Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » 2011

Tuesday, Jul 12, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller

* OneMan was at the Thompson Center today and interviewed AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Henry Bayer about the feud with Gov. Pat Quinn. Have a look…

* OneMan also took a bit of video of the informational picket…

* The governor was asked several questions about this issue during his Chicago press conference today…

Click to download

* And the IFT has joined AFSCME’s federal lawsuit…

Two locals of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Federation of Public Employees (IFPE) Local 4408 and Illinois Federation of Teachers, Local 919, have joined the American Federation of State and City Municipal Employees in their lawsuit against the state and Gov. Pat Quinn for his decision to freeze state worker pay despite a contractual two percent raise promised to the employees.

“This suit is about much more than workers not receiving pay raises, this is about upholding a collective bargaining agreement” IFPE Local 4408 President Tom Kosowski said. “These men and women, who perform quality services for the tax payers of Illinois, deserve to know that their employer, the governor, will honor his commitments under the law.”

* The Question: Should Gov. Quinn rescind his decision to block contractual union pay raises? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

Online Surveys & Market Research

50 Comments

Will wonders never cease?

Tuesday, Jul 12, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The same Chicago Tribune editorial board which dismisses contract rights specifically embedded in the Illinois Constitution for state employees and pensioners now says that breaking a union contract is a bad idea…

We don’t see a lasting way for Quinn to enforce cutting the [AFSCME contract] raises, if that’s genuinely his game here. Breaking contract promises is perilous business — even if the promise in question was made by another governor, one Rod Blagojevich, during his reckless reign over state finances. Blagojevich showered pay increases on AFSCME, and Quinn inherited the task of paying for them. […]

If Quinn felt the need to break a promise, he should have broken the foolish promise he made in 2010 to insulate his then-friends at AFSCME from every economic reality that might come along. Instead he has unilaterally broken a labor contract.

I’m almost speechless. Probably because I agree.

* Meanwhile, AFSCME plans to set up informational picket lines all over the state today…

In response to Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision to freeze state worker pay, the American Federation of State and City Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 will be setting up statewide picket lines tomorrow at more than 75 locations “in defense of collective bargaining.”

The picket list is here.

* And don’t expect JCAR to take any action today on Gov. Quinn’s proposed emergency rules…

A bipartisan panel of state lawmakers will put off a decision tomorrow on a request by Gov. Pat Quinn to block scheduled 2 percent pay increases for 30,000 unionized state workers, the co-chair of the committee says.

The workers’ union filed a federal lawsuit Friday in Springfield asking a judge to order the administration to pay the wage hikes that were scheduled to start July 1. The union has accused Quinn of violating terms of its labor contracts.

In light of the lawsuit, the co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules decided to keep lawmakers out of the legal fight, at least for now.

State Rep. Angelo “Skip” Saviano, R-Elmwood Park, said after talking to various panel members, he felt it was prudent to defer action on the pay-raise issue. Saviano also said the 376-page proposed emergency rule was not on the panel’s agenda. The committee, however, may have to take up the matter at its scheduled mid-August meeting, barring any court ruling, Saviano said.

* Speaking of unions…

McCormick Place [yesterday] lost a second court battle to keep sweeping labor changes intact while it appeals a federal court ruling against new work rules.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit denied a request by the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority to keep the exhibitor-friendly labor changes, designed to keep trade shows in Chicago, in effect temporarily. It’s the third legal blow to the organization that oversees McCormick Place.

In June, a federal judge denied the Authority’s initial attempt to stay an injunction on the labor rules.

* Roundup…

* Money Missing From Education Reform Bill: Lawmakers stripped more than $500,000 from Quinn’s proposed budget that would have helped implement Senate Bill 7, a sweeping education reform bill lauded as a national model, partly because it eases the process of dumping poorly rated teachers. The money would have paid for a contract with a private firm to handle training to revamp teacher and principal evaluations.

* Quinn to sign Aurora charter school bill Wednesday

* Quinn veto decision means big hit for school district

* Fed funds flow to six Southland towns

* Anti-airport group meets Quinn in Tinley Park

* Kadner: Quinn’s Southland promises lack action

21 Comments

No end in sight

Tuesday, Jul 12, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller

* I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, one of the biggest mistakes the General Assembly has made in the past two years was to give the Gaming Board oversight of the video gaming law. This program should’ve gone to the Lottery, which already had a statewide network and a long list of approved vendors. The Gaming Board is intent upon reinventing the wheel, and it is obviously in over its head…

The biggest issue yet to be resolved is when video gambling will begin. Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe called it an “open-ended question” and said he doesn’t have an answer. He said his agency is understaffed and struggling to keep up with background checks and security screenings that must be done on hundreds of businesses seeking a piece of the new industry. They range from machine manufacturers to distributors to owners and repair workers.

