* This has been expected all week…
A group of state representatives filed a lawsuit over legislator pay against Illinois state Comptroller Leslie Munger on Friday — Munger’s last day in office.
The suit was filed by Reps. Emmanuel Chris Welch, Kate Cloonen, Mary Flowers, Sonya Harper, Lisa Hernandez and Silvana Tabares.
Legislators haven’t been paid since June. Several legislators have been vocal about their disdain over not getting paid amid the state’s budget impasse — on the Senate and House floors and in private.
More as it comes in.
* Press release…
State Reps. Emanuel Chris Welch, Kate Cloonen, Mary Flowers, Sonya Harper, Lisa Hernandez and Silvana Tabares released the following statement Friday regarding their lawsuit to restore legislators’ pay and end unwarranted political pressure being brought by Gov. Bruce Rauner and Comptroller Leslie Munger:
“The decision by multimillionaire Comptroller Leslie Munger and billionaire Gov. Bruce Rauner was a thinly veiled attempt to force their political opponents into taking positions in support of the governor’s positions and against the beliefs of their constituents,” Welch said. “Many lawmakers don’t have the multimillion dollar side incomes the governor and comptroller enjoy.”
“Our lawsuit is a principled stand for an independent Legislature that cannot be bullied by any governor, Republican or Democratic,” Cloonen said. “The 177 members of the General Assembly are elected to serve the people of our districts, but the comptroller’s and the governor’s actions show they believe we are elected to serve them, and that they can use illegal means to force us to bow to their extreme agenda.”
“Just like when Pat Quinn tried to eliminate lawmakers’ salaries in an attempt to get his way, the governor and comptroller would set a dangerous precedent under which any future governor or comptroller could unilaterally coerce duly elected legislators by tying their salaries to any number of demands that could hurt local residents and their families,” Tabares said. “We urge the courts to recognize the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government, not a subsidiary of a billionaire governor.”
The lawsuit was filed Friday in Cook County.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The complaint is here.
From the complaint…
The Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides that each legislator “shall” receive a salary as provided by law. ILL. CONST. 1970, art. IV, § 11. The Constitution further prohibits any “changes” to the salaries of legislators during their terms of office. Id. The General Assembly Compensation Act mandates that legislators’ salaries be paid in “12 equally monthly installments.” 25 ILCS 115/1. By intentionally withholding salary payments from legislators, the Comptroller has violated both Article IV, Section 11 of the Constitution and Section 115/1 of the General Assembly Compensation Act. The Comptroller’s actions are a direct threat to the independence of the General Assembly.
In 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated Governor Blagojevich’s attempt to threaten the independence and integrity of the Judiciary by eliminating judicial salary increases. In doing so, the Court stated as follows: “For checks and balances to work properly in protecting individual liberty, each of the three branches of government must be kept free from the control or coercive influence of the other branches.” Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286, 299 (2004). Protecting the Judicial or Legislative Branches of government from unwarranted intrusion by any executive branch officer is vital to preserving the separation of powers. As the Supreme Court stated, “Avoiding the concentration of governmental powers in the same person or political body was seen by the founding fathers as essential to freedom and liberty.”
In 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Hon. Judge Neil Cohen presiding, invalidated Governor Quinn’s attempt to eliminate legislators’ annual salaries through a line item veto. Judge Cohen held that “the Governor’s line item veto of SB 214 was constitutionally void and of no effect.”
The Comptroller’s refusal to make monthly payments to legislators constitutes an unconstitutional change in salary and a violation of the General Assembly Compensation Act. As in Jorgensen, and Cullerton & Madigan, this Court should invalidate the Comptroller’s attempts to hold hostage the salaries for members of the General Assembly.
The Comptroller lacks legal authority to deny the members of the General Assembly their salary for a simple reason: the members of the General Assembly are elected by their constituents to represent their interests. By denying the members of the General Assembly their salary, the Comptroller is attempting to force the General Assembly to forgo representing the interests of their constituents and accede to the policy preferences of an executive office that has no formal role in the legislative process.
If the Comptroller is permitted to unilaterally decide when and how often General Assembly members receive their salary, the independence of each member of the General Assembly is threatened. For some legislators their legislative salaries constitute their principal or only source of income. Accordingly, if the Comptroller were permitted to withhold salaries of members of the General Assembly, unless and until they acceded to her legislative preferences, he or she would use that power to unconstitutionally influence the will of the Legislative Branch.
