties. But that would have required a whole different level of thought.
Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:40 am
Quinn tried last year to eliminate the salaries of state’s attorneys (also covered by statute) and his decision was kicked back.
The difference in making counties pay for the salaries of the SAs and the ROE supers is that SAs only cover one county each, while ROE supers cover multiple counties.
Who will decide what percentage each county will pay toward the salaries of their respective supers and their assistants?
Comment by transplant Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:40 am
===when AFSCME successfully sued for state employees to get paid while there wasn’t a budget in place?===
That wasn’t a ruling, it was a one-time agreed settlement.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:45 am
=== One way to do it might have been to have a Plan B regarding who was going to pick up these statutory and, in some cases, regulatory duties. ===
Easy there, Decaf. You’re thinking way too rationally for this governor.
Comment by Coach Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:45 am
The ROEs assure districts are operating within the rules — some do this better than others. Compliance issues with teacher certification, bus driver training, professional development requirements, etc. may seem like bureaucratic nonsense today, but the first crisis resulting from an unqualified bus driver or inappropriate behavior of a teacher is going to come back to rest on the governor’s doorstep.
Comment by LG Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:46 am
This just seems absurd. I’m all for getting rid of Regional Supers, if it makes sense, but do it legislatively not by stripping pay.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:53 am
===Easy there, Decaf. You’re thinking way too rationally for this governor.===
Well, in fairness, dealing with the consequences would really take the fun out of vetoing.
Comment by Decaf Coffee Party Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:00 pm
So, LG, you are saying that the ROE is a compliance officer? Some of the salaries of these folks are off the chart. Just so they make sure that bus drivers have the right training?
I agree that PQ has handled this very poorly. This gov has no vision/plan/agenda. He is a reactionary. To all those out there who voted for this person, keep watching. This is what you get when you elect Don Quixote.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:02 pm
Given this decision, how do you think the AFSCME suit to get their raises will play out?
I’m guessing AFSCME better be prepared for a loss.
Comment by El Conquistador Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Yeah but AFSCME has a contract, the question becomes what contracts can the state get out of because it doesn’t want to pay what the contract says?
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:18 pm
Generally, I believe the state can terminate contracts at its discretion. Considering the Labor Relations Act language - “Subject to the appropriation power of the employer, employers and exclusive representatives may negotiate multi‑year collective bargaining agreements pursuant to the provisions of this Act.”, there would appear to be some sound footing for canceling the raises.
Perhaps the question becomes what contracts does the state honor?
Comment by El Conquistador Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:35 pm
@DuPage Dan
Yes, the ROE Supt acts as a compliance officer. The salaries are set by the legislature, I believe. As I stated, some ROEs provide valuable services to school districts and others less so. But the law requires ROE sign off for compliance with training, certification, even Life Safety construction plans. If something goes badly this fall, blame will be placed, whether justified or not.
Comment by LG Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:36 pm
The administration announced that state employees would be paid even if no budget was in place because federal labor law requires it.
When Blago tried to take away the judges’ COLA a few years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the Comptroller to pay them. Apropriation or not, the constitution required it.
The federal and state constitutions prohibit laws impairing contracts. If AFSCME wins on this basis, its members get their raises.
Comment by JustMe Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:37 pm
Well, it seems to me that the ROE Superintendents can now pick and choose among their mandated duties. Since their fully mandated efforts are now unfunded, they are absolved of their compliance IMHO.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:38 pm
Please correct me if my logic is flawed here, but since the courts cannot get involved in the appropriations process, does that mean that the legislature and/or Governor can eliminate the salaries of Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and circuit court judges? If so, that certainly becomes a separation of powers issue. Judges will have to consider from whence their paychecks come when ruling on issues affecting the executive and legislative branch!
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:51 pm
so what happens when you can’t open a school because no one exists to sign occupancy? Or, there is no one to do the fingerprints for new employees. They haven’t changed the laws but they are making sure no one is there to assist getting things done.
Comment by frustrated GOP Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:01 pm
===When Blago tried to take away the judges’ COLA a few years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the Comptroller to pay them.===
Wrong.
This was a negotiated settlement at the circuit court level.
Next person who makes this claim will be deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:04 pm
Old Shep — Judge Schmidt on Thursday pointedly distinguished between constitutional offices (the judiciary) versus statutory offices (the ROEs). He didn’t say how his ruling might have differed if this issue had involved the constitutional separation of powers, but did seem to clearly indicate that there was a distinction. That said, the implicit ability of a governor to effectively cripple independently elected officials by vetoing their salary certainly seems contrary to the intent of the state Constitution and long-established legal precedent.
Comment by South of Sherman Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:12 pm
===seems contrary to the intent of the state Constitution and long-established legal precedent. ===
And the precedent is…?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:13 pm
So Rich - what’s the pulse of the GA. Will this be the first veto they override when they return?
