Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The keys to the bus
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Besides the threats of impeachment if the General Assembly had to endure yet another overtime session and the overwhelming desire to just leave town and avoid another summer-fall session, there was something else at play under the dome. My syndicated newspaper column takes a look at a concept I shared with subscribers a few weeks ago…
The Illinois Compensation Review Board submitted its pay increase recommendations April 30. Under state law, both chambers had to vote to reject the proposal within 30 session days or the raises automatically took effect. The House did so almost immediately, but as in the past, Senate Democrats decided the House was a collection of wimps. They wanted their pay raise, and Jones refused numerous entreaties to bring the proposal up for a floor vote.
Jones also quickly canceled session days in May. Jones was, in reality, “banking” session days.
If that clock ticked down to the zero hour during the overtime session, the pay raises would take effect immediately…
…meaning the hugely unpopular (with voters) pay raises would almost undoubtedly take effect before this November’s election. The Senate could have just voted to reject the raises during a summer overtime session, but the chamber’s top Democratic leaders had obviously made the pay hikes a top priority.
They went out of their way to publicly skewer dissident members such as Sen. Susan Garrett, who demanded they forgo the pay bump. The attacks made it crystal clear that the pay raise is one of the most - if not the most - important issues to the leadership.
* And…
If that pay-raise clock had started ticking loudly during yet another spectacularly disastrous summer overtime session, Senate Democrats would have freaked out in a very big way. Barack Obama or no Barack Obama, they’d have been absolutely pummeled by their constituents and the press. The pay raise would probably have to be rejected under that scenario, which wouldn’t make the Senate’s leaders happy at all.
So the best way for the Senate Democrats to make sure they got their money was to forge a quick budget resolution with the House and get out of town.
* By the way, if the pay raises do take effect, legislators won’t receive all the pay hike recommended by the Compensation Review Board, but they will get a cost of living raise in the coming fiscal year…
The proposed state government budget for the coming fiscal year includes funding for pay hikes for top elected officials, including Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Illinois legislators.
The boosts amount to 3.8 percent, state Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, said Saturday.
“It’s a cost-of-living increase. It’s not a pay raise,” said Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 7:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The keys to the bus
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Seems strange that this amount of money is a big motivator for somebody with enough ambition to become a state senator. Why don’t they just get a real job?
Comment by Excessively rabid Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 7:34 am
The Gov complains about Madigans control of the house, but why is Blago not complaining that Jones will not call the pay raise issue to the senate floor for a vote? heck if its voted down that helps come up with money for other programs. The Gov needs to be a leader who voices more then hypocritical attacks against the speaker. Either the Gov supports Jones and legislative leaders controlling what legislation gets voted on, or he doesn’t. But this attacking such tactics by Madigan but not by Jones shows he has no real interest in leading, just in getting his way.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:17 am
These pay raises are not going to make anybody rich,appalling though they may seem to the economically struggling middle class citizen (most of us). The AFSCME pay raise, which is inevitable, is going to cost us a lot more, and will be equally unrelated to actual quality of performance.
But the legislators’ obsession with their raises demonstrates that these folks really are living in a bubble, perhaps influence by continual talk of billions of dollars (our dollars) during budget discussions. With all those billions sloshing around, more for me, me, me seems negligible, cost-wise, I would guess.
A bunker of Democrats, hunkered down, screaming for ever more money. As I’ve said regarding Blago’s pay to play troubles, we need a state painter (a modern day Daumier, perhaps) to memorialize this greed for future generations.
Now, that would be worth the tax money.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:31 am
“The AFSCME pay raise, which is inevitable, is going to cost us a lot more, and will be equally unrelated to actual quality of performance
Well, Cassandra just think of anything in increase for AFSCME as Sen. Trotter says: “It’s a cost-of-living increase. It’s not a pay raise,” But in reality, the offer on the table is not all kinds of pay raises, it’s reductions in take home pay.
And Cassandra if you’re worried about “actual quality of performance” you should be looking at this ‘more for less’. Workers can only put out with the budget and staff allowed to them through their agencies. Think about that Cassandra.
