The state’s pension system is underfunded by more than $100 billion, and beyond repair. When it comes to reforming the system, lawmakers’ hands are tied. On Friday the court ruled that the retirement benefits offered on current workers’ first day of employment can never be changed; only new hires can earn retirement benefits differently.
So if changes can’t be made, here is what Gov. Bruce Rauner should do: Lay off the entire state workforce, and close the pension system. Work with the General Assembly to open a different retirement plan for newly hired government workers, modeled after the nation’s most popular retirement vehicle: the 401(k). Then offer to rehire state workers under the new retirement plan.
It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen overnight.
State laws will need to be changed. Pension benefits earned to date will need to be paid.
The government unions will file lawsuits, and the legality of this strategy will be challenged. Understandably, some workers will turn down the new deal. Daily operations of state government will be disrupted — and potentially result in a government shutdown.
But even if all those things happen, the ultimate outcome will be better than what’s ahead if the state does nothing.
Moreover, no possible claim can be made that no less drastic measures were available when balancing pension obligations with other State expenditures became problematic
The General Assembly may not legislate on a subject withdrawn from its authority by the constitution
So, yeah, the Supremes will approve this idea for sure.
Right.
* When those employees were hired, they were promised pension benefits. And if they quit their jobs for a while and then returned to government service they picked up where they left off. The Supreme Court was crystal clear. The General Assembly can’t break that contract now.
The promotions meant to drum up interest in horse racing at 90-year-old Fairmount Park among customers more comfortable staring at an iPhone than a tip sheet are creative and constant.
Horse Hooky is designed to lure those willing to skip out of work early each Tuesday to drink cheap draft beer and eat even cheaper hot dogs. Couch potatoes can rent six-person sofas in the grandstand. Saturday nights in the summer offer live bands, and more cheap beer.
Despite the party vibe, attendance continues to plummet at this southwestern Illinois horse track and the state’s four others. Purses are low, betting is down and horse owners are increasingly spurning Illinois tracks for venues in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and other nearby states that have paired some casinos with ponies, according to track owners.
“We’re the third biggest market in the country, and we’re getting beat out by Indiana, Iowa, Arkansas and Minnesota,” according to Glen Berman, executive director of the Chicago-based Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association. “It just shouldn’t be.” […]
(T)he average total pay-out this year in a state-bred thoroughbred race at Arlington Park in suburban Chicago was less than $25,000, Berman said, less than half the amount paid to winners in Iowa and at least $12,000 less than tracks in Indiana and Minnesota. At Fairmount Park, the track’s 54 racing days represents a 35 percent reduction from the yearly activity eight years earlier, and in 2000, when the track discontinued harness racing, there were more than 150 days on the schedule.
* The Question: Time for slots at tracks? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
* Senate President John Cullerton actually used the “B-word”…
Lawmakers also take issue with his style, complaining that Rauner treats them like “middle management.” They say his aides have taken a position that the budget is their problem, and unless they agree to the governor’s wishes, he’ll keep cutting services.
“He must think we’re going to come to him and say: ‘We’ll do whatever you want, just let us pass a tax increase because we need it so much,’ ” says Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago.
“As if the state budget is our problem and, whether we have a state budget or not, it’s not a big deal for him.”
Cullerton says Rauner is mistaken if he thinks his hand is strengthened after the May 31 deadline passes when legislators must present a balanced budget. He argues that if the Legislature goes into overtime, the areas the governor wants to cut will instead automatically get funded by law — including Medicaid.
“What would be shortchanged would be what he cares about — education,” Cullerton says. “He doesn’t have the leverage he thinks he has. Obviously, you can be elected governor and know nothing about the office. [Ex-Gov. Rod] Blagojevich did it twice. It wasn’t just Rauner.”
Gov. Bruce Rauner said Saturday that he is not worried about passing a budget, even after House Democrats struck down a portion of his proposal.
The Republican governor made the remarks before giving his commencement address to 320 graduates at Lincoln College. House Democrats brought the human services portion Rauner’s proposed budget to the floor Thursday, where it received zero “yes” votes. Republicans, who voted “present” in protest, called it a blatantly partisan attack at a time when bipartisanism is woefully necessary.
“I’m not too concerned about anything going on right now in the legislature because in difficult negotiations there tends to be some political theater, I’ll call it,” Rauner said.
He said the budget working groups and chiefs of staff from his office and the legislative leaders are working well together, and he expects progress before the spring legislative session ends May 31. The state is facing a $6 billion budget gap for the fiscal year that begins July 1, and Rauner has proposed closing it without any new revenue.
“Government negotiations often involve a certain amount of political theater,” Rauner said. “That’s fine. It’s not very relevant. It’s all part of the process. It’s fine. No big issue.”
In fact, he said that while he hasn’t spoken to Madigan “in a number of days,” top officials in his administration met with senior staff of the four legislative leaders for four hours on Thursday.
“They’re working through what our (legislative and administration) working groups have done this week,” he said. “I’m cautiously optimistic things are going well. We’re getting some progress.”
He said he wasn’t disheartened by the setbacks of the last week.
“That’s why I wanted the job. I knew it was going to be hard. That’s what we’ve got to do, we’ve got to take this stuff on,” Rauner said.
Subscribers know a bit more about that meeting last week.
* Nothing yet from the governor’s office. From the Illinois AFL-CIO…
Village of Cambridge has pulled the Rauner anti-worker resolution from its agenda for Monday (May 11).
Rauner anti-worker resolution not called at Henry County committee [Friday] morning. Big turnout from labor and community. Great work. May be brought up for hearings in future. We’ll keep you posted.
The agenda item was to discuss rescinding the bad resolution, which had been hurriedly passed. Apparently the item has been pulled to stifle debate. I understand that Cambridge residents are still turning out tonight to make clear they want their voices heard.
* Meanwhile, we’re coming up to an historical milestone. Almost 34 years ago on May 15, 1981 the Republican-controlled Illinois House debated and overwhelmingly defeated (138-25) a “right to work” bill sponsored by DuPage County GOP Rep. Ray Hudson. The debate transcript is here.
