Sexual harassment allegations against former state Treasurer Dan Rutherford can move forward in a politically charged federal lawsuit that helped doom the Central Illinois Republican’s 2014 bid for governor.
In a 29-page decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow denied Rutherford’s request to dismiss former employee Edmund Michalowski’s claim that he was forced to work in a hostile environment.
In a lawsuit filed in February 2014 — five weeks before the Republican primary for governor — Michalowski alleged his former boss grabbed at his genitals in the guest bedroom of Rutherford’s rural Chenoa home and on two occasions grabbed his arm before making sexual comments.
Rutherford, of Chenoa, has denied the charges, but Lefkow said the claims have merit.
“These allegations go ‘beyond offhand comments and into physical assault’ and raise the possibility of severe or pervasive sexual harassment from a speculative to a plausible level,” Lefkow wrote.
Unions late Thursday filed a motion to dismiss the case Rauner filed against them in federal court last month.
Rauner wants a judge in Chicago — and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court — to declare so-called “fair share” dues unconstitutional. He also issued an executive order ending the requirement that nonmembers pay the dues.
The unions’ motion filed in U.S. District Court says the issue should be decided in state court because it’s a question of state law.
The Court must dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. The Governor’s claim does not “aris[e] under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1331, because the federal question the Governor identifies – whether fair-share fees violate the First Amendment – would be raised only as a defense to a state law proceeding to enforce the fair-share provisions. The Governor also lacks standing to bring this suit in federal court because the state law and state contracts do not affect him in his personal capacity.
Alternatively, the Court should dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, because fair-share provisions are a constitutional means of preventing free riding in a system of exclusive representative collective bargaining. “The First Amendment permits the government to require both public sector and private sector employees who do not wish to join a union designated as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative at their unit of employment to pay that union a service fee.” Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207, 213 (2009) (unanimous decision).
The only federal issue identified in the Governor’s declaratory judgment complaint is whether fair-share fees violate the First Amendment. That First Amendment issue would arise only as a defense to the Unions’ hypothetical state law action to enforce the fair-share provisions of their contracts or to set aside the Governor’s Executive Order as inconsistent with the IPLRA.
The Unions’ hypothetical, well-pleaded claim for breach of contract would not present a federal question. See Minn. Elevator, Inc. v. Imperial Elevator Servs., 758 F. Supp. 2d 533, 537 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (elements of a breach of contract claim under Illinois law). The issue whether provisions of the contract are unconstitutional would be raised, if at all, only as a defense to the state-law breach-of-contract claim. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Titan Int’l, Inc., 400 F.3d 486, 900 (7th Cir. 2005) (illegality of the contract is an affirmative defense under Illinois law); Am. Buyers Club of Mt. Vernon, Ill. Inc. v. Grayling, 368 N.E.2d 1057, 1059 (5th Dist. 1977); see also Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airlines Sys., 587 F. Supp. 2d 888, 890 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (“Plaintiff brought state-law breach of contract claims. Because the conditions and limits of the Montreal Convention are defenses to the state-law claims raised by plaintiff, they do not provide a basis for federal-question subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Nor would a hypothetical, well-pleaded claim by the Unions to set aside the Executive Order as contrary to the IPLRA present a federal question. The IPLRA states on its face that it prevails over executive orders, 5 ILCS 315/15(a), and state statutes are presumed to be constitutional, see People v. Garcia, 770 N.E.2d 208, 209 (Ill. 2002). An argument that the fair-share provisions of the IPLRA are not valid would be raised, if at all, only as a defense to the Unions’ claim.
State officials lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of state law in federal court where the officials are not personally adversely affected – that is, where their interest is official, rather than personal. For example, in Smith v. Indiana, 191 U.S. 138 (1903), a county auditor brought an action alleging that a state property tax statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that:
the jurisdiction of this court . . . can only be invoked by a party having a personal interest in the litigation. It follows that he cannot sue out a writ of error in behalf of third persons. . . . It is evident that the auditor had no personal interest in the litigation. He had certain duties as a public officer to perform. The performance of those duties was of no personal benefit to him. Their nonperformance was equally so. He neither gained nor lost anything by invoking the advice of the supreme court [of Indiana] as to the proper action he should take. He was testing the constitutionality of the law purely in the interest of third persons, viz., the taxpayers. . . . We think the interest of an appellant in this court should be a personal, and not an official, interest.
