Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s number: 7 years
Next Post: Medicaid – Know the Facts Part 2
Posted in:
* The Pantagraph editorializes on the secret legislative working groups…
“They are private meetings,” Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly told Kurt Erickson of the Lee Enterprises’ Springfield Bureau. “They are private discussions that we’re keeping confidential to protect the process.” […]
It’s hard to see how private meetings are needed to “protect the process.” It’s troubling because we don’t know if the meetings are bipartisan, or if there is any diversity. For all we know, they are loaded with like-minded people who are merely rubber-stamping an agenda. We are used to legislators meeting in private, but often we were at least aware of who was involved in the process and vaguely what they were talking about. Now we are completely in the dark.
By choosing to work out of public view, the Rauner administration is effectively telling the public that they know what’s best for the state and that we shouldn’t worry our silly heads about what kind of deals or discussions are going on in private.
For the record, transparency is defined by Merriam-Webster as “something transparent; especially: a picture (as on film) viewed by light shining through it or by projection.”
Defending the idea that conducting business out of the public’s view makes for better government does nothing to give us confidence that things have changed for the better in Springfield. There is no light shining on this process. State government in Illinois has never been known as a bastion of openness, but this takes it down one more notch.
We do know who the members are, but that’s no thanks to the Rauner administration.
Other than that, it’s hard to disagree with the editorial.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s number: 7 years
Next Post: Medicaid – Know the Facts Part 2
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If you’re a Republican, and you lose the Pantagraph…
Rauner is a Raunerite, and Bullies never want their bullying done in the open. I mean, what bully wants people to hear about burying foes, going after their families, ruining people…
You hide, not because people don’t like to see the sausage being made, you hide because when you double-cross your co-equal partner, no one can tell on the bully.
“Now give me your lunch money, quietly.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:32 am
I am fine with private meetings as long as whatever proposals come out of them get a full public airing.
Comment by Peoria Guy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:34 am
Do we have a right to know who is involved in the budget meetings? Maybe. Should we know who is involved? Probably. It seems the press desperately wants to know. And this is obviously working so much better than when Blago would meet with the Four Tops and when Quinn held his many, numerous meetings with the legislative leadership. Their process was thoroughly transparent and overwhelmingly successful, right?
Comment by Motambe Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:37 am
Peoria, the public airing will consist of a quick hearing on the day before or day of the final vote. Certainly not enough time to generate a public campaign in opposition to the legislation.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:41 am
I may have missed it but has Andy “my favorite word is “transparent”" weighed in on this? It would seem that his undershorts should certainly be binding about this….
Comment by W.S. Wolcott Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:42 am
How dare any mere mortals question Lord Rauner, king of the bullies? This man knows all and does not need to heed any requests of those who are below this mighty, mighty, mighty, mighty man! Shame on those who doubt! Off with their heads!
Comment by Big Mike Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:43 am
Rauner’s experience in private equity leaves him ill-equipped to work in a public light. Private equity is private because it wishes to avoid the public oversight of the SEC.
Well governor, you didn’t buy Illinois, and the people of Illinois have the right of oversight. It’s called democracy.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:44 am
Great. Now we can compel Madigan and Cullerton to open their legislative policy and Strategy sessions to the public too, right? After all, they’re Speaker and President for ALL House and Senate members, not just the Dems, correct? Don’t hold your breath waiting for editorials about THAT anytime soon…
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:44 am
But, Peoria Guy, what you may consider a full public airing and what an elected official may consider a full public airing may be two entirely different things. There is far too much of, as the editorial states, that we (the public) “shouldn’t worry our silly little heads” in all levels of government. The “we know best” mentality of “you elected me to do this!” may work in the short run, but boy does it create headaches, finger-pointing, poor manners, and lawsuits in the future if the light doesn’t shine first. By leaving the public out of any means to watch the process closely and be able to comment either formally or informally just turns politicians into the three blind men and their encounter with the elephant. You’ll only get parts of, but never the whole picture.
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:46 am
=== We are used to legislators meeting in private, but often we were at least aware of who was involved in the process and vaguely what they were talking about. Now we are completely in the dark.===
Not any more. Now that Rich Miller has shined a light on both the subjects and the members, are you OK now?
Private meetings are, and have always been, necessary to finalize budget tradeoffs. That is after input from appropriations committee public hearings, which we have already had this year.