This proposal is in a very real sense a link in the chain of American liberty. This measure does in a very real sense epitomize the age old struggle between capitalism and freedom. House Bill 831 simply provides the First Amendment right of our citizens to associate or to refrain from associating in a labor union.” […]
This seems fair. It provides freedom of choice for the worker. It not only seems fair it is fair. The worker joins or doesn’t join but either way he has a job. The union gains because its members are on the rolls paying dues, contributing to Pension Funds and all of the rest of it not because he or she is forced to but because that employee wants to. Because they see in their membership something they really believe is worth having and keeping voluntarily. Of course, this voluntary membership could test the unions’ metal. Of course, this voluntary membership would require responsive and responsible union leadership, but is that so bad? I don’t think so. Why not give the Illinois worker this fundamental right of free choice?
* From Democratic Rep. Jim McPike’s remarks during debate…
…The only thing that is required of that employee is to pay union dues. to pay his fair share. Now, why is that important? It is important because federal law requires that the union, if a union is voted in, federal law requires that that union represent everyone at the plant. They must negotiate fringe benefits, salary increases, holidays, all of their benefits. Not just for union members in good standing but for everyone at the plant. If someone has a grievance they must represent that person at grievance hearings against the employer. Since there are associated costs that the union has in negotiating contracts and representing people at grievance hearings unions feel that workers who share in the benefits of a union should pay for the cost associated with the union. And that’s all the law says. That there can be no free loaders at a given plant. That since everyone benefits from a union everyone should pay for the cost of that union.
“I’m happy to see this is going down the tubes where it ought to be. It’s not been here for a vote positively for 45 years and I hope it doesn’t come back in 45 years.'’
* Bernie profiles Republican congressional candidate Mike Flynn…
While he describes himself as a “pro-life libertarian,” he also said he voted in a Democratic primary in Virginia in 2008 because he wanted to support a local candidate he knew. He did vote for Barack Obama for president on that ballot.
“I thought it would be my only chance to vote against Hillary,” he said of 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
It may seem like a little thing, until you remember what happened to Kirk Dillard five years ago in the GOP primary after he supported Obama. If Flynn gets any traction and tries to portray Sen. Darin LaHood as some sort of Republicrat centrist, you can bet good money you’ll see the admission about voting for Obama in a mailer and/or TV ad - sans the Hillary stuff, of course.
Flynn says his family has been in Quincy for six generations, but he’s been in the Washington area for 20 years. He is married with four children, ages 9 to 17, and living in Alexandria, Virginia. He got an apartment in Quincy to run for Schock’s seat, and he says “there would be a transition” and his family would move to Illinois if he wins. He lived in Springfield while on the Illinois House Republican staff from 1992 to 1995. […]
In response to some issues raised by Flynn, LaHood’s campaign spokeswoman, Karen Disharoon, wrote in an email, “It’s impossible to change D.C. with a candidate from D.C., and that’s why Darin’s message of eliminating wasteful spending in government, fighting to repeal Obamacare, and working for term limits to get rid of the career politicians in both parties resonates with the families of central Illinois.” She also said LaHood was “the chief prosecutor of an anti-terrorism unit” and understands national security threats.
* Footnote 12 of the Illinois Supreme Court’s pension ruling…
Additional benefits may always be added, of course (see Kraus v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 72 Ill. App. 3d at 849), and the State may require additional employee contributions or other consideration in exchange (see Gualano v. City of Des Plaines, 139 Ill. App. 3d 456, 459 (1985). However, once the additional benefits are in place and the employee continues to work, remains a member of a covered retirement system, and complies with any qualifications imposed when the additional benefits were first offered, the additional benefits cannot be unilaterally diminished or eliminated. See, e.g., Taft v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 133 Ill. App. 3d 566, 572 (1985); Carr v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 158 Ill. App. 3d 7, 9-10 (1987); cf. Kuhlmann v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 106 Ill. App. 3d 603, 609 (1982) (member not eligible for increase in benefits where he had ceased contributing to the pension fund prior to the change in the law). [Emphasis added.]
To my eyes, the footnote seems to imply that Senate President John Cullerton’s “consideration” theory may pass muster. Cullerton would give workers a choice of allowing their raises going forward to be pensionable without the 3 percent compounded COLA or keep the compounded COLA without calculating raises going forward.
Indeed, I talked with Cullerton this morning and he believes that the footnote fully exonerates his approach. His ideas need to be considered as soon as possible. Tick freaking tock, people.
Also, too, it doesn’t look like the Supremes believe that Gov. Rauner’s idea - move all current employees into a Tier 2 system without providing consideration - will pass constitutional muster.
* And speaking of footnotes, the Supremes have in the past refused to order the General Assembly to fully fund the pension systems. However, check out Footnote 3…
Consistent with an earlier opinion by this court in McNamee v. State, 173 Ill. 2d 433 (1996), and comments at the Constitutional Convention, we did not, however, foreclose the possibility that a direct action could be brought by pension system members to compel funding if a pension fund were on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy. Sklodowski, 182 Ill. 2d at 232-33.
It’s debatable whether state and local pension systems can declare bankruptcy, but the systems could lapse into technical default. If that does happen, the court has staked out its authority to “compel funding” and that footnote was a crystal clear warning shot.
While the group only released the numbers about Charters, we obtained a copy of the full poll, which includes data on state right track/wrong track, governor job approval and legislature job approval. It was done by Public Opinion Strategies, which you know is very good and is of registered voters. It was done after the so-called Good Friday cuts and before the cuts were rescinded.
After staging a mock trial of billionaire Governor Bruce Rauner at Wellington Avenue Church in Chicago yesterday, 300 seniors, religious leaders and workers piled into school buses to deliver an arrest warrant at one of the Governor’s mansions. Organizers of the event say Gov. Rauner is guilty of trying to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and people who are struggling to get by, instead of raising revenue from the wealthy and big corporations.
“Governor Rauner’s talk about ’shared sacrifice’ is a joke,” said Jessie Avraham, a member of Jane Addams Senior Caucus. “Big corporations and the wealthy aren’t ’sacrificing’ anything, they reap the rewards when they don’t pay their fair share. The Governor’s budget cuts threaten the very survival of seniors who would have to sacrifice quality of life; for many, the cuts could mean a death sentence.” […]
This Event was organized by a broad-based coalition of community groups from around Chicago including Jane Addams Senior Caucus, Action NOW, ADAPT, Community Renewal Society, Grassroots Collaborative, Fight for $15, Indiana Illinois Regional Organizing Network, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, ONE Northside, National People’s Action, SEIU Healthcare Illinois/Indiana.
Making his first post-election appearance at the Capitol on Thursday, Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner said he hopes the Illinois Supreme Court eventually will provide guidance on what changes are acceptable when it comes to fixing the state’s more than $100 billion debt in the government worker pension system. […]
“My preference is probably to wait until the Supreme Court rules so we have some ground rules for what probably works and won’t work. I think that’s the smarter way to do it,” Rauner said.
Republican Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner said Monday that he was hardly surprised by a judge’s ruling last week that found Democrats’ landmark 2013 pension reform law to be unconstitutional.
But he said he hoped future appeals of the decision would supply a blueprint for what type of reform might pass constitutional muster. […]
“Hopefully they will give us some feedback that will help guide the discussion for future modifications as appropriate for the pensions,” Rauner said.
Rauner said he didn’t appreciate several suggestions for pensions fixes that the Supreme Court included in its 38-page decision. The unanimous decision included suggestions by the court that the state raise new revenue or enact a new schedule for repaying pension debt.
“I’m not sure it makes sense for the judiciary to comment on government policy. I think it’s their role to interpret the law, the existing law,” Rauner said.
I recently obtained a document distributed by the governor’s office detailing the membership list and meeting times and locations of the secret state legislative “working groups.”
The governor’s office has insisted that not only should legislators dummy up about what goes on at the groups’ meetings - which are designed to forge compromises on the governor’s “Turnaround Agenda” - but also that outsiders should not even know the membership of the groups or when and where they’re getting together.
That’s pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Many moons ago, I began writing about private legislative caucus meetings. That didn’t endear me to the powers that be, but I thought the meetings were too important to the Statehouse process to ignore. I still think that, although caucus meetings are somewhat less important these days.
So, I exerted a bit of effort and eventually scored the governor’s document.
The working group tasked with hammering out a potential tax hike is so secret that its very existence would not be confirmed by members I contacted. Legislators were reportedly warned by the governor’s office that if any word leaked about the group then Gov. Bruce Rauner would refuse to increase taxes.
Yep, he’s a control freak.
The group was nicknamed “Vegas” by some of its members because what happens in the group is supposed to stay in the group. It’s official name is listed as “HOLD” on the governor’s document. It’s apparently not an acronym. “They were that afraid to put things in writing,” explained one source. “So just ‘hold’ this slot open.”
I kid you not.
Republican state Reps. Patricia Bellock and David Leitch are on the HOLD group, as well as Democratic Rep. John Bradley. Senate Democrats Heather Steans and Toi Hutchinson are also on the super secret group, as are Republican Sens. Pam Althoff and Karen McConnaughay. The governor’s top staff abruptly shut down a HOLD meeting last week, calling House Speaker Michael Madigan’s unilateral advancement of a budget bill a “hostile action.”
The “Economic Growth” working group will tackle issues like workers’ compensation insurance, the governor’s local “right to work zones” proposal, tort reform and the minimum wage. Democratic Reps. Jay Hoffman and Art Turner; Republican Reps. Mike Tryon, David Leitch and Dwight Kay; Democratic Sens. Kimberly Lightford and Kwame Raoul; and Republican Sens Matt Murphy and Jim Oberweis are on the group. Some initial progress is being made on workers’ comp reform, I’m told.
The “Taxpayer Protection” working group discusses issues like the governor’s proposed property tax freeze. Members were told that the governor’s initial bargaining position is a permanent freeze. Democratic Senators Gary Forby and Andy Manar are on the working group, as well as Republican Sens. Dan Duffy and Chris Nybo. Democratic Reps. John Bradley and Barbara Flynn Currie and GOP Reps. David Harris and Ed Sullivan are also on the working group.
I wrote recently about the “Transforming Government” group, which featured the Democratic throwdown with the governor’s staff over a legislative term limits constitutional amendment. It’s also dealing with implementing the governor’s executive order on state worker ethics and banning public employee union contributions to the executive branch. Democratic Reps. Lou Lang and Elgie Sims; Republican Reps. Norine Hammond and Chad Hays; Democratic Sen. Don Harmon; and Republican Sens. Darin LaHood and Chapin Rose are all on the committee.
The governor wants to move current state employees and teachers out of their “Tier 1″ pension plans and into a “Tier 2″ plan that provides far fewer benefits. His “Pension Reform” working group is comprised of Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekritz, Senate Democrat Daniel Biss, and HGOPs Tom Morrison and Ron Sandack, along with SGOPs Bill Brady and Pam Althoff.
Gov. Rauner has been promising a major road and transit construction plan since the campaign. The “Capital Plan” working group is comprised of SDems John Sullivan and Marty Sandoval, SGOPs Dave Syverson and Karen McConnaughay, HDems Bob Rita and Christian Mitchell and HGOPs Norine Hammond and Ed Sullivan. They didn’t get much done at their last meeting because the governor refused to talk about how to pay for it.
The “Budget Implementation” working group is huge. The last meeting was attended by 38 people, including all legislative appropriations committee chairs. Getting things accomplished with a group that size could be difficult.
The “Unemployment Insurance” working group will use an “agreed bill” process to find a way to bring down employer costs. Republican Sens. Sue Rezin and Kyle McCarter are serving on the group, as is Democratic Sen. Terry Link and Democratic Rep. Jay Hoffman, along with House Republicans John Anthony and Dwight Kay.
OK, can we stop with all the crazy secrecy now, please?
Subscribers have more details about individual working group meetings.
* The Tribune editorial page reacts to today’s pension ruling…
Expect to hear politicians or advocacy groups or finance experts float notions you’ve never heard in Illinois. That to preserve money for pension costs, the state workforce may have to be drastically reduced, that work contracted to private firms that don’t have to provide such benefits. That as the cost of retirement benefits continues to skyrocket, more of the cost must be placed on the workers who will reap those benefits. That’s not to blame the workers; that’s to recognize brutal reality.
You won’t hear these and other dramatic thoughts only about state government: Friday’s ruling vastly complicates life for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and thousands of other local officials. They prayed that the court would uphold state attempts to curtail retiree benefits, or at least explain how future laws might be written to meet constitutional constraints. Friday’s decision offered neither. Maybe Emanuel et al. can offer the court more compelling arguments: Unlike the state, cutting benefits really is our last resort. But after Friday’s ruling, they’re running uphill.
So the huge enterprise of government in Illinois now confronts a challenge unlike any it has known: The new taxation necessary to satisfy all of these state and local pension demands would make this a ghost state.
A ghost state? C’mon, man.
Raising the state income tax back up to close to where it was before January 1st wouldn’t make this a “ghost state,” but it would prevent draconian budget cuts that would devastate this state. The Tribune blindly refuses to admit this because it hates that tax hike so very much.
Sometimes, you gotta find more income to pay your bills.
…Adding… From Wordslinger in comments…
–…a challenge unlike any it has known.–
Yeah, that Civil War, race riots, labor wars, polio, Depression, WWII, segregation, etc., it was all a stone-cold groove compared to today’s insurmountable and unprecedented problem of paying back borrowed money.
Seiously, they’re demented, should not be operating motor vehicles.
…Adding More… Gov. Bruce Rauner’s magical mystery pension reform plan which he adamantly refuses to unveil would allegedly save the state about $2.2 billion next fiscal year. While there is little doubt that we are staring into perhaps the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression as a result of the loss of the income tax hike money and gross Democratic mismanagement, losing out on those pension savings is hardly a crisis outweighing everything in the state’s history. The Tribune editorial board members probably ought to take a nap.
…Adding Still More… From Archpundit in comments…
===They prayed that the court would uphold state attempts to curtail retiree benefits, or at least explain how future laws might be written to meet constitutional constraints. Friday’s decision offered neither.===
Actually I believe Rich highlighted the road map the court gave on just this point. The ed board really is just lazy.
“Detroit offers such a strong example of default and bankruptcy that Chicago ends up being impugned by comparison,” said Matt Fabian, a partner at Municipal Market Analytics.
The broader economic and demographic positions of the two cities are vastly different. Chicago is the third-largest city in the country, with a vibrant economy and large, taxable population. Detroit had been suffering from a population exodus for decades, along with a crippled economy after much of the auto industry moved out.
“A property tax increase could solve Chicago’s problems tomorrow,” Fabian said. “But the city has chosen not to do that, even though it has the potential.” Chicago could raise taxes by 50 percent and still have lower taxes than New Jersey, he said. […]
That option, he said, was not available in Detroit, which is why the city eventually filed for Chapter 9. “It is very hard to see Illinois ever approving Chapter 9,” Fabian said. “Chicago is the heart of the state, and it is in no one’s interest to fall into bankruptcy.”
Detroit, on the other hand, was a drag on the state of Michigan and bore the brunt of much antipathy, said Fabian.
“The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that benefits earned cannot be reduced. That’s fair and right, and why the governor long maintained that SB 1 is unconstitutional. What is now clear is that a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution.”
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** Perhaps some wishful thinking from Mayor Rahm Emanuel?…
“Since taking office, our goal has been to find a solution to Chicago’s pension crisis that protects taxpayers while ensuring the retirements of our workers are preserved — something we achieved with Chicago’s pension reform for the Municipal and Laborers funds. That reform is not affected by today’s ruling, as we believe our plan fully complies with the State constitution because it fundamentally preserves and protects worker pensions rather than diminishing or impairing them. While the State plan only reduced benefits, the City’s plan substantially increases City funding which will save both funds from certain insolvency within the next ten to fifteen years and ensure they are secured over the long-term. Further, unlike the State plan, the City’s plan was the result of negotiation and partnership with 28 impacted unions to protect the retirements of the 61,000 city workers and retirees in these funds and ensure they will receive the pensions promised to them.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Eric Madiar, the former legal eagle for Senate President John Cullerton who predicted years ago that this law would fail, reacts…
I feel fully vindicated by today’s Illinois Supreme Court decision and gratified by it. The decision clears the way for using a modified version of Senate President Cullerton’s contractual approach to achieve savings.
*** UPDATE 3 *** From Moody’s…
“Moody’s is currently reviewing the Illinois Supreme Court pension reform decision and analyzing its potential impact on the credit condition of the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, public universities, and other Illinois municipalities and school districts. For the state, Moody’s current rating and outlook did not factor in the proposed pension reforms, but the ruling provides additional evidence that pension benefit reductions will not be permitted.”
Newly sworn in as Mayor of Springfield, Jim Langfelder ripped into the Steppenwolf classic [”Born to be Wild”].
Mayor Jim Langfelder joined other citywide officials and the new City Council in taking the oath of office Thursday afternoon at Sangamon Auditorium on the campus of the University of Illinois Springfield.
According to sources close to the Mayor, Langfelder rehearsed the song with the band After Sunset the week leading up to the performance.
* I always pegged Jim as a bit of a geek, but check out the video taken by a friend…
* The Illinois Supreme Court gave us a sort of road map for what pension reforms would be acceptable. Emphasis added…
The General Assembly may find itself in crisis, but it is a crisis which other public pension systems managed to avoid and, as reflected in the SEC order, it is a crisis for which the General Assembly itself is largely responsible.
Moreover, no possible claim can be made that no less drastic measures were available when balancing pension obligations with other State expenditures became problematic. One alternative, identified at the hearing on Public Act 98-599, would have been to adopt a new schedule for amortizing the unfunded liabilities. The General Assembly could also have sought additional tax revenue. While it did pass a temporary income tax increase, it allowed the increased rate to lapse to a lower rate even as pension funding was being debated and litigated.
That the State did not select the least drastic means of addressing its financial difficulties is reinforced by the legislative history. As noted earlier in this opinion, the chief sponsor of the legislation stated candidly that other alternatives were available. Public Act 98-599 was in no sense a last resort. Rather, it was an expedient to break a political stalemate.
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the United States Constitution “bar[s] Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole [citations].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 883 (1996). Through Public Act 98-599, however, the General Assembly addressed the financial challenges facing our State by doing just that. It made no effort to distribute the burdens evenly among Illinoisans. It did not even attempt to distribute the burdens evenly among those with whom it has contractual relationships. Although it is undisputed that many vendors face delays in payment, the terms of their contracts are unchanged, and under the State Prompt Payment Act, vendors are actually entitled to additional compensation in the form of statutory interest if their bills are not paid within specified periods. 30 ILCS 540/3-2 (West 2012). In no sense is this comparable to the situation confronted by members of public retirement systems under Public Act 98-599, which, if allowed to take effect, would actually negate substantive terms of their contractual relationships and reduce the benefits due and payable to them in a real and absolute way. Under all of these circumstances, it is clear that the State could prove no set of circumstances that would satisfy the contracts clause. […]
The State protests that this conclusion is tantamount to holding that the State has surrendered its sovereign authority, something it may not do. The State is incorrect. Article XIII, section 5, is in no sense a surrender of any attribute of sovereignty. Rather, it is a statement by the people of Illinois, made in the clearest possible terms, that the authority of the legislature does not include the power to diminish or impair the benefits of membership in a public retirement system. This is a restriction the people of Illinois had every right to impose.
