* 2:32 pm - Wow…
*** UPDATE *** * 2:45 pm - The ruling can be downloaded by clicking here.
* The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that by not vetoing the “total” lines in the appropriations bill he hadn’t really vetoed the money. The judge said it was “abundantly clear” that everybody knew the governor’s intent.
* The judge relied on the Jorgensen case, which involved cost of living increases for judges, to rule that the comptroller must “immediately” pay salaries, plus interest.
* More Judge Cohen…
Governor Quinn invites this court to consider statements made during the 1970 Constitutional Convention in construing the word “changes.” This court declines to do so. It would only be proper to consider the debates… if there was doubt as to the common meaning of “changes.”
That means the judge ruled legislative salaries cannot be raised or lowered during a term of office. The governor had argued that Con-Con delegates only referred to stopping legislators from increasing their pay during their terms.
* 3:17 pm - Cullerton react…
Senate President John J. Cullerton released the following statement on Judge Cohen’s order in Cullerton v. Quinn:
“Today the circuit court vindicated the Illinois Constitution as Judge Cohen ruled to protect and preserve the separation of powers. Now that the governor’s actions have been answered by a court, I trust that we can put aside all distractions and focus on the goal of pension reform.
“Pension reform remains our top priority. Even while this case was pending, the legislature never stopped working on this issue. I applaud the progress of the pension conference committee as its members shape a pension plan that maximizes our savings and upholds a fundamental standard of fairness.”
Any bets on whether Quinn will file an appeal?
*** UPDATE *** * 3:20 pm - I got the answer to my own question. I’m told that Quinn will appeal.
Quinn can ask the judge to stay his ruling during the appeal, which would hold up the checks, but Cohen doesn’t have to comply.
* 3:26 pm - Bruce Rauner react…
Republican candidate for governor Bruce Rauner issued the following statement regarding Judge Neil Cohen’s ruling that Illinois must pay lawmakers:
“When Pat Quinn suspended legislators pay I called it ‘just another political stunt.’ More than two months later, the pension system is still broken.
We don’t need any more political stunts. We need a leader who is willing to take on the government union bosses and special interests that control Springfield, and the crowd in charge now refuses to do it. I’ll get the job done.”
*** UPDATE *** * 3:41 pm - I’m told that Quinn may ask for a stay this afternoon. So, there’s kind of a behind the scenes race going on right now between the comptroller’s office, which is quickly processing the checks, and Quinn’s attorneys, who want an immediate stay.
* 3:45 pm - Quinn statement on his appeal and request for a stay…
Governor Pat Quinn Statement on Judge Ruling Against Suspension of Legislative Pay
CHICAGO – Governor Pat Quinn issued the below statement regarding today’s ruling by Judge Neil Cohen to allow legislators to receive their paychecks:
“I respectfully disagree with the judge’s decision.
“On behalf of Illinois taxpayers, I intend to appeal the decision and seek a court stay that would prevent any legislative paychecks from being issued until this case is considered by a higher court.
“However, this case is about far more than just the Governor’s constitutional authority to suspend the appropriations for legislative paychecks.
“The reason I suspended legislative paychecks in the first place – and refused to accept my own – is because Illinois taxpayers can’t afford an endless cycle of promises, excuses, delays and inertia on the most critical challenge of our time.
“Illinois’ pension crisis is costing taxpayers millions of dollars a day; robbing our children of the education and public safety services they desperately need; and holding our economy back from real recovery.
“I will not accept a paycheck until a comprehensive pension reform bill is on my desk, and neither should legislators.
“Nobody in Springfield should get paid until the pension reform job gets done.”
*** UPDATE *** JBT…
TOPINKA: COURT HAS RULED, PAYCHECK PROCESSING TO BEGIN
Comptroller instructs staff to process payments for lawmakers
CHICAGO - Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka made the following statement Thursday in response to the Court’s ruling to restore compensation for lawmakers:
“In light of today’s Court ruling, I have instructed my staff to begin processing salary payments for Illinois lawmakers. I have consistently said action was required by the General Assembly or the Court to authorize restoration of those payments. That has now occurred, and the Comptroller’s Office will comply. Processing of paychecks for August, September and October begins today.”
* 4:10 pm - From Speaker Madigan’s spokesman…
At this point we will defer comment until issues such as a stay are resolved
*** UPDATE *** * 4:14 pm - Topinka just told Roe Conn of WLS that paychecks will be issued by Monday.
* 4:17 pm - Twitters…
*** UPDATE *** * 4:19 pm - Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno…
“It will be unfortunate if the decision is appealed and a further waste of taxpayer dollars. Pension reform discussions are moving along with committed legislators meeting regularly, negotiating and working toward a compromise. Illinois desperately needs pension reform. Yet another legal maneuver is a distraction we don’t need.”
* 4:22 pm - Sun-Times…
Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady described the governor’s original move to withhold legislative pay as “dirty politics” and said any appeal of Thursday’s ruling by Quinn would be “a waste of money.”
“Clearly, when he did this, his own party, particularly the majority party, the Democrats, were very upset, and it didn’t help us move forward on pension reform,” Brady said in an interview with the Sun-Times. “Hopefully, we can set this aside now, get down to brass tacks and come up with a meaningful pension package that will protect the interests of the people who paid into the system and will give us a financial platform to move forward on.”
