Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner won’t say where he stands on “repeal and replace”
Next Post: Vallas says CSU will not be absorbed
Posted in:
* From a 2015 local government-related bill introduced at the behest of Gov. Bruce Rauner…
Prohibited subjects of bargaining.
(a) A public employer and a labor organization may not bargain over, and no collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly may include, provisions related to the following prohibited subjects of collective bargaining:
(1) Employee pensions, including the impact or implementation of changes to employee pensions, including the Employee Consideration Pension Transition Program as set forth in Section 30 of the Personnel Code.
(2) Wages, including any form of compensation including salaries, overtime compensation, vacations, holidays, and any fringe benefits, including the impact or implementation of changes to the same; except nothing in this Section 7.6 will prohibit the employer from electing to bargain collectively over employer-provided health insurance.
(3) Hours of work, including work schedules, shift schedules, overtime hours, compensatory time, and lunch periods, including the impact or implementation of changes to the same.
(4) Matters of employee tenure, including the impact of employee tenure or time in service on the employer’s exercise of authority including, but not limited to, any consideration the employer must give to the tenure of employees adversely affected by the employer’s exercise of management’s right to conduct a layoff.
That was all part of Rauner’s plot to help local governments deal with a property tax freeze. Under Rauner’s logic, the locals could drastically cut labor costs and therefore keep local taxes low.
* This is pretty much all that’s left of Rauner’s plan in the Senate’s “grand bargain”…
Amends the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law in the Property Tax Code. Provides that, for the 2017 and 2018 levy years, the term “taxing district” means all taxing districts in the State, including home rule units. Provides that, for the 2017 and 2018 levy years, the extension limitation for those taxing districts is 0% or the rate of increase approved by the voters.
Amends the School Code. Makes changes concerning contracts between a school board and a third party. Provides that local boards of education shall forward certain cost projections to the State Board of Education. Provides that, beginning July 1, 2022, the State Board shall review and analyze the cost projections and review for any cost savings and economic benefits. Requires the State Board to file a report by December 31, 2022.
Imposes a moratorium on third-party contracts for non-instructional services while the State Board is preparing the report. Imposes a moratorium on third-party contracts for non-instructional services while the State Board is preparing the report. Provides that a school district may offer a driver education course in a school by contracting with a commercial driver training school; sets forth requirements concerning the contract. Provides that a school district may offer a driver education course in a school by contracting with a commercial driver training school; sets forth requirements concerning the contract.
Provides that school districts need not comply with and may discharge any mandate or requirement placed on school districts by the Code or by administrative rules adopted by the State Board of Education that is unfunded; with exceptions. Sets forth requirements concerning discharging mandates. Makes changes concerning physical education.
* Regarding that unfunded mandate non-compliance ability…
(b) Subsection (a) of this Section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Laws and rules pertaining to student health, life, or safety.
(2) Federally required mandates, including without limitation compliance with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.
(3) Laws and rules pertaining to civil rights and protections.(c) Before a school district may lawfully discharge an unfunded mandate under subsection (a) of this Section, it must hold a public hearing and referendum on the matter.
Emphasis added.
* And here’s the PE requirement…
A school board may determine the schedule or frequency of physical education courses, provided that a pupil engages in a course of physical education for a minimum of 3 days per week.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 12:46 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner won’t say where he stands on “repeal and replace”
Next Post: Vallas says CSU will not be absorbed
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The mandate relief he is touting is a complete sham.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 12:54 pm
How will these changes save the schools money?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 12:59 pm
I tend to assign blame to Mr. Madigan for most of the state’s ills but on this one I am giving Mr. Rauner a big thumbs down. This is ridiculous. The state can’t manage its own budget and now school districts will have to wait for the state to approve local budgets. Never will work.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 12:59 pm
The PE change could have a grave impact on those teachers throughout the state if Districts cut PE by a third…
Comment by Mr. B.A. Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:02 pm
This is the exact kinda thing that Madigan partisans on here were predicting 2 years ago.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:03 pm
===The PE change could have a grave impact on those teachers throughout the state if Districts cut PE by a third===
Don’t disagree, but is that really gonna be enough in your mind to kill off a deal?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:03 pm
40% I mean…
Comment by Mr. B.A. Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:04 pm
It’s not a “deal” until Rauner signs on. Do we have any evidence that the Republicans will really put votes on a tax increase, and that Rauner will give that tax increase his blessing? This is all meaningless until that happens.
