Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Credit Unions – 100 Million Strong
Next Post: Not a dry eye in the House
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** This question may soon be moot. Click here to see an important development.
* House Bill 4245’s synopsis…
For FY16, provides a continuing appropriation for each State agency to meet personnel expenditures for each payroll period during which appropriations for personnel expenditures have not been made available to that State agency. Defines “State agency” to include all State agencies, the office of any constitutional officer, State universities, community colleges, and any agency, board, commission, or other instrumentality of State government to which an appropriation for personnel expenditures was made from a State fund in FY15. Defines “personnel expenditure” and “applicable State fund”. Effective immediately.
The bill was introduced yesterday by Rep. CD Davidsmeyer. It is supported by the governor and has yet to be assigned to a committee.
* The Question: Since the courts have not yet ruled that state employees can be paid without a budget, should the General Assembly pass this bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:40 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Credit Unions – 100 Million Strong
Next Post: Not a dry eye in the House
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
There should be a comprehensive budget or nothing.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:44 am
When is the earliest this could come to a vote, since it hasn’t been assigned to a committee?
Comment by ihpsdm Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:46 am
Yes, it makes sure workers are paid and we don’t have to wait for the courts.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:47 am
It shows Rauner can’t take the heat, passing this may ultimately delay the budget being passed.
Comment by AC Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:48 am
Note: Governor Bruce Rauner could’ve used the AV to make sure state employees were paid, but wasn’t worth the trouble to do that…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:48 am
No to a full FY continuing approp. I would support a temporary 1-2 month, but not the full year. There needs to be pressure to complete the budget. Taking state employees completely out of the equation prevents a major pressure point. Besides what would a large number of the employees do without approps for grants, inspections, travel, …
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:48 am
Yes didn’t they pass something like this last year for themselves which is why they will get paid during the shutdown even though the workers won’t? Please correct me if I am wrong on that but I thought I read where they get paid.
Comment by Onlooker Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:49 am
Ues. People should get paid for their work. They should not be penalized for a grown man’s tantrum.
Will the guv sign it? Does he understand yet the powers and duties of his office?
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:49 am
As I read the synopsis, am I correct that this is a continuing appropriation for the entire fiscal year as opposed the one month extension that has been discussed?
Comment by Stones Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:53 am
Yes, although the language should extend beyond FY16. This will happen again and games will be played with the paychecks of state workers, who have done nothing wrong here.
Comment by ihpsdm Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:53 am
Money is still coming in, no reason not to pay state employees.
Comment by sco vanderhomer Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:53 am
Voted “Yes”
“Why?”
People aren’t pawns, and following - Norseman -’s thoughts, I concur.
I commented above, away from this comment to remind us all, as Rauner signs (if he does) this, this necessary step was predicated by Rauner, and only Rauner, choosing, and Rauner should THANK the entire General Assembly… and Cullerton… and Madigan for bailing him (Rauner) out.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:55 am
Not a bad idea but if everyone negotiates in good faith we will end up with a budget. We always have and we will again.
Comment by Bob Hicks Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:56 am
Stones - That is a one month budget for the entire state budget. This bill only addresses appropriations for State Worker payrolls for FY16. There is no bill that I know of that requests a 1 month appropriation for payroll.
Comment by ihpsdm Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:56 am
You think it’s bad this year? Wait till next year.
It’s going to be all about “either outlaw collective bargaining or I shut down the state”. This year is just the trial run to see who budges first.
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:58 am
No. I want employees to be paid–from a properly passed, comprehensive budget. How do you justify payin’ grant managers, when they have no grants to administer, while all those not for profit social services are shut down, and their employees laid off?
Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 11:58 am
Yes. State employees and the people they serve should not have to suffer the consequences of Rauner’s ignorant, irresponsible and reckless actions.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:01 pm
I voted no because it alleviates pressure to get to an actual budget. Also, how is this different than Rauner’s complaint about a temporary budget? It is still spending without a “balanced” budget. Also, it is going to be hard for state workers to do their jobs when the electricity and Internet get cut off due to lack of payment. Won’t happen right away, but it will if this keeps dragging on. I worked at an agency where the Internet was cut off when the state “forgot” to pay. So it can happen.