The state senator from Bloomington also urged Quinn not to appeal.
“The decision has been made. The judge has looked at it. It would just be a waste of money and further erode any chance we have of a meaningful pension package,” Brady said.
“It’s not something I would have done, although I understand in the public eye the governor may have hit a grand slam. But it’s really kind of dirty politics, and he certainly didn’t help himself,” Brady said.
*** UPDATE *** * 6:33 pm - Comptroller Topinka talked to the media today and compared Quinn’s veto to “blackmail.” She also said legislators signed up for direct deposit would likely get their pay tomorrow morning. Listen…
- Wondering - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:36 pm:
Shocking… NOT.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:36 pm:
He got it in one.
- foster brooks - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:37 pm:
That pesky constitution going to bite those legislatures in the rear when pension reform hits the courts also
- x ace - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:37 pm:
Justice & Common Sense Prevails
- Oakparker - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
Gosh, gee williker; I can see the campaign ads if nothing is dome by the GA.
- SAP - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
Foster brooks, you took the words right out of my mouth. I guess the Constitution means what it says.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
I guess the Constitution works …and here some thought it was a piece of paper with a bunch of pretty words.
To that,
Remember, the Pension Crisis would be so easy to solve … if it wasn’t for that Constitution.
If it were easy, it would have been done already. I know I want the Conference Committee to succeed, and have it be Constitutional and workable to get out out this crisis, not something that ignores he Constitution in hopes of winning court battles, and if it fails, then whatever.
Solve, be Constitutional, be smart and fair, and be quite quick.
GLORIOUS LEADER QUINN REBUKED; CONSTITUTION CITED
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
Is there a written opinion as well as an order?
Will Pat Quinn appeal?
- Mighty M. Mouse - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
Question: Does the Governor intend to appeal???
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:43 pm:
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for those pesky judges!
- Cassiopeia - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
Quinn’s stunt may have backfired in a significant way by providing another example whereby constitutionally guaranteed payments can’t be changed.
- Raymond - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
C’mon, Brooke! Let’s hear it!
- Nearly Normal - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:46 pm:
So, if the pay suit has a ruling, does that mean there will be a pension bill will be forwarded soon as is? Or will the committee alter it so it does not violate the IL Constitution?
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:49 pm:
Plus interest! That was a nice touch. I was concerned based upon his remarks during court that he was clueless, but the judge got it right.
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
Void ab initio
In other words, a legal nullity.
Governor Quinn flipped a light switch not connected to the wiring.
- NIref - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
If the legi-critters are smart, they will donate the disputed paychecks to charity. Instant PR win over Quinn.
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:53 pm:
=== Quinn’s stunt may have backfired in a significant way by providing another example whereby constitutionally guaranteed payments can’t be changed. ===
“Backfired” either [may] or [may not] be the word you are looking for.
- Downstater - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:53 pm:
Wow! That is a relief. Goodness, what would the elected officials do, if they didn’t get paid? Since they are some of the highest paid state elected officials in the country, maybe their pay should be reduced by 50% to reflect their part-time job as legislators.
- mid-level - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
“plus interest”
Do State employees get interest when their checks are withheld due to the budget not being passed?
- walkinfool - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
It’s fun to pretend this says something about the pension reform proposals, but the “separation of powers” issue, and the “enforceable contract” issue, are not remotely similar.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
It seemed like such a good idea — I wonder why no one had done it before?
- Amalia - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
long ago, in a career far far away as a prosecutor, Judge Cohen was profiled in the Tribune Sunday Magazine. he was quoted as saying that being on trial was better than sex. He is one interesting character.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
Gov. Quinn got his press, the legislators get their pay with interest, and the taxpayers get the tab for the interest, the legal fees and as usual, hosed.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
==Do State employees get interest when their checks are withheld due to the budget not being passed? ==
When has that happened? I know of nobody’s checks being withheld ever for that reason.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
This was absolutely the correct decision. You cannot let either the Governor or General Assembly hold each other hostage like this. It totally destroys the co-equal branches of government concept.
- BDuty6 - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
@Demoralized… It happened in 2009 or 2010. I think 2009.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
- Downstater -,
It is a HUGE releief that this governor and future governors can NOT extort the Legislative branch so the Executive can have complete control of a Co-Equal branch of government.
Huge. Relief.
- mid-level -,
The “money” in this case is not the issue. (When they say ‘money’ isn’ the reason, it usually is. Usually ..).
The fact that Now Deposed Glorious Leader Quinn not not dictate or extort from the Legislative is the issue.
We can all argue the interest and if in regards to employees, and whatever. The point I think that is being made, an Unconstitutional move by Now Deposed Glorious Leader Quinn results in back pay and interest for a move that had no merit, and had no standing as constitutional.
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
“In construing a constitutional provision, a court relies on the common understanding of the voters who ratified the provision.”
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
Quinn will find some other way to pander. Cohen was right to invalidate his idiotic stunt.
- too obvious - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:04 pm:
Thank you for trying Gov. Quinn. You still look like the responsible one.
Lawmakers can get money again for non-performance. They must be very proud.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:05 pm:
==It happened in 2009 or 2010. I think 2009. ==
I was around then and don’t recall it happening. I remember at some point there was a question but the state was ordered (if I remember correctly) that salaries had to be paid.