In this particular instance, the Comptroller has stated that her dispute with the General Assembly concerns the appropriation process. If the Comptroller’s actions are sustained, there will be no limit to the power the Comptroller could assert over members of the Legislative Branch. Future Comptrollers could refuse payment until any policy demands are met to the Comptroller’s satisfaction. Allowing such power to be vested in the Comptroller would irrevocably alter the separation of powers so carefully crafted by the framers of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.
By this action, Plaintiffs, elected members of the Illinois General Assembly, respectfully request this Court declare that the Comptroller is required by the Illinois Constitution and Illinois law to pay their salaries and the salaries of all other members of the General Assembly in the full amounts required by law, and in a timely manner. As the Comptroller lacks discretion to withhold the members’ salaries, Plaintiffs further request this Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Comptroller to pay legislative salaries forthwith to remedy that constitutional and statutory violation.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Says the guy who made $180 million last year…
*** UPDATE 3 *** Munger press conference…
*** UPDATE 4 *** From Comptroller-elect Mendoza…
“I was very clear on the issue of withholding legislators’ pay during my campaign: Everyone needs to
share in the sacrifice. My policy will be to prioritize the most vulnerable people in our State and continue the delay in legislators’ pay, unless a court instructs me to do otherwise.”
Sorry about the original post of that statement. I cut it off accidentally.
- Not Itya - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:47 am:
Ya know, if they did their jobs and we had a balanced budget they would be paid on time.
- Grand Avenue - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:49 am:
So I’m guessing the idea is to give Susana Mendoza cover to end “No Budget No Pay” by saying her lawyers told her she can’t win this suit so the responsible thing to do is settle.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:49 am:
Hey - Deft Wing -
You like apples?
Someone sued for pay.
How do you like those apples?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:50 am:
===Ya know, if they did their jobs and we had a balanced budget they would be paid on time.===
Your utter ignorance to the constitution and state law is duly noted…
- Rabid - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:54 am:
What a nice parting gift see ya
- David - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:57 am:
Won’t all payments end on New Years eve when The budget ends or is the a continuing appropriation
- anon - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:57 am:
Guess Kate Cloonen ain’t running again.
- JoeMaddon - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 11:59 am:
Good. Its about time.
- The Dude Abides - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:02 pm:
If you have one branch of Government (executive) exerting influence over another branch (legislature) by seeing that they don’t receive compensation for work performed I think you can make a good argument that it is illegal. It may strike a popular tone with the public but that doesn’t make it legal.
- JoeMaddon - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:04 pm:
**Won’t all payments end on New Years eve when The budget ends or is the a continuing appropriation**
The budget doesn’t end on New Years Eve. Most of the human services funding ends New Years Eve, along with a bunch of other stuff. But other things will continue - such as those things covered by consent decrees. And yes, those things - such as legislator pay - that are covered by continuing approps.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:05 pm:
=== I think you can make a good argument that it is illegal. It may strike a popular tone with the public but that doesn’t make it legal.===
It’s not legal. At all. Not one bit of it is legal.
There’s no argument to be made, just the constitution and the corresponding statutes.
- Agricola - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:11 pm:
==
Won’t all payments end on New Years eve when The budget ends or is the a continuing appropriation ==
The second, there is a continuing appropriation for legislative and judicial salaries (15 ILCS 20/50-22).
- ANONIME - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:15 pm:
Why did they wait until she was defeated in the election? Shouldn’t this have been done when she stopped paying them monthly and put them in line with everyone else? Did they want to wait and see if she got elected so they wouldn’t make Rauner mad by filing? Is this a ploy to give Rauner ammunition against Mendoza when she starts paying again. See…….if you had elected Munger the legislatures wouldn’t have gotten paid. See……. what happens when you elect another of Madigan’s people.
- Put the fun in unfunded - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:16 pm:
Kasper’s crack legal team misspells Munger’s name (Geissler) throughout the complaint.
- David - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:16 pm:
Thanks on the explanation. Does that mean we are still under the St Clair county judge on pay? We have to be ahead of Blago on litigation?!
