Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » *** UPDATED x2 - Quinn: Superintendents won’t be paid until October *** This just in… Judge rules against regional superintendents
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
*** UPDATED x2 - Quinn: Superintendents won’t be paid until October *** This just in… Judge rules against regional superintendents

Friday, Aug 26, 2011

* 10:40 am - Sangamon County Judge John Schmidt has ruled that he has no judicial authority to force the state to pay the salaries of regional superintendents of schools after they were vetoed out of the budget by Gov. Pat Quinn.

* From the ruling, which you can read by clicking here

The Plaintiffs claim that their position and salary are mandated by statute and they are entitled to a temporary restraining order granting them prospective relief in the form of an order from this court that they be paid. […]

The Governor is vested with broad power. The Illinois Consitution provides that “[t]he Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him…” […]

Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments. The bare possibility that one might abuse their power does not authorize this Court to take from the executive the powers the Constitution plainly invests in them. People ex rel. Millner v. Russel, 311 Ill. 96, 99-100 (1924)

The rational of Russel supports the conclusion that a position and salary created by statute must still be supported by an appropriation. The Illinois Constitution states very plainly that the Governor may veto an item of appropriation. To hold otherwise would thrust the Court into the appropriation process. Such would be contrary to the Illlinois Constitution.

In sum, this Court is without authority to issue a temporary restraining order mandating the executive branch pay the Plaintiffs prosepectively.

* Statement by the regional superintendents…

“We respect the court’s decision but are disappointed that the judge did not agree with us. State law clearly calls for us to be paid for the good work we continue to do, but our fight continues. Today’s outcome doesn’t change that we believe this situation is totally unfair and against what this state stands for. We continue to work hard for the students, parents, educators and taxpayers of Illinois. And we will find a way through discussions with state lawmakers for a long-term funding solution. Clearly, the pain continues for many superintendents and their families during this very difficult time, and hardships are growing every day. They will have to make difficult decisions as this crisis continues as we work through the inconsiderate decision to end our funding with no other plan in place to pay us for doing our jobs.

“Our association is meeting this afternoon to discuss our next steps.”

*** UPDATE 1 *** Despite his budget office’s repeated claims that a solution was imminent, Gov. Quinn said today that the superintendents won’t be paid until October…

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn expects the state’s regional school superintendents to keep working without pay until at least October.

He said Friday he expects lawmakers to resolve the dispute over cancelled salaries for the 44 superintendents and their assistants when they return to work in Springfield in October. They have been working without pay since July 1 after Quinn cancelled their salaries.

Raw audio…

*** UPDATE 2 *** Follow-up statement by the regional superintendents…

“The association is reviewing the results of the court’s ruling and its legal options, including an appeal. We will thoughtfully consider our next steps and make the appropriate decision at the right time, understanding the time frame allotted to us under court rules.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

83 Comments
  1. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:03 am:

    Looks like an ultimate unfunded mandate and an unconscionable abuse. That the legislative leaders are not calling themselves into session to deal with this is also cold. If the legislature’s funding had been vetoed you can bet this would have ta


  2. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:04 am:

    …you bet the situation would have been resolved in a Chicago minute.


  3. - amazed - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:07 am:

    This is clearly not right. If the governor wants to eliminate the office, he should work through legislation and not have these people elected in the next election.
    So, why not discontinue pay for a whole bunch more elected officials?
    This seems similar to a breach of contract.


  4. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:12 am:

    “Looks like an ultimate unfunded mandate and an unconscionable abuse.”

    We’re all required to wear seat belts when we drive, but I don’t recall getting a check from the feds to pay for the seat belts. Or for the carseat for my baby.

    In other words, get over it. Life is full of unfunded mandates. Your boss can require you to wear a tie to work, but he’s not required to go shopping for you.

    This was a slam dunk for the governor. The Illinois Supreme Court refused to step in to force the state to provide its fair share of funding for public schools — a Constitutional requirement. There was no way legally they could force payment to the superintendents.

    My advice to the regional superintendents — quit.


