56 Comments - Loop Lady - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:20 pm: Well, well, well, doth King Mike agreeth with said Governor’s actions? Is hell freezing over? - sal-says - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:22 pm: My understanding is that the GA is a part time job. My understanding is that most, if not all, GA members have other jobs or businesses. I suspect that few if any will need to go on food stamps. As I see it, this is just another of our non-governors’ stunts. - PublicServant - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:22 pm: Well, did anyone think to ask Madigan whether his statement meant that he wouldn’t be scheduling an override vote soon? Just asking. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:24 pm: I’m very surprised at Madigan’s reaction. Regardless of the issue, I would have thought he would have seen Quinn’s move as a separation of powers matter, with the executive here acting unconstitutionally in an effort to extort the legislature. He gives some cover to the next governor who takes similar actions. - Been There - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:27 pm: The bill originally only got 70 votes in the House. So it wasn’t veto proof to begin with. I know there would be members jumping back and forth since it is only one item out of many in that bill but it definitely makes it harder to round up the votes instead of taking them off. - horse w/ no name - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:28 pm: I think MJM knows the move is unconstitutional but it does nothing to weaken his hand. He’s already got the vote on the hard line proposal so any pressure this exerts, and it might not be much, falls more on Cullerton to move. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:29 pm: Madigan must believe Quinn’s “strategy” will soften up the Senate more than causing a ruckus in the House. The pension debate is still Cullerton v. Madigan, and neither is yet willing to blink. I doubt they need to wait for an override vote before someone takes this to court. My money is that a Senator files the first suit and that it happens before the week is over. - Cassiopeia - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:30 pm: I think Madigan’s reaction was understandable and that the Comptroller will file suit over the Governor’s illegal act. Further that a judge will rule quickly. - Tom - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:33 pm: Rich is correct about this particular budget bill and Madigan’s hold on it, but technically the Senate could pass a suplemental budget bill with a veto proof majority that restores the cuts if they wanted to. Of course, Madigan wouldn’t have to call that bill either. It should be pointed out that Quinn didn’t “suspend” the GA’s pay…that implies he can reinstate when he wants. He line-itemed it out of the budget…it’s gone forever without legislative action. And it should also be pointed out that Mike Madigan is a millionaire who probably doesn’t need to cash his state paycheck. While many of his members have lucrative “side jobs” there several who actually need their legislative salary to pay their mortgate and feed their families. Wonder how they feel now that their leader has announced he doesn’t have their backs? - Susiejones - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:35 pm: just another example of Quinn’s total lack of leadership and ability to work with the General Assembly. and “the people” are not with him, at least not the people in my area. - jake - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:41 pm: I am surprised at the Speaker. He has made more mistakes on the pension issue this term than I have seen him make in the previous decade combined, and this is the latest. His mind is particularly hard to read, but I am starting to wonder if he can’t stand Cullerton being his equal in ability as well as position. He could always run circles around Emil Jones and of course Blagojevich and now Quinn, but Cullerton is every bit as smart and capable as Madigan. Madigan may be reacting badly to that. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:46 pm: It’s “Showtime” - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:48 pm: Rauner: “This would be a good move by Pat Quinn if it wasn’t just another political stunt.” https://twitter.com/davemckinney123/status/355011526807130112 So is it or isn’t a good move Bruce? Can’t get it in your system to praise PQ because you know this kind of move torches any goodwill anyone in the GA has for Quinn? Sure, it is a fire lit under the butt of members, but that doesn’t actually mean a solution is any closer or easier to reach. Pick a few people off the street, stick them in a room, and let them talk about “solutions.” I’m sure they will vote to “compromise.” Now, add in detailed provisions that will force people to slaughter sacred cows and they’ll be just as acrimonious, stagnant, and polarized as a legislature. PQ did a good thing if he wants pension reform to be a “solved” issue, but lets be honest that this is a killer for the man to get anything else done ever (although he doesn’t get many victories anyway) and doesn’t actually do one thing to change minds on specific constitutional and fiscal issues as they relate to pension reform. Instead, we might get “pension reform” hastily passed, full of gimmicks, too punitive or too weak, chock full of loopholes, and another need to substantively address the issue again in a few years. - Been There - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:49 pm: ===with the executive here acting unconstitutionally== I don’t see where its unconstitutional(Goofy stunt,etc I agree). The constitution says a member shall receive a salary as provided by law. And from my experience there are many, many other funds that should be paid and are provided by law but are not paid because they have not been appropriated. And there have been plenty of court cases by people who have tried to get the state to pay but unless the law specifically says it is a non-appropriated item (and their salaries are not), then goose egg. An example of this can actually be found in the same bill for an amount appropriated that is less than provided for in law. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:50 pm: Somewhere in Colorado, Rod is saying, Why Didn’t I Think Of Doing This? - Anon. - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:56 pm: ==The bill originally only got 70 votes in the House. So it wasn’t veto proof to begin with. I know there would be members jumping back and forth since it is only one item out of many in that bill but it definitely makes it harder to round up the votes instead of taking them off.== This isn’t an amendatory veto, where they vote up or down on the bill as passed or as amended. They only vote on the items vetoed. If it’s called, they’ll get 100% in both houses. ==I don’t see where its unconstitutional(Goofy stunt,etc I agree). The constitution says a member shall receive a salary as provided by law.== You forgot the final clause of that sentence — “but changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” - RNUG - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:00 pm: Don’t need to override it. If someone takes it to court, base don past rulings, I expect there will be an order to the Comptroller to pay the salaries without an appropriation. - Ruby - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:03 pm: Old situations, New complications, Nothing portentous or polite; Tragedy tomorrow, Comedy tonight! - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:09 pm: –Rauner: “This would be a good move by Pat Quinn if it wasn’t just another political stunt.” Don’t try to make sense of that statement; none is to be found. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:09 pm: @Been There: You forgot the second part of that provision which says that changes to a member’s salary shall not take effect during the term they are elected. I think no salary is clearly a change to salary. It’s clearly unconstitutional and it will take a court about 3 seconds to say so. If it was unconstitutional to deny Judges their COLAs because it “diminished” their salaries then it is clearly unconstitutional to not pay a salary at all. - in the know - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:11 pm: couldn’t they be paid on the last day of the session and still not have their salary “diminished”? constitutitionally at least. now IRSnregs may be different. and isn’t the remedy a claim with the court of claims? - Been There - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:17 pm: ===You forgot the final clause of that sentence — “but changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.”=== Your missing the point. He is not changing the salary. It is set in the law. Along with plenty of other items. But that doesn’t mean they (nor anyone else) get their money unless its appropriated. Even If they pass a supplemental bill 11 months from now then they will get their full amount as provided by law. Otherwise why do they bother to appropriate it? It’s a two step process. Put it in the law but then take the next step and appropriate - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:17 pm: - …Adding… Commenter 47th Ward is again spot on… Madigan must believe Quinn’s “strategy” will soften up the Senate more than causing a ruckus in the House. - Would that be an example of helping to break a legislative deadlock? - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:21 pm: Actually, he is changing the salary if state law sets out a specific schedule upon which that salary is doled out. Think about it this way. If state government were shut down, lawmakers would still be getting paid because of the pesky constitution. - Rolo Tomassi II - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:23 pm: Bravo Senate President Cullerton! “Snake Oil” Pat is at it again. - just asking - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:24 pm: If the state would reimburse my over 300 day old dental claim I could make those funds available as part of a relief fund for members suffering financial hardship. Would this be administratively difficult to do? - Former Merit Comp Slave - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:27 pm: Call my cynical (34 years of government servitude….uh service will do that to ya) but I think Madigan said he hopes Quinn’s strategy is successful tongue in cheek as he was handing him the rope - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:29 pm: Sal-Says: My understanding is that the GA is a part time job. My understanding is that most, if not all, GA members have other jobs or businesses. I suspect that few if any will need to go on food stamps. As I see it, this is just another of our non-governors’ stunts. You are incorrect. For some this may be a part-time job. For a few others this is full-time and their only source of income. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:34 pm: ===Would that be an example of helping to break a legislative deadlock?=== Only if it works. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:36 pm: I don’t see the move as a strategy to move legislation. I think it’s just a bald campaign stunt that’s red meat to the throw-the-bums-out crowd. I’ve defended Quinn on a lot of things but this is a bad joke. He’s using his office and powers in a ham-handed fashion not to move good legislation (which would still be wrong) but to increase his personal popularity. If any other governor had pulled this, it would be seen as sinister violation of the concept of separation of powers. That’s probably why other governor didn’t do it. - jake - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:38 pm: =I think Madigan said he hopes Quinn’s strategy is successful tongue in cheek as he was handing him the rope= That was my first response. But I had a chance to talk to my rep, part of Madigan’s caucus, after Madigan’s statement was released. If it was a joke, that person did not get it, and expressed unhappiness with the Speaker. Don’t know what the reaction of others will be, however. - east central - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:39 pm: The Speaker’s reaction makes sense to me. He wants a bill passed sooner rather than later, as the coming elections, his power and his legacy are all at stake to some degree. I would not be shocked if it turns out that the Speaker and Governor conspired on this. They have a mutual interest in cuts large enough to blunt election challenges that are based upon them not solving the problem, regardless of constitutionality. - 1776 - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:41 pm: The Illinois Bankers’ Association will be offering zero interest loans to legislators!!! - Old and In The Way - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:46 pm: Been There A bit of advice, go to law school before you start interpreting the law. This one is clearly a violation of several parts of the constitution and at least three court precedents. Watch for a quick injunction if nothing else. As for the Speaker, can you imagine his reaction if this were an issue other than pensions? Clearly, a ‘diminishment’ of the separation of powers and a naked attempt to extort the outcome you want from the GA. What would stop another governor, PQ is done after this term, from doing this on another issue? Maybe they would have the votes to override or maybe not. Clearly PQ doesn’t want a compromise but ‘his way’ or else. Sad day for the citizens of Illinois. - dang - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:47 pm: Good for the Gov. The ComEd (insert any special interest that pays them enough) line during his press conference was awesome and true. - kerfuffle - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:50 pm: If the governor truly wanted to make a statement he would have line item vetoed his salary as well as that of the legislature as he too has failed to lead on this issue. But of course that didn’t happen because he doesn’t see himself as part of the problem. (He may also have been afraid that, had he done so, the GA would have upheld that veto leaving him without a salary for the remainder of the year.) - Old and In The Way - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:51 pm: What is lost here is that the CC is very close to a recommendation according to my sources! PQ may well have hurt his chances of winning over some votes on compromise. Did some one use the word petulant to describe his actions and timing, very appropriate, along with shortsighted! - SAP - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:52 pm: I’m sure this is all just part of the Speaker’s strategy to get AG Madigan elected Governor. - East Central Illinois - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:52 pm: Seems to me that “out on the streets” this type of manuever by Quinn would be called blackmail. - Anon. - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:55 pm: ==Your missing the point. He is not changing the salary. It is set in the law. Along with plenty of other items. But that doesn’t mean they (nor anyone else) get their money unless its appropriated.== How soon they forget. Blago cut the appropriation for judges’ cost of living increase. Remember what the result was? - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:56 pm: Why would MJM want to give Quinn a victory? If they pass the pension bill, Quinn declares victory and will use it on the Campaign trail. - Frank - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:00 pm: The position Madigan has taken is very interesting. As a previous post pointed out, he’s very wealthy…many of his members are not. On a slow day during session this Spring I flipped through a Blue Book or one of those publication (I can’t remember which one,) that has legislator profiles. I was surprised by how many members listed themselves as a “full time legislator.” Maybe those members are playing it a little loose with the definition of “full time” or maybe their spouses have good paying jobs, but there are going to be some unhappy campers in the House Dem Caucus if they are not paid at the end of this month and they might be as mad at Madigan as they are at Quinn, particularly given the position Cullerton seems to be taking. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:00 pm: ===Why would MJM want to give Quinn a victory?=== Maybe you should stop believing goofy Chicago media conspiracy theories. - Dude Abides - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:03 pm: I agree that it won’t matter whether or not MJM calls a override vote. What Quinn is trying to do is probably going to be found illegal and the court will settle this issue, not the Legislature. Quinn doesn’t seem to mind going to court and eventually losing, as you all know he’s gone to court and lost before. I don’t know if MJM really believes withholding Senators pay will help in quickly coming to a consensus on Pension Reform though it could have an opposite effect. Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick. - Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:08 pm: Gov Quinn’s announcement this morning was really an audition to do improv at Second City. - jake - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:16 pm: What is being lost here is that the bill Madigan was insisting on was a terrible bill, and would probably have been declared unconstitutional. The fact that with a supermajority in his caucus, with full press arm twisting he was only able to get a bare majority, speaks to that. His refusal to even let to the floor a bill that both his members and the Senate could support has been as much of a problem as the Governor’s refusal to engage in a meaningful way. - Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 2:58 pm: If Speaker Madigan isn’t against it, and I do think he wants his version of pension reform to pass, perhaps Gov. Quinn has stumbled on a good idea? Or maybe Madigan just figures Gov. Quinn will flipflop in a week or so on this, so why bother fighting it. - A guy... - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:17 pm: He has an amendatory veto provided by the IL Constitution. He used it. How is that not Constitutional? As for separation of powers, the GA has the authority to override the veto; there’s the check to balance the shared power. Try being any organization that has had money appropriated and never released. This isn’t a new concept. If we don’t pass pension reform, this is exactly what’s going to happen to pensioners, one day there just won’t be any money to pay them. The solution is complicated, but the problem is quite simple. The math does not work and every day that goes by it compounds and gets a lot worse. My experience has been; take a couple bucks out of a public official’s pocket and they whine mightily. Take a week’s pay and just wait to hear the growl. By the way, that goes for Senators too, not just Reps. More people are open to a discussion on SB 1 now than 8 hours ago. Just watch. - Raymond - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:58 pm: As to why the governor did not veto his own salary, but instead proclaimed he wouldn’t accept it, I’m guessing he’s avoiding the risk of the legislature not restoring that line item (maybe they’re not real happy with him) in the event they decide to restore their own line items. - Bill White - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:07 pm: === As to why the governor did not veto his own salary, but instead proclaimed he wouldn’t accept it, I’m guessing he’s avoiding the risk of the legislature not restoring that line item (maybe they’re not real happy with him) in the event they decide to restore their own line items. === I was just about to post the same thought . . . - TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:09 pm: @a guy The Illinois Constitution , in Article IV, Section 11, says that “changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” If a legislator makes $67,000 (or whatever it is that they make; base salary is around there) a year, and the Governor’s action reduces that to $0/year, that is a change in salary ($67K does not equal $0K) and is, therefore, not constitutional. Money appropriated to organizations does not have that same protection. The Governor can do what he wants to a bill, but the courts will just put it back, regardless of the lack of appropriation. The only thing Governor Blago– uh, Quinn, has accomplished by his action is ensure he will be even less effective with the General Assembly than he was before, if that’s even possible. It only takes one of the 177 members to file suit. - Bill White - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:16 pm: TwoFeetThick I don’t think members of the GA will be lining up to file that lawsuit. Not with an election year coming up. Imagine Representative White from the 119th IL House District defending that lawsuit during the March 2014 primary. Yes, PQ’s move is a meaningless grandstanding stunt, however any GA member who voluntarily suspended his/her salary until pension reform was passed would probably be praised for that decision, back in the home district. - TwoFeetThick - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:26 pm: @Bill White I think you are mostly right. But I bet there’s at least one, safe member out there who would do it. Only takes one. - gmklass - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:26 pm: But the stipends, per diems and travel allowances are not salaries… - Obamas Puppy - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:04 pm: BTW 2404 also leads to solvency of the pension systems but let’s not confuse political backslapping with the facts. Just be honest this is about slashing teachers and public employee pensions so you can repeal part of the tax increase, and get to 60 once again. - Tom - Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:05 pm: - Frank - Just did a quick run through the bios of House Dems on the ilga.gov website. Not all of them list occupations, but of those who do, 24 claim to be full time legislators…roughly a third of Madigan’s caucus. I personally know a few others who definitely need their state paycheck, despite having another job. So, I don’t see Madigan asking them to forgo their pay for too long. He must be confident that Quinn’s move will be overturned legally or that a pension reform bill will be passed by the end of the month, which would give the GA the political cover to restore the cut before they miss a pay check. We all know that the Speaker exercises incredible control over his caucus, but asking his members to work for free is really testing the limits. Ultimately, I don’t think he can take it that far. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.