Another major holdup is the need to hire a company to operate the centralized computer system that will oversee the thousands of gambling machines spread across the state. Bids are being reviewed, but Jaffe said major questions about such a system remain.

For instance, Jaffe said, it will be easy to tell if machines are being tampered with and if payouts are fair, but it will be nearly impossible to monitor who is using the machines, be they children or intoxicated adults.

That last sentence just blows my mind. The state doesn’t “directly monitor” who buys alcohol or cigarettes, either. Instead, police investigations and stings are used to weed out vendors who sell products to kids. And why should Jaffe be concerned if somebody who has had a few beers slips a dollar into a video poker machine? I mean, the machines are going to be in taverns, after all. Focus, man. Focus.

* It looks like another year…

The Illinois Gaming Board continues to review bidders to supply a statewide communications system that links video poker machines, an essential element before legal gambling can begin.

“We hope to get video gaming off the ground four to six months after the bid is awarded,” spokesman Gene O’Shea said Monday. “We’re still working on those bids.”

O’Shea said he couldn’t predict when the bid would be awarded.

They’ve been working on this for a year, after the Board abandoned its initial award to Scientific Games of New York. Back then, O’Shea said the system might be operating by July of 2011. Well, it’s now July of 2011 and there is no end in sight.

The Gaming Board hates it when I say this, but one could be excused for wondering whether Jaffe, et al are deliberately dragging their feet.

* Meanwhile, two Republican state Senators are heading for a primary match, and they are diametrically opposed to each other on a casino for Rockford…

“I think gambling expansion is not going to be a reliable source of revenue for any of the communities in our state,” [Sen. Christine Johnson] told me.

“Gambling can bring a lot of social ills. A lot of seniors on fixed incomes don’t have financial wherewithal to gamble,” she said. “I think we have adequate opportunities to gamble already.”

[Sen. Dave Syverson] said the issue comes down to a competition between Rockford and Beloit, not the merits of gambling.

“A Rockford casino will be taxed and the benefits will be used for economic development right here. It’s true you can’t build an economy on gaming, but if Beloit develops a massive casino, water park, conference center and hotel on the Illinois border, it will be devastating for northern Illinois,” Syverson said.

“We’ll still provide the gamblers, but we’ll get none of the taxes. That’s why I’m involved in this effort. I think most people get this,” Syverson said.

* It’s usually the case that when a reporter isn’t aware of a rule or a law, he or she then deems it as “obscure.” Motions to reconsider a vote are not commonly used, but they have been used forever, often for political reasons. Just ask Sen. Gary Forby about how Senate President Emil Jones used the motion to kill his ComEd proposal. The motions are clearly defined in both House and Senate rules and I’ve seen them used more times than I can count.

The motions are usually only effective when used by the majority party. If a Republican made such a motion, the majority could simply go to that order of business on the calendar and kill it. Even so, Mark Brown does have a point that Senate President John Cullerton probably ought not to get in the habit of using this motion, as he did this spring with both the ComEd bill and the gaming expansion bill…

…Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, is using an obscure parliamentary maneuver to keep both bills on hold in his chamber, in effect holding them hostage while he and others try to convince Quinn not to veto them.

Despite a Constitutional provision that gives the Legislature 30 days to present any bill to the governor after its passage, Cullerton says he could, in theory, hold both bills in this manner until the end of the legislative session in January 2013, when they would die without ever getting to the governor.

That strikes me as a bad way of doing business that fouls up the legislative process, and it ought to be nipped in the bud before it becomes a normal element in the Springfield give-and-take.

Cullerton tells me I’ve got it all wrong and that this is an unusual situation that calls for a rare use of an otherwise well-established parliamentary procedure — a motion to reconsider. Holding these bills is not just legal but will produce a better outcome for the public than if he were to rush the bills along to the governor, Cullerton says. Action could come this fall, he said.

16 Comments

*** UPDATED x2 - Judge stops state from dropping contract *** It’s not completely cut and dried

Tuesday, Jul 12, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller

*** UPDATE 1 *** From the Tribune…

A judge in Springfield today ordered that Catholic Charities can keep serving foster children despite the state’s decision to eliminate their contract.

