Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

A haircut for social service providers?

Posted in:

Illinois

[State Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington] added, though, social service agencies waiting for a year on state money might not get all they are owed, even if lawmakers approve a spending plan for the new budget year in July.

“I believe there will be direction to do some backfilling, but I don’t know that there’s going to be money to refill your contracts to the level you would like to have them,” Brady said.

The Chief Operating Officer of Chestnut Health Systems Alan Sender responded by saying its a failure of lawmakers and Governor Rauner.

“You can’t treat businesses like that,” Sender said.

Oy.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm

Comments

Well, this is what happens when public employee benefits can’t be touched. Usually, an entity can reduce spending in one place if it needs to maintain it elsewhere when budgets are tight. Pensions are simply crowding out other spending.

Thanks Madigan. This is just as you wanted.

Comment by Ron Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 2:50 pm
Government service providers:

Sign that FY 2017 contract and incur costs at your own risk.

Hope you were listening closely there, Illinois Partners for Human Service.

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 2:55 pm
Just as the full faith and credit of the USA doesn’t matter much to Trump, the Governor doesn’t worry about protecting the State’s full faith and credit either.

Comment by anon Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 2:58 pm
== “You can’t treat businesses like that,” ==

Breakout artists and vulture capitalists do … and apparently the Governor of this state, since he’s chosen no budget over owning any cuts.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 2:58 pm
” I don’t know that there’s going to be money to refill your contracts to the level you would like to have them,” Brady said.”

Rep. Dan Brady, are you clue-less? The non-profit social services provided a service, etc. on behalf of IL citizens in need of their services via a contract with the state of IL for ‘X’ amount of dollars. The state can not go back after a year, and say, the state is not going to honor our contract after the fact! If the gov doesn’t like social services, he should not have signed a contract with them.

Comment by Mama Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Anyone would be a fool to sign a contract with IL while Rauner is the governor. He doesn’t care if he financially ruins a organization or a business in the name of his political agenda.

Comment by Mama Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:07 pm
There in lies the GREATEST PERFIDY of the Republicans owned by Rauner. They have even deceived the business community. It never was about a better business environment. Look at DCEO, they’ve done so little except extend EDGE tax rebates to large zero tax liability companies to no pay their employee income withholding to the tune of hundreds of millions. Small/medium Illinois businesses, forget you. No the only thing this has been about is destroying labor which would drive wages down, decrease consumer protections but increase the wealthy exponentially. TAKE NOTE CHAMBER! Rauners “All In” for the big guys. He’ll wear a tie. Small/medium chamber members, you didn’t get the invite did you? But you saw him when he came to town. He was in his Carhart jacket. “Hang in there” he says to you.

Rauner is not your friend. He is perfidious and had betrayed you. He won’t have to pay you back if you went under.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:07 pm
“to the level you would like to have them” Like isn’t even in the conversation. Owed is the word we’re looking for here. “the level you are owed”

Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:15 pm
To me, this would be criminal. The “heroes” lead these folks down the primrose path and now they’re saying, sorry you’re out of luck.

Oy, indeed.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:17 pm
Folks, that wasn’t the Governor delivering that news like some of you imply above. And Rep Brady was only reminding people of what we’ve all known for a long time. There are going to be cuts when a budget is finally passed. There have to be. Even a 5% tax rate isn’t enough to pay for where we are

Comment by Steve Schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:21 pm
Doing business with the state seems very risky. The folks buying invoices may start pricing in more risk. After all, contracts are “subject to appropriation” so presumably for profit vendors could be treated the same way.

Comment by AC Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:22 pm
==“You can’t treat businesses like that,” Sender said.==

Sure you can, Mr. Sender. Just ask the IL Chamber of Commerce and the Owl, they’ll tell you that “reforms” are more important than your contractually obligated payments!

Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:25 pm
Is this a joke? /s

Here? In America? Lean on your vendors? After the fact? Sounding more like a racket every day. Rauner’s Racket? /s

The ILGOP is having a mental health crisis and a disintegration of values and normal legal conduct.

A 5 yr old knows this is wrong.