When Madigan, and other leaders from both sides left the floor in late May, after calling for a long debate on the state insect, where do you think they were going?
With Rich’s help, this set of meetings and their members are at least public knowledge — certainly enough for lobbyists and others to get input to the legislators involved. Rauner should have provided that information before Rich had to.
Sorry, but If I had Rauner’s job, I would have set up these working groups as well. It was his best way to negotiate bi-partisan solutions in a quick and broad way. If his only goal was to force his opinions on folks, why have the working groups at all?
Not to say that they are working well. That would depend on fair dealing, and a commitment to compromise. And not to say there should not be another more public step before the results just show up in shell bills.
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:59 am
The real hypocrisy here is that state government insists on open meetings for units of local government and provides penalties for violations. But not for themselves.
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:00 am
What’s interesting — and I’ve not heard a single word about this from anyone who might know — is whether Rauner the Governor is operating *exactly* the same as Rauner the Venture Capitalist.
We know that legislators feel like they’re being treated like staff. We hear that. But it’d be interesting to hear additional details from someone who used to work with Rauner.
Is Rauner’s “set the goal and then figure out how to get there” routine the same way he operated in the business world? Is the “no negotiating the goal, we only negotiated what you need to give in” the same as Rauner’s standard business methodology?
My guess is that, yeah, this is *exactly* how Rauner operated and that he hasn’t made a single change to his workflow or methodologies. This is an article that seems screaming to be written by ‘Chicago Magazine’. It wouldn’t be pretty — in fact, I’d guess, it’d be devastating.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:03 am
Whenever government operates in secret, it’s because somebody has decided voting citizens are either too stupid to understand or not entitled to know.
Both assumptions are anti-American. Our Constitution does not make allowances for secret police or secret government. If taxpayer money is used to fund these working groups, they should be fully open to public scrutiny.
Or did we naively assume that “shakin’ up Springfield” would put an end to smoke-filled rooms and sweetheart deals?
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:05 am
One of 35: Bull. The same rules apply. And many of the practices are the same as well. Why do your locals all have scheduled “executive meetings” before their weekly public meeting?
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:08 am
==Now we can compel Madigan and Cullerton to open their legislative policy and Strategy sessions to the public too, right?==
Another victim heard from.
==Don’t hold your breath waiting for editorials about THAT anytime soon==
Damn liberal media bias.
Any more asinine statements you want to make?
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:10 am
The Pantagraph needs to work a little harder on sources I guess. CF got a very thorough list of who, what, when and where. On a number of occasions, we’ve heard a group with 35+ members could be so unwieldy as to be nonproductive. What in the world do you think having editorials all over the place nit-picking not-ready-for-prime-time, not yet refined ideas would help with?
A secret fails to be a secret anymore once 2 people know about it; especially in a place like Springfield. I think the idea here is to eliminate as much of the white noise as possible to get preliminary conceptual agreement here. As stated above, MJM has used this method repeatedly with some success. In his case, it often leaked when he decided it should be leaked without a member freelancing on penalty of losing his status as a member.
I prefer transparency. I also like a sound plan to look at without every special interest and every media outlet potentially killing solutions before they ripen. No one could have believed any element of secrecy would last very long here.
Unless…you’re all looking here and the real discussion is actually happening elsewhere. Hmmmm.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:12 am
I’m in the minority here but this doesn’t bother me in the least. Whatever they come up with will be voted on. I, for one, favor private meetings when working on decisions.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:12 am
Walker: Locals are permitted by the Open Meetings Act to meet in executive session to discuss a very limited number of things such as land acquisition and personnel discipline matters. State Government, by contrast, conducts the majority of its substantive business in secret by meetings of the 4 tops and Governor’s staff. If locals tried the same thing, they would be crucified.
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:15 am
= It’s troubling because we don’t know if the meetings are bipartisan, or if there is any diversity. For all we know, they are loaded with like-minded people who are merely rubber-stamping an agenda. =
Kind of like editorial board meetings.
Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:17 am
Shouldn’t we have the meetings held between a legislator, legislative staff and the lawyers who actually write the legal language in a bill, open to the public too?
No? Why not?
There is a line between crafting potential legislation, and the public discussion, debate and voting on that legislation.
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:18 am
Walker: a few minutes ago you argued that locals operate the same as the state. Now you agree that the state operates in secret most of the time with regard to crafting legislation. That’s precisely the point. Locals cannot meet in secret to discuss potential legislation and make secret deals for passage. the state does it all the time!