Comment by Kerfuffle Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:30 pm
Rich — that one elected official can’t effectively render another elected official incapable of doing their job. It’s why we don’t allow salaries to be reduced mid-term, for example.
Comment by South of Sherman Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:32 pm
SoS, I was asking for your precedent, meaning cases.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:33 pm
===“Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments.”===
Whether you care about the ROE’s or not, that’s pretty frightening. Imagine what a Rod Blagojevich-like Governor with better political skills and more support in the General Assembly could do with those powers.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:34 pm
And reducing the salaries would mean reducing the statutory salaries, not the appropriation.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:34 pm
One precedent is the Illinois Supreme Court decision Harlan v. Sweet.
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:37 pm
And for those of you who’ve brought up judicial salaries, read the IL Constitution…
===Judges shall receive salaries provided by law which shall not be diminished to take effect during their terms of office. All salaries and such expenses as may be provided by law shall be paid by the State===
Executive electeds…
===Officers of the Executive Branch shall be paid salaries established by law and shall receive no other compensation for their services.===
And that’s it.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:38 pm
I believe Harlan v. Sweet was about the state Treasurer. See above reference to the Constitution regarding executive electeds. The superintendents are not executive electeds.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:41 pm
Rich - I know this is playing the “what if” game, but I believe Executive Electeds are not paid from their own budgets, but from a different fund. So, while the governor couldn’t zero out that person’s salary, would it be possible to zero out the budget for an elected official’s office?
Comment by Name WIthheld Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:48 pm
Harlan v. Sweet was about county treasurers, not the state treasurer.
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:55 pm
Thanks, OS.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:00 pm
But, correct me if I’m wrong, this had to do with statutory changes?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:01 pm
You are correct. The law had been passed granting stipends to county treasurers. However, Governor Thompson signed it a few days after the new terms for treasurers began. The Department of Revenue (under Director Sweet) said that it could not pay the stipends because the salaries of elected officials cannot be changed during his or her term in office. Harlan (former Jefferson County Treasurer) sued and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in the Department of Revenue’s favor, and the county treasurers did not begin receiving the stipend until the start of their next term four years later.
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:20 pm
Whatever the reasoning this decision sets tremendously bad precedent by stating that the Governor essentially has the authority to cut elected officials off at the knees by simply denying their funding in an appropriations bill.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:24 pm
guys, I’m certain the constitution requires that local elected officials salaries not be reduced during their term of office. Are we arguing that not paying them is technically not reducing their salaries?
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:26 pm
OK, so the point about approps is still left untouched. There’s a difference between the two, and I’m not sure the approp has ever been fully adjudicated. It has beeh with the courts, but that’s a wholly different matter because their pay is mandated in the Constitution and, at the time, their compensation fell under the Compensation Review Act, which had mandates.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:27 pm
===I’m certain the constitution requires that local elected officials salaries not be reduced during their term of office.===
From the Constitution…
===An increase or decrease in the salary of an elected officer of any unit of local government shall not take effect during the term for which that officer is elected.===
Quinn didn’t cut their statutory salaries, he killed the approp for the salaries. Splitting hairs, maybe, but there is a big difference.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:31 pm
Well, then, we should satisfy AFSCME by giving them a large raise but just not paying it to them. Oops, that’s what we are already doing, isn’t it.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:33 pm
Steve, the real question is whether the judiciary has the right to force the executive and/or legislative branches to spend money that hasn’t been legally appropriated.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:36 pm
I think that was answered on Medicaid under Edgar.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Perhaps, but that involved federal money and federal rules. This is state money and a state court.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:39 pm
==I’m not sure the approp has ever been fully adjudicated.==
It has. In Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the constitution required judges’ COLAs to be paid, and lack of appropriation was no excuse:
“The Comptroller is not being asked to draw warrants without authorization. We hereby give him authorization by court order. That order is issued pursuant to the inherent right of the courts to order payment of judicial salaries which the state was required by our constitution to make . . .
Upon receipt of vouchers prepared by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, the Comptroller is hereby ordered to issue warrants drawn on the treasury of the State of Illinois to pay the Judges, and the class of judges they represent, the judicial COLAs due and owing for FY2003 and FY2004.”
Comment by JustMe Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:40 pm
Rich, I understand your argument, but it is a very scary proposition. In theory, county boards could do the same thing to sheriffs, coroners, county clerks, and other locally elected officials. They could maintain their salary, but cut the legs out from underneath them by refusing to appropriate the money to pay them.
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:41 pm
Just out of curiosity had governor Quinn himself sat down with these folks?
