|
AG Madigan refuses to rule on closed-door “joint caucus” meetings
Thursday, Mar 4, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller * Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Adam Andrzeiewski recently asked Attorney General Lisa Madigan for a formal opinion on whether the Senate “joint caucus” last month was illegal. You’ll recall that the entire Senate - both parties - held a private meeting to hear a budget presentation by the NCSL. The meeting was widely denounced in the media and Senate President John Cullerton vowed not to do it again. The Legislature is not covered under the Open Meetings Act, and the constitution requires that sessions and committee meetings be open to the public unless a super-majority of two-thirds decides otherwise. The Senate Dems said they were on solid constitutional ground because there is no prohibition against “joint caucuses” in the state Constitution. Madigan’s public access counselor wrote Andrzejewski that since the Open Meetings Act doesn’t apply, “the Public Access Division has no express power to offer an opinion.” She also wrote that since the Public Access Division has no authority over the matter, research into the constitutionality of the joint caucus wouldn’t be warranted. Read her full letter by clicking here. * Andrzejewski responds…
|
- George - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:30 pm:
Didn’t they make a decision by not making a decision?
- CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
I think I betterunderstand why DoubleA lost
- David Ormsby - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:44 pm:
The job of Mad Hatter at the Illinois tea party has opened up.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:48 pm:
Adam is a General without an Army. No one but the editorial boards care about this “issue.”
- Bring Back Boone's - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:50 pm:
Someone tell him that the campaign is over
- I'm just saying - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:56 pm:
Adam Sit Down you almost came in last…….
- tominchicago - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:57 pm:
Under the recent amendments to FOIA and the OMA, the Public Access Office has limited authority to offer opinions. Here, the state senate does not have to comply with the OPA as stated in the statute itself, and AA’s complaint does not implicate FOIA. Thus his inquiry is beyond the authority of that office.
I thought that AA and the rest of the IR crowd were adamantly opposed to wasting governmental resources. Yet AA is complaining that the AG won’t devote legal resources to researching a question over which it has no authority. If AA wants a legal opinion, he can use his own money for the research, not my tax dollars.
- Jackson - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
Adam who?
- Niles Township - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
And this is why it is a good thing Lisa doesn’t run for Gov while her daddy is Speaker.
- Willie Stark - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 12:59 pm:
With solid reasoning like this - Lisa Madigan offered a view I disagree with, therefore the laws and constitution of the state don’t matter - I can only hope that AA represents the future of the Illinois Republican Party.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:02 pm:
Why doesn’t he simply file a good old fashioned lawsuit and get the courts to decide? Sure it would take years to work its way through the system (if he even has standing), and he won’t get the political hit he was hoping for, but if he truly believes in his argument…
Andrzejewski v. Cullerton is no Plessy v. Ferguson, or Brown v. Board of Ed for that matter. But hey, you never know what they’ll make future law school students study. This could be Adam’s ticket to future fame and glory.
- nice kid - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:03 pm:
I guess Adam is not a strict constructionist–he would rather have the Attorney General enforce the law other than the way it is written. Here is a clue, Adam, if you don’t like the statute, write a letter to your state senator or state rep.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:08 pm:
I think Adam has listened to John Bambenek a little too much.
- anon - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
==Definition in the Open Meetings Act: “Public body” includes all legislative, executive, administrative or advisory bodies of the State, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of any of the foregoing including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, except the General Assembly and committees or commissions thereof.” ==
The Act does not apply to the General Assembly. If the Act doesn’t apply to the General Assembly, how or why would the Attorney General rule whether the meeting complied with the Act?
- 2010 - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:24 pm:
Good for him.
At least somebody has the fortitude to stand up to this type of banter.
We need more of this in Illinois.
- One of the 35 - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:25 pm:
This is why state government has lost all credibilty with the people they are supposed to represent. “Let’s make a law requiring transparent government and make ourselves exempt!”
- fed up - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
wow the senate acts in a completly unconstitutional manner but you attack the only person to speak up on the matter. Lisa Madigan refusal to act speaks volumes about her leadership. She is supposed to protect the citizens of Ill not protect the democratic party. I guess Lisa couldnt get daddys permission so she wasnt allowed to come out and play.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
There wasn’t a lawsuit filed because there is no standing for us mere citizens to enforce our constitution. That’s why we can’t sue to enforce the balanced budget requirement. That’s why we can’t sue if the ILGA simply ignores the law over redistricting (except for federal Voting Rights Act). That’s why our Victim’s Rights Amendment cannot be enforced.
However, Lisa may issue an advisory opinion at any time at her own will.
In fact, I’m quite sure that’s part of the role of her office.
- Steve-O - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
Good to see AA remaining involved in the issues. I think people DO care about these issues, if they’re properly made aware of them. The problem is, our politicians have become so back-roomish and have made policy so confusing that many people don’t bother even trying to stay involved. However, when blatant disregard for the law (or at the very least, the spirit of the law) like this occur, and they’re presented in a reasonable, informative fashion to the public, they do become outraged.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:43 pm:
John, you’re an expert on this so please tell me, who has standing to take these issues to court? Would a legislator, for example, have standing to file a suit?