  5. - OneMan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:14 am:

    It appears the supes get paid in different scales depending on number of students in the area. However the story about the guy resigning gives the impression the salary has not been fully funded for a while.


  6. - frustrated GOP - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:15 am:

    So to take this another level. An official is elected by the people to a full time gig. The gov decides not to pay the person. The person has to resign to find employment to put food on the table. The gov has vetoed the election by not paying the person? NICE!


  7. - frustrated GOP - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:17 am:

    Are State’s Atty’s next? They make a lot more money.


  8. - dupage dan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:17 am:

    YDD,

    Let’s visit this issue in, say, 2 years. I wonder how these school districts will get along w/out these regional superintendents?

    Somehow, I think the schools will find a way, don’t you?


  9. - Aldyth - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:18 am:

    Quinn might have won this round, but he sure isn’t going to win any respect.


  10. - wordslinger - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:25 am:

    The particulars aside, the ruling is a well-reasoned example of judicial restraint.

    Constitutions aren’t perfect and neither are elected officials.

    It’s an issue for the GA and gov. Fair to the sups? Life’s unfair.


  11. - amazed - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:26 am:

    The schools finding their way is NOT the issue. School officials jobs are already full in August. This leaves all these people with no options. If you’re going to do this, do it properly. The supts. were treated very very poorly.
    Maybe the positions can be reduced, but NOT in this way.


  12. - Decaf Coffee Party - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:27 am:

    By my calculations, this cost savings amounts to $13,000 per school district. So now each district can hire someone at two, three or four times that much to do teacher certifications, their own building inspections and all the other duties performed by the ROEs. Sounds efficient to me.


  13. - are you kidding? - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:28 am:

    Life’s unfair?
    Sure. Then the courts rule to make things fair.
    Can all employers now start terminating all employees for any reason at any time?
    You’ve gotta be kidding.


  14. - Dont Worry, Be Happy - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:29 am:

    Wasn’t there a case a few years back during the Blago budget wars when AFSCME successfully sued for state employees to get paid while there wasn’t a budget in place?

    I realize the facts are different (no funding vs. vetoed funding), but in that case the judge stepped in and ordered the state to keep paying the employees even without there being an appropriation.


  15. - Crow04 - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am:

    @are you kidding-
    Yes, Illionis is a Employ at will state, people can be fired with no notice


  16. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am:

    This situation really tests a group of public officials as to where to draw the line between their responsibilities to their jobs and their responibilities to their families and well-being. Perhaps, as a commenter above recommends, they should all resign and let the Governor and the legislature work out It would be interesting to see how the absence of ROE authority affects the school districts. The game is afoot and the pawns are the students.


  17. - Name WIthheld - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am:

    I’m not sure the school districts can hire someone. By law, the its the superintendant that is in charge of the inspections. And it’s not like the school district is getting the superintendants salary to apportion around. That money has been 0′d out, which means there’s no ’savings’ - just an additional expense now.


  18. - wordslinger - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:31 am:

    AYK, did you read the judge’s ruling? Do you understand the Constitutional issues he addressed?


  19. - Anon - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:35 am:

    Interesting. I don’t know the answer, but wonder if this decision has any applicability to the unions’ dispute with the Gov over their wage increases? This is downright scary - “Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments.”


  20. - Wumpus - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:36 am:

    People always cry for removing levels of buracracy, this is one way to do that. My issue is how QUinn did this. At least it is a democrat, so not much stink will be made about this.


  21. - Decaf Coffee Party - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:40 am:

    One way to do it might have been to have a Plan B regarding who was going to pick up these statutory and, in some cases, regulatory duties. But that would have required a whole different level of thought.


  22. - transplant - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:40 am:

    Quinn tried last year to eliminate the salaries of state’s attorneys (also covered by statute) and his decision was kicked back.
    The difference in making counties pay for the salaries of the SAs and the ROE supers is that SAs only cover one county each, while ROE supers cover multiple counties.
    Who will decide what percentage each county will pay toward the salaries of their respective supers and their assistants?