As the ultimate sovereign, the people can, “within constitutional restrictions imposed by the Federal constitution, delegate the powers of government to whom and as they please. They can withhold or [e]ntrust it, with such limitations as they choose.” … The powers they have reserved are shown in the prohibitions set forth in their state constitutions. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 124 (1876).
Reamortize the debt, raise taxes, spread out the pain evenly, and/or pass a constitutional amendment that doesn’t violate the Federal constitution’s “contract clause.”
If there is an attempt by the governor at passing a constitutional amendment, I’d bet it would be challenged in federal court. This thing is nowhere near over.
City Hall and the Rauner administration had no immediate reaction to the decision, but it implies bad things for them.
Emanuel last year negotiated reductions in benefits with unions covering about half of city workers and is working with police and firefighters for further changes. But the language of today’s decision appears to allow no exception for “negotiated” reductions in benefits. Rather, the benefits are owed, as in any contract.
Rauner, in turn, has proposed shifting all current workers into a new system with reduced benefits. But the court decision suggests that a worker is entitled to accrue benefits at the old rate until he or she leaves the payroll.
* “Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn smiles during the signing of the pension overhaul legislation bill Thursday, Dec. 5, 2013, in Chicago. Looking on from left are: Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington; Senate GOP leader Sen. Christine Radogno; Rep. Darlene Senger, R-Naperville; Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs; House Speaker Michael Madigan and Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago”…
“A bad bill in Springfield would raise our electricity bills to protect Exelon’s bottom line. The Legislature should either rewrite it significantly or flick the off switch altogether.”
“There is a feeling here of a company trying to socialize the risks while keeping the profits private.”
“Though solar, wind and other generators of low carbon energy would supposedly qualify for the credits, the legislation is written to give a big advantage to Exelon’s nuclear plants. Yes, this legislation would hike your electric bill.”
“…Problem is, Exelon hasn’t provided much evidence that the plants are financial losers and it hasn’t promised to keep the plants open…”
“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.”
Just say no to the Exelon bailout. Vote no on SB1585/HB3293.
BEST Coalition is a 501C4 nonprofit group of dozens of business, consumer and government groups, as well as large and small businesses. Visit www.noexelonbailout.com.
* I’ll be updating this as we go along. The first one I’ve received is from Ty Fahner…
“There are no winners today. If there’s any good news, it’s that Chicago and Illinois are resilient, and we’ve responded to great challenges before. The Civic Committee stands ready to work with Governor Rauner and the General Assembly to craft a bipartisan solution to rescue the state from financial collapse and restore Illinois as a compassionate and competitive state.”
Ty Fahner
President
Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago
* Speaker Madigan’s spokesman said his boss will “take it under review” and continue to work on the issue, which he said was of vital importance to the state’s future.
* Senate President John Cullerton…
“From the beginning of our pension reform debates, I expressed concern about the constitutionality of the plan that we ultimately advanced as a test case for the court. Today, the Illinois Supreme Court declared that regardless of political considerations or fiscal circumstances, state leaders cannot renege on pension obligations. This ruling is a victory for retirees, public employees and everyone who respects the plain language of our Constitution.
That victory, however, should be balanced against the grave financial realities we will continue to face without true reforms. If there are to be any lasting savings in pension reform, we must face this reality within the confines of the Pension Clause. I stand ready to work with all parties to advance a real solution that adheres to the Illinois Constitution.”
* From the twitters…
State Sen. Linda Holmes, a union backer: "I really do think we have to start from scratch." http://t.co/qT1YFjYhUG
“Our goal from the beginning of our work on pension reform has been to strike a very careful, very important balance between protecting the hard-earned investments of state workers and retirees and the equally important investments of all taxpayers in education, human and social services, health care and other vital state priorities. In its ruling today, the Supreme Court struck down not only the law but the core of that balance. Now our already dire pension problem will get that much worse and our options in striking that balance are limited. Our path forward from here is now much more difficult, and every direction will be more painful than the balance we struck in Senate Bill 1.”
* Illinois Policy Institute…
Today the Illinois Supreme Court struck down Senate Bill 1, the pension reform law enacted in 2013 by former Gov. Pat Quinn. Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman released the following statement on the state Supreme Court’s ruling:
“Illinois’ political elite have devised a pension scheme that is excessive, bloated, corrupted and was never affordable for Illinois taxpayers. While Senate Bill 1 did not solve the pension crisis, the legislation at least took a first step toward achieving parity between government workers who receive pensions, and the taxpayers who fund them.
“But with today’s ruling, the state’s high court says that state government’s No. 1 financial responsibility is paying the retirement of people who no longer work for state government. Pension costs are first in line, ahead of funding for public safety, education, helping the poor and disadvantaged, and all core services provided by state government.
“The court’s ruling suggested that raising taxes is a way to pay for pensions. Raising taxes will not fix a broken system. The pension system is beyond repair, and there will never be enough money to fund it. Case in point: The 2011 tax increase. That tax increase generated more than $31 billion, and 90 cents out of every $1 collected from the tax increase went to pensions. Yet it still was not enough to make the pension system whole.
“Ultimately, the only way Illinois can break the cycle of siphoning more and more tax dollars and sacrificing more and more state programs to pay for pensions is to follow the lead of the private sector and move new employees to a 401(k)-style system. In the short term, it will not be surprising to see calls to change the state constitution or allow Illinois to file for bankruptcy.”
* We Are One Illinois union coalition…
Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael T. Carrigan issued the following statement on behalf of the We Are One Illinois coalition of unions that represent public employees and retirees:
“We are thankful that the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the will of the people, overturned this unfair and unconstitutional law, and protected the hard-earned life savings of teachers, police, fire fighters, nurses, caregivers and other public service workers and retirees.
“The Court’s ruling confirms that the Illinois Constitution ensures against the government’s unilateral diminishment or impairment of public pensions.
“Because most public employees aren’t eligible for Social Security, their modest pension—just $32,000 a year on average—is the primary source of retirement income for hundreds of thousands of Illinois families. While workers always paid their share, politicians caused the debt by failing to make adequate contributions to the pension funds.
“Public service workers are helpers and problem solvers by trade. With the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, we urge lawmakers to join us in developing a fair and constitutional solution to pension funding, and we remain ready to work with anyone of good faith to do so.”
* Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno…
“Illinois has the nation’s worst-funded pension system and the biggest pension deficit of any state. Nearly a quarter of our budget goes directly to pensions or to pay off past loans used to cover short-term pension costs.
I am committed to working with everyone to find a solution that adheres to the Constitution. We must to work together in bipartisan cooperation with Governor Rauner – who has demonstrated his commitment to tackle the most difficult problems facing Illinois.”
* Sen. Gary Forby…
“I made a promise to the thousands of union members in my district that I would not support a pension reform plan that punishes working families,” said Senator Forby, Chairman of the Senate’s Labor Committee. “Now is the time to give labor a seat at the negotiating table so we can strike a fair balance between finding financial solvency and honoring our promises to workers.”
* Sen. Daniel Biss…
“Today the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Senate Bill 1 is unconstitutional. While this is not the opinion the authors of SB1 had hoped for, we must respect the Court and strictly adhere to this ruling. The Pension Clause of the Illinois Constitution provides important protections, and today’s ruling proves the depth of those protections.
The state of Illinois and many of its local governments are still facing serious fiscal problems, including significant pension debt. I look forward to working with all parties to find ways to ensure that adequate resources are available to properly fund our pension systems, in the context of a responsible budget that funds crucial services. Our public employees, our government bodies and our taxpayers deserve nothing less.”
* Twitters…
Rep Nekritz on pension ruling "My overwhelming emotional reaction is I feel very sad for the future of Illinois. I feel very sad about that"
“I respect the Illinois Supreme Court, but disagree with the ruling. I am prepared to continue working on meaningful legislative reforms to save our public pension systems.”
“We are delighted that today’s Supreme Court opinion recognizes and ensures the pension rights of State employees, as required by our Constitution. And we trust that the General Assembly will address the State’s fiscal difficulties, in a manner consistent with the Constitution, and in a way that is fair to all the citizens of Illinois.” — Gino DiVito, attorney who argued state employees’ legal challenge to the Illinois Supreme Court.
* Charles A. Burbridge, executive director of the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund…
“While CTPF members were not directly impacted by the ruling on Senate Bill 1, the Illinois Supreme Court’s landmark decision to strike down this legislation is a welcome development for our members. This ruling clearly establishes that pensions are a promise to be kept, which is important to our members since they do not receive Social Security benefits and depend on CTPF pensions for their retirement security.
“Unfortunately, our Fund has been devastated by decades of underfunding by our employer. As a result, CPS faces significant challenges as it makes up for the impact of its past decisions. We hope that this ruling helps move forward the conversation about fully funding pensions for CTPF members.”
* Sen. Kwame Raoul…
Today, the state’s highest court affirmed that, as in all matters, we are bound by the plain language of the Illinois Constitution on the question of public employee benefits. This is not surprising news, nor is it an unwelcome reminder; constitutional limits protect us all – especially in times of fiscal crisis. The Court effectively illustrated the cyclical nature of economic fortunes, noting that Illinois faced a pension funding emergency at the time our current constitution was drafted. The rule of law remains a guiding constant.
This decision is a call to go back to the negotiating table and get serious about the range of options available to us to repair the state’s finances and meet its obligations in ways consistent with the constitution, sustainable for the future and fair to all concerned.
A number of approaches remain open to us, but the Court has made clear that the constitution’s prohibition on unilateral modifications applies to the lifetime of the contract made at the time of employment, not merely to benefits already accrued.
We return to our task aided by the insights of the Court, fully aware of our constitutional responsibilities as well as the severity of our fiscal condition, in partnership with all affected and open to new ideas.
* Linda Brookhart, Executive Director of the State Universities Annuitants Association…
”SURS member Henry Green introduced the Pension Clause to the 1970 Constitution to ‘guarantee [pension] rights.’ We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized and affirmed those Constitutional protections.
“This is a victory for retired and current members of the State Universities Retirement System and the other public employee retirement systems. But, it is more than that. It is a victory for anyone to whom the State of Illinois owes a debt. As the Court noted in paragraph 85 ‘today it is nullification of the right to retirement benefits. Tomorrow it could be a renunciation of the duty to repay State obligations.’ Indeed, in oral argument we specifically noted that Illinois’ $50 Billion general revenue bond market could be put in jeopardy. And the court took it a step further ‘If financial markets were rational, this prospect would not buoy our economy, it would ruin it.’
“As the court noted, the underfunding of pension benefits has a long history that goes back well before the pension protection clause was adopted. The clause was intended to apply pressure on the legislature to meet its financial obligations to fund retirement benefits for employees who have spent their lives working for the state. That the State insisted on pursuing its policy of under-funding in the 44 years since the clause was adopted cannot now serve as an excuse for the State to renege on its obligation to pay pensions.
“Our attorney stated in oral argument that this was akin to the Lizzie Borden defense – ‘I killed my parents. Have mercy on me. I’m an orphan,’ a defense which every grade school child recognizes as preposterous. We are grateful that the Supreme Court did not buy into this defense. As a result of this opinion, employees retiring from the State of Illinois should have confidence in their pensions. And our members, members of the State Universities Retirement System can take comfort in knowing that their service to the students of this State did not deprive them of their retirement benefits.
“At SUAA we are committed to protecting the rights of retired and current public university and community college employees and will continue to do so.”
Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat and one of the lead pension-law negotiators in the House, said that those other provisions were an attempt to strike a balance between employee benefits and the overall health of the state.
But the court’s action negates that balance, she said.
Nekritz also pointed to a section of the opinion that said “[a]dherence to constitutional requirements often requires significant sacrifice, but our survival as a society depends on it,” calling it an off-point summary of the circumstances.
“The goal of Senate Bill 1 was to put Illinois on more sound fiscal footing so that we could survive as a society,” she said. “So I found it odd that they made that statement, when what they’re really doing is making it more difficult to fund education, more difficult to fund competing demands … That one hit me pretty hard.”
The solution proposed by the [state Constitution] drafters and ultimately approved by the people of Illinois was to protect the benefits of membership in public pension systems not by dictating specific funding levels, but by safeguarding the benefits themselves… The purpose of the clause and its dual features have never been in dispute
* Clear cut…
The first issue, whether Public Act 98-599’s reduction of retirement annuity benefits violates this State’s pension protection clause, is easily resolved. The pension protection clause clearly states: “[m]embership in any pension or retirement system of the State *** shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5. This clause has been construed by our court on numerous occasions, most recently in Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811.We held in that case that the clause means precisely what it says: “if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired.”