In any event, I don’t see an issue with back pay plus interest in a case where the judge has decided that an action to withhold somebody’s pay was illegal. I think that’s pretty standard practice.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:07 pm:
==Wow! That is a relief. Goodness, what would the elected officials do, if they didn’t get paid? Since they are some of the highest paid state elected officials in the country, maybe their pay should be reduced by 50% to reflect their part-time job as legislators. ==
That’s a nice sidebar but has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.
- Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:08 pm:
Right decision. PQ got the political value from the stunt. Lawmakers who rely on their paychecks suffered. Now can we end the stunts and get on with governing?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:09 pm:
BDuty6, move along. The ruling states that legislative salaries are guaranteed by the Constitution. Deal with it.
- Raymond - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:09 pm:
Very strange story from the Trib. First, it took them a half hour to get anything up on their “news” homepage, then they come out with this tirade from Pearson.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-judge-rules-against-quinn-move-to-suspend-lawmaker-paychecks-20130926,0,5678232.story
- mythoughtis - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
==Thank you for trying Gov. Quinn. You still look like the responsible one.
Lawmakers can get money again for non-performance. They must be very proud. ==
Just becaue the lawmakers did not produce the results that the governor wanted does not mean they did not perform. They came to sessions, they represented their constituents, they had office hours. The governor does not get to decide the duties of the lawmakers, or if they are performing up to par. That’s the voter’s right to decide.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:13 pm:
===You still look like the responsible one.===
The Executive, when sworn in, swears to uphold the constitution. How responsible is it to break that Oath on a “political whim”? It was pandering, it was political, it was irresponsible, and now its over.
===Lawmakers can get money again for non-performance. They must be very proud.===
It is about the Co-Equal branches, extortion, and the Constitution. If you still … still… after the judgement went as it did can’t see that, no one can help you. Yikes!
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
===tirade from Pearson===
Rick’s a big boy, but I don’t see a tirade there at all. It’s basically just a quickie rewrite of the story he filed after the hearing.
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:15 pm:
The citation of Antle v. Tuchbreiter is interesting:
=== [w]here a statute categorically commands the performance of an act, so much money as is necessary to obey the command may be disbursed without any explicit appropriation. ===
and
=== [I]f that is so with respect to statutorily mandated action, it is unquestionably so with respect to actions compelled by the constitution.” ===
IMHO, the application of this language to SB1 is quite obvious.
Which could explain the Tribbies tirade
- too obvious - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
“Just becaue the lawmakers did not produce the results that the governor wanted does not mean they did not perform.”
You’re simply wrong about that. Under no reasonable definition of the word have lawmakers performed.
Quinn still has a good issue on political front. He can still say he tried to do his best to keep public officials from being freeloaders. The freeloaders win this battle but it’s a shameful victory.
- BDuty6 - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:17 pm:
Rich, I’m not sure where your response directed at me is coming from.
I was responding to Demoralized’s question about state employees having their paychecks withheld when the budget isn’t passed on time. That scenario happened for at least non-union employees in 2009 when the budget wasn’t passed on time. I should know as I was one of them.
I haven’t commented about legislative salaries because I agree with your statement.
- Now - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:20 pm:
Quinn got what he wanted, p.r. Take it to the bank, he won’t appeal!
- Norseman - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:23 pm:
I can’t wait to read the opinion - thanks Rich for the link to it.
A couple of things. I always thought Count 1 was a lame procedural argument and could have led to continued uncertainty over the separation of powers. I’m also amused that this process has resulted in the leaders choking on some of their past pronouncements. Most notably the admission that legislative furloughs also violates the constitution.
Thank you Judge Cohen. You got it right.
Now lets up we get an equally thought out opinion on pension reduction.
- Raymond - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:24 pm:
Maybe “tirade” is too strong a term. But what does the lawyer’s courtroom mischaracterization of the threshold for override have anything to do with today’s decision? Then two grafs in the weeds about AG’s advice for JBT? Seems like the story is trying to make the case that today’s decision is somehow a miscarriage of justice - the attorney at trial couldn’t even get the override threshold right!
- Anon. - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
==It’s fun to pretend this says something about the pension reform proposals, but the “separation of powers” issue, and the “enforceable contract” issue, are not remotely similar.==
Absolutely correct. Both are Illinois constitutional issues, but the contract claim of the retirees is also backed by the federal constitution. It’s a much stronger claim.
- JC - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:27 pm:
Precedent setting for future pension legislation challenges in court.
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:32 pm:
=== Precedent setting for future pension legislation challenges in court. ===
But only if the IL Supreme Court affirms Judge Cohen’s decision.
Without an appeal, a decision by a trial court judge offers very little precedent for anything.
- Curmudgeon - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:33 pm:
In response to BDuty6, paychecks also got withheld for everyone way back when Edgar was governor and a budget didn’t get passed until early August. That resulted in a number of changes to the budget approval & pay-issuing processes, including moving the end of the regular Spring session forward a month to the end of May.
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:35 pm:
Now that Quinns stunt is over (don’t beleive he will appeal)the pension committee is free to try and finish their work. Quinn, for political gain, slowed the process down and cost the state potentialy millions of dollars. Unless Gov. politics is now taking over, I beleive the committee just might be able to put something together. It is also possible that the next pressure point is the Gov. election cycle and nothing will get done this year.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:37 pm:
===don’t beleive he will appeal===
That’s not what they’re telling me.
