*** UPDATE 1 *** From Monique Garcia’s Twitter feed…
Gov. Pat Quinn says he’ll ask Speaker Michael Madigan to carry a bill eliminating the legislative scholarship program during veto session.
Quinn’s comments come after Madigan said he won’t let lawmakers vote on Quinn’s amendatory veto to abolish the program.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Raw audio of Gov. Quinn…
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* Today’s Tribune editorial…
House Speaker Michael Madigan says he’s guarding the sanctity of the state constitution, but he’s actually protecting a cherished legislative perk.
To nobody’s surprise, the speaker says he won’t allow his chamber to vote on whether to accept Gov. Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of a bill that purported to reform the shamelessly abused General Assembly scholarship program. That means lawmakers can keep gifting friends, relatives, staffers, lobbyists, political donors, campaign workers and others with free tuition to state universities.
Madigan’s spokesman says the governor overstepped his authority by rewriting a bill that would have prohibited lawmakers from awarding scholarships to their own families. The version Quinn returned to the legislature would instead eliminate the program entirely. Without a vote to accept or override that change, the bill will simply die. So it’s back to the status quo: Anything goes.
Madigan would have us believe that’s the lesser of two evils. The speaker himself has voted to eliminate the scholarships on a number of occasions, after all. But we can’t have the executive branch stepping all over the legislative branch, can we?
That’s a self-serving dodge. We agree that the amendatory veto has been a vehicle for all sorts of gubernatorial mischief over the years. But the constitution grants the governor authority to recommend specific changes to legislation, and it’s not as if Quinn attempted to graft a pet cause onto an unrelated bill.
* The constitutional language is in the Legislative article…
The Governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it originated.
* From the House rules…
[The governor’s amendatory veto] shall not alter the fundamental purpose or legislative scheme set forth in the bill as passed.
* The Question: Do you agree with Madigan or the Tribune on this AV decision? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Observing - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 7:14 am:
To me, Madigan is somewhat correct regarding the constitutional argument. But, he is practicing his predictable game of hiding behind law or precedent or whatever in order to protect power associated with the legislature and legislators. He’s done this with JCAR and with COGFA. If things don’t go his way, he changes the rules. He is the major player in raiding state employee pension funds over his career as Speaker, and now he wants to make up the deficit by having the narrow base of state employees pay the bill instead of the broad base of citizens who receive the benefits of government.
- Bill - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 7:24 am:
Why bother quoting House “rules”? They are a joke; handwritten by Madigan to make sure that he can continue to run the state….and this guy hides behind the constitution and the “process”. Priceless.
- bourbonrich - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 7:31 am:
I hate the idea of changing the complete intent of a bill but this veto only modifies it for the better. Most of Gov. Quinn’s amendatory vetoes are much worse.
- park - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:08 am:
Time to stop this legislating from the Governor’s office. That’s how we got all sorts of bad stuff under Blago, including free rides. The tuition waiver program is nowhere near as expensive. If this is what’s necessary to make the point that the Governor shouldn’t be writing legislation throught the veto process, so be it.
- downstate hack - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:25 am:
I agree stop writing legislation in a veto, but now let’s hope Madigan does the right thing and introduces legislation ending this practice. It is too open to abuse and let’s face it we can not afford it.
- MrJM - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:32 am:
I had to hold my nose and go with Madigan. Gov. Quinn’s amendatory veto alters the very nature of the legislation in question. Just as if the original bill said that all murderers should receive a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole and then the Governor changed it so that all criminals should receive a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole, this is not merely difference in degree but is a fundamental difference in type.
Sorry, Pat.
(That said, the General Assembly scholarship program should be eliminated with all due haste.)
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:33 am:
The Trib’s wrong. Quinn’s use of the AV is grandstanding. He has to get involved in the legislative process.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:37 am:
I voted with Madigan on this one, although this really shouldn’t be the issue to make such a stand on. Madigan and the legislature should be more consistent and reject other governor vetoes which rewrite or add to passed legislation. The “free senior rides” on trains and on bus routes come to mind as an additional example of governor veto excess.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:51 am:
The entire process is a scam for both sides. Got some freebies to give away and no one wants to be told to give them up. Changing the AV process sets precedent for the future. Just get rid of the scholarships which are nothing more than ‘don’t send my person a bill’ gifts which get covered by the tuition/fees paid by others.
- JustaJoe - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 8:52 am:
Sided with Madigan, reluctantly. The standard should indeed be applied consistently. Quinn would have be smarter to merely amend the bill to require full public disclosure and publication on the state web site. Just turn the light on, you know.