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:27 pm
“Even a 5% tax rate isn’t enough to pay for where we are”

Rauner and Madigan probably should have thought of that 18months ago when they started this game of chicken letting the 5% expire, 12/31/14.

A real man/woman would own. Raise the revenue, pay the bills. Move on.

What a bunch of weak twerps.

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:30 pm
Mr. Schnorf, with respect, this suggestion is outrageous (even if it is the logical extension of where we’ve been heading). The correct answer from a responsible public official — or a responsible businessman — is to raise taxes enough to pay debts. That may mean 5 1/2 or 6 percent untill, ideally a progressive income tax arrives. But it doesn’t mean folks with signed contracts should take a haircut because we just don’t feel like paying them.

Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:36 pm
Steve, he said “social service agencies waiting for a year on state money might not get all they are owed”. There’s a difference between future cuts and not paying what is owed.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:36 pm
Sorry, Schnorf, I agree with Keyrock. This is outrageous. The cuts can happen prospectively, but not retroactively. In fact, our contracts require notification if the funding is going to be reduced or halted, and NO ONE has given us that notice. If Rauner et al wants to go down that path, they should expect a lot more lawsuits.

Comment by Pawn Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:39 pm
I fear higher ed will get that same haircut in Brady’s scenario.

Comment by Joe M Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:39 pm
P.S. Paying these bills have undoubtedly been a source of discussions among the Rauner caucuses. If Rauner is not in agreement, I’ll happily wait a disavowal of Brady’s comment.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:40 pm
Law suitschool filled in 3, 2, 1 …

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:53 pm
Ugh. Law suits

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 3:54 pm
- Rep Brady was only reminding people of what we’ve all known for a long time. There are going to be cuts when a budget is finally passed. -

So, I guess we can put Schnorf down as supporting not paying money owed for contractual services already provided.

I’m sure glad we have you keeping an eye on Executive Ethics, Steve.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:00 pm
” our contracts require notification if the funding is going to be reduced or halted”

I think payment should be made in full and hope it ts so. But when you sign a contract when there is no appropriation, there is no funding. State of Illinois v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2016 IL 118422, may provide guidence.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:01 pm
It seems that Trump is our model for state government.

Comment by JackD Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:02 pm
Sorry. 4:01 was my post.

Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:03 pm
Folks, almost all of the contracts you’re talking about are subject to approp, and there is none. I don’t like the situation, I believe paying your bills is a bedrock of what Republicanism should be. But the money isn’t there now, and enough will never be there. I’d be talking to your lawyers because I don’t know if without an approp you can even get paid thru the Court of Claims. You might get an award (without an approp I don’t know how) but your award probably couldn’t be paid. Better be sure there’s a BIMP bill if there’s ever a budget. Joe M, I think there’s going to be a haircut for virtually everyone, BUT we’ve all known that was coming for years.

Comment by Steve Schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:03 pm
- But the money isn’t there now, and enough will never be there. -

Then the chicken stuff Governor you’re so fond of should own the cuts and tell these providers to stop providing services. Unless you find fraud to be acceptable Executive Ethics, which maybe you do.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:11 pm
Let’s all call Comcast, AT&T, Ameren, CWLP, etc and tell them we just don’t have enough revenue to cover the service they already provided.

They should have known we weren’t going to raise enough revenue by getting another job.

(That’s completely absurd and unacceptable. Sure would love to be a fly on the wall in some of these agency offices and the second floor. I bet it’s getting ugly.)

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:25 pm
So Mr. Schnorf, do you think providers should not have to be accountable for their end of the contracts either? This administration has held us accountable. I’ve had an on-site program audit of my FY16 program by DHS. They examined our program plan, program reports and data, and financial reports. They asked us to account for any variances in how we “spent” the state’s money against what we had originally planned to do. They wrote up a report documenting those variances. Is this acceptable if the contract is null and void bc it is subject to appropriations?

Comment by Pawn Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:26 pm
Steve, I agree with your points about the payment of contracts where there is no appropriation. While you espouse the principles of Republicanism, you note the dire financial problem may force the failure to live up to that principle. (Frankly, it’s clear that particular principle of Republicanism has been long since abandoned upon the Raunerite acquisition of the GOP. Bankruptcy is the new mantra.)