  23. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:45 am:

    ===when AFSCME successfully sued for state employees to get paid while there wasn’t a budget in place?===

    That wasn’t a ruling, it was a one-time agreed settlement.


  24. - Coach - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:45 am:

    === One way to do it might have been to have a Plan B regarding who was going to pick up these statutory and, in some cases, regulatory duties. ===

    Easy there, Decaf. You’re thinking way too rationally for this governor.


  25. - LG - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:46 am:

    The ROEs assure districts are operating within the rules — some do this better than others. Compliance issues with teacher certification, bus driver training, professional development requirements, etc. may seem like bureaucratic nonsense today, but the first crisis resulting from an unqualified bus driver or inappropriate behavior of a teacher is going to come back to rest on the governor’s doorstep.


  26. - Just Observing - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 11:53 am:

    This just seems absurd. I’m all for getting rid of Regional Supers, if it makes sense, but do it legislatively not by stripping pay.


  27. - Decaf Coffee Party - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:00 pm:

    ===Easy there, Decaf. You’re thinking way too rationally for this governor.===

    Well, in fairness, dealing with the consequences would really take the fun out of vetoing.


  28. - dupage dan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:02 pm:

    So, LG, you are saying that the ROE is a compliance officer? Some of the salaries of these folks are off the chart. Just so they make sure that bus drivers have the right training?

    I agree that PQ has handled this very poorly. This gov has no vision/plan/agenda. He is a reactionary. To all those out there who voted for this person, keep watching. This is what you get when you elect Don Quixote.


  29. - El Conquistador - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:13 pm:

    Given this decision, how do you think the AFSCME suit to get their raises will play out?

    I’m guessing AFSCME better be prepared for a loss.


  30. - OneMan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:18 pm:

    Yeah but AFSCME has a contract, the question becomes what contracts can the state get out of because it doesn’t want to pay what the contract says?


  31. - El Conquistador - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:35 pm:

    Generally, I believe the state can terminate contracts at its discretion. Considering the Labor Relations Act language - “Subject to the appropriation power of the employer, employers and exclusive representatives may negotiate multi‑year collective bargaining agreements pursuant to the provisions of this Act.”, there would appear to be some sound footing for canceling the raises.

    Perhaps the question becomes what contracts does the state honor?


  32. - LG - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:36 pm:

    @DuPage Dan
    Yes, the ROE Supt acts as a compliance officer. The salaries are set by the legislature, I believe. As I stated, some ROEs provide valuable services to school districts and others less so. But the law requires ROE sign off for compliance with training, certification, even Life Safety construction plans. If something goes badly this fall, blame will be placed, whether justified or not.


  33. - JustMe - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:37 pm:

    The administration announced that state employees would be paid even if no budget was in place because federal labor law requires it.
    When Blago tried to take away the judges’ COLA a few years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the Comptroller to pay them. Apropriation or not, the constitution required it.
    The federal and state constitutions prohibit laws impairing contracts. If AFSCME wins on this basis, its members get their raises.


  34. - Cincinnatus - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:38 pm:

    Well, it seems to me that the ROE Superintendents can now pick and choose among their mandated duties. Since their fully mandated efforts are now unfunded, they are absolved of their compliance IMHO.


  35. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 12:51 pm:

    Please correct me if my logic is flawed here, but since the courts cannot get involved in the appropriations process, does that mean that the legislature and/or Governor can eliminate the salaries of Supreme Court justices, appellate judges, and circuit court judges? If so, that certainly becomes a separation of powers issue. Judges will have to consider from whence their paychecks come when ruling on issues affecting the executive and legislative branch!


  36. - frustrated GOP - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:01 pm:

    so what happens when you can’t open a school because no one exists to sign occupancy? Or, there is no one to do the fingerprints for new employees. They haven’t changed the laws but they are making sure no one is there to assist getting things done.


  37. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:04 pm:

    ===When Blago tried to take away the judges’ COLA a few years ago, the Supreme Court ordered the Comptroller to pay them.===

    Wrong.

    This was a negotiated settlement at the circuit court level.

