92 Comments - Formerly Known As... - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:04 pm: He definitely set himself up for that one, and a few more likely to come. Even so, with Jimenez making less than the salary Rauner is passing on, we still come out ahead by a bit and save some money. - A guy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:06 pm: In his approach, there’s going to have to be an ROI for what people do. People will sacrifice, but they can’t work for nothing unless they’re uber rich. A lot of the talent pool he’s looking at may be at half, even at 100K. Some may be able to do that. Some not. He has decided the value of what the CoS for the First Lady is. She’ll justify it or not. I’ll bet she does. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:08 pm: I have said this twice before, going to say it again; Mrs. Blagojevich and Mrs. Ryan had Staff. I have no beef. Rauner though, has two huge holes in this hire; Any state layoffs will point to a $100K state employee working forca First Lady who works full-time… …which is the second hole, is a full-time, $100K state employee spevdung time also helping an organization’s president whose organization gets state monies, …and… …is there a conflict of interest with an Executive Branch executive employees so close to a special interest president? Lots of “problems” there… - Apocalypse Now - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:09 pm: What was the salary of the Chief of Staff or Mrs. Blago? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:09 pm: ===Mrs. Blagojevich and Mrs. Ryan had Staff=== As did Mrs. Edgar, as did Mrs. Thompson… - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:10 pm: @A guy: Using that logic basically what he said is that he doesn’t think state employees are worth what they are making. It’s pretty insulting. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:12 pm: === ===Mrs. Blagojevich and Mrs. Ryan had Staff=== As did Mrs. Edgar, as did Mrs. Thompson…=== Yes. 100%. I have zero beef with the hiring. Precedent is solid, very solid. - AnalystRet - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:12 pm: There ought to be much more scrutiny of the 6-figure salaries being paid to too many of the people in the upper echelons of the State, including the Governor’s direct staff, especially for those who do not have professional credentials to match, nor the years of experience that justify the high salaries. How many agency administrators, for example, have degrees either in public administration or professional credentials in the field related to their agencies? - Apocalypse Now - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:14 pm: =There might be a tiny uproar over her hiring of a state-paid chief of staff at $100K per year in a supposed age of austerity, but that’s been done in the past, so unless somebody really wants to scream loudly and long about it (and I doubt that’ll happen), it’ll pass soon.= From Rich Miller posting of Jan 21, 2015. Must be a slow news day. - Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:14 pm: Guy, read the story.Jiminez is getting a raise from her current public sector job. She’s not taking a cut coming from a private sector job. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:14 pm: BTW, I dont’ have a problem with this. It’s just bad optics. Welcome to governing. - From the 'Dale to HP - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:20 pm: Huh? ======= “Well, here’s the issue,” he said. “We’ve got to restructure our government so we’re efficient, effective and transparent. We’re going to get that done. And we’ll have the money, if we do that, and if we become a booming economy, so we can support facilities like this and put more money into education.” ======= First, when is this going to get done? Is there a plan and timeline for this? And how major will this restructuring going to be? Is it just changing up who reports to who, or is this more about eliminating offices? Second, where is this money coming from? And how do we become a booming economy by divesting in the state? - A guy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:21 pm: === Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:10 pm: @A guy: Using that logic basically what he said is that he doesn’t think state employees are worth what they are making. It’s pretty insulting.=== Demo, in some cases, I think he means precisely that. In others, he may believe someone is making too much leading someone who might be making too little. This may come out better for some real stalwarts. Let’s see. - Norseman - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:22 pm: I don’t begrudge Sara her money, but this demonstrate’s Rauner’s hypocrisy. Attacking generalities is so much easier than dealing with specifics. His folks will always be the cream of the crop and require higher salaries and raises. Other state employees whether assessed or not will be the waste. I’m ready for Act two when this joker will have to do more than spew vitriol. - Jeeves the Cat - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:25 pm: Slogging through the weeds, but starting to form a definition for “essential” state spending. Still curious about what inessential spending is going to look like though. The trial balloon floated made it sound like inessential will include poor sick people and anyone involved in delivering services directly to Illinois residents. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:25 pm: ==“Well, here’s the issue,” he said. “We’ve got to restructure our government so we’re efficient, effective and transparent. We’re going to get that done. And we’ll have the money, if we do that, and if we become a booming economy, so we can support facilities like this and put more money into education.”== The Rauner brand is about doing things differently and more efficiently. So, “other first spouses had a CoS” should mean nothing. The standard being set is very clear: “We’ve got to restructure our government so we’re efficient, effective and transparent.” The first stop needs to be the Governor’s office or there will accusations of hypocrisy and no buy-in for what is already going to be a tough sell. If the First Spouse needs a Chief of Staff, everyone needs to ask “Why? What governmental function does this position serve? Can we operate efficiently & effectively without it?” Those, I presume, are questions many agencies are going to be asked over the next few months and years. It should start at the very top. - Katiedid - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:26 pm: I agree it’s the optics and not about this position at all. The position makes sense and I have no problem at all with it (and I certainly don’t know enough about what it entails to know what salary it would require, so I’m completely fine with that, too). What’s hard to justify is saying “many people are coming in at salaries well below what they made in the private sector” while at the exact same time, you’re claiming “the average public sector worker in the state makes almost 22 percent more than those in the private sector.” Which one is it? Note that I actually think it’s the former and not the latter, but he can’t claim both at the same time. - Formerly Known As... - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:26 pm: ==which is the second hole, is a full-time, $100K state employee spevdung time also helping an organization’s president whose organization gets state monies== Willy nails it. This particular ==hole== starts off small but will grow bigger with time. Once the honeymoon is really over, this will make for a heap of bad optics and possibly bad press. Every dollar in public funding her group gets will likely be criticized by those who lose a dollar in public funding, even if her group experiences some funding cuts themselves. - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:27 pm: @A guy: If you’re fine with this rhetoric that makes one of us. His actions haven’t done much for morale among workers. I know that plays well for outsiders like you so I understand why he is doing it. Doesn’t make it any less insulting. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:31 pm: With respect to funding educational facilities, there are two ways to look at the expense. Rauner seems to be saying that we should spend money on education until the state’s economy improves. The flip side of the argument is that the state’s economy will improve more quickly if we have a workforce that is well educated. I tend to favor the latter approach as an investment in the future. During the campaign, Rauner promised more funding for education. Now, I wonder if he is back off on the investment approach. - SHS - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:33 pm: All of this discussion about what previous “first-ladies” had or did not have misses the mark. The Governor announced on day one that all “non-essential” spending had to be cut “to the bone.” Then he added a $100,000 spending to the budget. What he really did was insult the voter’s intelligence. - Siriusly - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:35 pm: This hire makes a lot of sense. The problem is not that he needs to justify the spending, the problem is that he continues to say the state is bloated. As awful as Blago was, he dramatically reduced state employment headcount. We are far from bloated. Rauner needs a reality check, he cannot cut his way out any more than we can expect him to be an effective Governor without good staffers. - Del Clinkton - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:42 pm: Thank you “SHS” and “Siriusly” for your posts. That is exactly the problem. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:50 pm: The easy way for, very specifically, Governor Bruce Rauner could have the CoS issue go off the table is pay the $100K out of campaign, and have the First Lady’s CoS work with Rauner’s governmental staff…but… The First Lady’s CoS gets no service years, no medical insurance… So, could one reason that the First Lady’s CoS stays on the state paytoll be…the benefits? Hmm. Interesting, since Rauner himself sees state employment through 401K eyes and paying more for medical(?) Just asking… - Rusty618 - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:53 pm: “We are going to try to offer salaries that are competitive (to) get the talent in,” I hope the Governor remembers this in June when the contract runs out for many well educated, well trained, well experienced and talented state employees! - White Denim - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:02 pm: If I’m reading this correctly, and I think I am, I agree with Rich. Much ado about nothing. Rauner is not wrong to point out that there is waste in government, and that sometimes includes overpaid state employees. The notion that every last person on the state dime is a dedicated and diehard public servant doesn’t pass the laugh test. There are* people who are overpaid. Is it everyone? No. Is it even “most”? No. But there are some. And you can say that, but still justify paying your higher-ups six figures. - Walter Mitty - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:06 pm: Gang… The precedent is clear. If it makes you feel better. Bruce is forgoing a salary. Paying the chief of staff is a net gain… No there..there.. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:08 pm: ===Paying the chief of staff is a net gain=== Not sure that’s valid since we have a bunch of new czars on the payroll. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:10 pm: “Well, here’s the issue,” he said. “We’ve got to restructure our government so we’re efficient, effective and transparent. We’re going to get that done. And we’ll have the money, if we do that, and if we become a booming economy, so we can support facilities like this and put more money into education.” Stop saying this, please. At least start adding, “As you probably know”, or “As I’ve stated before”, or “You’ve probably heard me say this a million times, but…” Better - just stop saying it. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:12 pm: Rauner says he has to pay talent hire salaries because they are coming from the private sector, implying they are being paid more in the private sector than in state government. Didn’t Rauner recently say state employees make more than the private sector. Which is it? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:13 pm: === - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:08 pm ===Paying the chief of staff is a net gain=== Not sure that’s valid since we have a bunch of new czars on the payroll.=== This makes me wonder; I guess I can see how headcount matters little when overall salaries are higher and higher… Where did I hear that argument before about state employees? Where have I heard a governor talk about bloated salaries for workers not reflecting that the head count isn’t the problem, it’s the salaries and benefits are hurting Illinois… What Governor made that case… or is making that case more accurate(?) - Norseman - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:14 pm: === Not sure that’s valid since we have a bunch of new czars on the payroll. === Well said. I’d add with overlapping responsibilities of staff previously announced. Stay tuned for the new reality series: “Rauner Staff Ego Wars.” - forwhatitsworth - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:15 pm: I remember my father telling me a few years ago that he didn’t think any guy was worth $100,000 a year - just to play professional baseball! It seems like there’s a lot of psychology that goes with certain numbers that really isn’t based on anything other than personal beliefs and prejudices. Is a $64,000 average salary really too much? According to who? - Norseman - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:19 pm: Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:12 pm. Don’t spoil the Rauner narrative. P.S. Pick a name - makes for more interesting dialogue. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:19 pm: Overpaid or not, I can’t think of a better way to create disgruntled state employees than saying they’re all overpaid and now I’m going to give a nice big salary to my wife’s assistant. No skimping when it comes to the guv/wife…only others. Did our governor never hear that you catch more flies with honey? I can’t imagine any employee wanting to give their all, do their best when their boss is trashing them (publicly) and making them feel unappreciated, ugly. I wonder what it was like to work for him in other capacities in the past? - Del Clinkton - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:21 pm: @walter mitty: Could care less Bruce decided to take a job and not get paid for it. His problem not mine. If he wanted to be an intern then why not apply through the normal channels. Then he could be refilling Michael Madigans copier paper and learning about the job, without any expectations. He could still drive the old van and wear carhartts. Not a big deal that he isnt collecting a paycheck except in Bruces own mind. What is IT with this state and Governors with some kind of Anti-Social Disorder? - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:21 pm: ==Paying the chief of staff is a net gain== Not necessarily. The new standard is: “We’ve got to restructure our government so we’re efficient, effective and transparent.” Is it efficient & effective to have a CoS for someone who has no position and no staff? Perhaps, but the case has not been made, and “…if we become a booming economy, so we can support like this…” For a governor promoting an austerity budget, this seems like an odd precedent. He could have said “While previous Governors have appointed staff for the First Spouse, I am not going to do that. Mrs. Rauner’s Chief of Staff will be a campaign staff position paid for with campaign funds because the job is primarily to promote our policies.” That would have been a good precedent. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:24 pm: I can recall scheduling a visit with Mrs Ryan and dealing with 2-3 staffers or assistants she had. Somehow I get the impression that a little bit of digging may result in Diana’s one employee to be less expensive than past days. - White Denim - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:27 pm: So Del, in your mind it IS a big deal that Mrs. Rauner’s CoS makes $100k, but it is NOT a big deal that Mr. Rauner takes no pay for himself? What kind of logic is that? Seems like there are a lot of people talking out of both sides of their mouth. Should state employees work for free or should they be compensated for working hard? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:27 pm: - Louis G. Atsaves -, Well, if the headcount for Mrs. Rauner remains at 1… Very symbolic title and duties; A chief with no indians(?) The “CoS” is the…Chief of “Self”…if you will? - Old Shepherd - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:29 pm: Rauner brought this mini-controversy on himself with his “essential spending” rhetoric. It will only get worse when the cuts start coming. $100,000 would pay the salary and benefits of two Pre-K teachers. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:31 pm: ===So Del, in your mind it IS a big deal that Mrs. Rauner’s CoS makes $100k, but it is NOT a big deal that Mr. Rauner takes no pay for himself? What kind of logic is that?=== Um, - White Denim -, Please refer to - Rich Miller - comment at 1:08 pm. If you are still this dense after reading that comment, no one will be able to help you. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:31 pm: === A chief with no indians(?)=== She’ll also supervise Mansion staff. - Walter Mitty - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:33 pm: The other Governors had the position. The other Governors did not forgo a salary. How hard would it be to find quotes from every Governor that said we need to be fiscally responsible? Come on… R-E-L-A-X…The only good thing ever from a Packer…. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:33 pm: Rich, Thanks for the clarification, and now you know why I had the “(?)” at the end. - Team Sleep - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:35 pm: Mrs. Sleep and I had this (generic) discussion last night. Too many people in state government and politics think that things are okay or should just continue because there is precedence. That not only does NOT make it okay, but it is also a lazy argument for allowing a damaging practice or ill-conceived practice to continue. Mr. Rauner should have known there would be blowback, and hiring an insider who has already held three high-profile and exempt positions is not the best way to endear yourself to those who voted for you. - Tommydanger - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:36 pm: Last I knew, the salary of the governor is fixed by law. He can write a check back to the state treasury or donate his salary to charity, but I believe he will be issued a check for his salary like all other elected officials - White Denim - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:38 pm: Willy, Deep breaths. I never said that there was a “net gain,” so that comment doesn’t apply to me. My point is pretty simple; I’ll say it again in case I was unclear: You can believe that there are state workers who are overpaid, and justify paying high ranking employees “competitive salaries.” The two things do not contradict each other. You cannot, however, howl from the rooftops that Rauner is wrong about how state employees are overpaid and then demand that he not pay people in those long standing state positions a “competitive salary.” Those two things do, in fact, contradict each other. Make sense now? - ChiTown Seven - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:40 pm: Rauner and his people are showing a startling sign of ignorance as to how state funds can be committed and spent. I’m pretty sure there’s no appropriation authority to pay someone to staff an office that was created ex nihilo (that is, office of the first lady). Perhaps they could get away with this on an unofficial basis, but when they try to do it officially? I don’t think it’s going to fly, especially if someone asks the AG for her opinion on this. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:46 pm: - White Denim -, Rauner will decide which is which? Is this where the Two Bobs come in and ask what wverybody does? lol - Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:49 pm: In the past, weren’t aides to the governors wives ghost payrollers, officially on staff at some agency? Where does this CoS get paid from, officially? - Ginhouse Tommy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:50 pm: The problem with this hire is that while other 1st Ladies had staff, the Governor was not calling for draconian cuts the state headcount and budget. There is no doubt that some state employees, especially those who have connections are way over paid, but the Governor is going to have to practice what he preaches if he wants any public support. Do more with less I think is the proper catch phrase. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 1:55 pm: === Where does this CoS get paid from, officially?=== In the Rauner reorganization of governmevt… She will start out as “Food and Beverage Chairman” and in a year they will move her to “Casino Executive”… - Del Clinkton - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:01 pm: @white: Unimpressed that Bruce wants to play “Governor-Intern”. If he was thinking about a career change there are mechanisms to apply to become an intern in State Government. Then, like I said, if he was lucky he could be refilling Madigan’s stapler while learning about state government. And then at least the State wouldnt be on the hook if he gets hurt on state property. Unlike now. - What A Mess - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:07 pm: ==All of this discussion about what previous “first-ladies” had or did not have misses the mark. The Governor announced on day one that all “non-essential” spending had to be cut “to the bone.” Then he added a $100,000 spending to the budget.