I know you’re legally correct and this is a fact that is known to every state employee who does contracts/grants. However, it was the Rauner administration’s decision to tell folks to continue performing services without an appropriation promising future payments would be forthcoming. While this may not be technically criminal, to me it’s a criminal dereliction of their duties. This was purposeful action to ensure that Rauner would appear to the public as if he was keeping state services going. This was the role of his heroes - accomplishes in Rauner’s crime.

These are bills to social services providers that have to be paid.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:30 pm
Oops - accomplices

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:32 pm
Norse, I don’t believe a governor has any obligation to endorse or disavow statements by anyone except his own staff. He might choose to, but choosing not to neither confirms nor denies his support for the statement. But in this case especially why would he? Is there anyone on here that can claim with a straight face they didn’t know cuts were going to be a part of any budget agreement?

Comment by Steve Schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:33 pm
- Is there anyone on here that can claim with a straight face they didn’t know cuts were going to be a part of any budget agreement? -

I bet those providers thought they’d get paid for the services they provided, and were told to keep providing.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:37 pm
Honeybear,

You use “perfidy” or “perfidious” quite a bit; like every time you post here, which is often (Hey, you’re a state worker, right?).

This is for you, Honeybear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Comment by Georg Sande Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:39 pm
=== Joe M, I think there’s going to be a haircut for virtually everyone, BUT we’ve all known that was coming for years. ===

Schnorf, with all due respect, I think every single nonprofit understood that they were going to have to wait some unspecified time for payment, but I do think that they all expected that once payment was made, they would be reimbursed at the amount in the contract.

Moreover, Republicans have forced them to go out and borrow money from banks and other institutions based on an assumed rate of repayment.

I don’t think a single nonprofit or for-profit contractor would have continued providing services beyond last August if they’d known that they were going to get short-changed on the reimbursement rate.

Here’s a question for Schnorf and reporters: is Beth Purvis getting paid at her full rate, or is she taking the same “haircut”?

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:47 pm
=== Is there anyone on here that can claim with a straight face they didn’t know cuts were going to be a part of any budget agreement? ===

Cuts for future services not for services contracted for and already provided. If the Rauner administration intended to cut FY 16 services, then contracts should have been modified or cancelled. They closed the State museum to allegedly control FY 16 costs, why didn’t they change the contracts for some or all of these providers. Of course we know the reason was for political cover to convince the public that Rauner was keeping the state running.

I hope you’re right that Brady doesn’t speak for Rauner. These folks need to be paid in full by Rauner. He owes it to them.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:47 pm
So, if I contracted with the State several years ago to provide goods or services worth $1.000.000 per year (which the State agreed to pay ).

Now you are asking me to take .50 cents on the dollar for the benefits to the State I have provided and paid my employees for delivering!

Yet my overhead and expenses continue!

Why Would Anyone Chose to Do Business With The State????????

My suspicion is that many of the Social Service providers were recruited by and retained by the State to continue providing services the
State no longer chose to involve itself with.

It is called passing the buck - but the contract still has to be honored and the bill still has to be paid!!!!!!1

Comment by illini Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:50 pm
Not a single Republican on the stage contradicted Brady’s statement. It is the GOP position.

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:51 pm
Schnorf:Is there anyone on here that can claim with a straight face they didn’t know cuts were going to be a part of any budget agreement?

Again, I direct you to our contracts. The contract requires notification of cuts, reductions, eliminations, etc. It is fundamentally dishonest of this administration to hold providers accountable to the contracts without notifying us that they are just, you know, ideas, a wish list. I think Ormsby called them Confederate War Bonds a while back.

You are right that the Republican party used to be the party of business. I don’t know any f-ing business run this way.

