* From the Chicago Public Schools…
Rich:
Here is some information on why Governor Rauner can’t legally issue an amendatory veto of SB1.
· Under the Constitution, Governor’s power to issue amendatory veto is limited to making “specific recommendation for change.”
· The Supreme Court has previously stated that an amendatory veto cannot either change the “fundamental purpose/intent of the legislation” or make “substantial or expansive” changes to it.
· The purpose and intent of SB1 is to establish a new and more equitable statewide school funding formula – a new formula that holds all school districts harmless.
· One important and essential element of this new funding formula is to remedy the long-standing unfairness in having the Chicago Public Schools be the only school district in Illinois that is solely responsible for paying all of its required pension contribution from local property taxes—as opposed to all other school districts, whose pension contributions are funded from general state revenues.
· In the coming year, the State of Illinois is projected to spend an additional $600 million on downstate and suburban teacher pensions, for a total of $4.6 billion.
· SB1 specifically addresses this inequity by including in the new school funding formula annual state funding to pay for Chicago’s required contribution for its teachers’ pensions. Further to this point, the floor debates on SB1 are clear that a fundamental intent of the legislation is to make teacher pension funding more equitable throughout the State.
· By using an amendatory veto to remove funding of Chicago teacher pensions from SB1, the Governor is changing a fundamental purpose of the legislation – and he would be making a substantial change to the legislation.
· As a result, this amendatory veto exceeds the power of the Governor under the State Constitution.
Your own thoughts?
…Adding… I’m not sure if CPS realizes this, but their argument is essentially that an AV would be ruled out of compliance by the Senate or the House. If such a ruling is made, however, the bill would die and the GA would have to start all over again.
- Phil King - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
Political and self-interest driven nonsense.
The Amendatory Veto would not fundamentally alter the purpose of the legislation. The Governor wants evidence based school funding formula reform (IPI does not by the way.)
If CPS wants the state to pick up their employer pension costs, they should give up their special block grant that no other school district gets.
They should also consider:
1) Ending the ridiculous practice of paying the employee share of the pension contribution
2) Reforming their pensions so that they’re affordable and don’t siphon education dollars away from CPS classrooms and downstate districts.
- winners and losers - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
I would be amazed if the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the CPS argument.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
RNUG, clean-up on aisle 3.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:28 pm:
Hey Phil King, do you, or have you ever worked for IPI?
The parenthetical is the tell, btw.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
If this is really legally true, it could get ugly fast. We just got over the budget drama. The school funding formula for the state is messed up, he might have points. Is nuking the pension portion and spewing rhetoric really his best move right now? And if it isn’t legally possible would he risk doing a full veto? (Which could be total political suicide)
- Juvenal - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:30 pm:
The prior court opinion is reflected in House rules, is I wrote here:
https://capitolfax.com/2017/07/17/rauner-demands-sb-1-be-sent-to-him-so-he-can-av-it/#comment-12779251
I believe it dates back to 1986.
This is a good one for Kasper.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:30 pm:
I find it hard to deny that, if the intent of legislation is to bring all school districts under one funding formula, then exempting the biggest school district from that formula is inconsistent with that intent.
- Roman - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
- Phil King -
Legislative intent is established by the legislature, not the governor.
- A Jack - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
The state constitution does read the way that CPS is suggesting. It’s not an appropriation so he can’t lower it. He can make recommendations and send it back. If the recommendations aren’t accepted, the bill is vetoed.
At least that is the way it reads to me.
- Paul S. - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
It is my impression that SB1 does remove the block grant special to CPS - however, under the intent of no district losing funds it is included in the base funding amount. The district, in addition to other school districts in the state, negotiated the pension pick-up in exchange for much lower and/or frozen pay. Thus, it was to curb the rising costs of wages.
Reforming their pensions - talk to the IL Supreme Court about that one.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
You’re absolutely right Arsenal it fully guts the reason for the bill. The question here is if he can legally take essential organs out of the bill and still call it alive.
- RNUG - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
== RNUG, clean-up on aisle 3. ==
I don’t do clean-ups.
No idea which way this one would go.
- cdog - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
=== an amendatory veto cannot either change the “fundamental purpose/intent of the legislation” or make “substantial or expansive” changes to it. ===
So Chicago teacher pension funding is the fundamental purpose and intent of SB1?
That’s news to me.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:37 pm:
RNUG, I was just appealing to your expertise.
We need a bat signal for you….
- cdog - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:37 pm:
=== making “specific recommendation for change. ===
AV SB1 so CPS gets a couple dollars.
- A Jack - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
So if he changes the bill, and the changes aren’t accepted it’s a veto and schools won’t open in the fall. Of course the GA can override the veto.
- Arsenal - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:40 pm:
==That’s news to me.==
Don’t be daft; the purpose was to bring everyone under one system.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
CPS’s first line is a farce. Of course, the Governor can legally issue an amendatory veto of SB 1.
The Governor can issue any AV that he wants to do. It doesn’t mean it will get called in the Assembly or be legally upheld if challenged.