Comment by Princeville Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:43 am
If the goal of all these machinations by the Senate leaders was to keep the pay raises under the radar, maybe Pres. Bush can loan them his “Mission Accomplished” banner.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:50 am
===keep the pay raises under the radar===
Nah. It was to keep the pay raises from taking effect before election day. Right now, the raises have not yet been officially approved.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:50 am
The pay raise issue isn’t necessary over when they take effect. The issue is that it is an issue. Opposition candidates should be able to easily demand that incumbants talk about their pay raises throughout the campaign, since it hadn’t taken effect and is an issue during this election.
Had the pay raises gone into effect, the issue would have been about something that had occurred months before November. Sure, there would be a lot of anger over it, and it would have done some damage. But, since it is still an issue, then oppositional candidates should ensure that every incumbant they face endure pay raise issue questions throughout the campaign.
“Why didn’t you vote to stop the pay raises?”
“Do you feel the General Assembly earned the pay raises you and they are hoping to get this year?”
“Why did you wait until after the election to get your pay raise?”
“How much will you be getting from this scheduled pay raise?”
This should not be allowed to slip away.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 9:06 am
The Union pay raises go to people who must do their job or be diciplined or discharged. The Legislators did NOT do their job. Or did a very poor job of what they did.
Believe it or not Cassandra, MOST state workers work Extremely hard and have kept the state running in SPITE of this adminstration. They deserve raises.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 9:08 am
“It’s a cost-of-living increase. It’s not a pay raise,” said Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago.
Please raise your hand if you get an annual, automatic cost-of-living unrelated to job performance!
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 9:12 am
Isn’t our legislature a part-time one anyway? If so then what’s the point of a cost-of-living increase?
Comment by Levois Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 9:22 am
The budget that passed this weekend has monies for all of the shared services centers. Didn’t the House previously overturn the Executive Order creating the shared services centers?
Comment by BadBudget Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 9:38 am
Banned-
If you are a union employee, chances are pretty good that you are receiving such a raise. I know I did when I was a union employee in the private sector. But it was only “automatic” after the raises were bargained for, and union agreements were signed with management.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 11:54 am
Help me out, “Under state law, both chambers had to vote to reject the proposal within 30 session days or the raises automatically took effect.” The proposal was for a higher percent than the 3.8 percent pay increase. “legislators won’t receive all the pay hike recommended by the Compensation Review Board.” Is that because the rest of the proposal will go unfunded? Can the Governor line item veto this appropriation?
Comment by John Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 12:11 pm
is there some way to get..
“Under state law, both chambers had to vote to reject the proposal within 30 session days or the raises automatically took effect.”
to something more reasonable like….
“Under state law, both chambers had to vote to APPROVE the proposal within 30 session days or the raises automatically are REJECTED.”
At least they would have to take a stance on whether they deserve a raise or not.
Better yet….let us taxpayers vote whether they’re deserving or not. Bet I can tell you the outcome of that one.
Comment by can we change this?? Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 12:34 pm
Can We Change This -
If there was a public vote on legislator, executive, or public employee compensation, we’d have a true volunteer government. Hey, it worked during the Puritan era.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 12:47 pm
The report of the compensation review board is a pretty well kept secret. Has anyone found it online in any of the State’s websites?
Comment by irish 7 Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 5:52 pm
I did some online research this weekend re the Compensation Review Board. Found out who they were and then used the Board of Elections site to see what they’ve been doing with their money. I posted the following on the Sun-Times website,based on what I found out.
So let me get this straight. Legislators, who use a convoluted system to vote their own raises in, suggested by *a board that contributed over $87,000 to Democrats since 2000*, get a 12% raise and no changes in their very nice retirement package. Unionized state workers get offered less than 1% offset by increased in pension and healthcare payments. All of this, by the way, decided by certain business and civic organizations who’s members are weathy enough not to need such benefits. Sounds a little like medieval England to me.
Remember, if you don’t learn from history, it will repeat itself. Most decisions to keep the serfs in their place usually have ended in revolution (remember the storming of the Bastille and the fall of Rome?) Bread and circuses will not placate anyone in the 21st century, not with the track record of our current state government in failing to do their jobs.
Comment by Disgusted Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 5:54 pm
Irish7 - I just entered “State of Illinois Compensation Review Board and I got the 2007 report, along with all the names of the board.
Comment by Disgusted Monday, Jun 2, 08 @ 8:24 pm