Comment by Eugene Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:08 pm
=The PE change could have a grave impact on those teachers throughout the state if Districts cut PE by a third… =
By creating this “mandate relief” in the manner described, it puts the onus on local school districts. Translated- the districts, not the governor, will take the hit from parents unhappy with the changes.
No thanks.
For a guy willing to “take the arrows” it seems like he may not really be all that interested.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:09 pm
Rauner would love to run on a property tax freeze, to the point he’ll accept a few face-saving “reforms.”
Still, rolling back the PE requirements will meet with a lot of resistance and the 3rd party contracting has been an unmitigated disaster here in Chicago with the privatization of janitorial services (my daughter and her classmates learn math now by counting the mice and roaches crawling around the classroom.)
Wouldn’t be shocked if the anti-labor mandate “reforms” are stripped out of this and run in a separate bill. Radogno can put 20 on a bill to kick the teachers while Cullerton can put 20 on a bill to raise the income tax. Then everyone can vote for the property tax freeze!
Comment by Ted Z. Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:09 pm
The fact that PE courses count towards your high school GPA boggles the mind. At a minimum, PE in high school should be an elective. And it should be pass/fail if not an elective. I think I’d rather have my kids spend their time on other subject matter than running laps or goofing off in the exercise room. The elimination of PE as a requirement would save the state a ton of money in PE teacher salaries.
Comment by Ratso Rizzo Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:12 pm
So in 2 years we’ve gone from “unions will have no reason to exist” to “anything goes but we want to review your budget first”.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:16 pm
===The elimination of PE as a requirement would save the state a ton of money in PE teacher salaries.===
Quantify “tons”.
Thanks.
To the Post,
The differences from before to “after” is seen. When this can get 30 in the Senate, it will be up to the House to quantify how 60 can’t be found, and a Governor, engaged in process, could personally lobby to try to get 60… unless that Governor has a website targeting House members not of his/her party… or is doing RoboCalls to members not of his/her party… or…
The governing.
That’s what this is about and can work. Rauner needs to get away from the partisan zinging, and head towards the bipartisan winning.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:17 pm
Ratso,
Those PE teachers will be replaced by other teachers to instruct the students for the class period that is no longer PE.
In my kids’ district, as a junior or senior you are allowed to opt out of PE if involved in a sport or marching band for that semester.
Comment by Cimry90 Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:17 pm
===Radogno can put 20 on a bill to kick the teachers===
Wanna bet?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:21 pm
Just think what he would have to give up to show people he is willing to compromise.
Comment by Mod Dem Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:21 pm
===rolling back the PE requirements will meet with a lot of resistance===
If that’s enough in your mind to kill a grand bargain, then we can just turn off the state’s lights right now and move somewhere else because there ain’t ever gonna be a deal.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:26 pm
The Senates “Grand Bargain” is going nowhere.
Comment by MOON Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:42 pm
Moon, if the Senate passes this thing and the governor signs on and so does the House Republican Leader, y’all Madigan types are gonna be awful lonely out there.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:44 pm
= would save the state a ton of money in PE teacher salaries.=
The state does not pay any teacher salaries.
=If that’s enough in your mind to kill a grand bargain=
No, but to somehow indicate that this stuff is going to offset the property tax freeze is a major stretch at best. Just skip the mandate relief nonsense, quit adding mandates, and fund schools properly and call it a day.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:44 pm
=== but to somehow indicate that this stuff is going to offset===
I didn’t.
And we need a freaking budget.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:46 pm
Super thankful you addressed this Rich
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:49 pm
JS Mill. Eliminate PE in grade school. Eliminate drivers ed. And make organized school sports be privately funded, then call it a day.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:53 pm
There’s some irony with discussing PE in a thread that’s title is the tagline for Virginia Slim cigarettes.
Carry on.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:56 pm
Maybe I’m wrong, but the actual freeze doesn’t appear to apply to “special purpose extensions” for bond payments, pension fund contributions and public safety expenses, which I would guess make-up a good portion of the taxes. In other words, most taxes won’t be frozen?
Comment by Ed Rooney Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:58 pm
==Rauner would love to run on a property tax freeze==
Yeah, but signing on to an income tax hike to do it will probably complicate that message a bit.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 1:59 pm
==Eliminate PE in grade school. Eliminate drivers ed. And make organized school sports be privately funded, then call it a day.==
A perfect recipe for getting parents to leave the state.
Comment by Timmeh Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:10 pm
If Rauner agrees with the whole Senate package, and Durkin commits enough votes on the whole bundle, then Madigan ought to go for it. All over but the shouting.
