22 Comments - OneMan - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 2:56 pm: Now, did Quinn fail to see the issues with his actions or just decided to heck with it and that jerking the ROEs over was worth it. - LincolnLounger - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 3:06 pm: What does Quinn get out of picking this fight? He is remarkably tin-eared. I get where the judge is coming from, but I don’t understand how a statutorilly-established position could have funding eliminated for salaries. Bizarre. - SupportEducation - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 3:11 pm: This will prove to be a very sad day if the judge fails to require the state to follow their own laws. Statute clearly provides the salary amount and method of payment for ROEs. Constitutional laws aside, how is our state allowed to break the law. Once again, we continue to demonstrate the inneffectual government of Illinois. God save us all! - Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 3:16 pm: Every statutory law is subject to the Constitution. If the Constitution allows the state to break one of its own laws, then what is a judge to do? - OneMan - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 3:24 pm: It seems that the AAG argument in part is that it is not a problem of law if the governor is a jerk - anon - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 3:38 pm: this judge drew a strong opponent today for his re-election bid–Quinn is doa on this one - Kerfuffle - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 4:25 pm: === he’s reluctant to interfere with the executive branch by ordering Quinn to restore the money === Would it be okay for the Governor to amendatorilly veto the pay for state legislators? Would it be okay for the legislature to appropriate no money for the executive branch? Where do you draw the line? I think the court needs to help sort this out and provide some temporary relief as it appears the governor in incapable of finding a compromise until the GA is back in session and undoubtedly overrides this ill-conceived veto. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 5:17 pm: ===Would it be okay for the Governor to amendatorilly veto the pay for state legislators? Would it be okay for the legislature to appropriate no money for the executive branch?=== Yes, and yes. The GA can come into special session and override a veto. The governor can veto any approp bill he wants. What would you have the court do? Order a special session and force the Legislature to override the veto? That’s exactly the same as ordering the executive branch to spend money that is not legally appropriated because it has been vetoed. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 5:38 pm: Rich: That is a ridiculous argument. I cannot believe you cannot see the peril that is caused by the Governor being able to unilaterally eliminate pay for an elected official. And, yes, it is a Judge’s responsibility to solve arguments like this. That is what the Judiciary is there for. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 5:54 pm: ===I cannot believe you cannot see the peril that is caused by the Governor being able to unilaterally eliminate pay for an elected official.=== Sure I do, but do you want to criminalize it? Why has nobody called for a special session? There are other remedies to this, ya know. Getting a judge to appropriate money that was vetoed is really setting a dangerous precedent. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 5:55 pm: And, also, what’s ridiculous about my argument? Specifically. - DuPage Dave - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 6:11 pm: Quinn has stepped in it this time. While the fight with AFSCME over the July 1 raises may be worth fighting (i.e., forcing the legislators to appropriate the funds), the ROE problem seems to have no point at all. Plus, there’s no way to come out on top of a fight that makes no sense. - wilecoyote - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 6:11 pm: St. Clair County ROE Supt. is resigning. It’s in the Belleville News-Democrat now. His comments speak volumes re this sad situation. Sorry to see Brad go, he’s one of the good guys. - Demoralized - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 8:30 pm: First of all, one (i.e. me) should never comment when in a bad mood. So there is that mea culpa. Second, I thought judges had already done such things before. I’m thinking about the time(s) when there has been no state budget and the court has ordered that employees be paid. Third, I was referring to your “yes, and yes” answers to the previously posed questions because I could never imagine that happening (though I could never imagine a lot of things before Blagojevich so maybe I walked off the cliff there). And, finally, I think a special session would be dandy but legislators seem to be talking but taking no action. I believe in that instance it is up to the judges to act for them. There are handfuls of crazy dichotomies in the law like the ROE salaries. On the one hand the law pretty much dictates that they get paid. On the other hand the Governor has veto powers. I fall on the side that Elected Official salaries must be guaranteed. There is a Constitutional provision for not reducing salaries mid-term and I would make the argument that eliminating their funding violates that Constitutional provision. Isn’t it all fun and games when we paint ourselves into a giant corner? - steve schnorf - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 8:35 pm: What if he had vetoed salaries for the state’s judges. Where would they go for relief, if not to court? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 9:43 pm: Good point Steve. But then the exec would be infringing on the judiciary. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 9:47 pm: Also there’s a section on not reducing judges’ compensation. Same cannot be said for ROEs. - Bruno Behrend - Thursday, Aug 25, 11 @ 10:09 pm: If every district superintendent, not to mention the ROE Superintendents, were raptured to IL pension heaven tomorrow, not one child in IL would suffer a lower quality education. Quinn, who certainly has upped the pay of other, essentially needless government positions, has at least balanced that a bit of this with elimination of pay for a vestigial position that accomplishes exactly nothing. A dozen or so down, 888 or so more to go. - Kerfuffle - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 8:45 am: == Also there’s a section on not reducing judges’ compensation. == The gov could veto all of the judicial budget save for the judicial salaries putting the courts into disarray. If the legislature drug their heels in returning to Springfield I’m sure judges would have resorted to the courts. But Rich is right the legislature could have come to the rescue on this one and if it had been their salaries that had been cut they would have been back to Springfield in days. - wordslinger - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 9:16 am: Just goes to show you that the makers of Constitutions were not super-beings who anticipated every eventuality. This sort of thing went on forever on the federal level. Congress would make appropriations and the executive would just not spend the dough — “impounding” the funds. It came to a head in the Nixon administration and led to the Budget and Impoundment Act. - steve schnorf - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 9:32 am: You know, I just took a quick glance. It looks to me like the Constitution prohibits the lowering of the salary of every state or local elected official during their term of office. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:02 pm: Demoralized, it looks like the judge agreed with my “ridiculous” reasoning. lol Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.