This construction of article XIII, section 5, was not a break from prior law. To the contrary, it was a reaffirmation of principles articulated by this court and the appellate court on numerous occasions since the 1970 Constitution took effect. […]
Retirement annuity benefits are unquestionably a “benefit of contractually-enforceable relationship resulting from membership” in the four State-funded retirement systems. Indeed, they are among the most important benefits provided by those systems. If allowed to take effect, Public Act 98-599, would clearly result in a diminishment of the retirement annuities to which Tier 1 members of GRS, SRS, SURS and TRS became entitled when they joined those systems. As described earlier in this opinion, the new legislation directly reduces the value of retirement annuities for those members in no fewer than five different ways. While we presume statutes to be constitutional and must construe enactments by the legislature so as to uphold their validity whenever it is reasonably proper to do so (Wilson v. Department of Revenue, 169 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1996)), there is simply no way that the annuity reduction provisions in Public Act 98-599 can be reconciled with the rights and protections established by the people of Illinois when they ratified the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and its pension protection clause. Those provisions contravene the clear requirements of article XIII, section 5, as set forth in the provision’s plain and unambiguous language and construed by the legion of cases we have just discussed. In enacting the provisions, the General Assembly overstepped the scope of its legislative power. This court is therefore obligated to declare those provisions invalid.
* Police powers…
That the annuity reduction provisions of Public Act 98-599 violate the pension protection clause’s prohibition against the diminishment of the benefits of membership in a State-funded retirement system is one the State has now all but conceded. After this court reaffirmed in Kanerva v. Weems that the pension protection clause means precisely what it says, the State shifted its focus to an argument it did not raise and we did not consider in Kanerva. The State’s position now rests on its affirmative defense that funding for the pension systems and State finances in general have become so dire that the General Assembly is authorized, even compelled, to invoke the State’s “reserved sovereign powers,” i.e., its police powers, to override the rights and protections afforded by article XIII, section 5, of the Illinois Constitution in the interests of the greater public good. This argument must also fail.
The circumstances presented by this case are not unique. Economic conditions are cyclical and expected, and fiscal difficulties have confronted the State before. […]
While these principles sound expansive, legislation impairing contracts has actually been upheld against contract clause challenges only rarely. George D. Hardin, Inc. v. Village of Mount Prospect, 99 Ill. 2d at 104. When the legislation has been directed at reducing pension benefits of State employees, this court has expressly held that it is “not defensible as a reasonable exercise of the State’s police powers” and declared it invalid under the contracts clause, as well as for other reasons. […]
In addition, because the state’s self-interest is at stake whenever it seeks to modify its own financial obligations, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that it is not appropriate to give the state’s legislature the same deference it would otherwise be afforded with regard to whether the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. “A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money,” the Court observed, “especially when taxes do not have to be raised. If a State could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all.” […]
The State protests that this conclusion is tantamount to holding that the State has surrendered its sovereign authority, something it may not do. The State is incorrect. Article XIII, section 5, is in no sense a surrender of any attribute of sovereignty. Rather, it is a statement by the people of Illinois, made in the clearest possible terms, that the authority of the legislature does not include the power to diminish or impair the benefits of membership in a public retirement system. This is a restriction the people of Illinois had every right to impose. […]
Under the State’s reasoning, the only limit on the police power would be the scope of the emergency. The legislature could do whatever it felt it needed to do under the circumstances. And more than that, through its funding decisions, it could create the very emergency conditions used to justify its suspension of the rights conferred and protected by the constitution. If financial markets were rational, this prospect would not buoy our economy, it would ruin it.
* Man, is this ever a strong statement…
The financial challenges facing state and local governments in Illinois are well known and significant. In ruling as we have today, we do not mean to minimize the gravity of the State’s problems or the magnitude of the difficulty facing our elected representatives. It is our obligation, however, just as it is theirs, to ensure that the law is followed. That is true at all times. It is especially important in times of crisis when, as this case demonstrates, even clear principles and long-standing precedent are threatened. Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law. It is a summons to defend it. How we respond is the measure of our commitment to the principles of justice we are sworn to uphold.
* Severability…
We come, then, to the third and final issue presented by this appeal: are the invalid annuity reduction provisions of Public Act 98-599 severable from the remainder of the statute? […]
Among the 39 sections deemed “inseverable” are some of the specific provisions which impermissibly reduce retirement annuity benefits in violation of the pension protection clause. These include sections 2-119.1(a-1), 14-114(a-1), 15-136(d-1), and 16-133.1(a-1) (40 ILCS 5/2-119.1(a-1), 14-114(a-1), 15-136(d-1), 16-133.1(a-1) (West Supp. 2013)), which adversely affect the value of annual annuity increases. Under the express terms of section 97 of the Act itself, all 39 of the “inseverable” provisions must therefore fall with the provisions we have declared unconstitutional. When one eliminates those 39 provisions along with all the other annuity-reducing portions of the law that are void and enforceable under the pension protection clause, Public Act 98-599 all but evaporates.
Severability principles would doom the statute in any case. Under Illinois law, severability clauses are not conclusive. That is because a court’s authority to eliminate invalid elements of an act and yet sustain its valid provisions derives not from legislative fiat, but from powers inherent in the judiciary. The practice of holding statutory provisions severable from those that are found to be invalid originated in the courts long before severability clauses were adopted by legislatures. Although the use of severability clauses has now become common practice, we have noted that they are regarded as little more than a formality. […]
Applying these principles to the case before us, there can be no serious question that, with invalidation of those provisions of Public Act 98-599 which reduce the retirement annuities Tier 1 members of the GRS, SERS, SURS and TRS are entitled to receive, the entire statute must fall. As noted earlier in this opinion, the legislation’s proponents described its numerous provisions as “all part of an integral bipartisan package.” The overarching purpose of the law was to shore up State finances, improve its credit rating and free up resources for other purposes by reducing, i.e., diminishing, the amount of retirement annuity benefits paid to Tier 1 members of GRS, SERS, SURS, and TRS, particularly annual annuity increases, which the speaker of the House of Representatives himself referred to as the chief cause of the financial problems the Act was intended to address. 98th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, Dec. 3, 2013, at 7 (statements of Representative Madigan). The annuity reduction provisions are therefore not merely central to the statute, they are its very reason for being. Without them, the legislature would not have enacted the law at all. To leave those remaining provisions standing once the core sections are stripped away would, under these circumstances, yield a legislation package that no longer reflects the legislature’s intent. The circuit court was therefore correct when it concluded that Public Act 98-599 is void and unenforceable in its entirety
* Nothing yet from the governor’s office. From the Illinois AFL-CIO…
Just received word that the Rauner anti-worker agenda has been pulled from the Adams County Board agenda for May 12. We will keep you posted if it comes back.