The Seventh Circuit, in D’Amico v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 903 (7th Cir. 1983), similarly “dismissed for want of standing a suit brought by administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration who were complaining that a directive by their superiors required them to decide social security cases in a manner contrary to law,” because “they did not suggest that compliance with the directive would reduce their pay or benefits or increase their work or anything of the sort.” Cronson v. Clark, 810 F.2d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 1987) (discussing D’Amico). D’Amico determined that “these administrative law judges . . . are the wrong people to be raising with us the question whether the challenged instruction is lawful.” D’Amico, 698 F.2d at 906; see also Finch v. Miss. St. Med. Ass’n, 585 F.2d 765, 774 (5th Cir. 1978) (Governor of Mississippi lacked standing to challenge constitutionality of state law).
Here, the Governor’s complaint does not identify any personal interest in this case sufficient to confer standing. The Governor is not personally subject to a fair-share requirement. Indeed, Governor Rauner is not even a party to the collective bargaining agreements with the defendant Unions; they were entered into by a state agency. See Complaint ¶ 14. Nor would the Governor receive any additional money if he prevailed in this litigation. The complaint, instead, alleges that this litigation is an exercise of the Governor’s “duty to protect the First Aendment rights . . . of all people in the State of Illinois,” and his desire not to “violat[e] his oath of office.” Complaint ¶ 84. But those are classic “official[] interest[s]” long held to be insufficient to confer standing. Smith, 191 U.S. at 149. […]
The Governor cannot confer standing upon himself to challenge the constitutionality of state law by issuing Executive Order 15-13 to instruct his subordinates to disobey the IPLRA. See D’Amico, 698 F.2d at 906 (“[I]f administrative law judges do not have standing to bring such a suit they cannot confer it on themselves, bootstrap fashion, by disobeying the instruction and then complaining that their disobedience laid them open to discipline.”). The Governor is free to rescind his Executive Order at any time. In essence, “[t]he mental disposition of the Governor is all that gives him cause to complain; were he to change his mind tomorrow and decide, rightly or wrongly, that the state statute is valid, he would no longer have any interest in the case. He has no personal stake in the outcome of this case; he will not be affected favorably by a decision that the statute is unconstitutional nor adversely by a decision that it is valid.”
Even if the Court has jurisdiction, the complaint still must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The complaint seeks a declaration that “[t]he Fair Share Contract Provisions under the IPLRA are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” Complaint at 21. At the same time, the complaint accurately states that “[i]n Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the United States Supreme Court considered and approved ‘fair share’ provisions under a public sector labor contract.” Complaint ¶ 71. That concession is fatal to the request that fair share provisions be declared unconstitutional. “If a precedent of [the Supreme] Court has direct application in a case,” the obligation of a lower court is to “follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the Supreme] Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). There is no question that Abood squarely held that fair share agreements are constitutional “insofar as the service charge is used to finance expenditures by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.” 431 U.S. at 225-26. And just recently, the Supreme Court refused to even consider the “argument that Abood should be overruled.” Harris v. Quinn
The governor’s office replied by reiterating yesterday’s comment about the state fair share lawsuit.
The Illinois Kids Count 2015 report, also released Thursday, found 21 percent of the state’s children were living below the federal poverty line in 2013 — a rate that held steady from the previous year.
The report’s authors say the rate remains higher than prerecession figures, blaming long-term economic issues for prolonging the problem. Meanwhile, they say deep cuts proposed by Rauner during his budget address last month would be “very harmful.” Areas of concern identified by the group include more changes to the state’s already underfunded child care program and Medicaid cuts that could close hospitals. […]
The report from Voices for Illinois Children cites the effects past cuts to state funding have had on programs intended to mitigate the effects of poverty. Joseph warned that possible future cuts would only exacerbate problems for low-income families.
“If they’re not below the poverty level now, it would make it more likely they would slip into poverty,” he said.
CeaseFire’s interventions are “theory driven.” The program is built upon a coherent theory of behavior that specifies how change agents could be mobilized to address some of the immediate causes of violence: norms regarding violence, on-the-spot decision making by individuals at risk of triggering violence, and the perceived risks and costs of involvement in violence among the targeted population. Some of the program’s core concepts and strategies were adapted from the public health field, which has shown considerable success in addressing issues such as smoking, seat belt use, condom use, and immunization.
The evaluation of CeaseFire had both process and outcome components. The process portion of the project involved documenting how the program actually looked in the field. This included issues involved in selecting target neighborhoods, choosing local host organizations, and staffing, training, and management practices. The outcome evaluation used statistical models, crime hot spot maps and gang network analyses to assess the program’s impact on shootings and killings in selected CeaseFire sites. In each case, changes in the target areas after the introduction of the program were contrasted with trends in matched comparison areas. […]
An examination of the impact of CeaseFire on shootings and killings found that violence was down by one measure or another in most of the areas that were examined in detail. Crime mapping found decreases in the size and intensity of shooting hot spots due to the program in more than half of the sites. There were significant shifts in gang homicide patterns in most of these areas due to the program, including declines in gang involvement in homicide and retaliatory killings.