- Estubborn - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:39 pm:
Has anyone hoping to take Quinn’s job called on him to reimburse the State for the interest owed on account of his ridiculous political move?
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:40 pm:
@too obvious - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:04 pm
= Lawmakers can get money again for non-performance. They must be very proud. =
I beleive you are missing the point. This was about constitutional seperation of powers. I also feel that just because the GA does not come up with an illegal diminishment plan for pensions is hardly failure. Non action is an option in a republic form of democracy. The GA could elect to make the payments and cut spending elswere along with tax increases etc. In otherwords, just because the GA does not pass a law that diminishes Constitutionaly protected benifits does not mean they have failed. I argue it means they have upheld their oath.
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:42 pm:
@- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:37 pm:
you would have much better inside info then I , but hard to imagine he would appeal and loose the political advantage it gave him. He has more to loose I beleive now than to gain. Don’t see a win on appeal.
- Mason born - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:43 pm:
Well Done Judge Cohen Well Done.
Hey Bruce you do realize, if God help us you win, this might bite you right? –We don’t need any more political stunts.–
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:44 pm:
Two points;
Quinn appealing is not a good move governmentally or legally(?), but I know it’s a great move politically and when pandering, and you can look injured while pandering, why stop?
Bruce Rauner’s react is interesting, I wish instaed of releasing a statement, Rauner would respond to questions about how he plans on shutting down government and do all he wants to do that is not considered a “politcal stunt” unlike Pat Quinn’s stunt he just railed about.
- kerfuffle - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:49 pm:
- facts are stubborn things - “He has more to loose I beleive now than to gain.”
I think PQ will appeal because he wants the voters to see him as a crusader for right and an appeal, however unfruitful it may be, still puts him in the spotlight as such.
- Raymond - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
=== He has more to loose I beleive now than to gain. Don’t see a win on appeal. ===
From a purely political standpoint - putting aside any consideration of what’s best for taxpayers or good government - PQ looks to be trying to keep this issue alive as long as possible via an appeal.
If the GA acts on pensions anytime during a pending appeal, PQ could always claim that his pressure play somehow or another motivated them to act.
It’s not about winning on appeal - it’s about keeping up perceived leverage. Just my two cents, anyway.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:52 pm:
===more to loose ===
Lose the extra “o” please.
Huge pet peeve.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:52 pm:
Didn’t Quinn do this with the Regional Directors of Schools, eliminate their salaries and/or positions and then was forced to pay them by a judge?
- Soccermom - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
NIref — You know, some of these legislators actually do this full time. When they’re not in Springfield, they’re in their district offices. They have mortgages and families, and bills to pay. So I don’t think they’ll be giving their paychecks to charity — any more than you will. It’s very easy to tell other people to work for free.
- orzo - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
Does Quinn give up his salary for the two times he went to Court when this case was argued? Other than grandstanding, why was he there? He wasn’t the attorney, wasn’t a party, wasn’t a witness. He was a prop for his own sideshow.
- unbelievable - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:56 pm:
@too obvious
“You’re simply wrong about that. Under no reasonable definition of the word have lawmakers performed.”
What are you talking about? Did legislative district offices close? Were constituent services rendered? Quinn was running around the whole summer signing bills the legislature negotatiated and passed during the session and then calling them his legislative accomplishments. No legislator issued a release saying they weren’t gonna work for free. There were two fully formed pension bills in two seperate chambers and a ton of votes on individual parts of the pension impasse and a conference committee that never stopped working. And there is no Quinn pension plan that anyone is aware of.
So do you want volunteer legislators? Or do you think its proper for one branch of government to hold another branch hostage? Please…argue real points. What are you talking about?
- Dirt Diver - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:56 pm:
Pension reform will not get done this veto session or at any point soon. Stop acting like the legislature is close to passing a bill.
- RNUG - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:57 pm:
Quinn will appeal because, in his mind, he’s the good guy outsider wearing the white hat who has to protect his citizens …
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:00 pm:
Glorious Leader Pat Quinn is STILL about breaking the sacred Co-Equal Powers, and “forcing” the Legislative to do exactly as the Executive …Commands.
Worse. Than. Rod.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
Rich, while we’re doing pet peeves, could you take a hard line on rein vs. reign? thank you.
- writer - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
Good Job Marc! You finally made it big time!
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
@Raymond - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
= If the GA acts on pensions anytime during a pending appeal, PQ could always claim that his pressure play somehow or another motivated them to act. =
Good points, but just respectfully disagree. I don’t see him able to say he kept the pressure on. The committee will be getting paid and they will have ruling under their wings. PQ better take his political benifit and cash in the chips.
- And the horse he rode in on! - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:02 pm:
The real question should now be on why Quinn is apparently all to willing to waste the public monies on what will all too likely be a frivolous appeal. All just to continue his amateur hour grandstanding. It would be interesting if someone, when it is all said and done, would tally the total tax payer costs for Quinn’s political side show.
- Pepe Silvia - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:02 pm:
I found it hilarious that Cullerton is so adamant against violating the Constitution as it relates the legislators paychecks, but is willing to look the other way on violating the pension diminishment clause. He states this all in the same statement! Only in Illinois.
