* Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by AFSCME and several other unions in St. Clair County is worth a look. The unions claim their collective bargaining agreements require that employees be paid.
First, she argues that there are lots of precedents for moving this case to the Court of Claims, where she says it rightfully belongs…
Pursuant to § 2-619(a)(1) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (2012)), plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because their claim founded upon their contracts with the State is barred by sovereign immunity and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction over that claim.
You can read her memorandum of law, which contains all the details and precedents, by clicking here.
* There is, Madigan says, another reason for kicking this case out the door: There’s another case being heard in Cook County…
Pursuant to § 2-619(a)(3) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (2012)), plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed because there is a prior-filed action pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, case no. 15 CH 10243, which raises the issue of whether the Comptroller may authorize payment of state employees in the absence of a budget. The public labor unions intervened in that lawsuit before they filed the instant action.
* This one’s a bit more complicated…
Pursuant to § 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (2012)), plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because an impairment of contracts claim under the Illinois Constitution requires a legislative enactment, but here plaintiffs complain only of the legislature’s failure to pass a budget. Additionally, an impairment of contracts claim may not be used as a substitute for a breach of contract action, but a breach of contract is all plaintiffs assert.
* Let’s turn to the memorandum of law to explain that last point a bit more. Madigan cites fairly recent precedent, among others…
(T)he court has “rejected the notion that a breach of contract alone is enough to constitute a constitutional impairment of a contractual obligation.” Council 31, AFSCME v. Quinn, 680 F.3d 875, 885 (7th Cir. 2012).
In Quinn, the court rejected the argument that the legislature unconstitutionally impairs the obligations of a contract when it fails to appropriate funds sufficient to the State to meet its contractual obligations to its employees. Id. at 885-86. Because plaintiffs cannot turn their ordinary breach-of- contract claim into a constitutional claim, their complaint should be dismissed pursuant to § 2-615.
Boom.
- Sun - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:07 am:
Refreshing to hear from an grown-up in the midst of all the hoopla
- Sun - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:07 am:
* a grown-up
That’d drive me nuts all day
- Roadiepig - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:12 am:
“But…but she’s only doing this for her daddy” comments to begin being posted in 3..2..1
- GOPGal - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:14 am:
At least our judicial branch of government is competent. Thank you AG Madigan.
- thunderspirit - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:14 am:
Rather sad that the Attorney General will likely be vilified for actually doing her job by the same Governor who has frequently appeared reluctant to actually do his.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:17 am:
==Rather sad that the Attorney General will likely be vilified for actually doing her job by the same Governor who has frequently appeared reluctant to actually do his.==
But warranted for an AG who is rather selective in terms of what issues she will “do her job” for
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:17 am:
While everyone talks about all of this legal wrangling nobody thinks about the impact all of this will have on people’s lives. It would be nice if the powers that be focused on that a little and actually did something to fix all of this instead of fighting in court about something they have total control over fixing.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:17 am:
I think it was a big mistake for the unions to get on the litigation bandwagon with Rauner on the salary issue. Just stand by and let him founder.
- Me too - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:18 am:
At this rate next thing we’ll all have to individually go to the court of claims to get back pay. I get what the law says, and I don’t think the gov can just veto appropriations then decide to spend them anyway, but I just don’t see how the AG shutting all these suits down does anything good for her image. Maybe Kass can explain how this is all part of the grand conspiracy to make Lisa Madigan the Governor
- Roadiepig - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:19 am:
As a aside- Gov. “I never lose” is doing a great job helping rehab Lisa’s image to those in the public who are paying attention to this three ring circus. Following the law and the constitution- something both the gov. and her father have had trouble doing in the recent past. What a concept!
- thunderspirit - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:21 am:
=== But warranted for an AG who is rather selective in terms of what issues she will “do her job” for ===
That’s certainly fair criticism.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:21 am:
“The attorney general, who forced matters to a head by bringing the issue before a judge, was trying hard afterward to avoid taking the blame for missing paychecks.
“This entire situation has been caused by the failure of the Governor and the Legislature to enact a budget,” Madigan said in a written statement that emphasized she “absolutely” wants state employees to be paid.
She’s absolutely correct about that, although it’s hard to believably play the role of the neutral third party when your father is the leader of the party Rauner says is responsible for Springfield’s dysfunction.
It is somewhat curious Madigan took a different position in 2007 when a full house of Democratic officials was responsible for that year’s budget standoff, with the attorney general agreeing to allow then-comptroller Dan Hynes to keep paying state employees.
Madigan’s lawyers argued the difference is that all parties were very close to a budget agreement that year, while there’s no deal in sight this time. Hmmm, usually close doesn’t count.”
–Mark Brown (who loathes Rauner)
- A Jack - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:22 am:
I am not even sure that a Court of Claims action is appropriate yet since payroll hasn’t been missed. I also don’t see anything in the contract that deals with delayed pay checks.