Alert for upcoming Rauner anti-worker agenda activity: Saturday, May 9 – Henry County Board Executive Committee, 8 a.m., 307 West Center Street, Cambridge
* Meanwhile, parsing the Speaker’s decision to call the governor’s “right to work” proposal for a vote next week…
“The message may well be that if they want to accomplish anything this session, then Rauner had better get off a couple of things that have almost no chance of passing,” said Mike Lawrence, a longtime statehouse journalist, former aide to Gov. Jim Edgar and retired director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute.
While cautioning he had no inside scoop, Lawrence said, “I think it will be clear after this vote that right-to-work has virtually no chance of passing. I have a difficult time seeing where anything on the union front is going to happen.”
One by one, Madigan is addressing issues that Rauner has raised, Lawrence said. And by showing the governor where he seriously lacks votes, Madigan might be saying it’s time to shift focus.
Political scientist Chris Mooney said the message from Madigan to Rauner may be one of “who’s for what and who’s not.”
Although enormously accomplished in business, Rauner might also be getting a lesson from the speaker on the legislative process, said Mooney, director of the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Political Affairs.
They’re both right, plus more.
…Adding… I gave a speech last night and I wasn’t able to post House GOP Leader Jim Durkin’s response to Madigan’s right to work vote plan…
“I believe the working groups, particularly the one dealing with this issue, need to continue their work negotiating consensus. That is a better approach to take.”
* And from the University of New Mexico’s Tamara Kay…
The most rigorous research study available–published in 2011 by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute and conducted by Heidi Shierholz (now the chief economist of the US Department of Labor) and Elise Gould–controlled for 42 variables. It found that right-to-work laws result in lower wages and a lower likelihood of health care and pensions for union and non-union workers. It also shows right-to-work laws have no impact on economic growth.
Right-to-work proponents, however, have used “research” reports that control for few if any variables, to suggest that right-to-work states have done better on a variety of growth measures, predicting that their state would similarly benefit by passing a bill.
For example, the Wisconsin Public Research Institute, a member of the free-market-oriented State Policy Network, published such a report before the state passed its law that claimed that adopting right-to-work could increase per-capita income by 6 percentage points. But the study only controlled for eight variables, which isn’t nearly enough to control for all the different factors that affect changes in income.
In other words, the conclusions are meaningless. In the world of medical research, this would be like testing a cancer drug without using a control group that was not given the drug, ensuring that its pure effect could be isolated.
[Password protection removed and comments opened because the press release was finally issued.]
* House Speaker Michael Madigan has scheduled yet another committee of the whole for next Tuesday…
I have a call in to the Speaker’s office about the topic. Watch this post for updates.
Also, keep coming back to the blog today. Some big news is about to hit.
…Adding… I’m hearing the committee of the whole topic is tort reform. Still waiting on a call back.
*** UPDATE *** Press release…
Madigan Asks Full House to Discuss Illinois’ Civil Justice System
CHICAGO – House Speaker Michael J. Madigan on Friday announced the Illinois House will convene in a committee of the whole at noon Tuesday to discuss Illinois’ civil justice system and the protections it provides to victims and their families when killed or injured in accidents caused by severe negligence.
“Our justice system is often the last chance for victims and their families after their lives were torn apart by acts of carelessness,” Madigan said. “Even those who have never set foot in a courtroom are protected by our system because it allows any person to expose shoddy products and reckless actions that make our state less safe.”
As part of a discussion on Illinois’ civil justice system, the committee of the whole will hear from victims of medical malpractice and the family members of individuals killed in accidents or injured by dangerous products.
“When Illinois victims’ protections are discussed, unfortunately the bottom line sometimes is considered more important than what is fair and right. Special interests spend millions in attempts to change our court system to work against regular citizens. But too often it is our neighbors and co-workers – middle-class families – who need the court’s protections the most,” Madigan explained. “We must listen to the victims, their families and others who have seen firsthand how a strong civil justice system provides an avenue for their voices to be heard and fairness to prevail, and how a weak civil justice system leaves victims and their families traumatized several times over.”
Like the committee of the whole convened this week to discuss assistance for injured workers, Madigan cited the importance of the issue and the need for input from all House members as discussions on changes to the civil justice system continue.
* The new governor has meant more subscriptions and more advertising revenues, so this is no surprise…
According to a review of state lobbying records requested by the Quad-City Times Springfield Bureau, 1,733 lobbyists registered with the Illinois Secretary of State’s office from January through April.
The number is up from 1,700 during the same time period last year and up by nearly 100 lobbyists who registered in 2013. […]
The numbers also show a move away from companies having their own, in-house lobbying teams. So far this year, there are 1,973 lobbying entities or organizations, up from 1,763 five years ago.
When it comes to wining and dining lawmakers, the biggest spending lobbying organization so far in 2015 is the Ounce of Prevention Fund, which is headed by First Lady Diana Rauner. Reports show the group, which is a public-private partnership that prepares children for success in school and in life, has spent $132,415 to wine and dine lawmakers this year.
Interesting.
*** UPDATE *** From the Ounce of Prevention Fund’s Megan Meyer…
Hi Rich-
We saw that Capitol Fax picked up the Quad City Times story on increased lobbying activity this year, and wanted to clarify the information reported about the Ounce of Prevention Fund.
The expenditure reports we filed with the state included our annual luncheon at an expense of $130,000 (which includes all costs of the event – meals, on-site materials, etc.), which dramatically inflates the appearance of our spending on lobbying efforts. For 14 years, our It’s Good Business to Invest in Young Children Annual Luncheon has been our premier public education and fundraising event that brings together the business, philanthropic and civic communities in support of early childhood education. Of the more than 850 attendees, only two were affiliated with state government. That event is not a lobbying event.
Our new legislator breakfast that we held in January is typical of our direct lobbying efforts (and was reported on an earlier expenditure report), and we spent $336 on a breakfast for 36 people, including 11 elected officials.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