== This is it, exactly. Who gives a flip what Blago and Ryan did? That’s utterly irrelevant, considering Rauner’s vows to shake up Springfield and his promises to start doing things differently. So what if the COS also supervises the mansion staff? We need to pay someone $100K to do that? That’s ridiculous. Rauner said he was going to streamline government and make it more efficient. If that’s the case, hand mansion operations over to an existing state agency. None of this matters if Rauner fixes things. But it’s not a good start. - Del Clinkton - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:08 pm: As far as CoS goes. Bruce spent $36 a voter to drive around in his old van and carhartts to tell us that government is corrupt. Then, just like Blago….he starts hiring his own patronage army for his wife, Tammy. At 100K a year. That doesnt even work in the business world he supposedly comes from. - Hopefully - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:10 pm: On a positive note, the coming era or Raunersterity, will most likely usher in a leftist governor 4 years from now. If Greece has taught us anything. - Gooner - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:16 pm: I’m just not buying the “Prior Gov’s did it” excuse. We are in our current shape because we’ve had a string of lousy governors doing stupid and/or corrupt stuff. People voted for Rauner because they wanted change. Instead, we get a person who had no official role in state government having a COS. It is pure waste. It is business as usual in Illinois, despite the fact that voters wanted the opposite. Rauner can claim to be frugal and can tell us all about his van and his watch, but when it comes down to our dollars, he wants his wife to have staff. - vibes - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:28 pm: Wish Botterman were still here to comment on the Harper College silliness. He’s looking down with a few choice words. Seriously, how do you agree to cut a ribbon for a project if you can’t say you’d support it? - Team Sleep - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:29 pm: Gooner - great minds think alike. - Joe Bidenopolous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:40 pm: “Because it’s always been done” is usually a terrible reason to continue a practice in the absence of legitimate reason. History’s roadside is littered with the discarded detritus of bad actions and bad policy that were once accepted as normal. I won’t deign to compare this to some of history’s more egregious practices, but for instance, once upon a time, a lobbyist could walk on to the floor of the House and hand a legislator a check. That was considered normal and had precedent and yet we’ve discontinued the practice for good reason. Precedent shouldn’t matter a lick. What should matter is whether an unpaid family member of a government official should be provided taxpayer paid staff when there are literally no official duties other than standing next to their spouse. And in this case, the Governor’s own words about the need for austerity are now ridiculed as hypocritical, which they should be. Mrs. Rauner doesn’t need staff, no matter whether it’s been done in the past or not. And Governor Rauner has shown that he can’t cast off the image of the plutocrat because - SURPRISE - he is one. - Formerly Known As... - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 2:53 pm: ==Unimpressed that Bruce wants to play “Governor-Intern”.== It would be better for our state’s financial situation if the ==rich guy== took his public salary rather than returning it to the state? It is not billions, but it is still over 175K. - Rob Lowe - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:05 pm: Do you get Direct TV with the $100k? - Bibe - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:07 pm: From the Personnel Code: “Qualifications Above Minimum Requirements – If a candidate possesses directly-related education and experience in excess of the minimum requirements of the class specification, the employing agency may offer the candidate an entrance base salary that is not more than 5% above the candidate’s current base salary. Any deviation from the 5% maximum is a special salary adjustment.” The regulations don’t apply to the Governor’s staff, but they apply to the rest of us. How do you give a raise to the First Lady’s Chief of (no)Staff that is greater than personnel code covered employees are allowed to get and continue to say and believe that State employees are overpaid? - Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:11 pm: @Bibe Special salary adjustments aren’t all that uncommon. - Anyone Remember - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:17 pm: Oswego Willy - And the following year the job title will be … Executive Mansion Dog Walker? - Bibe - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:19 pm: I won’t pretend I have the statistics on how common or uncommon they are…but I do know of dozens of State employees who were told during the Quinn administration that the only raise they could be offered if they agreed to take on the additional responsibilities of management and leave their union-protected position is a 5% raise. This is the world we have been living in for a decade. Rauner must understand this would never fly in the private sector so what exactly is this plan of his going to be to cut the bloated salaries? - forwhatitsworth - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:32 pm: I’ve seen some comments suggesting that Gov. Rauner pay for his wife’s chief-of-staff from campaign funds. Wouldn’t that disqualify Sara’s service credit for one of those golden state pensions? - anon - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:36 pm: == Rauner says he has to pay talent higher salaries because they are coming from the private sector, implying they are being paid more in the private sector than in state government. Didn’t Rauner recently say state employees make more than the private sector. Which is it? == Good catch! Gov. Rauner can’t have it both ways. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:41 pm: “if we become a booming economy, so we can support facilities like this and put more money into education.” It seems to me that he is putting the cart before the horse. How do you have a booming economy if the trained workforce needed for industry is not available? My college opened a similar new building last year. It was designed and built in close cooperation with local business leaders so we can produce the skilled workers that they need. Who does the training if the community colleges can’t? - A guy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:42 pm: === Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 12:14 pm: Guy, read the story.Jiminez is getting a raise from her current public sector job. She’s not taking a cut coming from a private sector job.==== Do you know if she had any other source of income that she can no longer pursue with the new position or any other sacrifice she might have to make to take this job? I read the story. I also know that there are always other things to consider beyond salary alone. This isn’t a huge raise and might make other income not possible. She may have to move. I know what I read. I just don’t know what I didn’t. You don’t either. - Team Sleep - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:42 pm: Bibe - what do you mean that would never fly in the private sector? Are you telling me that someone who rockets from middle management for a Fortune 500 company to upper management should never expect to receive more than 5% bump in pay?! That is ridiculous. Some of those limitations you mentioned are partially due to pushback from union leadership and applied mostly to people accepting promotions within an agency or with another agency. IDOT staffers were warned that they would be capped at such a raise if they accepted a promotion - but that was only applicable to accepting a promotion within IDOT or another agency. That was not applicable if someone left IDOT or Revenue or Ag to work as an executive officer staff member. - G'Kar - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:43 pm: Sorry, the post at 3:41 was mine. - JS Mill - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 3:48 pm: When you tell everyone that you see that you are going to reorganize “everything” then everything you do will be under scrutiny. That is the simple reality. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:01 pm: ==Rauner must understand this would never fly in the private sector so what exactly is this plan of his going to be to cut the bloated salaries? == LOL. Have you seen the uptick in average exec pay? This is how they do things in the private sector. Folks in the exec suite make big bucks while everyone else sees pay level-off or decline and contributes more for benefits (whose value has declined). In addition, full-time jobs are typically cut or converted to part-time. This is the new economy driven by folks like Rauner. It makes perfect sense that he would make the same moves in state government as he did in business. In fact, it’s what he promised to do. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:17 pm: - A Guy… -, Now that I know you’re in the communications business, seeing the spinning is easier; ===Do you know if she had any other source of income that she can no longer pursue with the new position or any other sacrifice she might have to make to take this job?=== She’s getting a bump in pay and will be the point person for Illinois’ First Lady. That’s the gig, you choose to take it or not. That’s it, like any other job. ===I read the story. I also know that there are always other things to consider beyond salary alone. This isn’t a huge raise and might make other income not possible.=== So, you know she has other income? What other income are you driving at? Again, you take a job, that it. Right now, this job has some heat, so spin all you want, Rauner brought the spotlight on the gig with his rhetoric. ===She may have to move. I know what I read. I just don’t know what I didn’t. You don’t either.=== Mitigating factors are part of all job changes. What, she is the only person in the history of ever to have mitigating circumstances? Spin is just spin. She got the gig, this comes with it right now. - Emily Booth - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:47 pm: A man who earns over $100 million in 3 years who sees a $64K salary as a problem is a scary man. - Amalia - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:49 pm: Do as I campaigned, not as my wife requires me to do. - A guy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:49 pm: Willy, I’m trying very hard to discern where we disagree on your recap. No, I don’t know her or if she had another income. I don’t know if she’s married to someone, or if she is, if there are any conflicts that could negatively affect a spouse’s income. I don’t know any of these things. I do know she’s making 100K and used to make $91K. I don’t know if she’s got to move and lose a little equity on real estate or not. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 4:58 pm: - A Guy… -, It’s all good, the spinning fir no reason isn’t needed is all. I only worry of her being put in a bad spot with Ounce of Prevention, grants and/or monies to them and she caught in the middle of some goofy, no reason, tempest in a tea cup. I worry for her more than anything… - Wordslinger - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 5:14 pm: Guy, apparently you don’t understand what Rauner has been saying about overpaid public employees and non-essential spending. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 6:28 pm: - No, I don’t know her or if she had another income. I don’t know if she’s married to someone, or if she is, if there are any conflicts that could negatively affect a spouse’s income. I don’t know any of these things. I do know she’s making 100K and used to make $91K. I don’t know if she’s got to move and lose a little equity on real estate or not. - The answers are yes, no, and no. This is precisely a $9k raise, nothing less, nothing more. As Rich noted, we didn’t have a First Lady for 6 years, much less a CoS for the First Lady. I don’t much care either way, but I can’t fathom how the position could be classified as essential, regardless of the pay. - Macoupin Minority - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 6:55 pm: Blago may have reduced headcount, but the salaries that he gave his new hires and the existing employees that played his game were rewarded with pretty hefty salaries. Oh yeah Blago’s reduction in headcount cost the taxpayers money in litigation as a result. How soon we forget. - DuPage Dave - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 6:56 pm: Rauner wants to play the reformer, but you can’t be a reformer and cite precedent (i.e., previous First Ladies had chiefs of staff) to justify your decision. When we are told that every dollar counts, it’s pretty tough to stomach this type of baloney. This is not shaking up Springfield, it’s business as usual. This smacks of Quinn’s move in giving management staff pay cuts (in the form of furloughs) while giving Kelly Kraft a 48 percent raise. At least those two are both off the payroll now. - northernwatersports - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 7:03 pm: Two points: Vibes @ 2:28pm You’re absolutely right! Botterman’s head is about to explode. May the lightening from above come to strike down the hypocrisy. Oh….Rauner’s hypocrisy will only be echoed again later this session by Sen. Murphy. You watch. Second: ==If the First Spouse needs a Chief of Staff, everyone needs to ask “Why? What governmental function does this position serve? Can we operate efficiently & effectively without it?” Those, I presume, are questions many agencies are going to be asked over the next few months and years. It should start at the very top.== Absolutely a bulls-eye! The bad optics for Rauner are going to come back to haunt him if he doesn’t fix this little thing fast and first. If he wants her to have a CoS, pay the salary from the campaign. But even better optics for him would be to have her do her own thing. She runs a large non-profit that gets state funds. Its time for Bruce to walk the walk. - Anonymous - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 7:42 pm: Same Old Stuff - SAP - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 8:29 pm: I suggest amending the proposed constitutional amendment combining the treasurer’s and comptroller’s office to prohibit married people from running for Governor to save the cost to taxpayers from costs associated with First Lady staff. - anon - Monday, Jan 26, 15 @ 10:20 pm: What the heck does a First Lady Assistant do for 100K a year? Just asking. - NoGifts - Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 5:45 am: What are the job requirements? When was the position posted and how did people apply for it? - mythoughtis - Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 6:58 am: I don’t have a problem with the hire itself. My problem comes in the form of paying $100,000 a year for what amounts to a personal assistant….when the rest of the state workers are considered overpaid (according to the Governor). Let’s see the comparisons to the private sector for each of the new Governors’ hires. Do the homework for these positions, and then do the same comparison for all the state employee titles. Then tell me who’s overpaid. - G'Kar - Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:17 am: I read in the paper yesterday that Mrs Ryan had two women on her staff that both made 81K. The article mentioned that in today’s dollars it would be 108K. - Larry Mullholland - Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:55 am: First Lady Chief of Staff criticism is a little over the top. The First Ladies receive a great deal of appearance requests & can provide a fair amount of speeches. Some have created programs and helped shape State policy. There is a great deal of interaction between and among the Gov’s Staff and that of a First Lady Staff, and it’s not always a honeymoon. It can be argued there may have been occasions when the First Ladies have assisted in gaining support or opposition to a Governor’s initiatives. Historically, the COS position is not a “personal assistant” it was described above. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.