Even so, the program has its detractors. Its funding has always been controversial in the General Assembly, and Mayor Emanuel eliminated its million dollar grant in 2013. Also, the study’s authors admit that some of the crime declines might not be due to CeaseFire’s activities.
CeaseFire, the highly regarded but sometimes controversial anti-violence program featured in the documentary “The Interrupters,” is losing state funding, the result of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s executive order freezing spending.
The program was budgeted to receive $4.7 million from the state in fiscal 2015, which ends June 30, according to Rauner’s proposed budget for fiscal 2016. The Rauner administration has proposed slashing CeaseFire’s funding almost 60 percent, to $1.9 million, in fiscal 2016. […]
CeaseFire was notified yesterday that its funding was suspended, effective immediately, in a letter sent by John Maki, executive director of the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, which administers the grant. The letter blamed the Illinois Legislature, saying it did not appropriate enough money for the program.
Maki was the former executive director of the John Howard Association of Illinois, a prison reform group, before his appointment by Rauner. Maki did not return a call requesting comment.
In his email, Arthur said CeaseFire will work to restore the state funding but was politic in asking supporters to refrain from “any attacks toward the governor and his administration.”
Friday, Mar 6, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Credit unions were first exempted from federal income tax in 1917 because of their unique structure as not-for-profit financial cooperatives. Contrary to what some banks may suggest, credit unions pay property, payroll, and sales taxes.
Yet while banks decry the credit union tax exemption, nearly 40 percent of banks in Illinois elect Subchapter S status under the Internal Revenue Code to avoid federal income taxation. That’s $59 million in diverted tax dollars. These for-profit Sub-S banks also pay dividends and fees — not to customers, but to directors/investors/stockholders who may or may not be depositors — to the tune of more than $1.3 billion. This is far in excess of the estimated federal income tax credit unions would pay.
In contrast, credit unions return net revenue to their members. The banker argument against the credit union tax exemption is simply disingenuous. If banks really believed that credit unions operate with an unfair competitive advantage, they would restructure their institutions to credit union charters. None would, however, because doing so would expose them to becoming democratically controlled, locally-owned financial cooperatives governed by their very own volunteer members that put people before profits — all the virtues that define the credit union difference.
The state became Annie Audenas’ substitute parent in the mid-1990s after Illinois child welfare officials said they found evidence of neglect in her family and placed the infant in protective custody.
Audenas was adopted by age 3 but the arrangement soured during her rebellious teen years and she returned to state care. She attended five high schools and became a mother, all by the age of 16.
Despite the odds, Audenas is now a 20-year-old college student working toward a degree in human resource management while raising her daughter in Naperville and holding down a part-time job. She credits Illinois’ long-standing practice of supporting older foster youth for a few extra years beyond age 18 with helping her to succeed.
But, under proposed cuts to the Department of Children and Family Services, thousands of older state wards for whom Illinois failed to find permanent homes before they aged out of foster care will be forced to fend for themselves. […]
But service providers, juvenile court officials and other advocates say the governor’s plan would require statutory changes to state laws that recognize the rights of wards up to 21. And watchdog groups who monitor DCFS’s foster care services under legal consent decrees vowed to go back to court if the aging out population isn’t protected.
Illinois pioneered this program and about half of all states now do the same. Go read the whole thing.
“It’s hard to take issue with the governor’s decision on the budget when there are no good places to cut, particularly when you’re dealing with the kids we serve,” he said.
Democrats on a Senate budgeting committee criticized Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration Thursday for what they said are excessive salaries being paid to Rauner staffers.
The criticism came as the Senate Appropriations Committee reviewed Rauner’s budget request for next year, which the administration said would cut spending by 10 percent.
Sen. Dan Kotowski, D-Park Ridge, singled out the $198,000 salary being paid to Trey Childress, Rauner’s deputy governor. Kotowski said it was substantially more than was previously paid.
“That’s an obscene amount of money,” Kotowski said.
* But perhaps Koto should’ve done a little bit of research first. Erickson reports…
Republican lawmakers came to Rauner’s defense, saying Democratic legislative leaders also pay their top aides comparable salaries. Tim Mapes, chief of staff to House Speaker Michael Madigan, for example, earned $193,500 in 2014. David Gross, who is Senate President John Cullerton’s top aide, makes $179,000.
State Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, said Democrats shouldn’t be critical of Rauner after they pushed through a faulty budget last year that is now threatening to cut off funds for child care providers and a host of other programs.
“Here’s the deal: The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife,” Rose said. “The hypocrisy is extreme.”
So Mapes makes more than Rauner’s chief of staff, and almost the same “obscene” amount as Rauner’s deputy governor, with Gross not far behind.
A freight train loaded with crude oil derailed in northern Illinois, bursting into flames and prompting officials to suggest that everyone with 1 mile evacuate, authorities said.
The BNSF Railway train derailed Thursday afternoon in a rural area where the Galena River meets the Mississippi, according to company spokesman Andy Williams. The train had 103 cars loaded with crude oil, along with two buffer cars loaded with sand. A cause for the derailment hadn’t yet been determined. No injuries were reported. […]
Firefighters could only access the derailment site by a bike path, said Galena Assistant Fire Chief Bob Conley. They attempted to fight a small fire at the scene but were unable to stop the flames.
Firefighters had to pull back for safety reasons and were allowing the fire to burn itself out, Conley said. In addition to Galena firefighters, emergency and hazardous material responders from Iowa and Wisconsin were at the scene.
The company says the train’s tank cars were a newer model known as the 1232. That model was designed during safety upgrades voluntarily adopted by the industry four years ago. The improvements were meant to prevent cars from rupturing in the event of derailments.
But 1232 standard cars involved in three other accidents have split open in the past year, leading some to call for tougher requirements.
* From the governor’s office…
Governor Rauner today activated the State Incident Response Center (SIRC) in Springfield to ensure state personnel and equipment are ready to be quickly deployed if needed to help local emergency responders deal with a crude oil train derailment and subsequent fire that occurred this afternoon near Galena in Jo Daviess County.
Governor Rauner also deployed staff from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to the scene.
“I activated the State Incident Response Center to ensure we’re ready to act quickly if any local responders need our assistance,” said Governor Rauner.
Representatives from several state agencies are reporting to the SIRC, including IEMA, IEPA, Illinois State Police, Illinois Department of Transportation, Illinois Commerce Commission, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois National Guard, Illinois Department of Central Management Services, Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Department of Human Services, Illinois Department on Aging, Illinois Department of Corrections, Office of the State Fire Marshal and the American Red Cross.
The SIRC will remain activated as long as necessary.
*** UPDATE *** The governor has proposed some steep cuts to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, which handles crises like this one. Among the proposed cuts are to local responder training (56.7 percent), recovery and remediation (83.9 percent), operations, (20.15 percent) and equipment (4.4 percent). Click here for the list.
The Illinois AFL-CIO and 26 unions that represent more than 40,000 Illinois state employees today filed suit in circuit court to invalidate Gov. Bruce Rauner’s unlawful executive order that violates state law and multiple collective bargaining agreements by blocking state agencies from complying with the fair share provisions of those agreements.
“The men and women who do the real work of state government are first responders, nurses, caregivers and corrections officers. They plow snow, protect children, care for veterans and do many other tough, essential jobs that benefit all Illinois residents,” Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael T. Carrigan said. “Governor Rauner’s political obsession with stripping their rights and driving down their wages demeans their service, hurts the middle class and is blatantly illegal. We’re asking the court to restore the integrity of our democratic process and make clear that no one, not Governor Rauner or anyone else, can place themselves above the law.”
The court filings follow earlier statements from Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger, a Republican, and Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, who say that Gov. Rauner’s order is illegal. Fair share agreements are authorized by the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act—which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Thompson in 1983—and included in each of the state’s contracts with each of the unions in question.
The unions’ Circuit Court complaint says the Governor’s order violates state government’s separation of powers. “Rauner has usurped the constitutional power of the legislative branch by promulgating an Executive Order that effectively repeals a duly passed Public Act [and] has unlawfully exercised the executive power vested in the Governor,” the litigation states. “The executive power is the power to faithfully execute the laws enacted through the legislative process, not to refuse to implement the laws that have been properly enacted by the State.”
Gov. Rauner has falsely claimed that his order makes workers more “free.” In reality, contrary to the governor’s frequent misstatements, no employee is required to join any union. Instead, fair share agreements provide that a union-represented employee who chooses not to join and pay dues is obligated only to pay a proportional fair share of the cost of negotiating and administering the union contract from which they benefit. (Also contrary to the governor’s statements, by law, fair share excludes political contributions.)
The governor’s own rhetoric and the language of the executive order itself make clear that his true intent is to drive down the wages earned by first responders, teachers, nurses, corrections officers, child protection workers, and other state employees by weakening their unions.
“Governor Bruce Rauner believes state employees are overpaid and receive excessive benefits for their public service. He wants to cut their wages and benefits,” the lawsuit states. “The Executive Order is expressly intended to prevent ‘Illinois state employee unions’ from ‘using … fair share fees to … influence …wages, pensions and benefits, that are currently mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under the Illinois Labor Act.”