My bigger concern at this point is what happens if the contract isn’t extended past August 1. With no valid contract and no authority to pay, it seems the legal options are very few.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:23 am:
===Mark Brown (who loathes Rauner) ===
Yeah, but he didn’t mention that AG Madigan took the same position in 2009 as she’s taking now.
She was told never to come back with the argument she made in 2007, so she didn’t.
- sal-says - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:24 am:
Gee. How about this?
1) ALL the parties involved quit playing the ‘Let’s Go To Court’ game.
2) Have the governor present HIS version of a balanced budget, which IL is still waiting for.
3) Spend all this extra time & cost and negotiate a real budget & stop all the drama?
Too sane to try?
- pundent - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:25 am:
=It is somewhat curious Madigan took a different position in 2007 when a full house of Democratic officials was responsible for that year’s budget standoff, with the attorney general agreeing to allow then-comptroller Dan Hynes to keep paying state employees.=
At the risk of sounding redundant, please keep up. She was wacked by the court in 2007, changed her tune in 2009, and has been consistent since.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:32 am:
=== I think it was a big mistake for the unions to get on the litigation bandwagon with Rauner on the salary issue. Just stand by and let him founder. ===
They have to do everything they can for their members. Otherwise, they will have no members.
- PublicServant - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:32 am:
I’m glad you aren’t letting Anonymous get away with that Rich. Today, in this thread, as in a thread from yesterday, where he/she tried to assert the same selective bit of history, you corrected the record. Yet another reason that I love this blog.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:34 am:
===I think it was a big mistake for the unions to get on the litigation bandwagon with Rauner on the salary issue. Just stand by and let him founder.===
Your missing the point;
It’s not the Unions joining Rauner, it’s Rauner joining the Unions.
Rauner hasn’t led in any aspect of any governing in this crisis…
… he (Rauner) created.
- mcb - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:38 am:
pundent,
That doesn’t matter. That’s good enough for the mailer. Add in line of something like, “The Madigan family even went to court to stop state employees from getting paid…” and you’re good.
Bad PR for Lisa and her dad, and it takes away some of the idea that the Dems are the ones who actually care. This is a win for Rauner.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:39 am:
===That’s good enough for the mailer===
The next election is ages away.
How about forgetting about the campaign for a moment and focus on governing???
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:43 am:
===This is a win for Rauner.===
A budget crisis… is a win… for a sitting governor.
To think that, that makes all those hurt, just collateral damage, as long as Rauner… wins.
Just wow. I guess you can care less about real people too?
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:45 am:
So if you win in the, court of claims, and it takes a long long time, you get paid when the legislature appropriates the money to pay the verdict. Catch-23.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:48 am:
==I think it was a big mistake for the unions to get on the litigation bandwagon with Rauner on the salary issue.==
Co-opting him wherever they can is a good move for the unions.
==That doesn’t matter. That’s good enough for the mailer.==
Meh, you don’t need much in the way of facts to put something on a mailer. If Madigan runs for Governor against Rauner in 2018 (a big if, I think) he was going to say she’s against workers regardless of what she does. She may as well do her job in the meantime.
==How about forgetting about the campaign for a moment and focus on governing?==
I mean, I agree, but this entire conflict is predicated on a long-term electoral strategy. Might as well acknowledge it.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:05 am:
===Co-opting him wherever they can is a good move for the unions.===
Normally, I’d agree whole-heartedly.
Rauner changes positions with the wind, almost “hourly”, stating things counter to his own thoughts if it makes him look good in the moment… then Rauner “wonders” why no one trusts him
(hint: no he doesn’t wonder, and apparently doesn’t care(?) about trust in governing too)
- Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:06 am:
So are we now officially at the stage where there are more court appearances in multiple courtrooms over the “budget” than meetings between legislative leaders and the governor over the “budget” since June 30, 2015?
- Anon - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:09 am:
==At least our judicial branch of government is competent. Thank you AG Madigan.==
The AG is part of the Executive Branch
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:11 am:
I will tip my cap to - RNUG -;
- RNUG - stated that Rauner could very well cost the state more in litigation than his predecessors.
I just didn’t think it would start in full throat with Rauner’s first budget crisis.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:15 am:
The Mark Brown article cited here, that’s in today’s Sun-Times, is about the need for legislators and not the courts to solve this problem. I agree, and I agree with Brown when he says Rauner not getting his reform items passed is no reason to tank the budget. That’s why we have future elections, so we can try to change the political landscape more to our favor.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:22 am:
Louis, you’re right. Time for the Governor to get off his soapbox and arrange for those meetings.
- LINK - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:30 am:
A Jack 9:22,
I’ve no answer for you but it sure puts AFSCME employees in a pickle come August 1.
By then they will have had missed one paycheck, and if Rauner does not settle on contract issues or extend the agreement further, think of the (financial) picture they’ll be in if a lockout or strike occurs? By then his new media image of siding with the unions and their cause in the prior weeks could make him look like the good guy. And with the state employees having already missed a paycheck or two…well, it sure softens them up.