- Tom Joad - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:49 pm:
What is the difference between a joint caucus and a joint session? Notice requirements and the fact that caucuses are one party meetings that are for policy and planning issues mainly. This “caucus” doesn’t meet the definition of a caucus.
This was a mistep by Cullerton. Two separate caucuses would have served the purpose of informing the members. So, there must have been another purpose.
Was this a thinly veiled effort to smoke out Brady on budget issues? Or was it to save the NCSL presenters some time?
I don’t support Brady, but Cullerton is being heavy handed in this issue and by holding budget hearings on Brady’s budget. Cullerton is being petty, and is not showing much leadership of the Senate.
- Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:50 pm:
Why are many here so snide about AA’s efforts on this? Closed meetings are inherently suspect, and the GA shouldn’t have them. If they are not against the law, they should be. This guy pushes the issue and is now attacked by all you IL constitution know-it-alls?
This place is starting to sound a bit too party-insiderish, I think. The Dems screwed this state up, and they need to be held accountable somehow.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 1:53 pm:
===Why are many here so snide about AA’s efforts on this? ===
You’re misreading the responses, I think. It’s not that he asked, but that when he was given a legal explanation he exploded. That’s what some are making fun of. Take a breath.
- tominchicago - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:04 pm:
“However, Lisa may issue an advisory opinion at any time at her own will.
In fact, I’m quite sure that’s part of the role of her office.”
Not sure where you are getting this from. As I read the Illinois Attorney General Act 15 ILCS 205/ et seq. the AG can issue advisory opinions only when asked by a member of the legislature or by an executive officer of the state or as described in the letter. There is no authority that would authorize the office to respond individually to inquiries from private citizens looking to make political points.
- Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
Let’s be clear. I’m not overly concerned about this. My breathing is normal.
Clearly though, this was unprecedented and is now a precedent. Will this matter to enough people when it becomes routine? My city council does this (legally) and then comes out to vote on a matter of public import. It’s maddening and should not be allowed. Any Democrats (or sitting Republicans–Lauzen?) bothering to do anything about it?
Also, a post at the Illinois Review responding to the decision isn’t “exploding.” Just sayin’.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:27 pm:
Methinks this horse died when Sen. Pres. Cullerton all but admitted it was a FUBAR and they wouldn’t do it again. AA would benefit from spending his time on something that might actually matter–tax reform, education reform, pension reform, Asian carp. He doesn’t sound ignorant…just stupid.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:29 pm:
To the first question, in theory, a legislator could likely sue, as could, likely, the AG or Governor.
To the second, Lisa Madigan has routinely spoken her mind on the legality and/or propriety of various behaviors and issues. And you are applying a reductionist reading of the Attorney General Act. I read that as she can issue an advisory opinion when requested… I don’t see that as restricting who may ask or saying she can’t say anything unless someone with a title asks.
She could have stepped in, she stepped away. To be fair, she didn’t HAVE to step in… but she certainly was not FORBIDDEN from doing so.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:31 pm:
D. P. Gubmy-
Your point is taken…. us mere citizens and taxpayers should spend our time worrying about fish in the Chicago river while our politicians violate the clear intent (if not wording) of the constitution…
Some of us, however, aren’t likely to take the “grab your ankles” position to every case of politician misbehavior.
And it isn’t like sending a press release is mutually exclusive of doing anything else…
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:32 pm:
What are campaign staffers doing playing these games with our money?
Geez, first the Illinois Democrats abuse their power in the General Assembly to make a political statement on Brady’s 10% budget cut suggestion, and now this guy is using the Office of Attorney General to make a political statement against the Illinois Democrats. No wonder we’re broke.
How about giving us all a tax break by spending your own money to promote yourselves? Playing politics with our government system so that you can issue a press release to make your political opponents look bad is a rotten thing to do to us.
If this is some kind of trend in political tactics, I would support and vote for the person who doesn’t do this.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:33 pm:
Thanks John,
So why hasn’t Adam found a legislator, perhaps a GOP Senator, to help him advance the ball here? Could it be because the GOP Senators all supported the “joint caucus” concept?
Before anyone assumes my point, I’m not defending Cullerton for this bone-headed idea. The simple fact remains, had they voted to keep this a closed meeting, procedurally everything would be fine. If we assume the votes existed for such a move, this whole debate is moot.
But seriously, can’t Adam find one person with standing to take this to court, or is he simply looking to make a political point?
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
Ahh, the champion of the “grab your ankles” coalition, VanillaMan has arrived.
- John Bambenek - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:36 pm:
47th Ward-
So you’re suggesting we should find a GOP Senator to sue himself for participating in this joint caucus meeting and if we don’t, we should go home?
- Obamarama - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:38 pm:
===or is he simply looking to make a political point?===
Who needs a point when you’re getting the attention?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:41 pm:
No, I’m suggesting if they put this to a vote in the first place, a bipartisan supermajority would have voted to close this particular meeting of the Senate.