Later Thursday the unions will file a motion to dismiss Gov. Rauner’s related lawsuit in federal court, pointing out that a state court is the appropriate venue to enforce state law.
In addition to the Illinois AFL-CIO, the 26 unions that are party to the legal filings include affiliates of AFSCME, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Illinois Nurses Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Teamsters, SEIU, the Laborers, the Police Benevolent and Protective Association, the Bakery Workers, the Bricklayers, the Carpenters, the Electrical Workers, the Food and Commercial Workers, the Machinists, the Operating Engineers, the Painters, the Plumbers and the Metropolitan Alliance of Police.
*** UPDATE *** Lance Trover, Director of Communications, Office of the Governor…
“We always expected the government union bosses to fight to keep their stranglehold over Illinois taxpayers in place. These forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers, and the government unions will do anything to keep the broken status quo.”
Democrat Brad Schneider is in Washington, D.C., this week, having met with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Tuesday about a potential third rematch run against Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Dold in 2016.
Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering is in the capital this week, too, talking to people to explore a run as a Democrat for the same seat in the north suburban 10th Congressional District.
Rotering didn’t say for sure whether she’d pursue a primary challenge to the one-term former Rep. Schneider if he decided to pursue a return to Congress. But the first-term mayor also said she’s leaning toward a run.
“We’re getting a really great response from people in the district,” Rotering said. “We are definitely leaning toward going for it.”
He’ll have higher name ID than any other foreseeable opponent, so Schneider is the heavy favorite. But, even though it seems doubtful at this point, maybe people will think he’s already had enough chances. What say you?
House Speaker Michael J. Madigan on Thursday announced the creation of a bipartisan task force focused on studying the way in which the state distributes funding to Illinois’ public schools.
“Our goal is to strengthen every school across Illinois, so we need to make sure any significant changes are given a thorough review,” Madigan said. “Changes to the school funding formula always raise significant concerns from a number of educators, parents and legislators. We want to make sure we take a good look at proposed revisions to the funding formula to determine how we can best educate students across the state.”
The task force made up of Democratic and Republican members of the Illinois House will discuss how changes in the school aid formula could impact schools throughout the state. While House Democrats have been studying various proposals for several months, Madigan formed the task force because he believes any solution ultimately approved by the General Assembly must be bipartisan and good for students across Illinois.
“When you consider the issues that every community in Illinois is concerned about, state support for schools is right at the top of the list,” Madigan said. “A vital issue like this that affects every public school and the education of about 2 million students deserves an in-depth and proper discussion.”
The bipartisan House Education Task Force will include legislators representing Southern Illinois, the collar counties, suburban communities and Chicago and will be chaired by state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago.
The task force’s first meeting will be at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11 in Room 118 of the Capitol. Madigan expects additional hearings to be scheduled at a later time.
Madigan’s appointments…
Chair: Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago
John Bradley, D-Marion
Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora
Fred Crespo, D-Hoffman Estates
Will Davis, D-Homewood
Marcus Evans, D-Chicago
Laura Fine, D-Glenview
Esther Golar, D-Chicago
Elizabeth “Lisa” Hernandez, D-Cicero
Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan
Emily McAsey, D-Lockport
Michelle Mussman, D-Schaumburg
Elgie Sims, D-Chicago
*** UPDATE *** From Sen. Andy Manar…
Two years ago when we began conversations fair school funding, I knew that our the mission would take years of education and work to build a consensus for change. Since that time, there has been clear progress on bipartisan solutions for classrooms across this state. That progress can now be accelerated as leaders in the Illinois House outline specific actions that can be taken to close the funding gap for Illinois schools.
I applaud the leadership of Speaker Michael Madigan in creating a forum for continued discussion that leads to action. His action today confirms that he understands the importance of school funding equity just as clearly as he did when he supported Governor Jim Edgar’s sweeping reforms in 1996. I applaud his continued leadership and the engagement of the House of Representatives as we advance legislation this year.
* I don’t disagree about the need for more infrastructure spending, it’s just that this is a pretty darned big ask…
The Transportation for Illinois Coalition argues the current setup of the motor fuel tax, which drivers pay on a gallon of gas each time they fill up at the pump, falls woefully short of properly funding upkeep of roads and bridges — not to mention improvements. The group says Illinois needs to pump another $1.8 billion a year into the state’s transportation system to cover day-to-day maintenance as well as pay for a borrowing plan to finance long-term upgrades.
While the coalition has backed away from specifics in an effort to begin fresh negotiations with Rauner, its general outline calls for raising the gas tax to keep up with inflation. It also has pitched a menu of other possibilities, including eliminating tax exemptions for ethanol, increasing drivers’ fees, expanding the sales tax to cover services ranging from auto repairs and oil changes, and taxing the sale of food and prescription drugs.
Illinois imposes a base tax rate of 19 cents per gallon for gasoline and 21.5 cents a gallon for diesel, though other fractions of a penny are added on to pay for costs associated with environmental cleanup and underground storage of fuel. That doesn’t include the 6.25 percent sales tax the state also collects on each gallon of fuel, federal taxes, or the variety of other levies some counties and cities like Chicago also pile on top.
* It turns out that Model Illinois Government is a lot like the original. From the MIG Journal…
The first floor session of the Model Illinois Government Senate convened in the Illinois Old State Capital Friday evening.
The first bill on the docket set term limits for Senate and House leadership positions. It would require a four-year absence from serving after the completion of an individual’s second term.
The majority stood in opposition of the bill, arguing it limits the will of the people exercised in elections.
“Maybe if the Republicans could get someone elected they wouldn’t feel the need for term limits,” said Senate Majority Leader Anna Mulch.
Heh.
* Anyway, I posted that little story as a prelude to telling you that my intern, Marc Reiter, was elected MIG governor over the weekend after serving two terms as House Speaker. Before you congratulate him, just know that he has to put a budget together next year which closely resembles Gov. Bruce Rauner’s proposal.
So, condolences might actually be in order.
* Today is also Marc’s birthday. From his Facebook page…
Not so long ago, Exelon…was extolling the merits of an open market for power as its profits rolled in. Now, with power prices plunging, Exelon has lost enthusiasm for the open markets it championed in the 1990s and wants the Legislature to devise a new formula that will protect its profits, quite likely driving up utility bills for homeowners and businesses.
If Exelon is hard up, they can show us. The company should open its books to show how its nuclear fleet is performing.
What’s good for Exelon doesn’t much matter if it’s bad for the rest of Illinois.
Good old Exelon. The company has come up with legislation to subsidize its nuclear reactors, get electric users throughout the state to pay for it and claim it’s in the interest of clean energy.
State lawmakers need to see this bill for the dirty trick it is and kill it.
A federal court-appointed monitor said Wednesday she wants to sign off on all political hires, promotions or transfers within the problem-plagued Illinois Department of Transportation until the agency audits its employment mess.
Special Master Noelle Brennan also said the ability of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new IDOT director to fire “at will” past IDOT political appointees has been “undercut” by the transfer of many of such hires into union positions that carry job protections.
The paper’s story is pretty comprehensive, so go read it all.
* To the report itself, which is here. This item comes as absolutely no surprise, but we can probably expect to see some names mentioned in the near future, so expect some juicy headlines…
Although the full extent and influence of political manipulation is still under investigation, a preliminary review reveals that numerous elected officials have sought to influence a range of job actions at IDOT, including, hires, transfers, promotions, and raises. Many of these politically favored individuals appear to lack any specialized experience or skills that uniquely qualify them for IDOT positions, but were nonetheless selected for positions and promotions outside any competitive process, in violation of the Rutan principles.
Moreover, IDOT employs numerous family members of politicians or senior IDOT officials in ostensibly “exempt” positions, although many of those individuals perform routine duties. This results in the exclusion of other, more qualified individuals, from consideration. […]
The OEIG Report identified a number of Staff Assistants that had political connections. Additionally, the OEIG Report identified a number of Staff Assistants with a family member in a senior IDOT position. The OEIG Report explained that the political connections of the Staff Assistants were determined primarily on reviewing the resumes of the Staff Assistants. Our initial review of the testimony provided by witnesses and application materials found that, beyond the individuals identified in the OEIG Report, at least an additional 30 Staff Assistants appeared to have political connections or a relative in a senior IDOT position. Our initial review also suggests that certain elected officials are more heavily involved in making recommendations for employment to IDOT than others. We believe further investigation is warranted to determine both the breadth of political influence in IDOT’s employment practices and the processes that led to IDOT’s acting on the political recommendations.
Additionally, due to questionable agreements between IDOT officials and certain unions, IDOT’s ability to comply with the Rutan principles going forward is compromised. These agreements, which have resulted in the unionization of numerous Rutan-exempt positions, have undercut the new administration’s ability to exercise its rights under the Rutan principles. Now, although IDOT has hired hundreds of individuals based on political factors, because of the terms of existing union contracts, IDOT’s new administration may not be able to fire those same individuals, based on political factors.
Gov. Rauner’s spokesman responds…
“The report confirms that previous governors were engaged in a corrupt bargain with government unions, making illegal political hires and putting them into protected government union positions. Governor Rauner is committed to reversing the illegal hiring scheme and enacting civil service reforms that will prevent these types of abuses from happening in the future.”
Brennan reported Wednesday that “there is evidence concerning the involvement of the [Pat Quinn] Governor’s Office that has not been fully explored” and “further investigation is required into the Governor’s Office’s role in the misuse of the position” of staff assistant.
The monitor’s preliminary report, part of a federal lawsuit by anti-patronage activist Michael Shakman against the Illinois Department of Transportation, said Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration should freeze hires and transfers in some IDOT positions until conflicting hiring and union rules are rectified. […]
[Brennan] said the agency should identify every position in which an employee theoretically can be hired or fired at will but also has collective-bargaining rights that restrict terminations.
Rauner, who’s making noise in union-friendly Illinois with plans to control labor’s influence, balked at the special master’s proposal to freeze activity in those jobs. Rauner’s office said that while the Republican is “committed to reversing” illegal hiring, the proposal would mean leaving critical IDOT positions vacant.
Although the State agreed in principle with this recommendation, it did not agree to implement it on the ground that the recommendation could cripple some current IDOT operations.
As an example, the State noted the need to hire four attorneys into Rutan-exempt union positions in IDOT’s Office of Chief Counsel. Although we understand and appreciate the State’s reasons for not agreeing to implement this particular recommendation, we cannot overemphasize that, failing to stop the hiring, transferring or promoting of individuals through the Rutan-exempt process, into union covered positions, at least until a complete job audit is completed, all but guarantees future violations of the 1972 Decree and compounds the existing difficulty of reconciling the rights of current governmental employees, as demonstrated by the pending Teamsters litigation.
Look, there are things the state has to do. And some things just can’t wait for a hiring process fix, no matter how much that fix may be needed.
I don’t think the Rauner administration is being unreasonable here, and Brennan isn’t exactly furious, either. The easy road is to scream “Rauner is violating his campaign promise!” The truth, like governing, is much more complex.
Thursday, Mar 5, 2015 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
In 2011 the Workers’ Compensation “Reform” package was signed into law, aimed at lowering costs for employers in Illinois. These changes have had a negative effect on workers in Illinois and their ability to receive fair and reasonable compensation when they are injured on the job and have not resulted in insurance premium reductions for employers in Illinois, even though workers’ compensation costs have undeniably come down.
The National Academy of Social Insurance reports workers’ compensation is the second most profitable line of insurance after auto insurance. Over 300 insurance companies compete for and write workers’ compensation insurance in Illinois, more than just about any other state in the country. If Illinois is so unprofitable, why are these insurance companies climbing over one another to sell insurance here? It may be because insurance companies in Illinois are essentially unregulated when it comes to setting insurance premiums.
Decreased benefits for injured workers, medical reimbursements plummeting, claims falling, and reduced costs have all resulted in big profits for the insurance industry. This is the real result of the 2011 workers’ compensation reform.
Any further changes in workers’ compensation laws should instead look to promote insurance premium transparency and oversight – not further sacrifices by the injured worker.
For more information on workers’ compensation, click here.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is accusing Illinois governor Bruce Rauner of trying to balance the state’s budget on the backs of Chicago’s working families.
Everything from kids to cops, technology to transit could be impacted by state budget cuts, according to Mayor Emanuel.
“I’ve been very clear to all the leaders and to the governor,” Emanuel said on Wednesday. “This budget will not stand. It’s wrong for Chicago and I believe it’s wrong for Illinois.”
The City forecasts Rauner’s proposed budget would mean 1,000 fewer cops, $130 million in cuts to the CTA and 60,000 kids losing subsidized daycare.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel offered up a double serving of political theater Wednesday, attacking his friend Gov. Bruce Rauner’s attempt to slash state spending and airing a TV ad in which the mayor appeared contrite about his first term but didn’t specify what he got wrong. […]
Emanuel’s castigation of Rauner’s budget blueprint represented a time-tested way for a Chicago mayor to score quick political points by attacking whoever is in the governor’s mansion. […]
Emanuel’s criticism of Rauner also served the political purpose of attempting to distance himself from a Republican private equity specialist he once did business with during a brief stint as an investment banker that made the mayor personally wealthy.
On Wednesday, Emanuel set out to prove that he is, indeed, fighting for everyday Chicagoans and does not deserve the “Mayor 1 percent” label that his challenger has used to define him.
“You ran for office saying, ‘Here are the challenges.’ I get it. [But] I don’t think you did the hard work of saying, ‘Early childhood is important. Here’s how we’re gonna do it different.’ They just said cut. And the brunt of the cuts are the hundreds of families and parents that rely on a qualified, healthy environment for their kids.”
Instead of wielding the budget ax in a way that would deprive Chicago of “hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said Rauner should zero in on “corporate loopholes” like the ones the mayor closed in Chicago.
Implied, but not stated, was Emanuel’s claim that he had the guts to take on the corporate donors who filled his campaign fund with $15 million.
He also said the governor’s proposed cuts gave new meaning to the phrase “Women and children first.”
“These are just random cuts. There are no reforms to asking a core question: If this is an essential service, how do we do it? How do we do it better? Are we the best to do it?” Emanuel said of Rauner’s budget. “This budget is wrong. It’s wrong for Illinois, it’s fundamentally wrong for Chicago, and it will not stand.”
“The mayor should go to Springfield and sit with Rauner. Maybe open up one of those expensive bottles [of wine] and figure out how he’s going to really fight for the people of Chicago when his buddy is the person who’s bringing on the bad news that will spare no one, especially the most vulnerable people,” Garcia said.
“Governor Rauner had to make some hard decisions to balance a $6 billion budget shortfall caused by years of fiscal neglect and bad practices. The amount of money transferred to local governments has ballooned by more than 40 percent in the last decade and the reduction to local governments proposed in the budget puts Illinois in line with neighboring states. In Governor Rauner’s budget proposal, Chicago’s overall revenues are reduced by less than 2.5 percent. Through the local government task force, Governor Rauner is committed to working with local communities to reduce costs and give them increased flexibility. Additionally, as part of his Turnaround Agenda, the governor proposed empowering local residents with tools to control costs at the local level and get more value for their tax dollars.”
[Mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia] has declined for months to say what he would do about the financial crisis confronting Chicago, even as he criticizes moves the mayor has made.
Since December, Garcia has said only that he is “studying” the budget crisis.
“What I’m telling you is that I’m consulting with experts on financial matters of the city. I will not be pressured by his time frame,” Garcia said. “We’re going to be releasing some of those positions shortly.”
Garcia’s been ducking questions about Chicago’s budget crisis since he filed to run for mayor last fall. He told FOX 32 News he does not “foresee” any tax increases, but won’t say what he would cut or how he would pay with more than a billion dollars needed for police, fire and teacher pensions next year.
Mayor Emanuel has now used a Garcia quote against him in an ad posted on socialmedia.
* Garcia is so far taking the Bruce Rauner approach, as is Emanuel, for that matter.
It’s hugely important for candidates to discuss what they plan to do after the election, but the Chicago media mostly gave Rauner a pass last year when he promised details for months and never provided them.
Candidates always learn from the success of other candidates. The city’s two newspaper editorial boards rewarded a candidate with endorsements last year who stayed mostly silent about his plans. This was a horrible precedent, particularly by the Tribune, which brushed off their own reporters’ pointed questions to the would-be governor as unnecessary.
* So, like Emanuel, I’d love to see Garcia go into some detail. But I don’t really blame Garcia after what happened last November. The guy who ran on a promise to renew a tax hike lost, and the guy who refused to say just about anything won. It’s truly frustrating.
“We’re out of money,” he said in Springfield during a talk to YMCA representatives from around the state. “I didn’t create this budget, but we’re out of money. We’re not funding our day care. It’s outrageous. We should have fixed this a month ago, but the political process, dragging their feet and pushing — it’s sausage being made.”
Yes, this should have been fixed a month ago, but managing the legislative sausage process isn’t like managing a business. There’s a whole lot of give and take. And there was too much take and not enough give for most of that time.
“It’s not true,” Cullerton said of suggestions the [Senate] Democrats are blocking progress. “If that were the case, I’m sure the House would have passed the bill over to us already.” […]
Staff members for each of the four legislative leaders and in Rauner’s office have been meeting to work out a compromise. Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, said negotiators made a lot of progress Monday and that the Rauner administration had backed off its initial position that it wanted fairly extensive authority to shift around money.
Senate Democrats said they want more detail from Rauner about what he intends to do, especially in light of his budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins July 1, which included extensive cuts to many human services programs.
“It’s very hard — it’s very complicated because we’re talking about his proposals, cutting a lot of programs,” Cullerton said of the negotiations. “I think maybe the administration thinks that since they’re new, ‘Here’s a proposal, just vote on it.’ We have to get votes for it, and that’s difficult.”
Let’s take those paragraphs one by one.
1) The House doesn’t want to advance legislation unless there’s an agreement, and there’s no agreement. But Cullerton does have a point.
2) Legislative approp staff has never before had the authority to sign off on any agreements, or even make them. They’ve cut legislators who chair approp committees completely out of the process.
3) This has been a long-standing demand by the SDems.