- Draznnl - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:01 am:
The AV language here is germane to the subject of the original legislation. Madigan might not like getting pushed by the Governor, but I don’t think Quinn overstepped his bounds on this one.
- Lil Enchilada - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:01 am:
What JustaJoe said…
- Juice - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:09 am:
Pretty sure the constitution trumps a house rule. If inserting a whole new program in free rides for seniors is constitutional, I think that establishes that the authority goes beyond what the Speaker now claims.
- Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:13 am:
As much as I have to admit, Madigan is write. Quinn, like Blago, have been taking the amendatory vetoes too far. I do agree with Quinn that the scholarships should be abolished, but like many things he does he tries to shortcut the legal process.
- A Previous GA Scholarship Winner - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:22 am:
I have to go with Madigan on this one. Although with the state of the State I fully support discontinuing the program altogether, that wasn’t the law that was passed by our legislature–nor was it the intent. AV’s should be used to tweak, not create new legislation.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:22 am:
The Gov’s rewrite meets the Consitutional language. Madigan is hiding behind the House rules, which don’t have the same force of law.
Call the amended bill for a vote …
- Robert - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:25 am:
It is close, but I agree with Tribune on this one.
What I don’t understand is (1) why Quinn wasn’t involved earlier and (2) why Quinn can’t simply veto it and say “If the legislature re-works the bill by adding this language, I’ll gladly sign it” rather than amendatory-veto it.
- Loop Lady - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:30 am:
Quinn is right to use the AV to get rid of this oft abused perk, especially in light of the funding the State is not delivering to secondary education institutions. One man should not be able to hold issues and the dialogue captive in State government.
As I have said many times here, Madigan needs to go.
- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:31 am:
This is emblematic of Quinn’s poor leadership skills. Were he able to work with the House and Senate leaders from his own party on more major issues on a more consistent basis, these kinds of vetoes wouldn’t be as big of a concern to Madigan. Quinn’s A.D.D. style of governing understandably makes Madigan nervous enough that he can’t trust the Governor or his motives. Quinn is just reaping what he’s sown, IMHO.
- Dirt Digger - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:37 am:
Madigan. It was an abuse of an already dubious executive perk regardless of the underlying motive. Quinn isn’t the legislature.
- Aristotle - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:38 am:
Why doesn’t Quinn ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the question of constitutionality before the veto session begins?
- Katiedid - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:42 am:
I agree with MrMJM. That perk needs to go away ASAP. I also agree with Anonymous (8:37 am) that the legislature needs to be much more consistent in its handling of these AVs.
But, I’m getting tired of groups (I’m looking at you, Tribune) being all about legislative shortcuts when it’s a cause that they like (such as pension reform that got passed in about 12 hours and this AV) and then feign outrage when it’s done on an issue that they don’t like (tax increases).
- mokenavince - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:45 am:
I think in the next session this will be corrected. Madigan is not going to bend so lets move on. With the courts looking closly looking
at the abuses most legislator’s will most likely
pass on issusing scholarships.
- reformer - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:51 am:
The broad A-V undeniably compromises the separation of powers by sharing the power to write legislation between two branches. I favor the separation of powers and checks and balances, no matter which party holds the office of governor.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:55 am:
Madigan is clearly right on this, and has been consistent on this constitutional position for the most part. The AV was meant to correct minor or technical errors in any bill, not change the substance or intent. Further a bill eliminating the legislative tuition waivers has passed the House with Madigan’s support and his own vote, and been killed in the Senate.
So, if there is a problem here it isn’t with Madigan, unless you assume he somehow controls the Senators opposed to the elimination of this perk, from both sides of the aisle.
- HANAL - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 9:58 am:
The Speaker has generally been consistent in his position, the Tribune’s position on this particular issue notwithstanding. The Governor should re-file, as others have, when they overstep and attempt to completely rewrite (in this case subvert) legislation sent to him by the General Assembly
- Bill - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:01 am:
== you assume he somehow controls the Senators==
Now your catching on. He never would have voted for it or allowed it to pass the House if he thought it had a chance in the Senate.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:04 am:
To the Tribune Editorial Board, the constitutional
Separation of Powers, fundamental to the American system of government, is a “legislative dodge” when Madigan upholds it, despite his own personal wishes on a given issue. They really are sickening, biased, and clueless, sometimes.
- siriusly - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:04 am:
The GA scholarship program is corrupt, unfunded and needs to be ended.