- West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:04 pm:
Based on comments on the Trib’s website, most of those commentators don’t like the ruling. In going the populist route Quinn might consider an appeal. Even if (when) the Supreme Court rules against him, that would probably happen quickly and people will have forgotten (if they ever knew) the legal basis for the ruling by next November and will just remember Quinn tried to get the do-nothing legislature to do their job and how he was thwarted by the Madigan controlled judiciary. [The voice of the Trib commenting people, not me for those characterizations.]
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:05 pm:
@Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @
===more to loose ===
Lose the extra “o” please.
Huge pet peeve.
Get over it. I am a poor speller and could sure use spell check.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:09 pm:
Of course he will appeal. Not his dime he’s appealing with.
Will be interesting to see if the checks get out before a stay pending appeal is put in place, if one is granted.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:10 pm:
Spellcheck wouldn’t catch that mistake. Learn, please. Thanks.
- Just Me - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
This entire debacle makes me embarrassed to be from Illinois.
- Norseman - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:15 pm:
Quinn has nothing to lose by appealing, especially since the taxpayers are footing the bill. This will keep his populist storyline going for awhile and if he wins the Office of the Governor will have a powerful tool to use. Although, I suspect the legislature will respond by defunding the Governor’s office - great show.
The bigger question that I want answered is whether the General Assembly will override the item veto. While I may be one of Demoralized’s favorite constitutional experts, a real lawyer may want to chime in to correct me where I go wrong.
As a circuit court ruling Cohen’s decision is not precedent setting. For that to occur, a higher court needs to rule. Like for the Maag case, I presume the appeal will be taken directly to the Supreme Court (SC). This process will take some time. In the meantime, I presume the item veto deadline will pass. If the GA overrides the IV, then the SC might rule the case will then be moot - thus losing the opportunity for a precedent setting ruling. Which could allow for future stunts by Quinn.
If the GA doesn’t act on the IV, it risks the dire impact of no salary if the SC rules in Quinn’s favor.
- AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:21 pm:
OW
Actually the pension crisis is easy to solve. The problem is solving it without threatening the re-election chances of the people who caused the crisis in the first place.
“Remember, the Pension Crisis would be so easy to solve … if it wasn’t for that Constitution.”
- SAP - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:26 pm:
Pepe: Cullerton is the only leader pushing a solution that at least pays lip service to the pension clause.
- DirtNap - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:28 pm:
“Nobody in Springfield should get paid until the pension reform job gets done.”
WOW! Just WOW!
- woodchuck - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:30 pm:
PQ has stated he will not accept a check until the pension is solved. So, would he get checks retroactive to the date of his self-imposed refusal? Did he also AV his own appropriation for his salary? Interesting to see if he gets back-pay after its settled. That could be a nice check.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:33 pm:
MJM’s Shop;
===At this point we will defer comment until issues such as a stay are resolved===
Never say more than you need to say.
- AFSCME Steward -,
Understood, and very much On Point, however, politics and heavy lifting coupled with doing what needs to be done, Constitutionally, and with the best possible outcome dictates that it isn’t easy, and hasn’t been easy, and continues to be the toughest nut to crack in a very long time.
Again, understood and On point, just looking at it from all angles.
Much respect, - AFSCME Steward -.
- Dirty Red - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:34 pm:
= “Nobody in Springfield should get paid until the pension reform job gets done.” =
Poor phrasing, indication the Governor intends to escalate the situation beyond just the General Assembly, or reading too much into it?
- Rod - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:36 pm:
I wish that Judge Neil Cohen’s ruling had actually opined on the separation of powers doctrine I thought he wrote around it. The real heart of the issue was separation of powers.
Very possibly the comments from posters on Constitution of 1970, Article XIII, section 5, that provides a contractual protection for state employees from their pension benefits being diminished or impaired relating to a common sense ruling like we just got from Judge Neil Cohen are well taken. Hopefully the Assembly will realize any so called reform proposal must walk carefully with the literal meaning of diminished. The greatest tragedy would be to pass a bill that gets completely tossed out by a court and to have to start this process all over again.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:38 pm:
===I thought he wrote around it===
Judges usually prefer narrow opinions on stuff like this. Plus, there’s no need to go into all that other stuff if you find a reason to overturn the veto.
- anon - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:43 pm:
Norse - the veto is void as it stands. Its just like it never happened. Therefore, even with a stay, there is no veto to override. Only if the SC eventually rules in PQs favor would the veto be brought back from the dead.
Wood - PQ is still getting paid. He’s just not cashing his checks. Check his own portal or JBTs site for confirmation. So, yes, he will get all of his $$ eventually. Something to watch for in the months ahead. Can PQ afford a loan to himself for a whole years worth of salary if pension reform doesn’t get done?
State checks are good for a long time. They just have to be reissued. I think PQ may have inadvertently put himself in a trick box with this stupid stunt.
- Anon III - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 4:45 pm:
The law is what the Courts say it is.
That said, the judge here is not ruling on the action of the Governor, he is ruling on what the GA leaders argue is the effect of that action.
The Governor’s options were to “reduce or veto …” the appropriation. He vetoed. The Governor did not “alter or make different” the legislator’s salary, he entirely vetoed the line item appropriations for the salaries. It is the same as if the legislature – admittedly improbably – had not included their salaries in the approved budget bill.
