Motion or movement?
Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune demanded that Senate President John Cullerton allow a floor vote on a bill to abolish the legislative scholarship program…
Yet the Illinois Senate probably won’t get around to voting on a bill to abolish this irredeemably corrupt program, even though the House voted Wednesday to do just that. What’s standing in the way? Senate President John Cullerton.
For years — years — the Chicago Democrat has refused to allow a vote on any of several measures that would kill the scholarships. He insists the program should be reformed rather than scrapped, though there’s been no meaningful effort to do so. Lately his excuse is that he wants to review all state university waivers instead of focusing only on those handed out by lawmakers, which is like saying there’s no point in wiping that big dirty handprint off the kitchen counter until you’ve searched every corner of the upstairs closets for dust bunnies.
Let’s not play games here. There are at least three bills to abolish those scholarships sitting in committee in the Senate. The version filed by Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, is identical to the measure that just passed the House. It has 31 co-sponsors, more than enough votes to pass. That list includes the entire Republican caucus. But there are Democrats on the list, too, and they ought to be hammering Cullerton to stop blocking a vote.
Cullerton doesn’t want an up-or-down vote on the scholarships because he knows which way it will go. He’s not trying to fix things. He’s protecting the corrupt status quo. He’s running interference for the few lawmakers who don’t want to give up this lucrative political perk.
* Gov. Pat Quinn also tossed in his two cents…
Gov. Pat Quinn ratcheted up the pressure on Senate President John Cullerton Monday in an attempt to end a decade’s old perk allowing state lawmakers to hand out university scholarships.
Talking with reporters, Quinn called the controversial tuition waiver program “political scholarships,” owing to the program’s reputation of abuse by some lawmakers. He urged Cullerton, D-Chicago, to call legislation abolishing the waivers for a vote.
“I really feel that its time for the Illinois Senate to step up and do what I’ve urged for two years in a row, that the whole political scholarship program be abolished, especially be in these times of austerity,” Quinn said.
Quinn’s call comes after the Illinois House last week voted 79-25 to end the program, which allows members of the House and Senate to dole out scholarships to students in their districts.
* Gatehouse lays out the next steps…
A spokeswoman for Cullerton said the measure, Senate Bill [2914], will go to the Senate Executive Committee, where it then will be assigned to the Subcommittee on Special Issues.
“If it passes the Executive Committee, there will be a floor vote,” said Cullerton’s press secretary, Rikeesha Phelon. “These bills will follow the normal legislative process. They will be heard in committee. Proponents and opponents will have the opportunity to testify, and there will be an opportunity to vote. If it passes, it moves on.”
Subcommittees typically have only three members, two of them Democrats. That means fewer Democrats are exposed to political blowback if they kill bills that might be popular with the public.
The SB2914’s sponsor, Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, said he thinks his legislation will get fair treatment.
“It looks very possible to resolve this issue this session. … We’ve got to make sure the money goes toward helping students. I have every expectation this will get a fair hearing.”
* The bill is currently in the Executive Subcommittee on Education. Two of the subcommittee’s three members are co-sponsors. No hearing is scheduled yet, but the bill is likely to be sent to the full Executive Committee if the chairperson, Sen. Kimberly Lightford, allows a vote. Lightford has strongly supported the scholarship program in the past.
If it passes subcommittee, you can probably expect a big round of news stories about how the proposal “advanced.” But if it does move, it will only advance to the Executive Committee, where, as they say, it’s fate remains uncertain. The Democrats in charge of the committee are mostly opposed to abolishing the scholarship program.
In other words, only believe there’s progress if the bill actually gets out of Exec.
And then there’s the issue of whether the House will take up the Senate bill after passing its own House bill. But I’ll save that for another time.
- Shore - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 10:18 am:
I’m really stunned that a chicago democrat would protect the status quo on something like this and that suburban democrats who portray themselves as independents to their constituents would not have the guts to take him on. just whoa.
- The Doc - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 10:33 am:
Is the scholarship program such a valuable legislative perk that it’s worth taking continued heat over? It’s easy for nearly everyone to grasp, which means it could and should be used in election year attack ads.