Generally, the Speaker has refused to call any vetoes that seemingly go above and beyond “specific recommendations” for change.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:43 pm:
I thought one main purpose was to bring funding under a unified system instead of modifications district to district… I get the annoyance with the pension system but what’s an actual sane option other than “screw you Chicago / CPS”
- Whatever - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
I wish them luck with this argument. Back in 1982, the General Assembly passed a bill that said that combined income tax returns (i.e., where a conglomerate includes all of its subsidiaries on a single return) were not allowed - each corporation must file its own return. Gov. Thompson amendatorily vetoed it to not only provide that combined returns were allowed, but to add a few hundred words specifying exactly when they were and were not appropriate. The GA accepted the changes. BP argued the amendatory veto was unconstitutional because it did more than “tweak” the bill, and lost in the appellate court.
- Free Set of Steak Knives - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
@anonymous 2:42 argues that the governor can legally issue an illegal amendatory veto.
Try telling that to a police officer the next time you legally make an illegal left-hand turn.
- Norseman - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:59 pm:
CPS either contacted Madigan’s staff or dipped into past stories about AV’s. In any event, Rich is right in that the bottom line is the bill dies.
There has been a debate about how broad the gubernatorial AV power goes back at least 38 years of my following IL politics.
The gov can make his changes and the GA can either accept or reject. The only other possible arbiter is the Supreme Court. I’d be willing to wager BIG money that the courts wouldn’t force Madigan to take a vote or tell Rauner he can’t do the AV.
Now get back to the scenario whether they come up with a deal (my small wager is on no), or convince enough GOP members to override.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
===Political and self-interest driven nonsense.===
Phil, it would save a lot of readers some time and energy if you changed your handle to that phrase above. Because everything you’ve given us so far can be described as “Political and self-interest driven nonsense.”
Or maybe I’ll just start using “Phil King” as a synonym for it.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:02 pm:
The tidbit I saw in CTU’s reasoning is: “By using an amendatory veto to remove funding of Chicago teacher pensions from SB1, the Governor is changing a fundamental purpose of the legislation…”
So, Senator Manar, was the fundamental purpose of the legislation to establish a fairer funding formula or to remove funding of Chicago Teacher pensions?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:13 pm:
- Blue Bayou -
And I was joking on the clean up.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
What a bunch of baloney. I agree with Norseman, who joined the party the same time I did (38 years ago.) Also, no one ever wants to talk about the billion dollars CPS/CTPF received under Daley for pensions that was not spent on pensions.
- Blue Bayou - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
No worries, RNUG.
Many thanks for your insightful comments and helpful explanations.
- Keyser Soze - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
Publicizing the CPS benefit under a magnifying glass now calls into question whether all SB-1 yes votes will return as expected.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
Both Norseman and Arthur Anderson make good points. In my 40 years, “rulings” by Speaker Madigan on AVs have outnumbered rulings by the courts. Even if the Governor issues the AV, and even if the Speaker decides the AV is within the scope of what the Constitution contemplated, it is still up to the bill sponsors to call the AV for concurrence or override.
With respect to Arthur’s mention of the dollars wasted by former Mayor Daley and CPT/CTPF, we can talk all about how the money was wasted. But unless an enterprising AUSA or ASA wants to file an information and try to get a conviction, we need to move on. It stinks, but that’s it…game over.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 3:53 pm:
Just as the governor said he “had to” veto those budgets because they were not balanced in accord with his reading of the Comstitution’s budget providions, the legislature can say they “had to” reject an AV because it’s not in compliance with the Constitution’s AV sections.
The end result is the same: legislature passes, governor vetoes, bill dies, schools don’t open on time and fingers are pointed.
Who’s the winner when that happens?
- COPN - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
Not a bad argument but seems like a stretch:
***Illinois Constitution Art. IV, Section 9(e)
The Governor may return a bill together with specific recommendations for change to the house in which it originated.
***Continental Illinois Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Zagel, 78 Ill.2d 387, 398 (Ill. 1979)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the Governor’s use of his amendatory veto to reduce the corporate income tax to 2.5% rather than being raised to 2.85% were “specific recommendations” that “contain no change in the fundamental purpose of the legislation, nor are they so substantial or so expansive as to render his use of the veto power violative of section 9(e) of article IV” of the Illinois Constitution. The case involved legislation to replace revenue lost due to the abolition of the personal property tax pursuant to section 5(c) of article IX of the Illinois Constitution.
***House Rule 78(c) & Senate Rule 9-2(a)
The Governor’s specific recommendations for change with respect to a bill returned under subsection (e) of Section 9 of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution shall be limited to addressing the Governor’s objections to portions of a bill the general merit of which the Governor recognizes and shall not alter the fundamental purpose or legislative scheme set forth in the bill as passed.
- COPN - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
===If such a ruling is made [out of compliance], however, the bill would die===
I think that may bar only motions to accept, but not motions to override according to Senate Rule 9-2(b) and House Rule 78(d)
- Phil King - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 4:11 pm:
==Hey Phil King, do you, or have you ever worked for IPI?==
Nope.
- Cadillac - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 8:53 pm:
=== - Phil King - Monday, Jul 17, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
They should also consider:
1) Ending the ridiculous practice of paying the employee share of the pension contribution ===
Bingo.
- undiscovered country - Tuesday, Jul 18, 17 @ 8:22 am:
the problem with the cops point of view which has been touched on here is that it would require the courts (quickly) to say that rauners av is not a veto at all if not constitutionally valid, but rather is a pocket signature. THAT would be a transformational decision that alters the balance of power within state govt. unlikely in the extreme.