Comment by Pawn Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:53 pm
Someone mentioned a lawsuit…assume everyone knows that originally 64 or so…now over 80 human service providers…not for profit and profit making…have filed suit against the state officials who signed those contracts and who are now trying to not pay for the wide variety of services provided under those contracts.

to be clear…the legislature appropriated the funds; the executive branch vetoed that appropriation.

what parallel universe exists where the same branch of government both executes contracts and is given the power to welch on this…

this just gets sadder and sadder

Comment by DWMc Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:55 pm
==then contracts should have been modified==

There was no need to modify the contracts. All contracts clearly state that they are subject to appropriation.

I’m not arguing people shouldn’t get paid. They absolutely should get paid. But, technically, anyone who is doing business with the state is doing so at their own risk.

I’ve often thought about the Court of Claims angle and have thought about the consequences of no appropriation and how someone would even go about making a claim. You can’t make a lapsed appropriation claim because there wasn’t an appropriation to lapse. It would have to be under some other mechanism that someone files a claim and I’m not up enough on the Court of Claims to know what that mechanism might be.

As Steve said (and as I’ve been telling people around me) you better have a good BIMP bill.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:58 pm
Read as to why the Geneva Convention outlaws perfidy. You can see that Rauner in his own way has committed the act of perfidy many times.
Regardless as in war, perfidy leads to the suffering of innocents. Something Rauner excels in. And DO NOT dare make a moral equivalency argument to the suffering of paying more in taxes. Losing a job is worse than paying more in taxes. Not having childcare is worse than paying more in taxes. Not having your one Meals on Wheels meal a day is worse than paying more in taxes, not have treatment for addiction or mental health is worse than paying more in taxes, not honoring legal contracts is worse than paying more in taxes, not being able to go to college without a MAP grant is worse than paying more in taxes, not funding state agencies thereby rendering government feckless is worse than paying more in taxes. All these and more are what RAUNER has done to our state. And worse yet he has been perfidious about his true intentions.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 4:59 pm
“You can’t make a lapsed appropriation claim because there wasn’t an appropriation to lapse.”

If a 2016 budget passes by early August it might work.

Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:22 pm
HB, those are your values, not some universally agreed rules to lI’ve by. I might even agree with you, but don’t assume everyone does or you will be constantly baffled by life around you

Comment by Steve Schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:23 pm
I’m with Schnorf and Demo here. Sometimes the laws and good intentions don’t align. There are plenty of examples where people “thought” one thing was going to happen in State government and another actually happened. I don’t like it one bit, but that’s how it is, perfidious as it may be.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:28 pm
you will be constantly baffled by life around you

And I constantly am baffled that people chose to think of only themselves, constructing elaborate alternate realities to justify their selfishness. We need to really start working for the betterment of all people, or as many as we can. We’re a symbiotic system here folks. Government is supposed to be for that betterment. Not just for the elite, the privileged and the wealthy. I’m all about sticking the inequity and perfidy in peoples faces these days. Funny enough I much prefer the Randian overt objectivism to the perfidy of Rauners “common man”. He’s destroying Southern Illinois. How dare he come here and act/dress/imagine himself one of us.

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:40 pm
Great news for LSSI, Catholic Charities and hundreds of other providers who have had to refuse/discontinue servicing clients and lay off gainfully employed employees!

This failure on the part of our leaders is unconscionable.

Only the little people are hurt!

Comment by illini Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:40 pm
Norseman, he can’t pay them, anymore than you can or I can. If the collective will of the people we elect to do government business on our behalf is that they be paid in full for the services they provided in FY16, then they will be. If not, they won’t be. Pretty simple, huh?

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:46 pm
- he can’t pay them, anymore than you can or I can. -

Then why did he tell them to keep providing services?

And what kind of oversight are you providing for procurements at the EEC? You don’t seem to be living up to what the website says:

- The EEC promotes ethics in public service and ensures that the State’s business is conducted with efficiency, transparency, fairness, and integrity. The Commission’s activities range from conducting annual ethics training to enforcing the Ethics Act for all employees of the executive branch of State Government. The EEC also provides independent oversight of the procurement process. -

You cool with misleading providers and stuffing them? Way to earn your check.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:51 pm
*stiffing them

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:51 pm
Yes AA, you, Demoralized and Steve are correct about the law. But it would be outrageous if these folks were not paid. They acted on assurances they should not have been given providing services that Rauner wanted provided. My bet would be that if any provider had declined to provide services without an approp they would have been replaced. That is what Raunerworld created. Yes, these folks must be paid and yes there will probably be a need for a BIMP to correct a lot of the problems that have resulted from Rauner’s impasse.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:53 pm
“All contracts clearly state that they are subject to appropriation.”