    Next person who makes this claim will be deleted.


  38. - South of Sherman - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:12 pm:

    Old Shep — Judge Schmidt on Thursday pointedly distinguished between constitutional offices (the judiciary) versus statutory offices (the ROEs). He didn’t say how his ruling might have differed if this issue had involved the constitutional separation of powers, but did seem to clearly indicate that there was a distinction. That said, the implicit ability of a governor to effectively cripple independently elected officials by vetoing their salary certainly seems contrary to the intent of the state Constitution and long-established legal precedent.


  39. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:13 pm:

    ===seems contrary to the intent of the state Constitution and long-established legal precedent. ===

    And the precedent is…?


  40. - Kerfuffle - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:30 pm:

    So Rich - what’s the pulse of the GA. Will this be the first veto they override when they return?


  41. - South of Sherman - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:32 pm:

    Rich — that one elected official can’t effectively render another elected official incapable of doing their job. It’s why we don’t allow salaries to be reduced mid-term, for example.


  42. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:33 pm:

    SoS, I was asking for your precedent, meaning cases.


  43. - Anonymous - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:34 pm:

    ===“Taken to the absurd, the Governor has the power to veto appropriations to pay the salaries of all state officials and suspend the operation of all of the State’s departments.”===

    Whether you care about the ROE’s or not, that’s pretty frightening. Imagine what a Rod Blagojevich-like Governor with better political skills and more support in the General Assembly could do with those powers.


  44. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:34 pm:

    And reducing the salaries would mean reducing the statutory salaries, not the appropriation.


  45. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:37 pm:

    One precedent is the Illinois Supreme Court decision Harlan v. Sweet.


  46. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:38 pm:

    And for those of you who’ve brought up judicial salaries, read the IL Constitution…

    ===Judges shall receive salaries provided by law which shall not be diminished to take effect during their terms of office. All salaries and such expenses as may be provided by law shall be paid by the State===

    Executive electeds…

    ===Officers of the Executive Branch shall be paid salaries established by law and shall receive no other compensation for their services.===

    And that’s it.


  47. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:41 pm:

    I believe Harlan v. Sweet was about the state Treasurer. See above reference to the Constitution regarding executive electeds. The superintendents are not executive electeds.


  48. - Name WIthheld - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:48 pm:

    Rich - I know this is playing the “what if” game, but I believe Executive Electeds are not paid from their own budgets, but from a different fund. So, while the governor couldn’t zero out that person’s salary, would it be possible to zero out the budget for an elected official’s office?


  49. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 1:55 pm:

    Harlan v. Sweet was about county treasurers, not the state treasurer.


  50. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:00 pm:

    Thanks, OS.


  51. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:01 pm:

    But, correct me if I’m wrong, this had to do with statutory changes?


  52. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:20 pm:

    You are correct. The law had been passed granting stipends to county treasurers. However, Governor Thompson signed it a few days after the new terms for treasurers began. The Department of Revenue (under Director Sweet) said that it could not pay the stipends because the salaries of elected officials cannot be changed during his or her term in office. Harlan (former Jefferson County Treasurer) sued and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in the Department of Revenue’s favor, and the county treasurers did not begin receiving the stipend until the start of their next term four years later.


  53. - Demoralized - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:24 pm:

    Whatever the reasoning this decision sets tremendously bad precedent by stating that the Governor essentially has the authority to cut elected officials off at the knees by simply denying their funding in an appropriations bill.


  54. - steve schnorf - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:26 pm:

    guys, I’m certain the constitution requires that local elected officials salaries not be reduced during their term of office. Are we arguing that not paying them is technically not reducing their salaries?


  55. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:27 pm:

    OK, so the point about approps is still left untouched. There’s a difference between the two, and I’m not sure the approp has ever been fully adjudicated. It has beeh with the courts, but that’s a wholly different matter because their pay is mandated in the Constitution and, at the time, their compensation fell under the Compensation Review Act, which had mandates.


