* OK, kids, I am one tired puppy dog in dire need of sleep. I’ll leave you with live coverage of the Rod Blagojevich trial, which is already in progress…
* Gov. Pat Quinn is planning an 11 o’clock press conference this morning. Quinn dodged reporters all day yesterday, promising he’d have plenty to say today. Listen to or watch the live feed by clicking here. I’ll be posting my own updates as well as Twitter feeds and news links, but please help out with the blogging duties in comments below. Thanks…
People who file piles of requests under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act would have to wait longer for responses from public bodies under legislation that’s cleared the General Assembly.
Government bodies could declare someone a “recurrent requester” for filing more than 50 FOIA requests in a year, 15 in a month or seven in seven days. They could take 21 business days — it’s five days for others — to answer.
Media, not-for-profit organizations and academics are exempt.
* This was an agreed bill with the Illinois Press Association, but not everybody is happy…
Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator for the Better Government Association, explained why her organization opposed the measure.
“If someone files seven requests for information in one week, they are labeled a recurrent requester for a year and would have to wait longer for a response, while a person who realizes you can bundle all seven requests into one FOI request will not be classified as a recurrent requester,” Miller said.
“You can actually ask for an unlimited number of documents in one request and not be deemed a recurrent requester, but the average person isn’t going to know that so we think it is unfair.
“In addition, people are entitled to government information just like they’re entitled to fire and police protection,” Miller continued.
* The Question: Do you agree with this bill to allow governments to delay FOIA responses for “recurrent requesters”? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
* ComEd had been predicting for days that they could find veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But the bill fell four votes shy of that three-fifths margin in the House and five in the Senate…
Before the House vote Monday, ComEd lobbyists had been telling opponents they were confident they had more than enough support. Then several African-American representatives, who normally vote with ComEd on contentious energy bills, surprised the utility and voted “no.”
Mr. Quinn could veto the bill outright or amend it. When the Legislature meets in November for its annual veto session, it could try to override or agree to the governor’s changes, if he opts for an amendatory veto. Many are expecting ComEd will enter into negotiations with Mr. Quinn over the summer.
“This means that ComEd and (Downstate electric utility) Ameren will have to work with the governor’s office to see if there are changes they can agree to,” said David Kolata, executive director of consumer watchdog Citizens Utility Board, which opposes the bill.
Areas the governor would be expected to focus on include strengthening the consumer protections in the bill. In particular, the bill doesn’t allow electric rates to rise more than 2.5% in a given year, but the rate cap is only good through 2014. From 2015 to the end of 2017, there are no rate caps. In addition, the bill mandates that the utility earn a return on equity of at least 10.25%, but that figure rises as the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond does—with no ceiling. So, if interest rates rise from their rock-bottom current levels, as many expect, electric rates will, as well.
Quinn’s “position has not changed” from days ago, when he vowed to veto the bill, Quinn spokesman Grant Klinzman said.
Sponsoring Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, is taking a wait-and-see approach.
“I know what he says, but let’s see what he does,” Jacobs said. “When people move away from the intense lobbying of the attorney general, the governor and every state agency in Illinois, I think at some point people will look at it for what it is: It’s progress.”
State Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, accused state Sen. Mike Jacobs of “using profanity and pointing his finger before he punched me with his fist in my chest” following a heated debate.
McCarter said he gave a statement about the incident to the Secretary of State police.
Jacobs, D-East Moline, brushed off the incident as an emotional outburst common at the end of a legislative session when big issues are being debated and tempers are flaring.
Jacobs was infuriated that McCarter had accused Jacobs and his father of a conflict of interest on a controversial measure Gov. Quinn has threatened to veto.
Jacobs was chief sponsor of the utility-backed Smart Grid bill. It included an electric utility rate increase worth tens of millions of dollars to Com Ed. Among Com Ed’s army of Springfield lobbyists: former state Sen. Denny Jacobs, father of Sen. Mike Jacobs.
“He stood in front of my desk while I was completing a bill…then he proceeded to verbally just curse at me, then he punched me in the chest with his fist,” McCarter told the Chicago Sun-Times. “It’s totally inexcusable. I think the citizens expect more.”