- Norseman - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:01 pm:
=== Only if the SC eventually rules in PQs favor would the veto be brought back from the dead. ===
In which case, the constitutional deadline for overriding the IV will have expired. Can they expect the SC to order a new deadline to override?
- Big Debbie - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:03 pm:
I never understood the separation of powers argument, the legislature could always use a veto override. The only argument that has merit is based on the constitutional language. But even there, I see some future problems with Judge Cohen’s ruling in the future.
There is caselaw that COLA for judges cannot be changed by statute (JORGENSEN). If upheld on appeal, there will also now be caselaw that appropriations to pay constitutionally mandated compensation are not even needed. The constitution mandates compensation to legislators, judges, and constitutional officers; and, as many have pointed out, enrollees in state pension and retirement programs. On top of this, the constitution requires a balanced budget and limits annual debt not to exceed 5% (15% in states of emergency) of the state’s yearly appropriations. Oh, and it also guarantees the repayment of any debt.
It is a shame there wasn’t an argument regarding the contradictory nature of these constitutional provisions. But I suppose it is understandable since neither the legislative leaders nor the Gov wants to even recognize that the pension and balance budget provisions exist. Would have made a good legal argument though. And even political one: this court should not guarantee appropriations over everyone else protected by the constitution to the very people who caused the problem and are refusing to fix it.
- A guy... - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:03 pm:
The guys who lease cars are about to get paid
I’m happy for them.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:12 pm:
===I never understood the separation of powers argument, the legislature could always use a veto override.===
Override would have given validity to the move, by NOT overridding the GA wins. The judge ruled that the Veto is invalid. Seems real straight-forward, and would not have been, had the GA acted.
===It is a shame there wasn’t an argument regarding the contradictory nature of these constitutional provisions.===
Becuase that is what was not being decided here.
Please, follow along.
And even political one: this court should not guarantee appropriations over everyone else protected by the constitution to the very people who caused the problem and are refusing to fix it.===
That is why we have a Constitution so those who may be governor will not then turn into Glorious Leaders of 3rd World Banana Republics, forcing the Co-Equal branches of power to be something to give lip-service to and not undeerstand that Co-Equal means Co-Equal, not Extorted-Equal.
I hear Deposed Glorious Leader Quinn will read a statement from the balcony, behind microphones and in front of giant posters, with speakers all over Pat Quinn Square…
There is no leg to stand on for Quinn.
===
- Making Sausage - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
======more to loose ===
Lose the extra “o” please.
Huge pet peeve.===
Maybe he’s thinking chitlin’s
- Making Sausage - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:28 pm:
Sorry. Chitterlings
- Bill White - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:31 pm:
=== I wish that Judge Neil Cohen’s ruling had actually opined on the separation of powers doctrine I thought he wrote around it. The real heart of the issue was separation of powers. ===
That the decision did not focus on separation of powers is telling.
===
This MUST be resolved by the IL Supreme Court.
The decision of a trial judge - regardless of how well reasoned and written - is not binding precedent on future courts.
- Big Debbie - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:49 pm:
===Override would have given validity to the move, by NOT overridding the GA wins.===
The Judge’s reasoning was based on the constitutional language that compensation could not be changed during a legislator’s term, not on a separate of powers issue. A separation of powers argument would have failed because of the veto override.
You are right, the governor and legislature are co-equals. But that’s why there is no problem in the governor’s actions. The way he has input into the salaries of legislative members is through the use of his appropriations veto, and the way members have say is through presenting the governor with the bill and also being able to override his veto.
Your hyperbole aside about banana republics, do you think legislators should be allowed to set their own salary with no input from the governor?
Do you feel that legislators are entitled to automatic appropriations of their salaries even if that means violating other provisions of the constitution, such as the balanced budget provision or cap on amount of money the state can borrow?
Do you feel that legislators’ constitutionally protected compensation should be given preference over that of state debt borrowers or pension owners (if, which is true if the finance provisions of the constitution were followed, there wasn’t enough state revenue to pay all)?
And what of the automatic COLA adjustments to legislative salaries (5th highest in the nation: http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x35746328/Illinois-lawmakers-among-best-paid?zc_p=0) that the G.A. setup before Quinn was Governor? The governor cannot veto these automatic raises, only the G.A. can. How does that effect your sense of equal branches of government?
- Big Debbie - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 5:51 pm:
^^I meant “state debt lenders”. Sorry.
- Tasty Grouper - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:05 pm:
– The Judge’s reasoning was based on the constitutional language that compensation could not be changed during a legislator’s term, not on a separate of powers issue. A separation of powers argument would have failed because of the veto override.–
The judge did not rule on the separation of powers because he did not have to. The issue was moot once he made his ruling on “change”. The lack of a holding on the issue does not validate the Govs position. Judicial canons instruct judges to craft narrow decisions and not to create wide ranging precedent if at all possible. The judge did just that. And, this judge wants his opinion upheld. Crafting it narrowly the way he did pretty much ensures that it will be. PQ has exactly zero chance of overturning this.
And if the GA had acted on the veto, the whole case would have been moot leaving PQ the ability to do this again and again. What the GA did in this whole mess was both wise and proper. PQ needs to accept defeat and move on before he turns a partial political win into a total political loss.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:06 pm:
===The way he has input into the salaries of legislative members is through the use of his appropriations veto====
And the judge said. ..”No, no” …so the rest of that Dopey arguement makes no sense. Fun, but no sense.