I believe a House member could, in theory, be outraged enough that the Senate action brought the General Assembly to disrepute by this action. I’m just wondering why Adam couldn’t find one who was outraged enough to help him make a stink about this molehill.
- nice kid - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:42 pm:
Everyone is blaming Cullerton (and to an extent, rightfully so, since he is the Sen. Pres.). But, let us not forget that this was attended by the GOP too. If they had a problem with it, they could have skipped.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:46 pm:
Sorry to belabor this John,
My basic point is that if Adam feels this is such a big issue, will he exhaust every option to stand behind his principles, even if it takes years to get through the courts? Or is blasting the AG’s office in a press release enough for him?
- Bubs - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:46 pm:
One of three possibilities:
1. There was not one Republican Senator who thought this was wrong to the point of being a named plaintiff in a suit pushed by Adam A. and Bambenek.
2. Adam never intended to go to court in any event, as this was a short-term politcal pop piece from the start.
3. All of the above.
- tominchicago - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 2:57 pm:
I will assume from your response that you took the reductionist approach of not bothering to read the statute. Her ability to issue advisory opinions is constrained by the law. So adherence to statute only matters some times then?
- Ghost - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 4:26 pm:
VM, I am going to send a letter to the AG and ask her oppinion about political stunts.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 5:17 pm:
Madigan saw an opportunity to punt and took it. Not exactly a beacon of light. The joint caucus scam needs to be opposed by everyone.
It’s not a Democrat or a Cullerton thing. The whole Senate participated. Gee, legislators would rather conduct business in private? Who knew?
They don’t need a new, phony-baloney reason to go behind closed doors.
- Amalia - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 5:46 pm:
doesn’t apply to the legislature. well, the public sure thinks it does and it should. come on, somebody who has stature and money do something! just like mushrooms, they work in compost and in the dark. very sad.
- RJW - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 6:04 pm:
I happen to agree with the AG’s non-opinion here. She has no jurisdiction over the General Assembly so her opinion would be moot. AA should be seeking guidance in the legal system, not in the Executive Branch of government. Apparently he and some on this board don’t know the state’s Constitution as well as you think you do.
- No Comment - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 6:30 pm:
==They don’t need a new, phony-baloney reason to go behind closed doors.==
Agreed… BUT, given the severe backlash over this very stupid move, I doubt we’ll see it again. The courts can’t do anything but say it shouldn’t have happened and don’t do it again. There are no existing sanctions or penalties that can be applied to this situation. The only recourse is elections/impeachment, and Cullerton is virtually bulletproof on both of those fronts. He’s admitted that he didn’t think it was a big deal and takes full responsibility, so that “apology” is the best the citizenry is going to get.
Did someone forget to tell Adam Andzqe;br21936ski that he lost his primary bid? Cheap political stunts aren’t going to do him any good at this point. They only make him look like a sore loser with an axe to grind. Attacking our 2nd most popular statewide politician probably isn’t the best strategy for someone looking for a future in public service either. He deserves every bit of ridicule he gets over this.
- Reformer - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 7:44 pm:
Sen. Radogno went along with the joint caucus, so if it is unconst’l, then the Republicans share responsibility. Sen. Brady is part of that caucus.
- Park - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 8:16 pm:
Leave LM alone. It’s not her job to respond to this type of knee jerk silliness, or get into some balance-of-powers argument when everyone in the Senate is sheepish about doing it in the first place, and won’t do it again. Also, all the information presented in this ’secret session’ was made public (here first).
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 8:45 pm:
The reason we’re all pouncing on AA is that his ire is misplaced…obviously for political purposes. I’m about as big a transparency nut as anyone, but there is no law here for the AG to enforce. The legislature exempted itself.
And lest you think this is just the Illinois way, Congress does it ALL the time, as so many other legislatures. I think it’s pretty outrageous, but it is the law.
If AA doesn’t like it, he should complain to someone in the GA who could actually do something about it. Not grandstand on the back of Cara Smith, the Public Access Counselor - whose responsibility is to enforce FOIA.
Legislators make the law. Executive branch people like the AG and her subordinates enforce the law. If there’s no law to enforce, she can’t just make it up.
It’s pretty basic, civics 101 kind of stuff.
- Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 10:08 pm:
The AG was/is constitutionally and statutorily bound to investigate and the abuse of power that was the U of I Admissions Scandal.
She conveniently side-stepped the issue and agreed not to run for Governor, just about the time that the Governor agreed to form a “Blue Ribbon Commission” which was “advisory” rather than “investigatory”, and had no subpoena power. They were given about 8 weeks in the middle of the summer to hold meetings and issue a dust collecting report, and then they were dissolved by statute immediately thereafter.
You didn’t actually believe all that stuff about her representing the people of Illinois did you?
- Its Just Me - Thursday, Mar 4, 10 @ 11:21 pm:
I wish all Illinois Republicans were willing to cast aside sound legal principles and good judgement in order to gain political points. That’s how you win elections, and that is what the Illinois Democrats do every election season. I’m tired to losing simply because my candidates are being responsible and honest with the voters, and then watching the Democrats win and ruin this State.