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:55 pm
Many things in state government over the past decade have made me embarrassed to be from Illinois, but asking public servants to work without pay for months at a time I think tops the list. Is this State really so messed up that it has come to asking public servants to be “volunteers”? Lets ask Quinn and the General Assembly to go without pay and see what happens.
Comment by Its Just Me Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:56 pm
Now here is a bit of a silly question, but what if they don’t show up for work? Seriously, as I understand it for most elected offices there is ironically no attendance requirement.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:57 pm
===In theory, county boards could do the same thing to sheriffs, coroners, county clerks, and other locally elected officials. They could maintain their salary, but cut the legs out from underneath them by refusing to appropriate the money to pay them. ===
Quite right. Thankfully, nobody appears to have been this completely irresponsible and erratic in Illinois since Jim Thompson did the same thing 20-some years ago. But Thompson at least had the presence of mind to retract his actions when he realized he was wrong. Quinn, on the other hand…
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:20 pm
I guess it just blows my mind that a judge would affirm this ability.
Comment by Old Shepherd Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:31 pm
Best thread in a while. Thanks, folks.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:36 pm
===I guess it just blows my mind that a judge would affirm this ability. ===
Why? There is no established precedent other than the courts in Illinois usually try to avoid this sort of topic at all costs. What should blow your mind is that a governor who says he puts a lot of thought and planning into everything would screw things up so badly.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:39 pm
==Quinn didn’t cut their statutory salaries, he killed the approp for the salaries. Splitting hairs, maybe, but there is a big difference. ==
I’m not the judge so my opinion doesn’t count but I would strongly disagree with this assessment. How can cutting the supply of funding for a person’s salary not have the same effect as essentially cutting their salary? I would argue that there is no difference at all in the two. I think the judge hasn’t done his job of clearing up exactly what rules govern here. There is clearly competing issues in the law and the Constitution. He made it even more confused by punting and saying he didn’t have any authority to decide the issue.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:40 pm
===How can cutting the supply of funding for a person’s salary not have the same effect as essentially cutting their salary? ===
Because, apparently, the drafters did not have the foresight that a governor would actually be this ridiculous.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:45 pm
===He made it even more confused by punting and saying he didn’t have any authority to decide the issue. ===
In Illinois, he doesn’t have the authority. This ain’t a punt.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:45 pm
===What should blow your mind is that a governor who says he puts a lot of thought and planning into everything would screw things up so badly.===
Now come on… most of realize that logic and reasoning have been checked at the guard shack when it comes to governance in Illinois, but who’d thunk that sanity might be creeping onto that checklist…
Comment by 618er Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:47 pm
I can’t help but wonder if Quinn woke up this morning hoping the judge would order the state to pay the salaries - just to get this mess behind him.
He obviously didn’t think this through, and with each passing development he looks like even more of a buffoon.
Comment by Coach Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:55 pm
==In Illinois, he doesn’t have the authority. This ain’t a punt.==
Says who? He’s a judge and could have ruled any way he chose to rule. I believe he could have made an argument to support the ROE position and acted accordingly.
Also, if it’s not his job to clarify apparently competing ideas in the law and the Constitution then what exactly is his job? He made this mess even worse in my opinion.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:56 pm
. . . and my comments aren’t meant to be disrespectful to the judge because I’m not one and have never even played on on t.v. . . .
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:57 pm
===He’s a judge and could have ruled any way he chose to rule.===
That’s just as bad, if not worse, than what Quinn did.
===clarify apparently competing ideas in the law and the Constitution===
Where are the competing ideas? Yet there is a whole lot of established precedent of the courts refusing to get involved in approp issues. Remember all those school funding lawsuits? They all failed for basically the same reason. The courts do not get involved in approp issues here.
Also, if you continue to call for a judicial coup, then find somewhere else to comment.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:58 pm
And I’m not kidding about that last sentence. I’ve just about had enough of you. I let it slide yesterday, but you’re very close to being done here.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:59 pm
Shame may restrain what law does not prohibit.
Seneca
Unless you are Pat Quinn, sorry guys I see the judges point. As the AAG said and the judge repeated more or less “because power can be abused doesn’t mean power doesn’t exist.”.
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:06 pm
From the Bill of Rights of the Illinois Constitution: “Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
law, freely, completely, and promptly.”
Did Judge Schmidt just say, “Except for ROEs”?
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:11 pm
Steve, there actually is a remedy in law here: legislative action on the governor’s veto.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:16 pm
I believe the power of corporate authorities to appropriate money is without question. Almost all contracts at the local level are executed with all parties knowing full well that they are subject to future appropriation by City Councils, School Boards, County Boards, etc. IOW, they’re only as good as the budget that backs them. Appropriation of money is the ultimate check against current officials doing something to bind future officials for which they have no recourse.
Comment by Anon Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:39 pm
Irresponsible and erratic. That’s our Pat!
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 5:01 pm