However, I disagree with the Tribune on this one. Quinn’s AV in this case is downright Blagojevichian.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:08 am:
@Bill, interesting and entertaining assumption, but actually wrong in this case.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:08 am:
My understanding is that the house did pass legislation that ended the perk but the senate didn’t. I don’t like siding w/Madigan but did so because the AV was used wrong. Quinn won’t engage in the legislative process because he believes he, alone, holds the knowledge of what is best for Illinois. The “Benevelent Dictator” (w/picture of Charlie Chaplin).
- Jaded - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:14 am:
Pritchard should move to override and pass the bill as it originally passed the GA. Then they can put in a bill to abolish the program and watch it die in the Senate again.
- Both Sides Now - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:18 am:
An amendatory veto is basically saying, “heh, I’ve got a better idea” but it doesn’t become law until ratified by the Legislature. Quinn suggested what the Legislature should have done on this issue long ago. Now they should vote on it. King Madigan doesn’t want to do it because it chips away at his power.
With the corruption surrounding it, and in a time when we are worried about every nickel and dime in the state budget, this should be a non-issue. Perks, whether used appropriately or not, should be eliminated. One other tuition benefit that should be gone: free tuition to children of State University employees. Why should they, as state employees, receive this benefit when the rest of the state employees do not? I bet if we’d eliminate the Legislative Scholarships and the State University Employee’s Children’s Free Tuition benefit, we wouldn’t even have to consider closing prisons and laying off workers.
- Dogwalker66 - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:19 am:
Rich going to to post anything about fundraising totals for the 3rd quarter?
- Colossus - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:23 am:
Both Sides Now:
I hope you have a very talented accountant on retainer to balance your checkbook, because you appear to have difficulty with basic math.
- Irish - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:24 am:
I agreed with the Tribune. This is just another example of Madigan protecting legislative perks and power in spite of the cost to taxpayers.
D%^& the serfs protect the kingdom!
If enough signatures were obtained could there be a spot on the next ballot for a “None of the above.” or “Anybody but those listed” line?
- BelleAire - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:46 am:
I assume that never agreeing with Madigan, Rahm or anyone named Daley means that there is a better possiblity that I will find a place in heaven.
- Bill - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:54 am:
You assume correctly, Belle.You can’t go wrong with that hard and fast rule.
- Irish - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:54 am:
Both sides - I guess I am naive but is there really a program to give the children of University employees free tuition? How is this even right?
I also am a state employee and have to pay for every service I receive from my agency. We were even instructed that we could not use a state envelope or state postage to mail any changes to our insurance during the benefit choice time.
I can’t use a 3 cent envelope and a 44 cent stamp to mail in my state insurance papers, yet if this is true, these folks get benefits in the thousands. I think I see some cuts that could save some money.
- reformer - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:08 am:
Both Sides Now
== King Madigan doesn’t want to do it because it chips away at his power.==
Could you kindly explain how the legislative scholarships prop up Madigan’s power? Is that the key to remaining Speaker??
- BelleAire - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:11 am:
To Irish:
I have worked for the City and all sizes of corporate organizations and it has never been my practice to use their products for my personal life. Your comment is a perfect example of what we assume the gov’t employees are doing. I hope I am not going over the top on this but it is very upsetting to read this comment.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:20 am:
I voted for Madigan, but like others have said, his separation of powers argument is weak. But even though it is weak, it’s enough to stop Quinn’s AV attempt. Case closed, for now.
The FBI is looking into how some of these scholarships were awarded. That will keep the pressure on for those of us who think it’s time to end the legislative tuition waiver program once and for all. The Tribune should save its ink and its indignation until a new bill is introduced next session.
And to those comparing this to tuition waivers for the children of university employees, it’s apples and oranges. The two are not even close to being the same thing. Stop the jealous whining or go work for a state university.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:27 am:
I kind of agree with Madigan except for the part about him safeguarding the Constitution. I just don’t think that’s his actual motive.
- frustrated GOP - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:32 am:
novel concept, how about we intro 2 new bills in January, one to eliminate, the other to fix. let’s see which one gets to th governor to sign. When will this guy catch a clue.
- TimB - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:33 am:
While I agree that it’s a misuse of the AV by Quinn, why not bring it to a vote and have the whole membership vote it down. Surely Madigan, with his omnipotent power can arrange to have the vote go the way he wants. There’s 117 other members of the House, but sometimes I wonder why they bother.
- Shore - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:50 am:
Tribune.
The difference between the popularity of Mayor Emanuel and the unpopularity of springfield and cook county is that on stuff like this where a politician has a chance to burnish his reputation with the general public the former takes the opportunity and the latter looks out for itself.