  56. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:31 pm:

    ===I’m certain the constitution requires that local elected officials salaries not be reduced during their term of office.===

    From the Constitution…

    ===An increase or decrease in the salary of an elected officer of any unit of local government shall not take effect during the term for which that officer is elected.===

    Quinn didn’t cut their statutory salaries, he killed the approp for the salaries. Splitting hairs, maybe, but there is a big difference.


  57. - steve schnorf - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:33 pm:

    Well, then, we should satisfy AFSCME by giving them a large raise but just not paying it to them. Oops, that’s what we are already doing, isn’t it.


  58. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:36 pm:

    Steve, the real question is whether the judiciary has the right to force the executive and/or legislative branches to spend money that hasn’t been legally appropriated.


  59. - steve schnorf - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:38 pm:

    I think that was answered on Medicaid under Edgar.


  60. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:39 pm:

    Perhaps, but that involved federal money and federal rules. This is state money and a state court.


  61. - JustMe - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:40 pm:

    ==I’m not sure the approp has ever been fully adjudicated.==

    It has. In Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, the Illinois Supreme Court said that the constitution required judges’ COLAs to be paid, and lack of appropriation was no excuse:

    “The Comptroller is not being asked to draw warrants without authorization. We hereby give him authorization by court order. That order is issued pursuant to the inherent right of the courts to order payment of judicial salaries which the state was required by our constitution to make . . .
    Upon receipt of vouchers prepared by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, the Comptroller is hereby ordered to issue warrants drawn on the treasury of the State of Illinois to pay the Judges, and the class of judges they represent, the judicial COLAs due and owing for FY2003 and FY2004.”


  62. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:41 pm:

    Rich, I understand your argument, but it is a very scary proposition. In theory, county boards could do the same thing to sheriffs, coroners, county clerks, and other locally elected officials. They could maintain their salary, but cut the legs out from underneath them by refusing to appropriate the money to pay them.


  63. - OneMan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:55 pm:

    Just out of curiosity had governor Quinn himself sat down with these folks?


  64. - Its Just Me - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:56 pm:

    Many things in state government over the past decade have made me embarrassed to be from Illinois, but asking public servants to work without pay for months at a time I think tops the list. Is this State really so messed up that it has come to asking public servants to be “volunteers”? Lets ask Quinn and the General Assembly to go without pay and see what happens.


  65. - OneMan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 2:57 pm:

    Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn expects the state’s regional school superintendents to keep working without pay until at least October.

    Now here is a bit of a silly question, but what if they don’t show up for work? Seriously, as I understand it for most elected offices there is ironically no attendance requirement.


  66. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:20 pm:

    ===In theory, county boards could do the same thing to sheriffs, coroners, county clerks, and other locally elected officials. They could maintain their salary, but cut the legs out from underneath them by refusing to appropriate the money to pay them. ===

    Quite right. Thankfully, nobody appears to have been this completely irresponsible and erratic in Illinois since Jim Thompson did the same thing 20-some years ago. But Thompson at least had the presence of mind to retract his actions when he realized he was wrong. Quinn, on the other hand…


  67. - Old Shepherd - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:31 pm:

    I guess it just blows my mind that a judge would affirm this ability.


  68. - Cincinnatus - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:36 pm:

    Best thread in a while. Thanks, folks.


  69. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:39 pm:

    ===I guess it just blows my mind that a judge would affirm this ability. ===

    Why? There is no established precedent other than the courts in Illinois usually try to avoid this sort of topic at all costs. What should blow your mind is that a governor who says he puts a lot of thought and planning into everything would screw things up so badly.


  70. - Demoralized - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:40 pm:

    ==Quinn didn’t cut their statutory salaries, he killed the approp for the salaries. Splitting hairs, maybe, but there is a big difference. ==

    I’m not the judge so my opinion doesn’t count but I would strongly disagree with this assessment. How can cutting the supply of funding for a person’s salary not have the same effect as essentially cutting their salary? I would argue that there is no difference at all in the two. I think the judge hasn’t done his job of clearing up exactly what rules govern here. There is clearly competing issues in the law and the Constitution. He made it even more confused by punting and saying he didn’t have any authority to decide the issue.


