* This seems odd…
The Rauner Administration filed a brief in the Fifth Judicial District Appellate Court this afternoon addressing the duplicity of the Attorney General’s appeal in the state employee pay lawsuit. For over a year, AG Madigan benefitted from the very court order she is now attacking by paying her own staff over $23 million dollars in FY 2017 alone, bringing into question her motives.
In addition, the Rauner Administration’s brief highlights that the Attorney General does not know the consequences of what will happen if her attempt to stop state employee pay is successful, and is asking the court system to move forward in pulling the rug out from under tens of thousands of state employees. The Rauner Administration strongly opposes the Attorney General’s reckless attempts to precipitate a crisis.
General Counsel Dennis Murashko released the following statement about this filing:
“In the last year, Attorney General Madigan’s employees have been paid more than $23 million using the same court order she now is attacking. If the Attorney General were truly concerned about the General Assembly passing a balanced budget, she would not be using state employees as political pawns in her attempts to create a crisis and force a government shutdown.”
I don’t get it. She obeyed a court order to pay state employees and that’s somehow… what?
The full motion is here. Maybe some of you can explain this to me.
…Adding… If you take a look at the filing, you’ll notice a lot of stuff like this…
Her entire argument in this Court hinges on a Supreme Court decision she chose to ignore from March of last year until late January 2017, even though her office…
Um, the attorney general represents the people of Illinois. So, it’s the people’s filing, not “her” filing. There are, by my count 26 mentions of the word “she” and 57 mentions of the word “her.”
…Adding More… So, I just talked to someone in the administration who tried to answer my questions. The reasoning is this: The existing court order forces the comptroller to pay any employee salary vouchers that come to her office. It doesn’t force people like AG Madigan to actually submit the vouchers.
…Adding Still More… Sun-Times…
The attorney general’s office on Friday said the brief is a show of “snark” with “literally no law” behind it. The issue of whether or not to pay the office’s 750 employees has never been raised and there is no law in place to say Madigan shouldn’t pay her employees – many of whom are representing Rauner’s administration in cases, officials said.
“We have a legal and ethical obligation to follow the court’s order otherwise we would be in contempt of the court,” attorney general’s office spokeswoman Maura Possley said in a statement.
- Anonymous - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:53 pm:
File under: Rauner Friday afternoon nonsense
- walker - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
Murashko doesn’t appear to be writing as an attorney.
- anonymous - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
Easy it will look really good in a campaign ad.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgT9QVkGXxI
Okay then….
- Mr. K. - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
This seems like a bit of a reach.
Do courts like these kinds of incessant, gymnastically-rhetorical filings? How is it that the AG is using employees as political pawns when she’s following the law?
You mean by trying to appeal it she’s using them as pawns? Or by following it?
- I'mDone - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
The world according to Bruce. These 14 dog years have been rough for him.
- Mama - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
With Rauner, everything is all about politics - - trying to make the other party look bad. Like Trump, Rauner doesn’t care if it is legal or not.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
I can’t speak to the legal justification but agree it sounds bizarre. Either the Rauner Admin. is deathly afraid of this lawsuit or they’ll use this brief in future messaging.
- JoanP - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
If she doesn’t obey the court order, she could be held in contempt. In general, one challenges an order exactly the way the AG is doing, by appealing the ruling, not disobeying it.
Sheesh.
- illini97 - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
Wait, she’s creating a crisis by following the order? Or by appealing?
Who is it who wanted to “drive a wedge” and crate a crisis, again? Was it the Attorney General? No, I don’t think so. We are in fact well into a crisis and one elected official is on record as seeking to create that. That the same official is accusing others of the same is nothing other than projection.
- Anon221 - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
Sounds like a broken OODA Loop;)
“OO-OO-OO!” The Sound of a Broken OODA Loop
http://www.davidullman.com/images/DecisionPDFs/OODALoop.pdf
- WhoKnew - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
Pretty simple really…
Not paying all State Employees, bad for the Governor.
Not paying only AG Employees, bad for the AG.
Oh JBT, how we miss ya!
- JS Mill - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
Rauner may not understand the meaning of duplicitous.
Saying you care about and want to help our most vulnerable and then zero out state funding to help them is duplicitous.
Following the law? Not so much.
- Pundent - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:14 pm:
You can’t make sense of this because these aren’t legal arguments. And when the law doesn’t support you this is what you have to do. I mean you can’t really say “the AG is creating a crisis by following the law”.
- Perrid - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:14 pm:
First, I’m no lawyer, so this is just my reaction. Their argument seems to be focused more on the waiting to file being bad, with the fact that AG Madigan’s staff got paid being evidence that the AG does not believe her own argument (or violated the constitution). Laches is referred to, which wikipedia says has “the following components:(1) a delay in bringing the action, (2) a delay that is unreasonable and (3) that prejudices the defendant.” An example of prejudice is the other party making economic decisions it would not have if the suit was brought earlier. Just from the definition, which is all I know not being a lawyer, it seems to fit, though the brief says laches is more for private citizens, not government. So it seems to me to be an actual legal argument where they can blast the AG at the same time. Any real lawyers here want to correct me?
- The Dude Abides - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:20 pm:
Rauner’s superstars at work. It is beyond our comprehension.
- zatoichi - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:22 pm:
Church Lady: Gosh, how could Gov Rauner keep the Attorney General from pulling the rug out from under tens of thousands of state employees…could it be A BUDGET?