This kind of bs will only make it that much easier for republicans running for suburban seats next year to trash springfield and their democratic opponents.
- Irish - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:54 am:
=BelleAire= If you read my comment c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y- you will see I am asking a question. Further down in the comment I again qualify my statement by saying “If this is true.”
I am not assuming anything. I am asking for more calrification and included a personal anecdote about how our Agency is strict to the point of asking employees to subsidize the agency operation.
- BelleAire - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 12:08 pm:
Sorry for any misunderstanding, Irish
- why - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 12:14 pm:
Why isn’t this question do you agree with the Governor or Madigan? Is it because we should never give him any credit ever?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 12:42 pm:
===Is it because we should never give him any credit ever? ===
LOL
No. It’s because he didn’t write that editorial.
- why - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 1:31 pm:
Well aren’t we certainly are glad the Tribune has discovered a serious problem here!
- 1776 - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 1:54 pm:
The Tribune would have a point if the Speaker had been inconsistent and changed his ruling based on the issue. Biut Madigan has maintained the same argument for years. If I recall correctly, the Tribune opined against Blago’s “write to do right” program where he tried to write new bills thru AVs.
- Its Just Me - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 2:09 pm:
Side note- I always found it funny when Blago said he “signed” the seniors free ride bill but he “vetoed” the cta sales tax increase.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 5:22 pm:
Giving children/spouses/workers at a university either a free ride or a vastly reduced tuition rate is a pretty standard perk. If I wanted another masters and took the classes here, I’d get to pay 35% of what non-staff students would pay. And I think if I had kids, they could go here for free.
- correct again - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 6:45 pm:
MJM shows his wisdom again. 1776 hit it right on the head. besides, it is common knowledge the Tribune has basically declared the Speaker to be public enemy #1. Why should we believe anything they say about him any longer? Everything is filtered through their intense dislike of the man.
- Just Me - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 7:27 pm:
Quinn made a mistake on this one, the bill has already passed the House, hasn’t it? (If I’m thinking of the last General Assembly I apologize, all the sessions blend together now.) And if that is the case, then Steve Brown should have said that which would have totally made Quinn look like a goofball.
- Jack Justice - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 10:09 pm:
Form over substance. Quinn is right. The Constitution empowers the Gov to return a bill “with specific recommendations for change”. It doesn’t limit the changes. In any event, the changes Quinn made are within the subject of the bill. More of the same old same old from the political establishment.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 11:04 pm:
Irish,
It is my understanding that the children of University employees can (or at least they could a few years ago) attend any school within *that* university system tuition free; in other words, they don’t have to pay for the credit hours. They still have to pay the rest of the freight, such as the usual fees, books, housing, food, parking, etc.
One of my close friends, whose spouse worked for UIS, was totally po’ed because one of the kids wanted to go to Western instead, which is part of a different system and they paid full tuition there when the kid could have stayed home and gone for free. You can disagree with it, but it is currently a benefit the employee receives as part of their entire wage package.
- Anonymous - Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 12:11 am:
=If you read my comment c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y-=
lol Irish
“Stop the drama…dude”: I don’t think there are any “hard and fast rules”. (Darn, I missed out on a really good thread today.)
- Give Me A Break - Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 9:08 am:
Children of Univ. staff don’t get a free ride to college, they get a reduced rate. Why do people continue to make statements that make it appear the children of Univ. staff are on the gravy train?
- Both Sides Now - Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 10:19 am:
OK I stand corrected. According to the University of Illinois (and other state Universities) it’s ONLY “A 50 PERCENT tuition waiver, excluding fees, for up to four years, each year consisting of two semesters and one summer term.”
However, also according to the U of I, Freshman Tuition & Fees for 2011 – 2012 is $14,414 - 19,238. A quick look in the Blue Book shows “over 2,000″ faculty at the U of I, not counting administrative, support and maintenance staffs. Let’s just say that’s about the same number as the faculty. That seems reasonable. Assume that just 10% of the total staff are using this “benefit” at any given time for THEIR CHILDREN (not for themselves which the state would truly benefit from as they increased their skills and knowledge). So that would be 400 students. Take that times the low end of this amount at $15,000 and it comes to $6,000,000! That’s $6 MILLION PER YEAR at just one University. Granted the U of I is more than Eastern, but start multiplying it all out and it’s an enormous number.
ONLY 50% or not, standard benefit (not for the rest of the state workers!) or not, it’s an incredibly expensive university employee perk that provides no benefit to the general residents of the state of Illinois; and should be eliminated.