  71. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:45 pm:

    ===How can cutting the supply of funding for a person’s salary not have the same effect as essentially cutting their salary? ===

    Because, apparently, the drafters did not have the foresight that a governor would actually be this ridiculous.


  72. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:45 pm:

    ===He made it even more confused by punting and saying he didn’t have any authority to decide the issue. ===

    In Illinois, he doesn’t have the authority. This ain’t a punt.


  73. - 618er - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:47 pm:

    ===What should blow your mind is that a governor who says he puts a lot of thought and planning into everything would screw things up so badly.===

    Now come on… most of realize that logic and reasoning have been checked at the guard shack when it comes to governance in Illinois, but who’d thunk that sanity might be creeping onto that checklist…


  74. - Coach - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:55 pm:

    I can’t help but wonder if Quinn woke up this morning hoping the judge would order the state to pay the salaries - just to get this mess behind him.

    He obviously didn’t think this through, and with each passing development he looks like even more of a buffoon.


  75. - Demoralized - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:56 pm:

    ==In Illinois, he doesn’t have the authority. This ain’t a punt.==

    Says who? He’s a judge and could have ruled any way he chose to rule. I believe he could have made an argument to support the ROE position and acted accordingly.

    Also, if it’s not his job to clarify apparently competing ideas in the law and the Constitution then what exactly is his job? He made this mess even worse in my opinion.


  76. - Demoralized - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:57 pm:

    . . . and my comments aren’t meant to be disrespectful to the judge because I’m not one and have never even played on on t.v. . . .


  77. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:58 pm:

    ===He’s a judge and could have ruled any way he chose to rule.===

    That’s just as bad, if not worse, than what Quinn did.

    ===clarify apparently competing ideas in the law and the Constitution===

    Where are the competing ideas? Yet there is a whole lot of established precedent of the courts refusing to get involved in approp issues. Remember all those school funding lawsuits? They all failed for basically the same reason. The courts do not get involved in approp issues here.

    Also, if you continue to call for a judicial coup, then find somewhere else to comment.


  78. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 3:59 pm:

    And I’m not kidding about that last sentence. I’ve just about had enough of you. I let it slide yesterday, but you’re very close to being done here.


  79. - OneMan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:06 pm:

    Shame may restrain what law does not prohibit.
    Seneca

    Unless you are Pat Quinn, sorry guys I see the judges point. As the AAG said and the judge repeated more or less “because power can be abused doesn’t mean power doesn’t exist.”.


  80. - steve schnorf - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:11 pm:

    From the Bill of Rights of the Illinois Constitution: “Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by
    law, freely, completely, and promptly.”

    Did Judge Schmidt just say, “Except for ROEs”?


  81. - Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:16 pm:

    Steve, there actually is a remedy in law here: legislative action on the governor’s veto.


  82. - Anon - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 4:39 pm:

    I believe the power of corporate authorities to appropriate money is without question. Almost all contracts at the local level are executed with all parties knowing full well that they are subject to future appropriation by City Councils, School Boards, County Boards, etc. IOW, they’re only as good as the budget that backs them. Appropriation of money is the ultimate check against current officials doing something to bind future officials for which they have no recourse.


  83. - dupage dan - Friday, Aug 26, 11 @ 5:01 pm:

    Irresponsible and erratic. That’s our Pat!


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed until Tuesday
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Tribune asked 16 mayoral candidates to release tax returns, 6 complied
* A rough idea of what they're looking at
* Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards
* Rauner was wrong about "record levels" of unionization
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: Stava-Murray updates
* Pritzker's inauguration ball tix will benefit Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic and Illinois Fairgrounds Foundation
* Rauner claims he's been too busy to reflect on his term
* Pritzker's day in DC
* *** UPDATED x3 - Morrison wants emergency meeting of ILGOP - McConnaughay explains - Schneider responds *** Rauner says he tried to drop out of race after primary
* Feds re-raid Ald. Burke's office
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller