* Illinois Municipal League…
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: IML Board of Directors
FROM: Joe McCoy, Legislative Director
RE: HB 4305 Procedural Hold
As previously reported, we had success in achieving House passage of HB 4305 on Tuesday. This bill allows for the release of several local funds (MFT, casino gaming, video gaming, 9-1-1 funds, etc.) being held by the state. Following the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House, a procedural hold was placed on the bill by Representative Currie, perhaps at the behest of Speaker Madigan.
Yesterday and today, Brad received direct assurances that there is bipartisan support for HB 4305 in the Senate, but the Senate cannot consider the bill until the procedural hold imposed in the House is lifted.
It is important that mayors contact Representative Currie’s Office and respectfully request that the procedural hold be lifted from HB 4305 so that the Senate can vote on this important legislation. Representative Currie’s district office number is (773) 667-0550. Messages intended for Representative Currie’s Springfield office can be conveyed by calling (217) 782-5350.
The danger here for the House Democrats is that the mayors turn on them for bricking their bill.
* Phil Kadner tries to make some sense of the Majority Leader’s motion…
State Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, told me that during a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting earlier Tuesday the Senate Democrats decided they wanted to amend the bill to include natural gas revenue that was withheld by the state and that’s normally used for emergency heating assistance for poor people.
Cunningham said it’s his understanding the plan is to have the House reconsider its vote, with the amendments, in early December and have the Senate convene immediately thereafter. […]
Cunningham said he assumed that’s why Currie placed the motion to reconsider on the bill.
State Rep. Al Riley, D-Olympia Fields, the assistant House majority leader, told me Currie’s motion was just a parliamentary tactic to prevent anyone else from “putting a brick” on the bill that would stop it from being approved.
“It’s a tactic to prevent anyone else from coming in and stopping the measure,” Riley said. “Nothing more.”
I don’t think Cunningham is right because I can’t find anything in the House rules or with the people I’ve consulted that allows for new amendments on House bills that have passed on 3rd Reading. Plus, the Senate could simply add an amendment of its own.
…Adding… A former House parliamentarian disagrees…
If the motion to reconsider passes, the bill is then put back on the order of 3rd, and then can be brought back to 2nd for an amendment
…Adding More…. A second former House parliamentarian says they can move it back to 2nd as well. So, I totally defer.
And Riley’s explanation is kinda interesting, since filing that motion is, in fact, a “brick” on the bill. Are they worried that somebody’s gonna billjack the Speaker?
…Adding… From a usually insightful and knowledgeable commenter…
The motion was filed to protect Ken Dunkin from filing a similar motion first, and having control of the bill. The motion to reconsider, IMHO, has nothing to do with the Senate.
That makes some sense.
…Adding More… A rebuttal in comments which also makes sense…
If it was really intended to simply block another Representative from hijacking the bill with a motion to reconsider, she would have immediately moved to table her motion. That would have prevented a hijacking and prevented a delay in sending to the Senate.