Aside from Shore’s typical partisan spin, I agree that the optics here are head scratchers.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 10:50 am:
Much like any attempt to limit Members ability to become lobbyist the senate will not allow good government bills a chance to advance. It is sad what passes for leadership in Illinois government
- Fed up - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 11:01 am:
How long did it take for the Senate to pass the tax increase.?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 11:32 am:
This abuse will end sooner rather than later. Might as well get on the train now.
Maybe universities should turn up the heat and just stop accepting GA waivers since they don’t have any money behind them. Do you want to have that PR fight?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 12:09 pm:
Rich,
Thanks for your civics lession. To bad the tribune and the other media don’t recognize and publicize the same clear explanation to rachet up pressure to bring it to a full vote.
- Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 12:11 pm:
Never happen. At best, we’ll see some nibbling at the edges. It’s all about the clout. Each legislator gets to dole out two, four year scolarships a year. Let’s say each is worth $15,000 per annum, which is in the ball bark for U of I. That’s $30,000 of carrots per annum for each legislator, $5.31 million across 177 members in the Assembly. And you can bet there’s plenty of swapping for favors among legislators,eg, my pal’s kid lives in the next legislative district so I’ll call next door to my colleague to see if there’s something he or she needs. And that’s $5.31 million legislators have that they don’t need to grovel from voters, the parties or money powerhouses like Mike Madigan. This candy store isn’t going away.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 1:38 pm:
I predict that two bills will pass each other like ships in the night.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 3:26 pm:
This is so unlike Cullerton…what is the deal w/ this albatross?
- reformer - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 4:17 pm:
I like Cullerton, but his role in protecting this perk looks bad. It’s hard to reconcile a reputation for reform and for good government with this tainted program.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 8:59 pm:
It is exactly like Cullerton. Others see simplicity, he sees complexity. Others look to simple answers, he looks for fitting solutions. Others jump when the Tribune ed board hollers, he runs on his own clock.
There ARE two sides to this argument. Yes, legislative scholarships have been abused. But good kids who otherwise would not have gone to college went to college too.
I don’t doubt that Cullerton wants to find a solution, but just as he saw complexity in campaign finance “reforms”, Cullerton sees complexity here too.
One possible solution here is for every recipient of a scholarship and their parents to sign an affidavit attesting to their address. You can also put a centralized list of all recipients on the GA website, perhaps even require in statute that the scholarships be awarded by an independent committee with the names of the applicants redacted.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 27, 12 @ 10:05 pm:
–Yes, legislative scholarships have been abused. But good kids who otherwise would not have gone to college went to college too.–
You can’t be serious. It’s 2012. I think we’re beyond the Age of the Caciques, where “good students” have to go kiss the ring of the local padrone to get into college. No other way, huh?
Especially when the “scholarships” in question are lawfully sanctioned shakedowns of public schools, with no money beyond them.
A little more imagination, please.
- otownie - Wednesday, Mar 28, 12 @ 8:02 am:
If the “scholarships” are framed as a burden to paying students in the headlines it might change some positions. Just like all of the other unfunded or underfunded mandates from the state on higher ed. All of those programs are paid for by the many who depend on parents income and student loans. Politicians that want to ride the backs of those that pay the bills let them explain their position in the media to those parents and students writing the hefty checks for their tuition bills.
- Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Mar 28, 12 @ 8:48 am:
{Yes, legislative scholarships have been abused. But good kids who otherwise would not have gone to college went to college too.}
B-A-L-O-N-E-Y
You can’t say with any certainty that they would not have gone to college. What you can say with certainty however is that they may not have gone to U of I, or one of the other state schools. You can also say with certainty that because of the tuition waiver what they did do is come out of school with no or kow student loan debt for themselves or their parents.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 28, 12 @ 8:52 am:
===You can’t say with any certainty that they would not have gone to college.===
And you can’t say with any certainty that they wouldn’t have.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 28, 12 @ 9:06 am:
===You can’t say with any certainty that they would not have gone to college.===
And you can’t say with any certainty that they wouldn’t have.–
I think those are the same sentences.