- Doi Chef - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:18 pm:
A little disingenuous don’t you think? They could have done this in June. Also, Suzanna Mendoza said she would do the same thing. More cover for her? The shallowness of these people continues to go to the lowest levels.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:20 pm:
===They could have done this in June===
Yep. But they did it today instead.
Just because you’d prefer they do something so somebody could use it in a campaign doesn’t mean they have to do it that way.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:21 pm:
Ugh…
It’s against the constitution and the law.
There’s no ploy, there’s no arterial motive.
Should it have been done earlier? Yeah.
It’s not my pay, they should choose when, but the law is clear.
(Sigh)
- Sir Reel - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:22 pm:
I never understood why State employees must be paid but State legislators had to wait in line.
It couldn’t be political grandstanding, could it?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
===It couldn’t be political grandstanding, could it?===
lol
Those arguing to give such power to the comptroller need to realize that there’s a new comptroller with a different agenda being sworn in Monday. What if she wanted to hold up legislator pay until the GA passed a bill paying for abortion on demand? Not saying she would, but that’s the sort of powers you’re arguing for.
- Hulk - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:25 pm:
OW is 100% correct. It is not even remotely legal not to pay the GA member salaries. Munger’s attorneys should be sanctioned if they fight this case.
- Hulk - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:27 pm:
Good example Rich
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm:
Filed by Michael Kasper as a Special Assistant Attorney General? The Michael Kasper who is at 222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300, Chicago, IL?
So Attorney General Lisa Madigan is in on this suit?
Hmmm!
- Sense of a Goose - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:29 pm:
Ummm. Didn’t matter who won the Comptroller election. It mattered who won the legislative races. Those that didn’t win were finally free to sue to uphold the constitution.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:30 pm:
===So Attorney General Lisa Madigan is in on this suit?===
She’s got an obligation to appoint somebody on this because it’s a state issue. My guess is she’ll be defending too.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:31 pm:
===Those that didn’t win were finally free to sue===
Learn to read. All but one of those folks are returning legislators.
- NotALawyer - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
I may be dumb, but isn’t there something in the Illinois Constitution Article VIII section 2 that says, “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” I haven’t seen a real balanced budget for a long time. State workers are being paid outside of the budget process, whish isn’t written in the Constitution. So to Oswego Willy and Rich we don’t follow the Constitution all the time, your argument is lessened in a state government were there are always ways around the law.
- m - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:41 pm:
==Your utter ignorance to the constitution and state law is duly noted…==
I agree that it probably isn’t constitutional, but he did make a bit of a point, whether on purpose or not.
The whole no paychecks thing is based putting them in the back of the pile, saying they are “delayed’ with other bills. No backlog, no excuse to “delay”.
Not that we would have been without a backlog this year anyway.
But had the state been doing a better job with budgets all along (I know, fantasy)…
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:44 pm:
===So to Oswego Willy and Rich we don’t follow the Constitution all the time===
So, file a suit. That’s how you figure out what’s really unconstitutional or not, right?
- Smitty Irving - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:45 pm:
If they’re found to be “employees” under FSLA we’ll owe treble damages.
- Archiesmom - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:53 pm:
Finally! I know a number of legislators who have been financially stretched to the limits with the lack of pay over the last few months. Not everyone in that job is a millionaire. There’s been talk of suing for months, and no one would make the move because of using it as an election issue. This is a righteous suit, and I think they have a very good chance of winning.
- Anon - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
That pesky constitution keeps getting in the way here in Illinois
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
- m -
This isn’t a dorm room kinda-sorta good thing.
I said when Quinn did it it was wrong, Munger did it, still against the law and constitution (see the statutes in “when” legislators get paid, like day/date), and Mendoza will be wrong if she tries to either start it up again, or continues after taking the oath.
Mendoza, like Munger, will be breaking her own oath.
Not figuratively, literally breaking the oath to uphold the state constitution.
- Sir Reel - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
Rich, I wasn’t arguing for withholding their pay. I was trying to say it was a stunt by Rauner and Munger to look like they were doing something. I never believed it was legal or right.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:56 pm:
To update #2
Guess the constitution isn’t something Rauner thinks much of?
Good to know, then again, after two years…
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
Legal question…If the plaintiffs win will those named be the only ones to receive relief or are they suing on behalf of all legislators?