===do you think legislators should be allowed to set their own salary with no input from the governor?===
Salaries are already set, again, the arguement makes no sense.
I am glad you like the Banana Republic stuff, so does Deposed Glorious Leader Pat Quinn. You can not “punish” what is set in the Constitution, no matter how much of a child the Glorious Leader wants to be, or how much Quinn wants to pander.
===Do you feel that legislators are entitled to automatic appropriations of their salaries even if that means violating other provisions of the constitution, such as the balanced budget provision or cap on amount of money the state can borrow?===
Seems as thought they are, a judge says you cant stop it, so again … is there a point to this?
===And what of the automatic COLA adjustments to legislative salaries (5th highest in the nation: http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x35746328/Illinois-lawmakers-among-best-paid?zc_p=0) that the G.A. setup before Quinn was Governor? The governor cannot veto these automatic raises, only the G.A. can. How does that effect your sense of equal branches of government?===
And this is pertinent …how to today?
You just keep the Banana Republic going for the Glorious Leader, as the Deposed Glorious Leader thinks ALL should not be paid in his Dopey remarks.
“All Hail the Glorious Leader!” as the Palm Trees sway, and the town square fills …
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:12 pm:
–PQ needs to accept defeat and move on before he turns a partial political win into a total political loss.–
I think he likes the politics of it just fine, win or lose in the courts.
This stunt has probably lost its legs, but he’ll ride it as long as he can.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:14 pm:
I almost heard the howls of disappointment from the Tribune Tower in my far north suburb. I imagine the upcoming editorial should be interesting.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:21 pm:
@word,
Quinn will enjoy playing martyr as he continues sacrifice for Illinois citizens while the courts work against him.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:22 pm:
Now, to help Quinn, if you 100% “must” continue and you have to find an “off ramp”, this might be the best avenue;
If you are going to ride this to the SC, if I were you guys…
Keep up the rhetoric the best you can without getting cornered into the real decision, and having to answer the real questions as to why it failed.
The day before the SC is to hear, do your best to play “chicken” and then withdraw, citing that…
“The Process needs to move forward by the Legislative and the Executive, and continuing this in the Judicial this late in the game, when we ALL are so close, would not be LEADING.
I look forward to the Confrenece Committee report.”
Claim “victory” as close as you can to the Report. Get one change, ONE, so you can claim input to the process, and sign it into law and move on.
If … you ahve to keep this going, this might be the only map that helps before you might fall off a cliff on a “ZERO” vote for you in the SC’s ruling on your appeal.
I mean, are you THEN going to go after the SC Justices if they rule against you, citing “politics”? I hope not … do you really want to alientate both branches that are NOT the Executive?
This is not how I would advise going at all, no way, heck, I wouldn’t have had you go beyond what even Rod knew not to do …
But if you must, this might be your only “exit” on a road driving off a cliff.
- Tasty Grouper - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:26 pm:
Word - I don’t disagree with a word you said. I just think things like these have a way of getting away from the handler, if you know what I mean. A unanimous rebuke from the SC, coupled with the cost of the interest and litigation to the taxpayers. This could very well turn into a liability as opposed to the principled populist stand some make it out to be.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:29 pm:
The constitution says no change to legislative salaries during their term. I believe that means no change. The word change is well understood.
- Big Muddy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:35 pm:
Did Bill Brady really say “get down to brass tacks?” I sure hope he dusted his wig and straightened the corners of his hat before that interview.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:42 pm:
TG, you could be right, but I think Quinn’s betting the other way. I doubt if the issue has legs either way to next November.
But revenge is a dish best served cold and whether that will be coming from the GA in the veto session or next summer remains to be seen.
- So. Style - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:50 pm:
Ok……so Lawmakers want the Constitution followed when it involves their salary…….But want to disregard it on benefits to thousands of state workers…..Wow! When lawsuits are filed after illegal cuts in pension benefits are made, all attorneys will need to say is see the Cohen decision…Then the judge will say “Get out of my courtroom..State workers WIN!!!!
- NickyP3 - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 6:52 pm:
Pat Quinn continues to act like desperate lame duck. Quacking and quacking to the masses about how he’s the one looking out for them and he’s done so much for the average family. Pension “reform” is his train ride to re-election. Because big business has convinced the public and most of the the press that the only way to save Illinois’ economy is to stick it to every Government worker and retiree in State County or our local municipalities. This stunt was his way to be involved in the “sausage” making process of pension legislation that may never come.
- DuPage Dave - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:13 pm:
Hurray for the judge in this case invoking common sense. Quinn needs to take his lumps and move on. His veto was impulsive, irrational and indefensible. It finally made me write Quinn off. I had formerly defended him as a poor Governor but basically a decent guy. No more.
And the really creepy thing is I think he has about a 60% chance of being re-elected.
- unbelievable - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:14 pm:
@So. Style
Ok……so Lawmakers want the Constitution followed when it involves their salary……
The biggest reason for the impasse was because a whole of lot of legislators dug their heels in and said no. It was portrayed by the conservative folks who said they were just beholden to the unions and too scared or weak to go against them. In reality, there are a lot of legislators..both Dem and Repub who truly believe that the frame of this argument is just wrong. They know that 80% of our retirees don’t get social security and if their benefits are slashed right when they expected them, they will turn to medicaid and other social services to make up the difference.