Comment by Demise Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:01 pm
Voted no for two reasons. First, if you read the language of the bill, this gives very very broad authority for the executive branch to spend whatever they would like as it relates to personal services. While that problem does not fall into an unconstitutional delegation of authority, I would certainly question the wisdom of it.
Second, I don’t want to see state employees used as pawns either, but it was the Governor’s decision to do so, until he didn’t want to anymore. There is no good reason why some agreement can’t be reached on a one month budget, if team Superstar were actually interested in Governing and avoiding crisis, versus creating crisis.
Comment by Juice Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:05 pm
Yes, I have bills to pay and I’m not convinced that more time will lead to the parties coming up with anything remotely reasonable. Compromise doesn’t seem possible. I’m going to have to take a private-sector job if this goes on much longer.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm
voted yes. The GA did it for themselves when they didn’t like Quinn’s games. They should do it for us rank and file because they don’t like Rauner’s games. fair is fair.
Either way they go, Rauner can use it against them. Pass it and they look like they cave. Don’t pass it and Rauner can stand with the unions and point the finger.
If I weren’t a state employee I would think this was funny.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm
I voted “Yes” because I’d prefer not to see the havoc that would ensue from No. The Devil on my shoulder would prefer No so Rauner could have further opportunities to “shine” - snark. This is a no brainer for anyone who really cares about Illinois and people. Oops, No is a corporate approach that everyone voted for - more snark - and therefore only Corporate citizen, Rauner approach should prevail. LMAO
Comment by A CapFax Reader Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm
Yes, but add language to make it a continuing approp for all time only reversed by 3/5 majority. Add in some union protecting language as payback for bailing the governor out. If his bill is single subject than surely this would be too.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm
State employees should be paid for the work they have already provided.
Comment by Citizen A Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:09 pm
As a matter of fact, place all agencies under the governor now, under control of the legislature. Since Bruce doesn’t want the power, why let him have any.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:10 pm
MacBeth at 11:58 am. You are correct. Three more years, at least. March forward to goal. Can you hear those big old boots marching in lockstep?
Comment by A CapFax Reader Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:13 pm
==== Taking state employees completely out of the equation prevents a major pressure point. ====
Prevents a pressure point for who? If you’re a state worker you’re feeling the pressure, believe me.
====I voted no because it alleviates pressure to get to an actual budget====
But in the meantime, those of us who do work for the state can bear that burden? Which one here is willing to purchase the groceries and pay the mortgage for those of us bearing that burden?
Comment by Justice Torch Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Voted no. Kinda dumb to have employees show up for work with no other resources to do their jobs.
Worse than an “unconstitutional unbalanced budget.”
Comment by Austin Blvd Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:17 pm
In favor of a full budget. Maybe misery loves company.
Comment by waffle fries Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:18 pm
oooops. I voted yes. I’m a state worker. I prefer that Mr. Rauner and Mr. Madigan and the GA simply do their job. I’m doing mine right now….and all for the pay of $0.0. In the meantime they aren’t doing theirs but continuing to get paid.
Comment by Justice Torch Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:18 pm
I voted yes. A lot of people would be hurt in a shutdown. Also this could hurt state employees who are going to retire soon, the unpaid work may end up pulling their average wage down if they don’t get paid for it before they retire. Is there any provision in SERS or SURS for that situation?
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:18 pm
I hesitated for a second, and then voted yes.
Of course a full budget is the desired goal, and this removes a pressure point. It also makes little sense to pay employees when the programs they administer are not funded.
Really the only reason I voted yes is to call Rauner’s bluff.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:20 pm
Also, what is dumb is to say it is dumb for state worker’s to show up for work without resources. It doesn’t take resources for the following:
Issue drivers licenses
Remove abused children from homes
Inspect bridges
Provide mental health counseling
Process tax returns
Provide care for the elderly and infirmed
Test water for contaminants
And countless other duties that require only sharp and dedicated minds.
Comment by Menard Guy Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:24 pm
I voted a strong ‘no.’ They done school funding without a budget agreement and the courts have taken care of a few things for vulnerable people. Take this off the table and there’s no pressure for them to agree to a budget. We’ll be stuck in continual campaign mode until either there’s a Democratic governor or the Raunerites take over the House and Senate.
If I didn’t think the pressure would be great enough to force a budget agreement, I would have voted ‘yes.’
Comment by Earnest Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:24 pm
I voted yes. Just because there’s no budget, it’s a stretch to say all state services stop. No. We are expected to come to work and serve the needs of the public. We move paperwork, we take phone calls, we advise, counsel, and otherwise direct the public to an answer for which they need. And the obvious: we are working. Pay us.
OW: how many times do we need to see what BR could’ve done. Got it. That’s a problem with politics: always talking about what coulda, shoulda been done. Just get it done. Move along
Comment by Westward Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:25 pm
If I am required to be in the office, I should be paid!
Comment by downstater Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:26 pm
Yes. This bill protects the bystanders, the innocent victims.
The Democrats now have their own turnaround agenda. They are waiting for the Governor to turn around from the TV cameras he is facing and look them in the eyes, across the bargaining table.
Until then, Democrats just have to wait him out.
Comment by James Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:29 pm
- Westward -
With respect,
(If and…) When Rauner signs, touting how he, Bruce Rauner kept HIS word as to getting state employees paid, will that politicking be more about saving people, or saving his own face?
Rauner needs to learn the levers, not cheer and pat himself on the back as others bail him out. That’s the rub.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:30 pm
I voted NO.
While I agree that employees and those that need state services should not suffer or be pawns in these “negotiations”. I also feel like the elected leaders need to take these deadlines seriously. The more wiggle room you give them, the more they will take.
If they do want to pass a continuing appropriations bill, it should be permanent, not 1-2 months or 1 year.
Otherwise, you really need to have the pain of a REAL shutdown to motivate the politicians to do their jobs. These half-measure “shutdowns” just allow them to draw the process out even longer.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:30 pm
I voted yes. Several commenters have pointed out that paying employees “removes a pressure point”. But who does not paying employees put pressure on?
Taking hostages only works if someone else (1) wants the hostages, and (2) is in a position to give you what you want in return. You need both and so far no one, general public or legislature, has indicated either.
As for “what will they do” the state isn’t made up of 60,000 grant administrators and home health workers. Inspectors, licensures, examiners and general public services (dmv for example) aren’t going to see their workload decrease.
Besides, in the revered private sector, you don’t not pay your staff during slow seasons. Why shouldn’t the same hold here. If you’re going to demand that people show up to work, human decency says you pay them.
Comment by Ferris Wheel Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:32 pm
I voted YES but I am ambivalent. The function of the Constitutional mandate of a balanced budget seems to have no teeth.
Without a shutdown of State government, there will not be enough citizen outrage to prevent this cycle.
But with all of the various exceptions (Legislative pay, judicial pay, consent decrees, FLSA) the exceptions have swallowed the rule.
And the average State worker should not be the pawn in the middle of this political embarrassment.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:32 pm
Yes. People should get paid for their work. They should not be penalized for two grown men’s tantrums.
Will the guv sign it? Does he understand yet the powers and duties of his office? Will the House pass it? Does MJM understand yet that his and his caucus’ duty is to the people of this state and not his political party’s power?
Objectivity, not partisanship
Comment by Kodachrome Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:35 pm
No. Only because this bill is for FY16 only. I think they should vote on an ongoing continuing approp. Why have to deal with the same issue next year or in five years? What makes this year so special? Or if you only want a one year fix, pass a budget with employee salaries only.