- Not It - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:02 pm:
What is lost here is hat Quinn denied their pay until he got what he wanted. Munger put their pay in line with the rest of state bills to show the legislators how their inability to have a balanced budget was creating real hardships.
It is also worth mentioning that Mendoza said that Munger should have done their since the first day she took office. Therefore, all those legislators upset at the big bad Republican should now be equally upset with their fellow Democratic Comptroller.
- A guy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:05 pm:
Right on cue. No surprise here. I’ve never liked that this was done no matter who did it. It helps explain the newly elected Comptroller’s change of heart about assuming the job a little earlier (an opinion! Mine.) than what she’d planned. Guess it doesn’t matter that she touted the same theme in the campaign.
All that being said, these folks should get paid on time. They were working. The only time this should ever be considered again is if they do it to themselves….I think we’re safe on that.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:08 pm:
Oops, never mind. Just saw the answer in the last paragraph of the complaint.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:09 pm:
===What is lost here is hat Quinn denied their pay until he got what he wanted. Munger put their pay in line with the rest of state bills to show the legislators how their inability to have a balanced budget was creating real hardships.===
What is not lost here is that Munger put their pay in line with the rest of state bills, unconstitutionally, and against statute of the timing of pay, and breaking her oath, and inserting herself where she had no legal way to usurp the Illinois Constitution and the accompany statutes.
The utter lunacy to show the legislators how their inability to have a balanced budget was creating real hardships is not a legal argument that trumps the Constitution or absolves her from her from purposely ignoring her constitutional duties
Capiche?
- Sideline Watcher - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:11 pm:
Not it…they are. Thats why in this case its not partisan. What I find interesting is that not one single republican will stand up to this. Democrats impeached their own governor and then they sued their own Gov when he tried this.
But Republicans who know good and well that this is about a constitutional threat to the powers of the legislative branch and its co equal status….crickets.
In a perfect world, it should be the entire legislature signed on.
- Big Muddy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:24 pm:
Can the petty political games stop? Please? Both The Governor and all members of the general assembly do the job that we sent them to do? GOVERN! Not play politics while this once great state goes right down the John C!
- wondering - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:25 pm:
Good grief, this is such a no brainer. Munger committed extortion. She shouldn’t be sued, she should have been impeached, removed, and barred from holding any public office in the state. OMG, this is civics 101. No amount of logical contortions alters the fact that legislative pay can not be held on provision for legislative action. What is more germane, will the new comptroller withhold executive branch pay? Watch the Raunerbots scream if she does. She has legal justification for that….no appropriation.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:35 pm:
And let me real honest…
Use the google, I even said when Munger first did this, way before the stopgap, it was genius, insofar as the parameter was an agreement.
Period.
Not thrilled, but back of the line without even a stopgap, um, ok…
Then the stopgap happens and Munger Chief of Staff says they are “reassessing”
Nothing to reassess then. That was it for me.
The “no stopgap” and no “legal means” or lawsuit… Genius until it isn’t. Once the stopgap happened, it was beyond a “genius” move, it was flat out unconstitutional.
Just so there’s no misunderstanding…
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:38 pm:
Filing it today to keep Mendoza out of the caption, I assume. Will be interesting to see if she continues and/or defends the practice after running on it prominently.
- Thoughts Matter - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:39 pm:
Since legislators are state employees, maybe they should also file a complaint with the FLRB.
What is it with Rauner and his total disregard for the middle and lower class? not all of the legislators are wealthy or have other jobs. Unless you have a family business, it’s hard to get a 2nd job when you are subject to being called into special sessions, working till midnight, taking unexpected constituent issues, and so forth.
- Norseman - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
More case law in the making. Lawsuits against Illinois is a good growth industry.
- Joe M - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:56 pm:
Maybe Rauner can set up a private “JD Wenworth” type situation where private firms “buy” the GA member’s paychecks for 85 cents on the dollar or whatever, like Rauner set up for vendors waiting to be paid. Just a thought.
- Anonymous - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 1:59 pm:
I’ve been waiting for this law suit for a long time. The unconstitutionality of Munger’s move was obvious.