There are very real differences of ideology at play here, contrary to what the civic society wants people to believe. So its not all legislators…the reason we are at an impasse is because some of those legislators refused to be bullied into voting for something they found patently unconstitutional. That’s why SB1 went down twice in the senate.
- A Citizen - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:37 pm:
It is a loose for PQ and is now a mute issue - No president set.
- Amuzing Myself - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:41 pm:
If he goes forward and appeals, he will be more and more like the ridiculous excuse for a Governor he took over for. Government by press release. Refusal to do the right thing at the expense of political points. “I don’t care what the court says, I’m right” mentality. I’m having flashbacks, because the psychological labels thrown around back then are beginning to fit a little too well. Too bad most voters don’t care enough to be mad about this kind of behavior.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:46 pm:
It is a loss for PQ and is now a moot issue - No precedent set.
Fixed!
- A Citizen - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 7:51 pm:
Indeed !
- DirtNap - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 8:03 pm:
“A Citizen” was being ……….well ,a citizen.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 8:27 pm:
Just wondering, how’s the governor doing with coming up with a pension reform plan? That is the whole point of all of this, isn’t it? To pass pension reform? An appeal of this ruling helps that how?
- Leatherneck - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 8:28 pm:
Midlevel (in reply to your 2:54 PM post):
Part of AFSCME 31’s reaction to the paycheck ruling is also organizing a petition for workers to tell the GA that they want their back wages (i.e., back raises) restored too in the veto session–as this link indicates:
http://action.afscme.org/c/293/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7184
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 8:38 pm:
The Motion for Staying the circuit court’s Order, set for 10:30 a.m. tomorrow now, really first needs to be resolved before the Comptroller rushes to ensure some legislators have their paychecks directly deposited–otherwise JBT could find herself in quite the bind IF the Motion is granted…!
In any event, the Governor, of course, has every right to take his Appeal forward to the Illinois Supreme Court–which obviously will be interesting, and given the 88% of Illinoisans who agreed that the Governor was right with his Initial Action back in July, accdng. to an NBC Chicago “Flash” Poll (see “Quinn Appeals Judge’s Decision To Resume Illinois Lawmakers’ Pay”), it certainly should’nt hurt him much with what is apparently a solid majority of voters (at least in Chicagoland) to happily and ardently pursue the Appeal.
After all, after reading over a good part of the JORGENSEN case (similar in many regards, as many now know, but also unique to its’ own facts involving the applicable laws and Constitutional provisions pertaining to the Judicial Branch, at least ARguably leaving open a not unreasonable possibility for a different Ruling in the present case) I believe it took something around 6 MONTHS between the time of the circuit court’s Order and the Il. Supreme Court’s written Opinion to be issued! Yet, the “expeditious determination” provision under Il. Sup. Ct. Rule 302 might encourage the High Court to resolve the matter in less than a HALF a YEAR from now…!
Any way you shake it, both in terms of political realities in helping Pat Quinn continue to take on the role of the Crusader for the People (while the ACTUAL/extremely SERIOUS Financial Woe of the Legislature not having yet worked out the $100 BILLION Crisis on the URgent need for Pension Reform lingers ON), Constitutional Interpretation, and just sheer Drama, sure makes it intriguing for the rest of us Illinoisans to observe from a distance…!
- OLD BRASS - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 8:43 pm:
I find it comforting that the “Leaders” quickly utilized the constitution to support their cause….hopefully they will remember and apply this same constitution when they go back to their work on the pension cause.
- No Sense - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 9:30 pm:
Amen, for the Constitution. With the pension problem if they would have paid back the money and funded it like they were supposed to we would not have to deal with this situation. Now that the coals on the fire let the blaze begin.
Remember they’re the ones that got us into this mess.
- lost in the weeds - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 10:09 pm:
Hmmm.
Asking or making people work without pay or for reduced pay in breach of contract is unconstitional.
Who’d a thunk it!
- Obamas Puppy - Thursday, Sep 26, 13 @ 11:08 pm:
Yeah instead of middle class teachers and public employees having a voice we should jut hand it over to hedge fund managers who have made Billions off of those same workers they now want to steal from. Rauner has no morals or conscious. It will be fun to watch his concession speech.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 27, 13 @ 8:02 am:
You know at this point I would have to say the entertainment value of CapFax comments if Rauner wins the whole thing would be priceless…
But to the issue. I don’t think anyone wants this power in the hands of future governors. Glad it looks like the courts agree.
- foster brooks - Friday, Sep 27, 13 @ 8:52 am:
I’m glad rauner is staying right on message “union boss’s”
Get real dude
- The DuPage Bard - Friday, Sep 27, 13 @ 9:07 am:
Interesting turn of events yesterday. I’m sure legislators are cheering, PQ is fuming and Illinois is still waiting.
Hearing Brady’s comments gives me pause that he will be claiming victory for pension reform. PQ had better get into that committee game show if he doesn’t want Brady to barrage him with “you played politics, I solved the problem, who’s the real leader now?”
There is Brady’s path to victory, that may have an unintended consequence of PQ’s veto. He utilized it to help himself in the primary. The legislators didn’t bite, Brady got on the committee and if they come through, Bill will be the only Gov. candidate who actually fixed the pensions.
This is assuming that the committee can bring a solution forward. I know a big assumption.