Comment by Salty Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Justice Torch, don’t just sit there and take it. Call the Governor’s Office and complain and keep calling. They’ll give you there phony baloney spiel, but the buck stops there. Go ahead and call your legislator and complain as well, but the heat will be more effectively put on the governor’s office. Have your family members call. Write letters. Do something besides complain. I wish you well. I know how you feel when we faced this prospect a number of times.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:37 pm
I don’t care for piecemeal appropriations, and I agree that this removes a pressure point for both the Governor and the general Assembly.
However, in this specific case I voted yes because I would rather not hurt people, and not paying employees would obviously hurt them.
Comment by thunderspirit Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:38 pm
I am an exempt state employee. I voted YES. Workers should be paid for work performed. I am performing work. BVR could’ve left in worker pay from the budget, but we’re past that now.
Remove employee payroll from the budget equation and GA please get work to enact a budget and don’t use us as human shields. Oy
Comment by Stopped Making Sense Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:43 pm
Kodachrome, it is an objective fact that the governor previously chose not to use his AV powers to fund salaries.
He just couldn’t take the heat for it, as we’ve seen in other instances.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:45 pm
Agree that employee salaries should be part of a comprehensive budget. While some employees could continue to function effectively and perform their normal duties, many probably couldn’t without the ability to pay vendors, consultants, utilities, etc. The “bright line” should be essential and non-essential.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:46 pm
I voted yes but for 1 month and 1 month only. During that month all constitutional offices and agencies should submit their list of essential employees. The court ordered them to do this years ago and again last month. It’s not a shutdown but reducing state services to essential employees making minimum wage will definitely put some pressure on.
Comment by Casual Observer Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 12:56 pm
=== Monique Garcia
@moniquegarcia
Looks like the House is amending the one month budget to add cost of state worker salaries. Another shot at Gov. Rauner. ===
I’m rooting for this amendment and the temp budget to pass. This a good step.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 1:00 pm
Voted Yes!
Hope they stick a Poison Pill in it, too!
Comment by WhoKnew Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 1:07 pm
Yes. Even as we fight over how to fix the boat, keep bailing.
Comment by walker Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 1:19 pm
I voted yes. I am a state worker who is expected to come to work every day with the knowledge that I will be paid at some time “in the future”. Next week I won’t get a check, but my mortgage and car payment are due. I don’t see anyone lining up to offer to pay them for me while these supposedly grown men pay games.
Comment by Formerly Tired Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 1:24 pm
It is nice that state workers are getting so much attention for their wages. When will the same attention be given to the workers for the vendors and providers who do the work for the state under contact. When those employers do not get paid for services because of no approved budget, how do they pay their employees? Just get the entire budget done.
Still glad to see that Rauner is fighting for state workers to get paid after he cut their funding. Must be very hard fighting with yourself.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 1:37 pm
@ Menard Guy:
“It doesn’t take resources for the following:
Issue drivers licenses
Remove abused children from homes
Inspect bridges
Provide mental health counseling
Process tax returns
Provide care for the elderly and infirmed
Test water for contaminants”
Are you serious? Do you think bridges are inspected and water tested with mere eyes? Equipment is necessary, travel is necessary.
Try issuing a driver’s license without access to databases (not to mention that camera that takes only lousy pictures).
Removing abused children? Well, jeez, that’s all fine and dandy, but where is the money for foster care coming from?
Etc., etc.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 3:19 pm
Much of what you just listed can be paid for on credit.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 3:26 pm
If P-12 schools can be paid without a budget, state employees should be paid too.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 3:37 pm
==If P-12 schools can be paid without a budget==
They have a budget. The Governor signed that one.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm
If all state employees don’t show up to work, what happens?
Comment by Mongo Thursday, Jul 9, 15 @ 7:08 pm
Hold the pay of those who have created this situation and see how quickly its resolved. The politicians are being paid - not to mention they went on a two week hiatus before completing their job - thus the State Agencies should be paid while they continue to work for the people of the State of Illinois.
Comment by Thunder Friday, Jul 10, 15 @ 6:58 am