Of course it had to wait until after the election, because the “well if they would do there jobs …” people vote too.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:07 pm:
Too damn bad…lead for once, stick your neck out…
If your head gets chopped off, go back to your day job….or get a new gig…
We are circling the drain folks…
- Anon cuz why not - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:09 pm:
1st post nailed it. And there is no “change” to the salary. They are owed the money. Vouchers are in line to be paid, just like everyone else who’s owed money because we don’t have a balanced budget. If a judge allowed this stand, the Comptroller would not have some newfound ability to hold up pay until a bill is passed. That’s a fiction. The authority would still be to maintain the solvency of state accounts by prioritizing payments in times where revenues are not sufficient to meet obligations. Don’t like that authority? Pass a balanced budget and it goes away.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:09 pm:
OW: arterial motive? Try ulterior motive…lol!
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
- Loop Lady -
My phone must think I’m a doctor. While playing one on TV, I’m not a practicing physician.
My deepest apologies, lol
- RNUG - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
== And there is no “change” to the salary. ==
If they don’t get the 12 equal payments in a year as specified (and it looks like they won’t), then it is, in fact, a change to the annual salary. Slam dunk case.
- Realist - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
The state’s year is from July 1 - June 30th.
- Anon cuz why not - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:26 pm:
RNUG,
Fair enough and good point.
- Anon cuz why not - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
Also a good point from Realist. Another point: isn’t there a better remedy here, namely the GA passing legislation to address the grey language rather than seeking the court’s opinion?
- A Jack - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
The timing may also have to do with it being a new GA in January. They may have been concerned that they would lose the ability to contest salary from a previous GA after the new GA has been sworn in.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
===Another point: isn’t there a better remedy here, namely the GA passing legislation to address the grey language rather than seeking the court’s opinion?===
It’s not gray. It’s unconstitutional. Both Quinn and Munger knew that too.
Read it, and the statutes.
(Sigh)
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:49 pm:
Dear Comptroller Munger,
Follow the law. Not doing so was cowardly.
Signed,
The Constitution
- Norseman - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:55 pm:
Munger, election is over. You lost. Now beg for a job from Rauner even though you don’t need it.
Like it or not, a number of the lawmakers do depend upon their salaries.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 2:57 pm:
Holy Guacamole, Comptroller…
You broke your oath. I can’t help you still fail to see things.
- Tommydanger - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:11 pm:
As to Rauner’s comment: “Good Grief.”
Spoken like a man with 10 houses, which have to be among his ‘favorite things.’
- Roman - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
Munger knows what she did is unconstitutional. Pat Quinn knew it, too. And Mendoza knows, as well. This was a great political issue for all three to advocate, pure and simple.
Munger spent the months leading up to Election Day hoping and praying that a GA member would bring a lawsuit against her to generate even more great publicity for her. Madigan wouldn’t give her the satisfaction.
- BK Bro - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:16 pm:
State Legislature: “Most of us don’t have real jobs. Please pay us.”
Governor Rauner: “LOL!”
- Ian Howell - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
===Says the guy who made $180 million last year…===
…to the inept lawmakers who have dug taxpayers into a $140B hole.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:20 pm:
===…to the inept lawmakers who have dug taxpayers into a $140B hole.===
Have you read the Comstitution?
Do you believe in co-equal branch and separation of powers?
Didya feel better typing that. I hope so.
- wordslinger - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:26 pm:
The pay stunt is a tinpot Banana Republic attack on separation of powers, whether it’s backed by Quinn, Rauner, Munger or Mendoza.
- Phenomynous - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:30 pm:
–Kasper’s crack legal team misspells Munger’s name (Geissler) throughout the complaint.–
Whoever it was, they misspelled Cloonen too. These people have law degrees?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:35 pm:
Dear Conptroller-Elect Mendoza,
You are as ignorant to your job as Conptroller Munger was
You’re a disappointment already. Speaks volumes that you are clueless to what the job you just won entails. Utterly pathetic.
Read the constitution. Learn something.
Oswego Willy
- A guy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:47 pm:
The delegation of odd toys will win this. Because they should. A debt of gratitude is due them by the vast numbers of their colleagues who are with them in spirit and hoping for their success.
For everyone having to grovel for what they’re owed; vendors, suppliers, service providers and even legislators, it’s an unbecoming thing to have to do. And from all appearances, your unbecoming delegation is going to get the job done.