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:23 am
walker- “Shouldn’t we have the meetings held between a legislator, legislative staff and the lawyers who actually write the legal language in a bill, open to the public too?”
Many times its the lobbyist (his/her employer) that writes the legislation. ALEC anyone?
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:23 am
If you want people to speak freely, think outside the box and negotiate compromises–in other words be effective–some of that needs to be done out of the public eye. Again, as long as the final proposals get a full public airing.
Comment by Peoria Guy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:24 am
1/35, Respectfully, the State is not a municipality.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:26 am
Does anyone really think we need hoots, hollers, catcalls, applause, self aggrandizing, etc. at this stage of a discussion? If so, let’s have them meet in parks and zoos. Otherwise, let the ideas germinate to a point where they’re ready for public scrutiny. Oy.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:29 am
One of 35: You’re not really claiming that your local ordinances and budget details are not crafted by staff, before they are brought as proposals before your deliberative bodies, are you? That would really be unique!
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:35 am
There are legitimate reasons for the open meetings act. Isn’t this a matter for the Attorney General?
Comment by BMAN Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:36 am
==- Peoria Guy - Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:34 am:==
If a “full public airing” is ramming any proposals through committee and floor on the last two days of session, then yes, these will get a “full public airing.”
==- Motambe - Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 9:37 am:==
==And this is obviously working so much better==
How can this obviously be working better when we do not know anything about what is going on? If this is working better, there would be bills we could read on http://ilga.gov right now. There are not.
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:39 am
I don’t like the idea of policy or law being done in private meetings, except for the obvious idea of war planning. Illinois is not at war, and these meetings are not military planning.
There are a few parallels to who likes secret meetings, and non are trustworthy.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 10:59 am
Inasmuch as rational persons know that the Open Meetings Act IS NOT APPLICABLE to these working groups due to the law’s *exemption* for “the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof” we are left with discussion of what level of transparency is appropriate with regard to the working groups.
IMO the public should be told at least, as to each working group 1) the identity of the two most senior BRU-CREW participants, 2) the scope of the group’s charge, 3) a confirmation of who actually designated Reps and Senators of each party that are involved, and 4) a statement of the groups’ rules for lobbyist involvement in the meetings (if any), and for lobbyist contacts - - about the groups’ work and while the groups are meeting - - with individual participants.
Comment by zonz Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:00 am
Walker: Municipal budgets are prepared by staff, published with ample notice, to allow for public comment, and then debated in public by elected officials. That’s a far cry from how its done at the state level. Often times, state elected officials get the final version of the budget at 11:00 the night before the vote. the 2 systems are just not the same.
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:02 am
Not all private meetings are created equal. Certainly summoning the Four Tops is very different than establishing working groups and I think the latter pretty clearly violates the Open Meetings Act, as I explained yesterday in this thread and will not repeat here: https://capitolfax.com/2015/05/11/inside-the-secretive-working-groups/#comments
What interests me today is that the people in strongest opposition to OMA’s applicability (supposedly because of the statutory language) — a guy, Demoralized, etc. — are now making some fascinating substantive comments about how transparency ought to work, generally.
A guy’s premise that nonpublic things aren’t the same as secrets because if insiders know them they’re not secrets - that’s interesting. Not sure I’d try to sell that idea to the public.
Demoralized’s normative statement about transparency having no value. Again, probably not a winner.
But re: Rauner’s agenda needing hothouse protection from white noise and unwashed hordes and blaring spotlights, because it has’t germinated yet and is still so very very very fragile since all of the ideas for potential agreements are so brand-new…
TODAY IS THE 12TH OF MAY
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:03 am
Walker: Also, the 4 tops meeting in secret to craft legislation, are not staffers. They are elected officials. That’s a lot different than city staffers preparing draft documents.
Comment by One of the 35 Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:06 am
One of 35: Thank you for your comments.
I might argue that having local staffers draft documents and budgets for future consideration is even less transparent to the public that having a small group of elected officials do the same.
But I am way off track, and will acknowledge there are improvements needed at the state level.
Comment by walker Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:16 am
Shaking up Springfield from behind closed doors with gobs of cash, what a great guy!!!