Shortly before midnight, McCarter said he filed a complaint against Jacobs with the Secretary of State Police, who provide security at the Capitol.
Offering a different account, Jacobs demanded an apology from McCarter, whom Jacobs said “came at me.”
“If he wanted to say something about me, that’s one thing. For him to attack my family members, that’s out of bounds,” Jacobs said, holding a copy of the Senate rules book that bars personality-laden debate. “In effect, what he’s saying is I’m a 50-year-old man that does whatever my father tells me, which is a bunch of crap.”
Reporters were attending a media availability by Senate President Cullerton, so there was no video of the alleged fisticuffs.
* As you know by now, the workers’ compensation reform bill passed the House on the second try…
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, could be seen walking the floor talking to his members before taking the speaker’s podium to moderate the debate.
During the debate, Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, sat behind the speaker’s podium and had a brief exchange with Madigan.
Dunkin had voted “present” the first time the measure was addressed, but supported the plan Tuesday.
When asked if the speaker addressed his concerns, Dunkin said “Yeah, he did,” but declined to provide specifics.
The bill went from 55 votes on Sunday to 62 yesterday. Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, state Rep. Chris Nybo was the only House Republican to vote for the bill yesterday. His statement…
As the sole House Republican voting for this measure, it was an extraordinarily difficult vote to cast. I share the deep disappointment of my colleagues that we were not included in the negotiations of this bill and that medical providers are being singled out exclusively to reduce workers’ compensation costs. This bill does not achieve comprehensive workers’ compensation reform, but there is no doubt that Illinois businesses will realize millions of dollars in annual savings on workers’ compensation costs and that some of our largest employers in the state, including United, McDonalds, Walmart, Ford, Navistar and Dominicks strongly supported this bill. With workers’ compensation costs identified as the biggest impediment by our business community, this bill will improve our business climate, save jobs and create employment opportunities. That’s why I supported it.
“I’m very pleased that the General Assembly passed this historic reform. It’s now incumbent on all of us to work to implement these changes and improve the business climate of this state,” said Greg Baise, president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, which pushed for the bill.
The cornerstone of the legislation, a 30-percent reduction in fees that businesses must pay to doctors, would save companies between $500 million and $700 million.
The measure sponsored by Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion) also establishes a medical network for workers compensation claims, cuts the period during which someone can draw payments for carpal tunnel syndrome from 40 weeks to 28 weeks and switches the burden of proof from employers to workers in proving whether alcohol or drugs contributed to workplace accidents.
Republicans argued that the cost savings don’t add up, and again argued that most of the savings come from cutting medical fees for doctors and hospitals. They urged Democrats to re-negotiate the bill with lower cuts, a move pushed by the Illinois Medical Society.
“I think there are ways that there would be a lot of people willing to support this bill,” said Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville. “The problem remains that perhaps your idea and my idea of shared sacrifice are different.”
Opponents said there needs to be a higher standard of proof that an injury happened on the job and contended the issue of doctor shopping goes unaddressed because of loopholes in the proposal when it comes to requiring injured workers to see a network of doctors.
“The people on this side of the aisle support workers compensation reform,” said House GOP Leader Tom Cross of Oswego. “But this is not reform. It doesn’t look like reform, it doesn’t smell like reform, it isn’t reform. And that’s a shame because we had an opportunity to do something very real today.”
Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, said experts question the savings claim. He said the measure wasn’t real reform.
“We have simply said we’re going to cobble together some numbers, we’re going to cobble together some expectations…” Kay said. “And we’ve called it reform.”
Opponents argued that more needed to be done to prevent fraudulent claims, and that there needed to be a higher standard of proof that injuries are job-related.
Watch for the Democratic-drawn Illinois congressional map — the one that screws Republicans passed by the Illinois Senate Tuesday — to be challenged in federal court by the GOP or a front group representing their interests.
The potential basis for a legal challenge: A second Hispanic district should have been created and not doing so violated civil rights provisions in the Voting Rights Act.
How does this help the Illinois GOP members of Congress, since a second Hispanic district would likely elect a Democrat? It would force the redrawing of district lines — and a court ordered map, the reasoning goes, could not be worse than the partisan, gerrymandered plus Democratic map.
The Republicans will be hard-pressed to find any major Latino groups to support them. Pretty much everybody who is anybody in the Latino community agreed not to push for another Latino district. Here’s why…
Josina Morita, executive coordinator of the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, said it’s not possible to draw two districts where Latinos make up about 65 percent of the population.
“The Latino population is so dispersed,” Morita said. But she said they had hoped for a second district with a much higher Latino population than they got.
Cullerton was also asked whether the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was behind a last-minute change made Monday that placed Johnson in the 13th Congressional District instead of the 15th and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus in the 15th instead of the 13th.
“As far as any individual district, I don’t think I want to address it. I’m sure people will be wanting to file lawsuits and take my words – I’ll tell you this, the D-triple C is very happy with the fact that it’s a very fair map,” Cullerton said.
Yes, they are, but not for its “fairness.”
* More proof that just because this process was more fair and open than it’s ever been, doesn’t mean it actually was fair and open…
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the map is fair. The public had more than a day to look at it, he said, compared to a map drawn 10 years ago by 19 of the state’s 20 incumbent congressmen, which Cullerton said was released and voted on in an hour.
An extremely low bar was set a decade ago.
* Related…
* New map drawn by Democrats hurts Dold: Democratic map makers are apparently betting that Schakowsky can afford to absorb some Republican areas, as she won her seventh term with 66 percent of the vote. The new map is designed to erase the Republican gains in the last election and adjust for Illinois’ loss of one seat following the 2010 census.
* Congressional map sent to Quinn amid GOP protests
A bill containing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital projects was sitting in the House awaiting final action late Tuesday, although an operations budget passed the General Assembly Monday and went to Gov. Pat Quinn.
The problem was that, in addition to capital projects in House Bill 2189, Senate Democrats on Monday added about $430 million in spending for state operations, restoring some cuts made by the House in various state agency budgets. […]
The capital budget includes some construction projects financed with state bonds and a number of “pay-as-you-go” projects that are not. Mautino said it is possible some of the pay-as-you-go projects could be jeopardized if the House doesn’t approve the capital budget. The number of those projects and their cost was not available Tuesday night.
House members said construction projects already begun, but not yet finished, will not be in danger if the House didn’t act on the capital bill Tuesday, but senators weren’t so sure.
(T)he House refused to sign off on more than $431 million in budget cut restorations the Senate sought involving programs for preschoolers, needy college students and seniors dependent on home-delivered meals.
That disagreement means funding for $26 billion in construction projects could be disrupted, likely meaning at least the Senate will have to come back to Springfield before the fall veto session.
“We’ve passed a balanced but incomplete budget,” Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told his chamber shortly before the Senate adjourned around midnight Tuesday. “I can’t tell you when we’re going come back. You have the schedule for the [fall] veto session, but it may be before that.”
If just the Senate comes back, it would mean they’re receding from the budget add-ons in that bill. That will be a tough sell for rank-and-file Democrats, who want more spending, not less.
The largest portion of the Senate spending, about $151 million, would have replaced the House’s 4 percent cut to general state aid to schools. Because the Senate proposal, House Bill 2189 (Senate amendment 1) did not pass, the cut is in the final budget. By contrast, Gov. Pat Quinn had called for an increase of about $260 million to general state aid for schools
“Where’s the money coming from? It’s not within the [spending] caps we established. It’s not the conservative estimate. And we still haven’t done anything to pay the schools for the money we owe them for fiscal year 2011. [The payments] are going to be several months late. I understand why they took the action, but it doesn’t do anything to solve our problem,” said Eddy, the minority spokesperson on the House’s K-12 budget committee.
On Monday, Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said that if the House did not approve the additional expenditure, the spending for the capital construction programs would also go down.
Rep. Frank Mautino, a budget point man for House Democrats, disagreed: “We’ve sold bonds and the money is there, though it may be tied up in court. The bond proceeds are there. The projects will continue.”
He said that because lawmakers also voted to extend the period in which they can pay off bills for the current fiscal year through January 1, contractors working on construction projects would be able to submit bills to the state through the rest of the year. The so-called lapse period that the state uses to catch up on bills from the previous fiscal year normally lasts through August. “So now, all those projects that are ongoing can just continue without a re-appropriation. … So we don’t need to do that bill,”said Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat.