I am part of the chorus singing the praises for this forum but wish the media would dig a little deeper than passing on soundbites provided by the Governor and legislative offices.
- walker - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:34 am:
This might still be playing well for Rauner as Mr. Shakemup Fixit with the public, but his team shouldn’t bet on that lasting more than another week or two.
- Mama - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:36 am:
“Yeah, but he didn’t mention that AG Madigan took the same position in 2009 as she’s taking now.
She was told never to come back with the argument she made in 2007, so she didn’t.”
Rich, thanks for making the legal language more clear.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:37 am:
This is complicated. Labor contract violation, federal wage and hour, no budget authorizing the money, all different aspects that would usually be in different courtrooms. Add to that the theatrics of the governor. He could have vetoed the rest of the budget and signed off on the money for state employee pay. He is totally responsible for the situation, but acts like he is fighting to pay the state workers. A three ring circus.
- Mama - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:38 am:
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. She has no choice but to file on behalf of the state.
- A guy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:47 am:
==Demoralized - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 9:17 am:
While everyone talks about all of this legal wrangling nobody thinks about the impact all of this will have on people’s lives. It would be nice if the powers that be focused on that a little and actually did something to fix all of this instead of fighting in court about something they have total control over fixing.===
Agreed Demo. Hope this works out. Praying for it. Stay strong brother!
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:48 am:
==Normally, I’d agree whole-heartedly.==
Oh, I’m not saying they can turn him into an ally, but when his positions align with theirs, they should jump on it and bank that “inconsistency” for later. Look at everyone snickering at his “Mother Jones” routine right now. When he flip-flops BACK to his nonsensical anti-union positions, he’ll have even less credibility on them. And that accrues to the union’s benefit. If they slapped his hand away, however…
- A guy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:51 am:
==She has no choice but to file on behalf of the state.===
She’s been plenty selective in the past on behalf of the state. There are no winners in this match.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:56 am:
- Arsenal -
I hear ya, I knew your intent, and you are Spot On in your political thoughts with the Union(s) putting Rauner in the truck bag here, but my follow-up is reakky what is working against the Union(s) in the aftermath;
“Rauner changes positions with the wind, almost “hourly”, stating things counter to his own thoughts if it makes him look good in the moment… then Rauner “wonders” why no one trusts him
(hint: no he doesn’t wonder, and apparently doesn’t care(?) about trust in governing too)”
Your very valid points only work if Rauner actually cared about being consistent. Rauner has consistently been inconsistent in following his own logical processes.
Rauner cares less about being inconsistent, as long as its winning in public opinion; support Union workers getting paid, then destroy unions.
In Rauner’s prism, it … “works”
Much respect as always, hope that clarified my initial thoughts
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 11:05 am:
- Arsenal -,
Your valid points, and the politics to Rauner’s own inconsistencies are a major reason Rauner is awful on his feet fielding questions, let alone questions that go after his inconsistencies.
The Union(s) would be incredibly wise to do what they’re doing, as you point out as well, but Rauner won’t be “called” on it, won’t take questions about it, and personally doesn’t care enough about his trustworthiness.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 11:29 am:
The excerpts from the AG’s brief really show how much the quality of the attorneys recruited and working for the AG’s office has increased since LMadigan was elected. It’s even more amazing considering how little they get paid.
And before anyone makes any accusations: no, I do not work for the AG’s office and never have. I have no role other than as an observer.
That said, good work deserves to be recognized.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 11:42 am:
So if the judge says to Lisa don’t give the State Workers their Milk in 2007, she comes back and punches them in the nose.
Just leave them alone instead of going the other extreme. She has been selective in other areas.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 11:44 am:
“- Mama - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 10:38 am:
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. She has no choice but to file on behalf of the state.”
Not true, she has been selective in other areas. She did not need to do this.
- Concerned - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 11:55 am:
Madigan was asked to file a suit by Munger so that Munger could get a Court ruling on what to do.
- @crossroads - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 12:31 pm:
==Madigan was asked to file a suit by Munger so that Munger could get a Court ruling on what to do.==
Clarification needed. Did Munger do this undersigned by the governor? If so, the governor is playing both sides of the table.
- Tasty Grouper - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 2:33 pm:
@Concerned
Not true, but nice spin. The Comptroller asked the AG to represent her on Wed night. On Thurs morning, the AG filed suit against her in court on behalf of the People of Illinois. Just think about that for a minute. The Comptroller, the AG’s client, asks for representation, and before even speaking with her client, the AG filed suit against that client. It was spun as clarification, but was actually an adversarial action. Very questionable legal ethics
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jul 8, 15 @ 3:14 pm:
Tasty:
The AG’s office doesn’t represent “The Comptroller.” The AG’s office represents the Office of the Comptroller.
The Office of the Comptroller is an “it” not a “she.”
And legally, the interests of the Office of the Comptroller and the People of Illinois are indivisible, from the view of the AG’s office.
The Comptroller might be interested in wriggling around the Constitution, but that never serves’ the people’s best interests.