Comment by Obamas Puppy Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:27 am
First nevever buy into a Pantagraph edit. They are nearly as uninformed as the News-Gazette. Kurt is a very good reporter but edit writers usually don’t read his work.
Bringing the workin’ groups out in the open will serve no real purpose or bringing this session to an orderly conclusion…let’s move on to everybody’s favorite — gaming expansion.
Comment by Anonin' Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:38 am
Its interesting that the open meetings act is written to exclude this kind of stuff. But the heart and spirit of the open meetings act is to prevent this very kind of secret government discussion. This is a bigger issue to me then term limits. Get these discussions in the open, and on the record. Term limits is timekeeping; this is actual secret governemnt action being withheld from piblic scrutiny which can cause the very harms term limits are supposed to stop, but would not really impact.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 11:39 am
I’m assuming those of you advocating opening up these meetings also have problems with pretty much any meeting that legislators and Governor’s are involved in being private. Need to talk about the budget? Gotta be in public. Need to have a caucus meeting? Public.
I get that some feel there is a need for absolutely no “secrecy” in any sort of discussion in government. But I will argue that nothing can get accomplished without those discussions. You cannot have open and frank discussions with everybody and their brother around. I’d never have a discussion if I were subjected to that sort of environment.
I’ve been involved in many a private discussion on issues (mostly the budget). I can tell you that without those private discussions it would have been a nightmare to try and get anything done.
Disagree with it. Say I don’t favor open government. Say whatever else about me you like. My position won’t change. It’s not helpful to negotiate in public.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 12:07 pm
Certainly Blago would have faired better if his discussions were not made public (obvious sarcasm intended).
If you are discussing things that you don’t want the public to hear, are you truly doing your job in representing the people?
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 12:39 pm
The groups should not have been a secret. Period. Not transparent. The optics are poor.
They can meet and discuss without the public no issues there so long as they are presented properly and not at midnight for a quickie discussion and vote. Meeting and discussing before presenting is good practice, the secret squirrel stuff is another thing though.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 12:42 pm
For people making the comparison to local governments covered by the Open Meetings Act: local governments are absolutely allowed to have non-public meetings, as long as they don’t consist of enough members to constitute a majority of the number necessary to achieve a quorum. It seems like very few, if any of these meetings would be covered under that definition.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 12:43 pm
To me by far the most interesting part of the editorial is the Pantagraph’s endorsement of “diversity”. Somehow I suspect that this is one of the very rare times that the importance of diversity has come up in a Pantagraph editorial board meeting.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 1:09 pm
I don’t condone the “secret” meetings, but we may be made more openly aware of what has happened there, than what changes have been made to any of the 6000 bills introduced.
Comment by Minnow Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 1:23 pm
“It’s not helpful to negotiate in public.”
-Demoralized- is absolutely correct. Privacy is necessary to provide a productive environment, not to conceal anything. Imagine a panel trying to conduct negotiations on a theater stage with an audience of affected parties present. As long as adequate time is provided to debate the resulting product before voting on it what’s the problem? This is the same procedure the federal government uses in dealing with international trade agreements.
Comment by CapnCrunch Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 1:27 pm
—
It’s not helpful to negotiate in public.
—
Agreed.
But then release the minutes for each meeting.
It’s one thing to negotiate privately. I understand that. But it’s another altogether — and one I find inherently dishonest — not to release meeting minutes.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 1:29 pm
Anon 12:43 -
Sorry, but No. Members of a school board can meet and talk, but they cannot have school board meetings.
And the Freedom of Information Act requires the names of all advisory board to be posted on a government agency’s website. These working groups are clearly advisory bodies subsidiary to the Governor’s Office, and the law requires their membership to be published.
That is much different than the Governor meeting with individual lawmakers.
At any rate, the very fact we are having this debate or the Pantagraph is editorializing shows Rauner is struggling to live up to his promise to increase transparency.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 2:40 pm
I like Mike Riopell’s picture of the closed door in the Governors Office. I’m sure the super secret meeting is going well. Too bad for Riopell that they’re using the cone of silence. Otherwise he might have heard some words of wisdom from the superstaffers.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 6:23 pm
I don’t have a problem with the negotiations occurring in private. However this should have been going on a month ago and the bills filed already. When bills are filed they should follow the process to the t, read on 3 different days, full committee hearings, etc. None of this cramming it through at the last minute.
Comment by MyTwoCents Tuesday, May 12, 15 @ 7:34 pm