- don the legend - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:24 pm:
…she would not be using state employees as political pawns in her attempts to create a crisis and force a government shutdown.”…
General Counsel Dennis Murashko went on to say: ‘unlike Governor Rauner who is using higher education and social services to force a government shutdown.’
- Rufus - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
How long has Murashko been “practicing” law? Talk about “whack a mole”.
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:33 pm:
Let’s go easy on the Gov. He may have been whacked in the melon by a faulty warehouse door this week and have a bad headache.
- Jerry 101 - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
Sometimes the simple answer is the best answer.
Therefore, Politics is stupid.
- Honeybear - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:40 pm:
Rufus, I was kind of surprised by the fact that a lawyer 10 years out of law school is the general counsel. This isn’t to say that he isn’t a wiz kid or something but I would have thought with so much on the line they’d go with someone more experienced.
- Honeybear - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
It makes me wonder if others are pulling the strings
- Henry Francis - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
Well, the brief was signed by Kenton Skarin, who clerked for Justice Thomas. And GC Murashko has publicly admitted that Justice Thomas is his fave. And the brief reads like they are trying really hard to entertain Justice Scalia up in heaven.
This is just superstars havin fun.
- Bigtwich - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
I worked for four Attorneys General. Their names never appeared on a paycheck. Perhaps a request for payment to another constitutional officer. Now who would that have been for most of these payments?
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
Bruce has been day drinking!
- Don Gerard - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
While I was in office there was a proposal to increase the tax levy and the News-Gazette decided I was all for it and blasted me in advance of the vote.
Then I voted against it (tie-breaking vote, no less).
…editorial was similar to this logic - “Gerard is disingenuous because he did not vote in the manner we vigorously opposed” or some such.
- working stiff - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
it doesn’t pull the rug out from under state workers. it pulls it out from under rauner. it wouldn’t allow him to get his strike and then pay replacement workers. would also put serious heat on the republican side which could very likely cause them to start breaking away from his control.
- Fiercely Independent - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:54 pm:
23 million in FY 17? How many employees does she have?
- Anonymous - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:54 pm:
You can say things to the general public through a press release that you ought not say to a judge in a brief. It seems they’ve forgotten that putting this in a brief invites the court to evaluate the argument, and to include a critique of the argument in its decision. That they raise laches while acknowledging that “laches generally do not apply to government entities” suggests they haven’t fully considered their position.
- cdog - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:57 pm:
I junk it’s called a “tangential non sequitur.”
In other words, it’s a pile of illogical garbage.
- Bigtwich - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
Perrid
“nullum tempus occurrit regi”
- Union proud - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
“23 million in FY 17? How many employees does she have?”
ITAP shows 749. Last year they had 800 and they were paid 43 million.
- Henry Francis - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
To the “adding”
Yup. This is very personal. It’s not about the merits, it’s about HER. She is benefitting. To the tune of $23M.
- Keyrock - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
I think the Rauner Word Jumble was on the “advanced” setting.
- Honeybear - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:04 pm:
The administration is scared to death of a no pay for anyone. An administration official admitted at a conference just yesterday. All is for naught if madigan brings down pay. Game over
- VanillaMan - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
We don’t have a gubernatorial administration - and haven’t had one for two years. What is in the governor’s office today is a group of chortling amateur political wanna-bes using Illinois as resume fodder in their ambitious drives to fame and wealth.
These people don’t govern or even have an interest in governing. Instead, they are only interested in winning the next news cycle, headline, alumni news article from their alma maters, vote, and election.
There is no one governing. No one caring to do the jobs they hold. Only interested in the next rungs in their personal ladders.
Rauner brought into office a mentality that believes in running government like a business, not run by loyal teams of earnest dedicated civil servants.
We are a generation away from the Thompson-Edgar generation who believed in good government. We have instead a generation that hates government and consider being called a civil servant akin to being called a blue collar worker.
Professionals don’t do things like this because it would expose them as ignorant clowns, but this administration sees that clowning like this is ironic and entertaining to other government hating people like them.
- Pundent - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
=It makes me wonder if others are pulling the strings.=
If you have strong legal arguments you make them and you likely resource the case with someone capable of making the strong argument. The arguments that are being advanced are not legal ones. As Rich illustrated in the update, the AG represents “the people” and brings actions on their behalf. Rauner’s team ignores the law and instead focuses the AG’s motives. I suppose that line of reasoning works if you define your “opponent” as Madigan as opposed to the constitution.
I’ve yet to see anything from the Rauner legal team that speaks to the legal merits of their arguments. Whether its withholding legislators pay, enforcing contract terms on AFSCME or arguing that state workers should be paid. Their willingness to ignore the law continues to be telling. In fact the law continues to be the biggest threat to Rauner’s agenda.
- Honeybear - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:19 pm:
So well said Vanilla. Exactly right. A close friend who works in state government as well was asked incessantly recently at an event. ” so what will you do AFTER this (state work)?” The thought never occurred to the private industry folks that my friend would want to serve a whole career.
- Honeybear - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:31 pm:
OMG pendent , brilliant insight. I’ve seen Rauners lawyer argue before A judge and you are exactly right. Totally geeking on what you wrote.
- Roman - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:53 pm:
They want her to refuse to follow court orders she disagrees with? No one gets to do that.
Wow.