Is it not true that all contracts are signed prior to the beginning of the fiscal year? Prior to budgets being signed?

Comment by Mama Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 5:57 pm
Steve, you or I can’t pay them but Rauner can if he wants to. Payment must be part of a budget agreement.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:00 pm
“If a 2016 budget passes by early August it might work.”

No… Because IL’s Fiscal Year 2016 ends on July 1, 2016.

Comment by Mama Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:03 pm
Pawn, unfortunately there are plenty of businesses that run this way, some by necessity. It is not unusual for a business in financial distress to attempt to renegotiate contracts to reduce their liabilities. This may be done to stave off bankruptcy. Those owed money may agree to the reduced payments if their prospects in bankruptcy court are worse.

Comment by muon Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:04 pm
Dan, if you have an allegation or complaint, file it with the OEIG. The Commission, not even the great me, can act on matters not legally before them. But you seem to attach some level of omnipotence to certain people (Rauner can if he wants to), so maybe you have some greater authority than I know about. Or perhaps you’re just another anonymous brave citizen.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:11 pm
Mama, many are, but not all. That’s one of the reasons there is a “subject to approp” clause is required.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:13 pm
Sorry, Dan. So much venom today I got mixed up on who was saying what.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:14 pm
- The Commission, not even the great me, can act on matters not legally before them. -

You can’t even question the validity of contracts the administration has no intention of honoring? Guess you better change the website.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:15 pm
–“You can’t treat businesses like that,” Sender said.–

Plenty of cheap hustlers do business just like that.

They sign contracts that they have no intention of ever honoring. They take the goods and services provided in good faith, and then they take a walk.

The governor’s private sector record as revealed during the campaign was chock-fulla slow-pay, no-pay, bustouts and abuse of the bankruptcy courts.

Just like the presumptive GOP nominee for president.

It ain’t your old-timey Main Street Republican Party anymore. And that’s a crying shame.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:16 pm
Yeah, then they change their names and start business as a new organization..Maybe Illinois can do that too? lol

Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:41 pm
If nonprofit organizations and folks like Voices had joined the Catholic Church months ago in criticizing the Governor and rejecting the Turnaround Agenda, they would not be in this position most likely.

It was only a matter of time before the GOP turned to them as well to exact a pound of flesh.

If some nonprofits hadn’t spent the last 12 months blaming Democrats for the impasse, Democrats would be in a much better position to protect them from retroactive budget cuts.

Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 7:07 pm
==Yeah, then they change their names and start business as a new organization..Maybe Illinois can do that too?==

Hmm…Troncistan, or maybe New Madrid for the shaken up part south of I-80, New Katrina for the demolished portion of the state north of I-80, and McQuearyville in place of Chicago.

Comment by AC Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 7:49 pm
What’s that line the commenters keep telling the union folks? Elections have consequences.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out…..

Comment by Trolling Troll Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 9:14 pm
Don’t see my post from late last night. Short version:

I would try to sue claiming deliberate criminal fraud by the State.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 6:57 am
OK. Now I see my 12:10am post on my laptop … but not on my phone even after clearing the cache. Oddly, I do see the 6:57am post on the phone. Weird.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 5:12 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Poll: 60 percent give Rauner a negative job rating
Next Post: Today’s quotable

Last 10 posts:

It’s just a bill (05-02)
Open thread (05-02)
Isabel’s morning briefing (05-02)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (05-02)
Live coverage (05-02)
Post-Bears meeting react (05-01)
House Republicans protest referendum, vote present (05-01)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (05-01)
Pritzker talks about calls for Northwestern president to step down, campus protests (05-01)
Three referendums proposed for fall ballot (Updated x2) (05-01)