Shoulda never come to this. Too bad for everyone caught in the tuna net here.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
“Everyone needs to share in the sacrifice. My policy will be to prioritize the most vulnerable people in our State…”
Then I suppose you’ll be deferring your pay as well, right Comptroller-Elect Mendoza? After all, we must ALL share in the sacrifice. And I can pretty confidently assume you are not among the state’s “most vulnerable”.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:08 pm:
Let’s put aside the constitutional arguments for a moment, which will ultimately be determined by the court, and concentrate on the appalling political theatrics of once proud Springfield.
I finally had a chance to read the complaint. The press release which was issued with the complaint makes mention of a person named “billionaire” Gov. Bruce Rauner and “multimillionaire Leslie Munger.” Notwithstanding such histrionics in the press release, I do not see Governor Rauner’s name anywhere in the complaint.
Munger has a right to be a bit peeved. Suit filed two days before her term of office ends? That’ll teach her!
Teach her what?
I am assuming after December 5 (the swearing in date) the name of Suzanna Mendoza will be substituted for that of Leslie Munger. After all, the court will not be in any legal position to mandate or order certain behavior by the former comptroller, such as mandating the issuance of checks or stopping the program. Any order will be directed to Mendoza as Comptroller.
The same Mendoza who just put out a press release supporting the slow payment system adopted by Munger and vows to continue it. She claimed Munger should have implemented this program practically on the first day of her appointment. You also remember the lines which we saw on TV multiple times: “You can do that?” “I sure can and I will!”
Which again begs the question: If Attorney General Madigan allowed herself to become part of political theater today, why?
Whether the checks can be slow walked or not will ultimately be decided in court.
Who will come out smelling like a rose on this one? No one.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:11 pm:
===Let’s put aside the constitutional arguments for a moment,===
… says the Officer of the Court.
Wow. Hysterical.
“Let’s ignore that pesky constitution”
Oh - Louis G Atsaves -, that’s an Onion like restaurant-quality line by you!
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
===Munger has a right to be a bit peeved. Suit filed two days before her term of office ends? That’ll teach her!===
That she broke her oath, ignored the constitution, is comparable to Pat Quinn.
It’s a stain. It’s who Munger is now. Munger thought her oath was a joke. That’s the stain that should follow her.
Sorry.
- Pundent - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
Louis G Astaves - Like Pat Quinn before her this is the path that Munger chose. Like Quinn, if she’s wrong, she should bear the consequences. Same holds true for Mendoza. Political stunts, even if popular, that ignore the constitution of the state should not be encouraged.
- Phenomynous - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
===–Kasper’s crack legal team misspells Munger’s name (Geissler) throughout the complaint.–
Whoever it was, they misspelled Cloonen too. These people have law degrees?====
And Tabares’ first name…
How do you not get the names of your clients right????
lol
- Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:22 pm:
===”“Let’s ignore that pesky constitution”===
Willy, did I say that? No. Don’t put words in my mouth. Amuse yourself at your own expense.
And I personally know Leslie Munger and have for a long time. Shame on you for stating that she thought her oath was a joke. That is nonsense.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:28 pm:
===Shame on you for stating that she thought her oath was a joke. That is nonsense.===
When the judge rules in favor of the legislators, Leslie Munger, herself, will be the one person who took the oath and thought it a joke… with a court ruling to show it.
Let’s see if Mendoza does the same ignorance and makes her oath a farce too.
- Pundent - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:29 pm:
Far be it from me to say that Munger’s oath was a joke. But if she swore to uphold the constitution and then trampled on it for political purposes what should we call that?
- Lurk No More - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:30 pm:
I get the constitutional argument here, just like I get the constitutional argument that we need a balanced budget. Nobody here seems willing to explain how any Comptroller can write checks against an account with a negative fund balance. Get in line, legislators and constitutionals, until the money hits the till. That is not ignoring the constitution, it is a statement of fiscal reality, unless you believe the Comptroller can pay in scrip. –LNM
- wordslinger - Friday, Dec 2, 16 @ 4:30 pm:
–Let’s put aside the constitutional arguments for a moment, which will ultimately be determined by the court, and concentrate on the appalling political theatrics of once proud Springfield.–
LOL, please regale us on the time period when once-proud Springfield wasn’t chock-full of appalling political theatrics.
Was that about the time when Lousy Lawyers didn’t think they were Good Actors in court?
How’s about we just ignore the theatrics and insist that the Constitution be followed?