The day’s biggest news involved the Senate’s 30-27 vote in favor of a massive gambling expansion that would lead to casinos in Chicago, the south suburbs, Lake County and downstate, plus permit slot machines at racetracks and, possibly, the city’s two airports.
The plan, sought by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Terry Link (D-Vernon Hills), faces an uncertain future with Quinn. While supportive of a city casino, the governor has repeatedly expressed opposition in recent weeks to “top-heavy” gambling expansion.
Aides to the governor declined to state his intentions after a vote that represents the biggest expansion of gambling since lawmakers authorized 10 casinos in 1990 and ends two decades of stymied legislative efforts to add casinos.
But the new mayor, in his first month in office with a huge legislative win, was effusive.
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to a significant victory for job creation and economic growth in Chicago,” Emanuel said in a prepared statement. “A Chicago casino will create 7,000 to 10,000 jobs and help energize our city’s economy.”
Gov. Rahm Emanuel — you can call him “Mayor” if you’d prefer — is running the table in this state.
Our elected governor, Pat Quinn, opposed a major expansion of gambling in Illinois. But Emanuel had a hand full of aces, and Quinn was left holding the joker. Thus, Chicago is on track to get a big, new casino of its own, along with four more casinos around the state. Add to all that slot machines at racetracks and at Midway and O’Hare airports.
Quinn can pull out his veto pen if he wants.
But that veto is in serious doubt given the budget hole he’s in and given his own party’s refusal to give him the budget he wanted.
Not only has he expressed his opposition to widespread gambling expansion, the bill comes at an awkward time. Quinn has been criticized—including by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago)— for introducing a budget in February that neither the House nor the Senate accepted as realistic. That got the session off to a rough start with both chambers developing their own spending plans. It also made Quinn irrelevant in the budget crafting process, according to Cullerton.
And some gambling supporters worried Quinn might remind the legislature of his relevance by vetoing the bill.
Cullerton softened his criticism Tuesday night, saying the governor “is always relevant. The governor is the one who has to sign these bills and if he doesn’t sign them, that shows you how relevant he is.”
Some supporters counted on the financial enticement of a bill that would generate at least $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees. It’s money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. Backers conservatively estimate the plan would add another $500 million a year to the state treasury.
Block 37. The development between Macy’s and the Daley Center could serve as a podium for a casino, and the location meets the demand of downtown business interests that want it next to hotels and restaurants. But shoppers and college students on State Street form an odd mix with gamblers. Would the proximity to local government headquarters be too much symbolism?
Northerly Island. Open-space advocates would howl, but that might not deter Emanuel, who badly needs a new source of city revenue. Developer J. Paul Beitler said of the site, “It is controllable. It is containable. It is on the lake. It could be the next Navy Pier.”
Old Chicago Main Post Office. It’s Chicago’s incredible bulk, at 2.7 million square feet. It’s big enough for a casino, hotel, parking and other uses but coordinating such a development would be a challenge. The owner, globe-trotting investor Bill Davies, is an unknown commodity here. “It’s hard to do a little bit of that building,” said an expert who asked not to be named.
Lakeside Center. The oldest building at McCormick Place is on the lake and might be the best choice to get a casino up and running quickly. It might take only a few weeks. But the convention industry doesn’t want a giant distraction from its normal business, and the building is remote from hotels and restaurants. The McCormick Place bus lane would get a workout.
There are other sites in the mix, all with significant drawbacks. They include Navy Pier, Trump Tower, the old Michael Reese Hospital at 31st and the lakefront, the Congress Hotel at 520 S. Michigan, the vacant U.S. Steel site on the lakefront south of 79th Street, a Chicago River site near the NBC Tower and a development site at the northeast corner of Randolph and Franklin.
Considering what Donald Trump said about Mayor Emanuel’s former boss a few weeks ago, I seriously doubt he’s in contention. The Congress Hotel site would rid the city of a non-union, strike-plagued eyesore, so it’s been pushed in the past by some union leaders.