Rauner’s got a tougher job than Madigan, selling this to his supporters. For the general public it will come down to a Property Tax Freeze and State Income Tax increase.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:14 pm
Timmeh, you sound like Bruce Rauner in reverse.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:15 pm
== For the general public it will come down to a Property Tax Freeze and State Income Tax increase.==
Precisely Walk.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:18 pm
=
=== but to somehow indicate that this stuff is going to offset===
I didn’t.
And we need a freaking budget.=
Sorry, meant Rauner et al is selling this as a financial offset to property tax freeze. I did not intend to indicate you stated that.
We do need a budget, but details are important (you didn’t say they weren’t). It would be nice to stick to stuff that is important and meaningful rather than just a charade.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:23 pm
BDD - you and I are in agreement on the sports issue. I have thought this for years. In the area where I grew up sports are more of a drain than anything, and it hurts to watch academic programs get eliminated or drastically scaled back at the expense of keeping sports afloat regardless of the evidence or sentiment otherwise. There is nothing wrong (in my mind) with making sports a fee-based activities and, like anything else in our political realm, offer waivers for kids who cannot afford the fees. For something like P.E. or Driver’s Ed, though, I think those need to be propped up. Driver’s Ed is a requirement to get a permit and eventually a license, so that is not really an “elective”. And as a parent I am thankful my kids take P.E. - even if it is only 2-3 times a week.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 2:32 pm
It’s super expensive already. 2 highschoolers
Book 100 x 2. 200
Orchestra. 150
Cross country. 150
Drivers Ed 325
825 to start school
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:19 pm
To most in the public, it will be a temporary property tax hike along with a permanent income tax hike. When you throw in the sugar drink tax and the elimination of various favorable business income tax provisions, this will be a hard vote for both sides of the aisle. It’s going to be an especially hard vote for the Republicans.
Comment by Pelonski Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:25 pm
Rich, aren’t your 1:21 and 1:26 posts a little contradictory?
You question the notion of Radogno puting many votes on a bill the teachers will fight, but then mockingly say we might as well give up if we let resistance to that bill impede a deal. I don’t want anyone to give up. I like this deal and hope that Cullerton and Radogno can structure some tough roll calls to pass the whole thing. Yeah, maybe 20 GOP votes is a bit rich for a bill IFT and IEA will oppose, but I think she’ll probably need more than 15. Just like Cullerton is gonna need to put more than 15 on a tax hike.
Comment by Ted Z Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:25 pm
Rich you should be aware that Illinois has numerous State mandates for special education services and conditions of services that are not mandates of the Federal Law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They are also not life safety provisions, or civil rights laws so some those mandates could be considered to be unfunded by some districts.
Moreover, the question of what is unfunded and what can be considered funded by General State Aid or State poverty funding is not clearly laid out in Senator Christine Radogno’s SB 13. This section of SB 13 will be contested and not just by teachers unions, but also by parents of students with disabilities who could be impacted by this legislation.
Two administrative rules that relate to special education have been targeted for elimination by Superintendents who sat on a legislative Blue Ribbon Committee on unfunded mandates several years ago. One is called the 70/30 rule that relates to maximum special education enrollments in general education classrooms. The other are fixed student teacher ratios for some special education classrooms where the Superintendents wanted greater flexibility based on the composition of students in these self contained settings.
Some things might be fixed by amendment, but its not clear whether amendments will be allowed given the supposed nature of this deal. I find SB 13 as it relates to education, even with the voter approval provision to be very problematic.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:30 pm
===aren’t your 1:21 and 1:26 posts a little contradictory?===
Nope.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:44 pm
Cutting PE increases, not decreases costs. PE classes are traditionally 40-50 students in size with one teacher. If they aren’t in PE, they are taking some other class where class size is 22-30.
Districts would need voter approval to eliminate mandates and to raise the levy? What’s next, a referendum on the school calendar and what’s served in the cafeteria?
Maybe we better start testing the water in the Capitol for lead.
Comment by Right Field Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 3:49 pm
Jason heyward. Decreases. Make core (I dont mean abs)classes 10 minutes longer. Have you seen our international ranking in math and science lately?
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 4:15 pm
@blue dog dem 1:53 ===Eliminate drivers ed===
No! Car accidents are a major cause of death and lifelong injury and disability among young people.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 4:42 pm
Well, he huffed and he puffed and is doing nothing in the way of mandate relief that is meaningful………nothing.
Comment by Elliott Ness Tuesday, Jan 17, 17 @ 6:03 pm