The order is temporary and a hearing will take place in August on the issue.

Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt issued the ruling after both sides offered lengthy arguments in court this afternoon. Schmidt said that his order freezes the state’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the state decided to cut it off earlier this month.

*** UPDATE 2 *** SJ-R…

Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt said he was returning the situation to what it was on June 30, before the Department of Children and Family Services terminated contracts it held with Catholic Charities in Springfield, Joliet and Peoria.

“I’m putting a freeze on this case until we can (argue) the issues,” Schmidt said. “We’re not going to be removing children from homes.”

[ *** End Of Updates *** ]

* As I see it, there are two very different, yet very persuasive arguments in this battle over whether Catholic Charities ought to be allowed to continue to provide foster care services even if the group refuses to comply with the civil unions law mandate. First up, Rep. Greg Harris, the sponsor of the civil unions law…

“They’re totally within their rights to determine who can or cannot be married under their church law or who can be married by a priest or rabbi or in their facilities, but this is different,” Harris said of the religious groups. “But here, they’re coming to the state to get contracts to provide government services on behalf of the state. They can’t pick and choose which Illinoisans they think are worthy of those services.”

It’s hard to argue with that. This is state money, which is controlled by state law. If you want some of that state money, it naturally follows that you should comply with state laws. If you don’t want to comply with the laws, then don’t ask for the money. After all, obtaining state contracts is not an inherent right. Simple, right?

* Well, it’s actually not that simple. For a very long time now, Catholic Charities has had an agreement with the state that allows it to get around some government requirements…

Before the civil unions law, DCFS and Catholic Charities had operated with the understanding that the agencies could refer co-habitating couples to other agencies.

So, it looks as if DCFS and the governor’s office have changed longstanding practice. However, the civil unions law did change the facts on the ground. That’s why it’ll be up to the courts to decide whether Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration has become radicalized, or whether Catholic Charities’ practices are so out of step with the law of the land that they cannot be allowed to continue in the foster care program.

* Then again…

Breen said it is clear the General Assembly did not intend to force religious institutions to recognize civil unions if it conflicted with their beliefs.

“We think we have a strong legal position and a reasonable interpretation of the law,” Breen said.

I would never want the state telling a religious institution how to practice its beliefs. Period. But that doesn’t mean those institutions are guaranteed a share of our tax money.

* Meanwhile, two conservative religious charities have decided to remain in the state’s foster care program, even with the new mandates…

Lutheran Child and Family Services and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency both have had policies that require foster care parents to be married. LCFS has renewed its contract and promised to abide by state law. Marlowe said the state will seek a similar promise from ECFA.

Ken Withrow, executive director of ECFA, said the agency will continue to uphold the same policies and principles, which includes licensing only married, evangelical Christian couples unless the prospective foster parent is related. Family comes first, Withrow said. He added that lawyers reviewed this year’s DCFS contracts before signing them and saw no language that prevented them from signing in “good faith.”

Lutheran Child and Family Services should not be confused with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois. Those are two very different groups.

* But what about the children? There are about 2,000 foster kids in Catholic Charities’ system, according to the state…

Peter Breen, a Thomas More Society lawyer who represents the three dioceses in the dispute, called the state’s termination of the diocesan foster-care and adoption contracts with DCFS “surprising and shocking.”

“It just seems reckless to take almost 25 percent of the state’s foster children and rip them out of the agency that’s been caring for them. They’ve been caring for Illinois children for over 100 years,” Breen said.

Indeed, Catholic Charities founded the first foster care program in Illinois back in the 1920s, then convinced the state to institute its own program shortly thereafter. But DCFS seems confident it can find groups to help all the kids…

Earlier this year, Catholic Charities in Rockford bowed out of foster services rather than have to place children in the homes of same-sex or unmarried couples. All 300 children in the Rockford agency’s care were placed with Youth Services Bureau of Illinois Valley by the end of June. Also, DCFS placed 1,000 children who were with Catholic Charities of Chicago with other agencies after ending contracts with it.
“Illinois has a strong non-profit child-welfare community that stands to reach to take these cases if necessary,” Marlowe said.

Catholic Charities of Chicago had to terminate its participation in the foster care program after it couldn’t find an insurance carrier to cover it. The organization was sued for millions of dollars over child abuse allegations. The vast majority of other states protect state-sanctioned, private foster care providers from lawsuits like the ones which hit Chicago’s organization, and the State of Illinois is itself immune from the same sort of suits.

Thoughts?

91 Comments

« NEWER POSTS